Stan Wawrinka - where does he fit historically?

[britbox]

Stan Wawrinka played his last match today in Basel going down 5-7 6-7 to Jiri Lehecka.

But where does Stan fit historically? Hopefully @El Dude will chip in with some stats analysis.

Stan has often been grouped with Andy Murray under the "Big 3" but I think Murray is in a tier of his own (of that peer group) above Stan.

Most of Stan's best results came during a four year window (2013–2017). Do we judge him primarily on that peak or the whole career? His majors all came against Big 3 players

To round off, here are a few highlights:

 

[El Dude]

I can probably put something together in the next few days, but will mention one thing. I saw some clip a few years ago in which Stan was asked something along the lines of "As a 3-Slam winner, are you in the same category as Andy Murray?" Stan kind of laughed and said, "No way. Three Slams, but he's got a lot more other titles." I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of it.

Murray's career is MUCH better. In fact, in the various approaches I've played with, he's more in the Edberg/Becker/Wilander group than the Courier/Vilas/Nastase group - and those guys are solidly above Stan and similar players.

Stan was great in 2014-16, but it was mostly just those three Slam titles and the one Masters. Or we could compare titles:

STAN: 3 Slams, 1 Masters, no other big titles, 3 500s, 9 250s
ANDY: 3 Slams, 14 Masters, 1 ATP Finals, 2 Olympics, 9 500s, 17 250s

I mean, the +13 Masters, +2 Olympics, and +1 ATP Finals says a lot. But he also has +6 500s, +8 250s, and +7 Slam finals.

If you want to look at similar careers, I think players like Pat Rafter, Marat Safin, and Jan Kodes are closer to Stan. All very good players who had flashes of greatness, but way below Andy.

Stan vs. Andy is a good example of why we really need to look beyond Slam count in assessing greatness. Murray may be the player whose greatness is most poorly represented by his Slam count (I'd give an honorable mention to Ivan Lendl).

 

[Kieran]

He Fats historically. Where he fits depends on how how much space is left in the room once he walks in…

I soar blokes like him and Murray are beneficiaries of the total dominance of the big 3, in the sense that statistically you’d expect the big 3 to lose here and there and blokes like Stan and Andy are more competitive than your average Frenchman…

 

[britbox]

For all lovers of the single handed backhand like myself - here is some sugar topping:



Not sure if it's the best single hander ever like McEnroe stated once upon a time... but it's a beautiful stroke - even though my favourite aesthetically was Richard Gasquet's. Stan was more effective than Richard.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

For all lovers of the single handed backhand like myself - here is some sugar topping:



Not sure if it's the best single hander ever like McEnroe stated once upon a time... but it's a beautiful stroke - even though my favourite aesthetically was Richard Gasquet's. Stan was more effective than Richard.

I have to agree with you, Richards bhand was more aesthetically than Stan bhand, though at the end of the day Stans was far more effective

 

[Federberg]

I have to agree with you, Richards bhand was more aesthetically than Stan bhand, though at the end of the day Stans was far more effective

Interesting.. I always found Stan's backhand more aesthetically pleasing and certainly more effective. Gasquet's was just a little too busy on the take back for me (perhaps a prettier version of Kuerten's but just as busy ). What set Stan apart from any other single hander I had seen before was he could switch up and go down the line much like Murray and Djokovic in a way that other single handers couldn't. Not even Richard. That's what gave Novak fits. With any other single hander you go hard into the backhand and they were almost always going to reflexively hit back cross court. But with Stan his wrist was so strong Novak didn't have the comfort he would otherwise expect. To be honest, I would probably rate Thiem's one hander above Gasquet's too. That m'fker hit it so hard that you often saw guys run away from it

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Interesting.. I always found Stan's backhand more aesthetically pleasing and certainly more effective. Gasquet's was just a little too busy on the take back for me (perhaps a prettier version of Kuerten's but just as busy ). What set Stan apart from any other single hander I had seen before was he could switch up and go down the line much like Murray and Djokovic in a way that other single handers couldn't. Not even Richard. That's what gave Novak fits. With any other single hander you go hard into the backhand and they were almost always going to reflexively hit back cross court. But with Stan his wrist was so strong Novak didn't have the comfort he would otherwise expect. To be honest, I would probably rate Thiem's one hander above Gasquet's too. That m'fker hit it so hard that you often saw guys run away from it

Thanks Federberg, poor of me not to mention Thiems bhand it certainly was powerful, heavy spin with substance

 

[mrzz]

Aesthetically pleasing, to the shock of everyone, I would say Almagro's is right up there with Wawrinka. Gasquet's was kind of unnatural to me, also I agree with what Federberg said about the take back. But post-2017 Federer still beats them all, IMO. If there was a "brutal beauty" category, I would add Thiem's to the list.

But Wawrnka's, when it was on, it was the most effective of all. Across all of his carreer, it was always on the top 1% both on effectiveness and beauty.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Aesthetically pleasing, to the shock of everyone, I would say Almagro's is right up there with Wawrinka. Gasquet's was kind of unnatural to me, also I agree with what Federberg said about the take back. But post-2017 Federer still beats them all, IMO. If there was a "brutal beauty" category, I would add Thiem's to the list.

But Wawrnka's, when it was on, it was the most effective of all. Across all of his carreer, it was always on the top 1% both on effectiveness and beauty.

Thanks Mrzz
I am having a bad day memory wise, I also forgot about Almagro's bhand, wasnt it called a Helicopter bhand and he was also unfazed with Nadal's top spin? better than any othe player with a one handed bhand

 

[britbox]

Interesting.. I always found Stan's backhand more aesthetically pleasing and certainly more effective. Gasquet's was just a little too busy on the take back for me (perhaps a prettier version of Kuerten's but just as busy ). What set Stan apart from any other single hander I had seen before was he could switch up and go down the line much like Murray and Djokovic in a way that other single handers couldn't. Not even Richard. That's what gave Novak fits. With any other single hander you go hard into the backhand and they were almost always going to reflexively hit back cross court. But with Stan his wrist was so strong Novak didn't have the comfort he would otherwise expect. To be honest, I would probably rate Thiem's one hander above Gasquet's too. That m'fker hit it so hard that you often saw guys run away from it

Given that Rafa was probably the single biggest nemesis for a single handed backhand, Thiem's record against Nadal was pretty good given context (6-10) but 4 wins on clay. He held up well on the backhand. Like @mrzz mentioned Fed post 2017 (well, post-2016 really) was much more effective against Nadal. Some of that was more tactical though IMO - Federer tended to pull the trigger earlier and some of his tweaks - bigger racquet etc probably helped. Gasquet was 0-18 v Nadal. But as a sight to behold that b/h was a sheer beauty albeit not as effective as some of the others mentioned.

Nice highlight reel:



Other mentions: Tommy Haas... and maybe my favourite of the lot if we go back in time - Stefan Edberg.

 

[mrzz]

Nice highlight reel:

Well, there are some real gems here, I will give you that...