A Stan Slam would be hilarious

The cheapening of the career Slam achievement through homogenisation has been a frequent complaint from some of us but we've been countered by the "Golden Era" brigade proclaiming that it's nothing of the sort and just proves how amazing the top three are/were.

How funny it would be if Stan got a Wimbledon and we had four active players getting a career Slam.

wouldnt it be lovely if it actually happened... murray right at the bottom of the pack...all he'll have left to brag about are those 2 olympic medals half the players didnt even pitch up for 

Yes funny except that Stan's style is probably much more deserving of winning on all surfaces than the other 3 road runners.

I doubt he'll win Wimbledon - but yeah it's a joke what they've done to the tour.

,
Stan said something interesting yesterday:

===================================================

"In Grand Slam you play every two days, five-set match.
You have a little bit more time to make mistake...Every match I won in a Grand Slam I take confidence of that, and when I arrive in a final I know my game is there.”


=====================================================



Earlier this week, when asked whether he belonged to the big 4/5, he said he didn't as unlike Murray (and other 3) he has not been in semis of slams regularly and more interestingly he does not have so many Masters 1000 titles.


And that adds up.


I remember a few years ago  Federer talking with admiration about how Nole was able to win those masters 1000 tournaments back to back etc, how "those guys" can play at that level every day with no break.




Basically, for someone to play attacking game, one needs to be relaxed in the mind.


You simply can not afford even one nerve in your body to be tight. That is crucial.
When your mind is relaxed, your body functions so much better "on its own".


I cannot stress (pardon the pun  ) enough how important that is.
I also womder how much Stan resolvng his ex marriage tension helped him. It's all very interesting.


With Fed - he has Mirka. And she comes across as a plain, simple  background offering Federer the tranquility to be himself that way. 


Just an additional thought.




Some people are naturally laid back and can relax more easily, but for tennis players especially those who play with low margins -  that commodity is a must.


And that is why Stan does well in the slams and not in Masters 1000.


And also why he gets better as slam progresses - he plays with more comfidence in his shots and eases/relaxes even more.


In the past when Stan was a "nobody", we can all remember how average he looked and how nervous he got, part of that was fitness, so as soon as he fixed that he was able to bring his game to the table.


It is not a coincidence Nole/Murray and Nadal have been cleaning Masters 1000 leaving crumbs to the rest.

Their DBH game relies on rhythm and repetition, they can go in autopilot mentally if they want to, they are mentally fresher than attackers, but it's probably more taxing physically.

Very good point NITB.

I however disagree with Stan looking average in the past. To me it was very surprising he was not achieving more. He gave Federer lots of trouble when younger but Fed was mentally stronger and could temper Stan's deadly tennis.

But yes he had to fix this mental side.....and the only way to fix it was physically. It'sonly when he realised he could outlast Nadal and Djoko thanks to his power and new ftness that his mental improved.

At the end of the day...unless one has Fed's talent, fitness is the only way to be those 3 roadrunners.

Sad but that's how it is.

Talking of talent, what do you think of Pouille?

The fact he has a DBH and astrong build will make him more resillient to top players I think & hope.

To me, he can be the modern Federer. Same fighting spirit it appears, very nice temper.

Only 22.

Imagine how good he could be at 32!

My hope is in his coach...he is the key to guiding/guarding him calmly and putting no pressure on him so far.

I also hope he remains hungry and injury free.

I was hugely impressed with his backhand; I've not seen a player so unable to read where it was headed since Borg first appeared.

He needs to get some first serves in but he seems to have all the equipment.

Yes I like the player and seems to have huge potential...but after my Rublev disappointment I am going to be more moderate about my enthusiasm. 

I don't doubt that Rublev will improve but maybe not as much as I thought.

A Stan Slam would certainly shake up the whole GOAT debate. Winning 4 in 4 completing a Career Slam with the least amount of Slam victories and also in a shorter period of time (aside Laver).

How would this elevate him against those with more Slams and without a CS to their name?

Interesting food for thought.

When one things about it....what debate do we need?


We have fit players winning everything and Shotmakers (essentially Stan) winning when those fit players have physical dips.

Well on another forum the question was asked who was greater out of Stan and Murray. Most of the debate was geared towards who has the better game and who has the better consistency.

For me I look at the Slam victories.

Stan
AO14 - Golubev/Falla/Pospisil/Robredo/Djokovic/Berdych/Nadal - Caveats: Golubev retired and a walkover on Pospisil and a hampered Nadal.
FO15 - Illhan/Lajovic/Johnson/Simon/Federer/Tsonga/Djokovic - Caveats: None
USO16 - Verdasco/Giannessi/Evans/Marchenko/Del Potro/Nishikori/Djokovic - Caveats: Easy-ish first 4 rounds.

