What's the reason for Wawrinka's inconsistency?

What's the reason for Wawrinka's inconsistency?

  • His psych/mind

    Votes: 32 69.6%
  • His technique

    Votes: 1 2.2%
  • His aggressive game

    Votes: 13 28.3%

  • Total voters
    46

Mainad

Bionic Poster
#8
He has 3 slams but nowhere near the number of titles as the big 4. What's the main reasons for this?
He peaked much later in his career than any of the Big 4. He was almost 29 when he won his 1st Slam (prior to that he had only managed to win a bunch of 250s) and may well have realised that he needed to focus on them rather than on lesser titles because time was not on his side. It paid off. I'm sure his coach, Magnus Norman was a major factor in getting him to focus in this way.
 

NEW_BORN

Hall of Fame
#9
If you follow his matches, you'll notice it takes Wawrinka quite a while to sink his teeth into a match, very much like Henin back in the day. He is built for 5 setters.
Best of 3 set matches doesn't allow him the luxury of slowly working his way into a match, hence when someone catches fire for an hour or so he's toast.
 
#12
He has 3 slams but nowhere near the number of titles as the big 4. What's the main reasons for this?
He's not anywhere near the elite level of Fed, Rafa or Novak. His peak level comes once in a blue moon and then he's lethal. The other three dudes bring peak level often instead of once every 2.3 years.

It's sort of like asking why Jim Courier "only" has 4 slams and Pete has 14. Sampras was simply the vastly better player. I love Stan, but he's never to be mentioned in the same breath as Roger, Rafa or Novak.
 
Last edited:
#13
He peaked much later in his career than any of the Big 4. He was almost 29 when he won his 1st Slam (prior to that he had only managed to win a bunch of 250s) and may well have realised that he needed to focus on them rather than on lesser titles because time was not on his side. It paid off. I'm sure his coach, Magnus Norman was a major factor in getting him to focus in this way.
Wawrinka is the male version of Li Na. Well she peaked in her 30s.
 
#17
He's like Michael Andretti.
Around for so many years, short but superb period of peak, great to watch (most if the time).

Damn that black livery and silver-red helmet in his late years ... such good racing memories. Oops, it's TTW, sorry.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
#19
He matches up fairly well with the top players and of course built for slams. In other tournaments he can be had in shorter matches where he's not had as much play. A slam usually gives you two cream puff rounds to get going. In 1000s you're right into the fire almost from the start much of the time. Wawrinka even before RG will often play Geneva to get the clay motor running. Let's hope he's got one more good one in him this year post knee surgery; times running out.:cry:
 
#21
Weak era, was when he gobbled up those slams. Coincidence, I think not.

My point being, Stan never had a good stretch of consistent results because of his overall gameplay. He peaked just at the right moment and did a good job of sensing the opportunity.

Its all in the head.
 
Last edited:

Luka888

Professional
#22
It's a combination of things. Yes, he could be too aggressive and sometimes it works and every single ball goes in. That's how he was able to beat Djokovic. However, very often that doesn't work out. I think his main problem is that he was mentally weak especially when he was younger. You just never know how he is going to perform.

My feeling is that also has never been too driven. Stan is where he is because he wants be where he is :). Another thing is that he is kinda happy to be in Fed's shadow. He's never even challenged Federer on the court. He just bends over. I refuse to watch their matches any more. Fed is his master. Kinda cowardish IMO :notworthy:. Well that's my 5 cents.
 
#23
1. His hitting has less clearance over the net and is thus more prone to errors. When he’s on, he’s hitting lasers over the high part of the net and he’s hitting deep and pushing his opponent back eliciting shorter and shorter replies.It is very, very difficult to keep up this type of hitting over an entire tournament. If ANYTHING is a bit off, he can’t win against the greats (or others, too).

Corollary to the above, there is no plan B way to win. He cannot rely on defense or returning (more on that later). So, if he’s off, and making errors, he’s always behind in games or in close games on both serve and return.

2. He’s about 6’ tall but tries to serve like he’s 6’3. He has great power (and has improved the serve), but look at his first serve %s. He’s 46th on tour this year at 59% first serves in. He’s 44th over the last 52 weeks. He was 40th on tour in 2018at 58.5%. He’s a career 58% first % player. So, when he’s on, he’s difficult to break, but when he’s off, opponents get lots of cracks at breaks.

3. He’s kind of a boxy, stout guy and has to immensely improve his movment. His first big slam success at the AO was a direct result of better movement and getting to balls in a positon to hit them. BECAUSE his athleticism and movement are average at best, he needs to be in peak condition to seriously challenge top players. This isn’t easy to do.

4. His return isn’t that good. When he’s in a zone hitting, the returns that do go back into play result in him getting into rallies he can win. This puts pressure on the server. When he’s off, he’s not winning rallies AND getting few returns into play making holding against him easier.

5. His defense isn’t really good. When he had his stretch between 2013 and 2016, his defense was the best I’ve seen and he was in his best shape ever. What allows Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and to a certain extent Murray to always be in contention is that if their offense is off, the defense is ALWAYS still there and so they will have chances.

6. He’s improved his mentality so much under Norman. He was always prone to choking, but pulled out some of the most clutch play ever to defeat Djokovic at the AO, RG, and USO with immense hitting in tight situations.
 
