He has 3 slams but nowhere near the number of titles as the big 4. What's the main reasons for this?
(and if "big 4" includes Andy Murray, then he DOES have as many slams as one of them)
What the heck is with the letters for avatars?
He has 3 slams but nowhere near the number of titles as the big 4. What's the main reasons for this?
Never count him out. I doubt he will catch fire and run the table for 7 matches but if anyone can do it it is Stan the Man.He is done.
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.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.
His luckHe has 3 slams but nowhere near the number of titles as the big 4. What's the main reasons for this?
I've given him a lot of rope the past year, but I'm finally starting to come around to believing this myself.He is done.
Your avatar is insulting to vegetarians and vegans.What the heck is with the letters for avatars?
What the heck is with the letters for avatars?
Good peak level.
Not so great base level.
Coasting through tournaments consistently and easily needs a good base level.
It's obviously overrated but it won't be unfair to say that it was a good peak level.Wawrinka’s peak level and Kyrgios’ talent are the two things I think of when someone asks me about overrated things on TTW.
Largely lucked his way to 3 Slams. Really nothing in stats suggest he's better than most 1 slam champs.
It's obviously overrated but it won't be unfair to say that it was a good peak level.
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.
Dude.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.
He is done.
He's still top 50. Money is good. Maybe he just enjoys the Tour.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.
Your avatar is insulting to vegetarians and vegans.
Dude.
He has 0 wins over Federer off clay.
That's not just inconsistency.
That's incapacity.
He has 3 slams but nowhere near the number of titles as the big 4. What's the main reasons for this?
Not really. He has a LOT of weak results especially at the 1000s. I am glad he won those three majors.Pretty consistent if he won 3 slams.
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.
Dude.
He has 0 wins over Federer off clay.
That's not just inconsistency.
That's incapacity.
Obviously its both. Its the worst single surface H2H out there.That’s a testament to Federer’s greatness.
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.
Slam h2h vs Djokovic/Nadal:Dude.
He has 0 wins over Federer off clay.
That's not just inconsistency.
That's incapacity.