Andy
USO12 - Bogomolov Jr/Dodig/Lopez/Raonic/Cilic/Berdych/Djokovic - Caveats: Windy.
Wim13 - Becker/Lu/Robredo/Youzhny/Verdasco/Janowicz/Djokovic - Caveats: Easy-ish latter round draw.
Wim16 - Broady/Lu/Milman/Kyrgios/Tsonga/Berdych/Raonic - Caveats: Raonic!

Face of it Stan's FO15 looks the toughest draw.

However, I think the question I'd ask is if Stan had the opportunities in Slam and Masters Finals, would he have better results than Murray?

The answer to that is very simple.

Murray is by far more consistent. Stan can play at a higher level than Murray and Djokovic.

So then it is down to what we value personally. Consistency over higher peaks.

I personally am more interested in peaks. Who cares if someone can paint a 1000 picture....it's the masterclasses most of us are after.

In sport however consistency is extremely important. Murray has better results. His consistency rewarded him with 3 slams as he was there when the others were not 100%. Stan is not consistent so when he gets there, it's because he has to play his best tennis and it proved at least twice that it coudl win against the best on form players.

Murray will probably be remembered as the greater players, Stan will be remembered by the crowd as the more interesting and better player on the day.

Not sure I am a fan of peaks completely. Purely because any player could have a purple patch at a Slam.

Stan and Andy are streaky players. Andy doesn't retain any other his titles, bar San Jose, Queens and Olympics. Might be others, but that is off the top of my head. Won back to back titles during the grass run in 2013 and 2016.

Andy has done really well to achieve consistency to a high level like he has. Certainly remaining a top 4 fixture is impressive. Funny thing with Murray is that his primary drive was to win Slams. Being number 1 didn't interest him, possibly because of the stranglehold Federer and Djokovic have had on the ranking, so in essence in his mind winning Slams is barometer of measuring greatness. When you think of the sheer number of opportunities he has had to win them, quite disappointing.

Looking at Stan, he has that mantra down to a fine art.

The very fact Slam won his 3 slams with a SBH clears any dilemma for me.

legendkillar wrote:Not sure I am a fan of peaks completely. Purely because any player could have a purple patch at a Slam.

Stan and Andy are streaky players. Andy doesn't retain any other his titles, bar San Jose, Queens and Olympics. Might be others, but that is off the top of my head. Won back to back titles during the grass run in 2013 and 2016.

Andy has done really well to achieve consistency to a high level like he has. Certainly remaining a top 4 fixture is impressive. Funny thing with Murray is that his primary drive was to win Slams. Being number 1 didn't interest him, possibly because of the stranglehold Federer and Djokovic have had on the ranking, so in essence in his mind winning Slams is barometer of measuring greatness. When you think of the sheer number of opportunities he has had to win them, quite disappointing.

Looking at Stan, he has that mantra down to a fine art.

winning majors would automatically sort the ranking out,i think that murray was definitely after the no1 ranking this season with federer not playing and djokovic dealing with all his personal issues
the opportunity was up for grabs but once again murray proved his inability to capitalise on opportunities presented to him
stan may not have made as many grand slam finals but has shown how much more mentally tough he is then murray capitalising on far less opportunity 
i also think that stans best tennis beats murrays best tennis,murray is just able to maintain his best tennis more consistently then stan

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Not sure I am a fan of peaks completely. Purely because any player could have a purple patch at a Slam.

Stan and Andy are streaky players. Andy doesn't retain any other his titles, bar San Jose, Queens and Olympics. Might be others, but that is off the top of my head. Won back to back titles during the grass run in 2013 and 2016.

Andy has done really well to achieve consistency to a high level like he has. Certainly remaining a top 4 fixture is impressive. Funny thing with Murray is that his primary drive was to win Slams. Being number 1 didn't interest him, possibly because of the stranglehold Federer and Djokovic have had on the ranking, so in essence in his mind winning Slams is barometer of measuring greatness. When you think of the sheer number of opportunities he has had to win them, quite disappointing.

Looking at Stan, he has that mantra down to a fine art.

winning majors would automatically sort the ranking out,i think that murray was definitely after the no1 ranking this season with federer not playing and djokovic dealing with all his personal issues
the opportunity was up for grabs but once again murray proved his inability to capitalise on opportunities presented to him
stan may not have made as many grand slam finals but has shown how much more mentally tough he is then murray capitalising on far less opportunity 
i also think that stans best tennis beats murrays best tennis,murray is just able to maintain his best tennis more consistently then stan

Think Murray has been after the ranking for the last 2 years purely because he is chasing down 1 player rather than 3. Sensing opportunity and as rightly pointed out that when the it is there for the taking, comes up short yet again. Playing the Olympics was a massive mistake if he wanted that No.1 ranking. Would've positioned himself perfectly to win Cinncy and USO.