#25
This is an excellent question, and I have wondered this myself. I love watching Stan play … especially on clay, which is my least favorite surface by far. His aggression and ability to muscle the ball from seemingly anywhere is amazing. He was absolutely thumping Cecchinato this week until the wheels came off in that second set. And though I’m sure age and injury have taken their toll, it is mostly mental with him in my opinion. Not so much “nerves” per se, but almost an unwillingness to dig in and fight when the moment arrives. He points to his head to indicate this … I think he knows it doesn’t come naturally. I do agree that Magnus was the one to bring this out of him, but I also think it’s something he will always struggle with day in/day out.
 
#33
Largely lucked his way to 3 Slams. Really nothing in stats suggest he's better than most 1 slam champs.
Exactly. He got extremely lucky to "peak" in those 3 Slams because of the draws. Djokovic is a great match-up for him, which was amplified by a slow surface each of those times. And he only really had to beat Djokovic in those 3.
 

-snake-

Professional
#35
Exactly. He got extremely lucky to "peak" in those 3 Slams because of the draws. Djokovic is a great match-up for him, which was amplified by a slow surface each of those times. And he only really had to beat Djokovic in those 3.

So Stan "got lucky" but Murray didn't? Isn't he the guy who avoided Fedal to win his slams? How many AOs does he have? Ah, right, 0. It's not Wawrinka's fault that he's actually capable of playing aggressive when it matters. Lots of members from the Marry cult seem to be extremey buhtthurt about this fact. His legendary peak level is somewhat overrated, yes, but that doesn't mean he got gifted those titles. His first 2 majors were amazing, Murray has never ever pulled slam runs as wild as those ones. His 3rd title was meh, yes, but so was Marry's.


"only had to beat Djokovic" haha. I won't even waste my time naming the pathetic MUGS the drunken Scot had to beat at Wimby 2013 before the final. All grass court legends, of course.
 
Last edited:

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
#36
So Stan "got lucky" but Murray didn't? Isn't he the guy who avoided Fedal to win his slams? How many AOs does he have? Ah, right, 0. It's not Wawrinka's fault that he's actually capable of playing aggresive when it matters. Lots of members from the Marry cult seem to be extremey buhtthurt about this fact. His legendary peak level is somewhat overrated, yes, but that doesn't mean he got gifted those titles. His first 2 slams were amazing, Murray has never ever pulled slam runs as wild those ones. His 3rd slem was meh, yes, but so was Marry's.


"only had to beat Djokovic" haha. I won't even waste my time naming the pathetic MUGS the drunken Scot had to beat at Wimby 2013 before the final. All grass court legends, of course.
Dude.

He has 0 wins over Federer off clay.

That's not just inconsistency.

That's incapacity.
 
#37
I wouldn't say he's completely done just yet. His performance at the masters have always been like this even during 14-16. He was unlikely to run into Raonic in the last 2 slams, let's see how he fares at RG and the USO. If he doesn't get into a QF at a slam by 2020 RG I think he'll call it a career.
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
#38
I wouldn't say he's completely done just yet. His performance at the masters have always been like this even during 14-16. He was unlikely to run into Raonic in the last 2 slams, let's see how he fares at RG and the USO. If he doesn't get into a QF at a slam by 2020 RG I think he'll call it a career.
He's still top 50. Money is good. Maybe he just enjoys the Tour.

He doesn't want to go out before Rogi, no?
 

Gugafan

Hall of Fame
#39
If you follow his matches, you'll notice it takes Wawrinka quite a while to sink his teeth into a match, very much like Henin back in the day. He is built for 5 setters.
Best of 3 set matches doesn't allow him the luxury of slowly working his way into a match, hence when someone catches fire for an hour or so he's toast.
This is typical Stan. I used to think Wawrinka was too heavy abit like Nalbandian but his 5 set matches against Novak in slams have proven how physically tough he's in GS matches. He's very much a momentum player that catches fire the more matches he plays. Lets not forget he has won RG and former finalist that is an impressive resume on the clay....That being said hes always vulnerable in the early rounds of a slam. If he makes it past the 3rd rd at RG watchout. The conditions at RG suit wawrinkas game very well
 
#40
I think you hit upon all three factors. He fought self-belief, plays a very aggressive baseline game with little margin for error (don't know if that's technique or his MO). But when he has it going, his game is a thing of beauty.

One asset all of The Big 4 had/have over him is exceptional movement. Stan's not slow, but can't cover the court as they do.
 
#46
Weak era, was when he gobbled up those slams. Coincidence, I think not.

My point being, Stan never had a good stretch of consistent results because of his overall gameplay. He peaked just at the right moment and did a good job of sensing the opportunity.

Its all in the head.
Weak era? You mean beating Djokovic and Nadal in Slam finals makes him the benefactor of a weak field?

I could not disagree more. He was a huge underdog in all those finals. And to those who say he matches up well against Djokovic and Nadal and thus “got lucky,” his h2h against those guys is 5-19 and 3-17 respectively.

Wawrinka is the furthest thing from lucky. He took those slams, no one handed him anything.
 
#50
Exactly. He got extremely lucky to "peak" in those 3 Slams because of the draws. Djokovic is a great match-up for him, which was amplified by a slow surface each of those times. And he only really had to beat Djokovic in those 3.
So Nadals USO wins are also lucky then. and tbh also his three other slams off-clay since he only had to beat 1 good player in all of them.
 
Top