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...

 

[Federberg]

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.

Agreed. Almagro's backhand was solid as hell. Not sure I would put it up there with Stan's overall, but on clay for sure. Agreed regarding Roger's neo-backhand. It wasn't so much that it was technically better than Stan's, but Federer was so superior to Stan in terms of tennis IQ and athleticism, that in his hands that neo-backhand became more lethal than Stan's. I would actually argue that if Stan, on clay, had been able to use his backhand like Roger eventually ended up doing against Rafa, Stan might have made a Roland Garros match up interesting. But the problem with a counter-factual like that is that it would probably have destabilised something else in his game. What I mean is, that Federer neo-backhand required the user to step into the shot early. That requires a level of timing that I'm given to understand from tennis pros on podcasts was not an easy thing to do at all. Roger made stepping in and hitting balls on the half volley look simple, but tennis pros talk about trying to do that consistently in practice and having problems with it. And then there's Federer.. using it in slam finals with nonchalance and of course... success! There are levels to this

 

[Kieran]

The one handed when it’s in full cry it’s more aesthetically pleasing and dramatic than the labourer’s shovel, two hander. It’s very loose and looks like the lash of a whip. Especially down the line, it was almost heroic during the Rafa era. Full follow through, and the ball like a yellow laser dropping into the corner.

 

[Murat B.]

I have a hard time with figuring out where to place Stan in the grand scheme of things but just imagine for a second that by some miracle the draw opened up , players got injured and he won a Wimbledon title and now he has a career grand slam. Where would you place him then? Just humor me.

 

[Federberg]

I have a hard time with figuring out where to place Stan in the grand scheme of things but just imagine for a second that by some miracle the draw opened up , players got injured and he won a Wimbledon title and now he has a career grand slam. Where would you place him then? Just humor me.

while I find it very hard to believe he could ever have won Wimbledon, I think he got to the quarters a few times? It would elevate him. But I still couldn't put him in the same tier as Edberg, Becker et al. They not only won slams, they came into slams as favourites and won. They were world number ones. It's one thing to be good over a fortnight and shock the world, it's an entirely different thing to be the favourite and get it done. That's an achievement of another level to me personally.

To be honest, I would still have difficulty putting him on the same level as a Courier. That guy was a number one level player. That means something to me

 

[Fiero425]

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:

True enuf; we know the particulars to elevate Murray over Wawrinka, but a quick history will say they both have 3 Major wins apiece! IMO, Stan terribly underachieved, but he was his own worst enemy & a major headcase that allowed Fedal to own him! He at least got a little out of his competing against Novak, def. him in 2 Major finals & upsetting him early in his fave BT "down under" in Aussie Open!

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

while I find it very hard to believe he could ever have won Wimbledon, I think he got to the quarters a few times? It would elevate him. But I still couldn't put him in the same tier as Edberg, Becker et al. They not only won slams, they came into slams as favourites and won. They were world number ones. It's one thing to be good over a fortnight and shock the world, it's an entirely different thing to be the favourite and get it done. That's an achievement of another level to me personally.

To be honest, I would still have difficulty putting him on the same level as a Courier. That guy was a number one level player. That means something to me

Stan could not win Wimbledon to me, as his high toss ground strokes and wind up and lower body movement struggles with low bounces and fast grass
Grass demands quick reaction times, low center of gravity movement and a lower trajectory path that did not suit his natural game