Stan certainly knows when to peak, however it shows the physical limits on his game as it is totally power based. Evans had him dead to rights and fluffed it.

legendkillar wrote:

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Not sure I am a fan of peaks completely. Purely because any player could have a purple patch at a Slam.

Stan and Andy are streaky players. Andy doesn't retain any other his titles, bar San Jose, Queens and Olympics. Might be others, but that is off the top of my head. Won back to back titles during the grass run in 2013 and 2016.

Andy has done really well to achieve consistency to a high level like he has. Certainly remaining a top 4 fixture is impressive. Funny thing with Murray is that his primary drive was to win Slams. Being number 1 didn't interest him, possibly because of the stranglehold Federer and Djokovic have had on the ranking, so in essence in his mind winning Slams is barometer of measuring greatness. When you think of the sheer number of opportunities he has had to win them, quite disappointing.

Looking at Stan, he has that mantra down to a fine art.

winning majors would automatically sort the ranking out,i think that murray was definitely after the no1 ranking this season with federer not playing and djokovic dealing with all his personal issues
the opportunity was up for grabs but once again murray proved his inability to capitalise on opportunities presented to him
stan may not have made as many grand slam finals but has shown how much more mentally tough he is then murray capitalising on far less opportunity 
i also think that stans best tennis beats murrays best tennis,murray is just able to maintain his best tennis more consistently then stan

Think Murray has been after the ranking for the last 2 years purely because he is chasing down 1 player rather than 3. Sensing opportunity and as rightly pointed out that when the it is there for the taking, comes up short yet again. Playing the Olympics was a massive mistake if he wanted that No.1 ranking. Would've positioned himself perfectly to win Cinncy and USO.

Stan certainly knows when to peak, however it shows the physical limits on his game as it is totally power based. Evans had him dead to rights and fluffed it.

i also think that playing the olympics was something that potentially ended up costing him the no1 ranking

nahh.....Murray is simply not good enough to overtake an injured Djokovic. In fat he will soon be overtaken by the new generation.....and then they will get Djoko.

He is good enough, just not got it between the ears. He treats expectation as a burden rather than embracing it and shining in it. Why play an event you have already won which in the scheme of things isn't going to contribute much was insanity. All your rivals would've gone there. Djokovic, Nadal, Federer. Could've stepped back, limited his travelling and been much physically and mentally prepared.

The new generation won't overtake Djokovic or Murray. They'll have to wait for them to fade away sadly. No-one in the new crop does enough to suggest to me they have mentally to really stand up and be counted. Powderpuff mentality.

A year ago I'd have agreed. The likes of Dimitrov are just depressing - maybe there's something in this thing about them being too close in career to the top guys and getting a losing mentality. 

However, I look at these next guys and I'm not so sure. Poulle had no fear at all against Nadal, he just went for him and if his game was a bit more developed - like a reliable 1st serve - it wouldn't have been so close. 

Djokovic's Achilles heel - straight power hitting through him - is getting noticeable and it plays to these new lads. I'm more optimistic that tennis might not be the wasteland I've feared, at least not in a year or so.

But your talking one off results. Nadal is an absolute shadow of his former self and yet in the top 4. Nadal has been beaten over recent Slams, but not so much to upcoming youngsters, but journeymen. Yes Kyrgios and Pouille have beaten him. What's Kyrgios done since that victory? Naff all. Nadal had a poor 2015 and yet manages to win Monte Carlo this year. Coming into that tournament with no form. This current crop and youngsters can come into a tournament with good results and lose to a Stepanek or someone. Least with Murray and Djokovic in their younger days wouldn't have such bad results on a frequent basis. 

No ruthlessness on the tour. Djokovic rules with a iron clad fist!

legendkillar wrote:....
Stan certainly knows when to peak, however it shows the physical limits on his game as it is totally power based. Evans had him dead to rights and fluffed it.

I am not sure I understand you. The reason Stan wins is that he uses talent more than fitness even if he is certainly very fit. But the reason he is up and down is the reason why most talented players are up and down....is that it is down to form of the day.

If you rely on fitness essentially like the 3 roadrunners, then you are much more consistent...unless your fitness drops.

So your comment I singled out here is actually perfectly applicable to Djoko, Murray and Nadal....not Stan.

It's the fact Stan was able to create pace more energy efficiently than he beat Djoko. Djoko has to work harder and this is why Stan (and Nishi) ended up beating those guys...but one needs a huge dose of talent to do so.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:....
Stan certainly knows when to peak, however it shows the physical limits on his game as it is totally power based. Evans had him dead to rights and fluffed it.

I am not sure I understand you. The reason Stan wins is that he uses talent more than fitness even if he is certainly very fit. But the reason he is up and down is the reason why most talented players are up and down....is that it is down to form of the day.

If you rely on fitness essentially like the 3 roadrunners, then you are much more consistent...unless your fitness drops.

So your comment I singled out here is actually perfectly applicable to Djoko, Murray and Nadal....not Stan.

It's the fact Stan was able to create pace more energy efficiently than he beat Djoko. Djoko has to work harder and this is why Stan (and Nishi) ended up beating those guys...but one needs a huge dose of talent to do so.

My comment is quite simple. If the power is lacking in Stans game, he is a sitting duck as evidenced in his match with Evans.

So when you for example take the legs out from underneath the roadrunners, become less effective. Similarly with Stan, it's the power. Take that from him and becomes very average very quickly. 

Power plays much a part in his game as the fitness does with the roadrunners.

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:....
Stan certainly knows when to peak, however it shows the physical limits on his game as it is totally power based. Evans had him dead to rights and fluffed it.

I am not sure I understand you. The reason Stan wins is that he uses talent more than fitness even if he is certainly very fit. But the reason he is up and down is the reason why most talented players are up and down....is that it is down to form of the day.

If you rely on fitness essentially like the 3 roadrunners, then you are much more consistent...unless your fitness drops.

So your comment I singled out here is actually perfectly applicable to Djoko, Murray and Nadal....not Stan.

It's the fact Stan was able to create pace more energy efficiently than he beat Djoko. Djoko has to work harder and this is why Stan (and Nishi) ended up beating those guys...but one needs a huge dose of talent to do so.

My comment is quite simple. If the power is lacking in Stans game, he is a sitting duck as evidenced in his match with Evans.

So when you for example take the legs out from underneath the roadrunners, become less effective. Similarly with Stan, it's the power. Take that from him and becomes very average very quickly. 

Power plays much a part in his game as the fitness does with the roadrunners.

Power without timing and skill is useless. Stan doesn't hit ground stroke balls at 130mph, its his accuracy and placement that get its done. And that's talent.


Djokovic and Murray can certainly hit balls as hard, but with added power, control becomes difficult.  Thats why they rely on safer shots and their legs to keep the consistency in play.

legendkillar wrote:
Stan
AO14 - Golubev/Falla/Pospisil/Robredo/Djokovic/Berdych/Nadal - Caveats: Golubev retired and a walkover on Pospisil and a hampered Nadal.
FO15 - Illhan/Lajovic/Johnson/Simon/Federer/Tsonga/Djokovic - Caveats: None
USO16 - Verdasco/Giannessi/Evans/Marchenko/Del Potro/Nishikori/Djokovic - Caveats: Easy-ish first 4 rounds.

Andy
USO12 - Bogomolov Jr/Dodig/Lopez/Raonic/Cilic/Berdych/Djokovic - Caveats: Windy.
Wim13 - Becker/Lu/Robredo/Youzhny/Verdasco/Janowicz/Djokovic - Caveats: Easy-ish latter round draw.
Wim16 - Broady/Lu/Milman/Kyrgios/Tsonga/Berdych/Raonic - Caveats: Raonic!

LK you are certainly kind on Murray's slam assessments. In none of Murray's slams he has ever to beat 2 top-4 opponents, in wim2016 he didn't have to go through a single one. 

Stan in all his 3 slam wins has beaten 2 top-4 players and #1 in the finals.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Power without timing and skill is useless. Stan doesn't hit ground stroke balls at 130mph, its his accuracy and placement that get its done. And that's talent.


Djokovic and Murray can certainly hit balls as hard, but with added power, control becomes difficult.  Thats why they rely on safer shots and their legs to keep the consistency in play.

Spot on, rotla.
I would add though, that Stan does have big swings that certainly adds to the power of his shots combined with upper body strength, as well as his legs.

His game is what I find most impressive - the fact he can go for those shots regularly match in match out in a slam.

Only means he is very, very talented, because it's very difficult to achieve consistency in high risk shots by mere hard work.

Evans and young generation have a chance because they have talent on their side.
They will need to work very hard and I am not sure all are prepared to do so.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
Stan
AO14 - Golubev/Falla/Pospisil/Robredo/Djokovic/Berdych/Nadal - Caveats: Golubev retired and a walkover on Pospisil and a hampered Nadal.
FO15 - Illhan/Lajovic/Johnson/Simon/Federer/Tsonga/Djokovic - Caveats: None
USO16 - Verdasco/Giannessi/Evans/Marchenko/Del Potro/Nishikori/Djokovic - Caveats: Easy-ish first 4 rounds.

Andy
USO12 - Bogomolov Jr/Dodig/Lopez/Raonic/Cilic/Berdych/Djokovic - Caveats: Windy.
Wim13 - Becker/Lu/Robredo/Youzhny/Verdasco/Janowicz/Djokovic - Caveats: Easy-ish latter round draw.
Wim16 - Broady/Lu/Milman/Kyrgios/Tsonga/Berdych/Raonic - Caveats: Raonic!

LK you are certainly kind on Murray's slam assessments. In none of Murray's slams he has ever to beat 2 top-4 opponents, in wim2016 he didn't have to go through a single one. 

Stan in all his 3 slam wins has beaten 2 top-4 players and #1 in the finals.

loves it..the truth is brutal isnt it 
which is why i find stans grsnd slam achievements far more impressive then murrays
every time he has had to face the same kind of opposition,he has fallen short

His trouble v Evans was not down to lack of power but confidence. He was still fit as he managed to crush Evans in the last 2 sets...hence not sure I understand LK point. Though it'd make perfect sense if applied to Djoko.

Tenez wrote:His trouble v Evans was not down to lack of power but confidence. He was still fit as he managed to crush Evans in the last 2 sets...hence not sure I understand LK point. Though it'd make perfect sense if applied to Djoko.

The point was would an unfit Stan crush Evans as they both play high risk attacking tennis, Evans even more so as he rushes the net despite height disadvantage.

Well that's another question. Evans might be more talented than Stan....but then you may have a player like Dustin Brown ranked even lower with more talent but it's clear that nowadays the minimum  physical base a player needs to have in order to success is quite high hence Stan can make the difference in the latter rounds. 

We are comparing Stan with Murray...not with Evans here. Stan talent is being able to produce it even when dead on his feet like on Sunday.

Veejay wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
Stan
AO14 - Golubev/Falla/Pospisil/Robredo/Djokovic/Berdych/Nadal - Caveats: Golubev retired and a walkover on Pospisil and a hampered Nadal.
FO15 - Illhan/Lajovic/Johnson/Simon/Federer/Tsonga/Djokovic - Caveats: None
USO16 - Verdasco/Giannessi/Evans/Marchenko/Del Potro/Nishikori/Djokovic - Caveats: Easy-ish first 4 rounds.

Andy
USO12 - Bogomolov Jr/Dodig/Lopez/Raonic/Cilic/Berdych/Djokovic - Caveats: Windy.
Wim13 - Becker/Lu/Robredo/Youzhny/Verdasco/Janowicz/Djokovic - Caveats: Easy-ish latter round draw.
Wim16 - Broady/Lu/Milman/Kyrgios/Tsonga/Berdych/Raonic - Caveats: Raonic!

LK you are certainly kind on Murray's slam assessments. In none of Murray's slams he has ever to beat 2 top-4 opponents, in wim2016 he didn't have to go through a single one. 

Stan in all his 3 slam wins has beaten 2 top-4 players and #1 in the finals.

loves it..the truth is brutal isnt it 
which is why i find stans grsnd slam achievements far more impressive then murrays
every time he has had to face the same kind of opposition,he has fallen short

Watch out, don't let that Caledonian Craig fanboy-nutcase see what you've written - He'll strangle you with a bagpipe. 

It's true, though.  Murray has been rather lucky with his draws and he certainly didn't win them the same way Stan has. Stan took the game to his opponents and beat them.  Murray - well, he's never outplaying the big guys. Based on performance in Slam finals, Stan is ahead of Murray by far more than 3-3 suggests.

What is also missing from above is that Murray played Djokovic in Wimb 13 after Del Potro had knackered him out in 5 sets.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:....
Stan certainly knows when to peak, however it shows the physical limits on his game as it is totally power based. Evans had him dead to rights and fluffed it.

I am not sure I understand you. The reason Stan wins is that he uses talent more than fitness even if he is certainly very fit. But the reason he is up and down is the reason why most talented players are up and down....is that it is down to form of the day.

If you rely on fitness essentially like the 3 roadrunners, then you are much more consistent...unless your fitness drops.

So your comment I singled out here is actually perfectly applicable to Djoko, Murray and Nadal....not Stan.

It's the fact Stan was able to create pace more energy efficiently than he beat Djoko. Djoko has to work harder and this is why Stan (and Nishi) ended up beating those guys...but one needs a huge dose of talent to do so.

My comment is quite simple. If the power is lacking in Stans game, he is a sitting duck as evidenced in his match with Evans.

So when you for example take the legs out from underneath the roadrunners, become less effective. Similarly with Stan, it's the power. Take that from him and becomes very average very quickly. 

Power plays much a part in his game as the fitness does with the roadrunners.

Power without timing and skill is useless. Stan doesn't hit ground stroke balls at 130mph, its his accuracy and placement that get its done. And that's talent.


Djokovic and Murray can certainly hit balls as hard, but with added power, control becomes difficult.  Thats why they rely on safer shots and their legs to keep the consistency in play.

To put it another way. Where was Stan in terms of winning events before the injection of power into the FH and BH?

Yes it takes skill and timing to hit with power, but also takes added strength to hit with added power. In his match with Evans I'd say he was hitting with the same power as Dan, yet struggled. My point is that if Stan was more talented than Dan and struggled to hold his own despite hitting roughly the same power, for me wouldn't make him more talented.

An increase of power has helped Stan massively as well as the added fitness.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
Stan
AO14 - Golubev/Falla/Pospisil/Robredo/Djokovic/Berdych/Nadal - Caveats: Golubev retired and a walkover on Pospisil and a hampered Nadal.
FO15 - Illhan/Lajovic/Johnson/Simon/Federer/Tsonga/Djokovic - Caveats: None
USO16 - Verdasco/Giannessi/Evans/Marchenko/Del Potro/Nishikori/Djokovic - Caveats: Easy-ish first 4 rounds.

Andy
USO12 - Bogomolov Jr/Dodig/Lopez/Raonic/Cilic/Berdych/Djokovic - Caveats: Windy.
Wim13 - Becker/Lu/Robredo/Youzhny/Verdasco/Janowicz/Djokovic - Caveats: Easy-ish latter round draw.
Wim16 - Broady/Lu/Milman/Kyrgios/Tsonga/Berdych/Raonic - Caveats: Raonic!

LK you are certainly kind on Murray's slam assessments. In none of Murray's slams he has ever to beat 2 top-4 opponents, in wim2016 he didn't have to go through a single one. 

Stan in all his 3 slam wins has beaten 2 top-4 players and #1 in the finals.

Think I am kind on both tbh. I wouldn't class Nishi as a top 4 player. Also note that Murray faced more seeded players than Stan.

Swings and roundabouts based on who you like/dislike.

legendkillar wrote:To put it another way. Where was Stan in terms of winning events before the injection of power into the FH and BH?

Yes it takes skill and timing to hit with power, but also takes added strength to hit with added power. In his match with Evans I'd say he was hitting with the same power as Dan, yet struggled. My point is that if Stan was more talented than Dan and struggled to hold his own despite hitting roughly the same power, for me wouldn't make him more talented.

An increase of power has helped Stan massively as well as the added fitness.

If you look at Stan's game even young. He always had those powerful shots. The difference is that in the past his mind was all over the place. He says it himself even now. He never saw himself as a great player.

In fact in this last USO final, I thought his shots were seriously lacking in power but unlike in the past he has added safety to his shots by not going for broke everytime like in the past.

he has not got any more power than in 2009 but he certainly has more consistency which you gain and improve by playing tennis 7 extra years. That's the difference between Now and then. Back then he was simply making more mistakes which simply cannot be afforded against those consistent players.

I woudl certainly not be surprised Stan were on "something" too (if that is what you are alluding to) but that something would be essentially to last longer with that power but not give him power. His power comes essentially from his timing.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:To put it another way. Where was Stan in terms of winning events before the injection of power into the FH and BH?

Yes it takes skill and timing to hit with power, but also takes added strength to hit with added power. In his match with Evans I'd say he was hitting with the same power as Dan, yet struggled. My point is that if Stan was more talented than Dan and struggled to hold his own despite hitting roughly the same power, for me wouldn't make him more talented.

An increase of power has helped Stan massively as well as the added fitness.

If you look at Stan's game even young. He always had those powerful shots. The difference is that in the past his mind was all over the place. He says it himself even now. He never saw himself as a great player.

In fact in this last USO final, I thought his shots were seriously lacking in power but unlike in the past he has added safety to his shots.

he has not got any more power than in 2009 but he certainly has more consistency which you gain and improve by playing tennis 7 extra years. That's the difference between Now and then. Back then he was simply making more mistakes which simply cannot be afforded against those consistent players.

I woudl certainly not be surprised Stan were on "something" too (if that is what you are alluding to) but that something would be essentially to last longer with that power but not give him power. His power comes essentially from his timing.

His FH in 2009 had nothing in it. His BH had a little spice, but the FH wasn't the dictating almighty hammer of a shot that it is now. Crikey even look at Murray's! I'd hazard an estimate that Stan has easily added about another 8-10mph to his FH and that makes a lot of difference. Especially for his opponent that has to return off that.

It is aesthetically pleasing watching Stan muller the ball, but it's all pop. I don't ever recall Stan in his early years even as far as up to 2009 hitting with such power.

If we agree that Stan has always been a talent from day one, the recent success so late in his career has come from the additional power in his shotmaking. I did allude to being on juice, however that is not so he can run longer it's more so he can hit harder for longer.

My argument is that if you take the additional power Stan has in his game out, he becomes an ordinary player. Now the contentious issue I think we are straying into is whether the additional power is from talent or from something else. The fact Stan was never a big hitter in his earlier years and then becomes one is quite the change. Can't recall anyone going that big so late in their career. I think the smallest jump was probably Roddick from 2001 to 2003.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a9h1Y6sr5o

The power was always there. On his serve he clearly had teh power which means he had the power of his FH too but not the confidence to go for it...not different than in his match v Evans. When one player hits flat like that (thanks to a very powerful wrist I grant you), it's all down to confidence not muscles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s-E4lYlQdI

From 2008 against Baghdatis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FctjwItbiY4

From 2015 against Djokovic

Look at from 0.32 in 2008 clip. Look at his arm and then compare with 0.28 in the 2015 clip.

We know enhancement breeds confidence

I agree with LK. 2013 onwards, he was a different player. And the power went through the roof.

luvsports! wrote:I agree with LK. 2013 onwards, he was a different player. And the power went through the roof.

True.

I remember Nole beat Stan with ease in 2008 or 09) Rome final. Stan's FH was all over the place.
But!

His current power comes from improved fitness (mainly footspeed) as well as matured timing.

At the end of the day, he is the only player who is playing a VERY high risk game and winning.

Nole and Murray are not.

legendkillar wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
Stan
AO14 - Golubev/Falla/Pospisil/Robredo/Djokovic/Berdych/Nadal - Caveats: Golubev retired and a walkover on Pospisil and a hampered Nadal.
FO15 - Illhan/Lajovic/Johnson/Simon/Federer/Tsonga/Djokovic - Caveats: None
USO16 - Verdasco/Giannessi/Evans/Marchenko/Del Potro/Nishikori/Djokovic - Caveats: Easy-ish first 4 rounds.

Andy
USO12 - Bogomolov Jr/Dodig/Lopez/Raonic/Cilic/Berdych/Djokovic - Caveats: Windy.
Wim13 - Becker/Lu/Robredo/Youzhny/Verdasco/Janowicz/Djokovic - Caveats: Easy-ish latter round draw.
Wim16 - Broady/Lu/Milman/Kyrgios/Tsonga/Berdych/Raonic - Caveats: Raonic!

LK you are certainly kind on Murray's slam assessments. In none of Murray's slams he has ever to beat 2 top-4 opponents, in wim2016 he didn't have to go through a single one. 

Stan in all his 3 slam wins has beaten 2 top-4 players and #1 in the finals.

Think I am kind on both tbh. I wouldn't class Nishi as a top 4 player. Also note that Murray faced more seeded players than Stan.

Swings and roundabouts based on who you like/dislike.

Yeah. Nishi isn't a top-4 player though he is. And Delpo was clearly a player as his 140 rank suggested.

LK, You are not kind to Stan tbh, you want to be favoring Murray and to appear 'fair' you are saying so.

BTW Delpo has nailed Murray after being 1-2 sets down in front of a creaming DC crowd.

I don't remember the pusher having to beat Djokovic at his very best in a slam final. Wawrinka has done it twice. And let's not forget Del Potro beat Nadal at his best and Federer close to it at the US Open one year.  Murray hasn't done anything like that and never will.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
Stan
AO14 - Golubev/Falla/Pospisil/Robredo/Djokovic/Berdych/Nadal - Caveats: Golubev retired and a walkover on Pospisil and a hampered Nadal.
FO15 - Illhan/Lajovic/Johnson/Simon/Federer/Tsonga/Djokovic - Caveats: None
USO16 - Verdasco/Giannessi/Evans/Marchenko/Del Potro/Nishikori/Djokovic - Caveats: Easy-ish first 4 rounds.

Andy
USO12 - Bogomolov Jr/Dodig/Lopez/Raonic/Cilic/Berdych/Djokovic - Caveats: Windy.
Wim13 - Becker/Lu/Robredo/Youzhny/Verdasco/Janowicz/Djokovic - Caveats: Easy-ish latter round draw.
Wim16 - Broady/Lu/Milman/Kyrgios/Tsonga/Berdych/Raonic - Caveats: Raonic!

LK you are certainly kind on Murray's slam assessments. In none of Murray's slams he has ever to beat 2 top-4 opponents, in wim2016 he didn't have to go through a single one. 

Stan in all his 3 slam wins has beaten 2 top-4 players and #1 in the finals.

Think I am kind on both tbh. I wouldn't class Nishi as a top 4 player. Also note that Murray faced more seeded players than Stan.

Swings and roundabouts based on who you like/dislike.

Yeah. Nishi isn't a top-4 player though he is. And Delpo was clearly a player as his 140 rank suggested.

LK, You are not kind to Stan tbh, you want to be favoring Murray and to appear 'fair' you are saying so.

Problem is rota is that you have look at draws in their entirety. Not just oh he faced 2 top 4 players and that's what swings it. I am giving both the benefit of the doubt. Nishi doesn't play like a top 4 player and never will. As you say Delpo isn't a 140 player. 

Sorry rota but all this crap of Murray won when opponents were tired applies just as much to Stan. He played a totally fucked Nishi at the US Open and a crippled Nadal in the final of the AO. 

Any player that wins a Slam at some point or another during those 7 matches gets a slice of luck which could be anything. Fact is I don't dislike a player enough to go round diminishing achievement. If they both retired they would both have 3 Slams a piece to their names. 

Love and hate are blind.

To be fair for a top player having to deal with seeded players well above them is irrelevant.

There are 4, 5 maybe 6 players who are really tough to beat in big occasions. having to face one or 2 more players ranked 13 or 26 is irrelevant.

Murray can struggle versus Stepanek or an unknown Frenchman ranked 150 but at the end of the day he is fitter and will go through.

For Murray, Djoko and Nadal the challenge comes with those with consistent firepower. And there are not many of those. They are at the very top between number 1 and 8 ranking.

Exactly. Anyone can beat anyone on any given sunday. We've seen it with Federer and Nadal, Djokovic suffered an upset as Murray has had his share too.

socal would have a field day on here with Federer's past draws at his peak

Why does Socal dislike Fed so much?

I am amazed he likes Nadal who was the beneficiary of slowed down courts, balls, rigged draws....Nole and Fed were the "victims".

Nadal was even able to practically fire a top umpire from his matches (Bernardes).

Toni is/was probably mastermind behind the scenes...

Which is why I will always be upset with Federer who had all the clout and support from players to say something, to insist on fairer playing comditions for ALL, not just one player.
Instead, he compltely caved in to Nadal and chummied along.


Now that's what I call gutless.

legendkillar wrote:Exactly. Anyone can beat anyone on any given sunday. We've seen it with Federer and Nadal, Djokovic suffered an upset as Murray has had his share too.

socal would have a field day on here with Federer's past draws at his peak

but yet nadal was facing the exact same opposition along the way to all of his grand slam victories as he was playing in the exact same era..

socal is a muppet who I dare to show his face here again..

legendkillar wrote:Exactly. Anyone can beat anyone on any given sunday. We've seen it with Federer and Nadal, Djokovic suffered an upset as Murray has had his share too.

socal would have a field day on here with Federer's past draws at his peak

Socal always struggled with Logos. Nice guy though but all his judgement was based on the match result.
He only takes into consideration the numbers that makes the score......except of course when Djoko lost to Fognini.

Federer "peak" years were on faster courts, smaller balls. It was Nadal who was struggling to beat seads at the USO.

I'd like to see Djoko, Murray and Nadal  play on even faster conds with a 90inch racquet, having learnt to play with gut facing Nalby and Blake. All those big muscles they acqiuired would be useless.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Exactly. Anyone can beat anyone on any given sunday. We've seen it with Federer and Nadal, Djokovic suffered an upset as Murray has had his share too.

socal would have a field day on here with Federer's past draws at his peak

Socal always struggled with Logos. Nice guy though but all his judgement was based on the match result.
He only takes into consideration the numbers that makes the score......except of course when Djoko lost to Fognini.

Federer "peak" years were on faster courts, smaller balls. It was Nadal who was struggling to beat seads at the USO.

I'd like to see Djoko, Murray and Nadal  play on even faster conds with a 90inch racquet, having learnt to play with gut facing Nalby and Blake. All those big muscles they acqiuired would be useless.

Fognini has only beat Djoko once, like 10 years ago. D'ya mean someone else?