Barclays ATP World Tour Finals 2016

[Kieran]

Stan is much more effective as a sniper than a front runner. He gets great kudos for his remarkable victories, and never really catches much flak for his absences in big matches. So he faces murray with less pressure on him than Andy faces. The beauty of the round robin, Andy could wind up second, and face a huge duel with Novak in the semis. That'll be great. Once we get the Andy-Novak match somewhere, it'll be worth it...

 

[El Dude]

Stan is much more effective as a sniper than a front runner. He gets great kudos for his remarkable victories, and never really catches much flak for his absences in big matches.

An interesting view; I hadn't thought of it that way, but I think it could hold water. If true, the reason could be that Stan has such an unusual career in that if you take away his three best tournaments, or even just his three best matches, he goes from being a three-Slam winner to a career similar to a second tier player like Tomas Berdych's. Consider:

STAN: 3 Slams, 1 Masters, 3 ATP 500s, 8 ATP 250s

TOMAS: 0 Slams, 1 Masters, 3 ATP 500s, 9 ATP 250s

Now of course you could argue that, duh, you can't take away Stan's Slams, so the comparison is meaningless. But compare, for instance, Andy:

ANDY: 3 Slams, 14 Masters, 2 Olympic Golds, 8 ATP 500s, 16 ATP 250s

Andy's title count, aside from same number of Slams, is vastly better than Stan's. And of course he's not a great comparison because Andy has the overall resume closer to a 6-Slam winner like Edberg or Becker. But look at other recent 2-3 Slam winners:

KUERTEN: 3 Slams, 1 YEC, 5 Masters, 3 ATP 500, 7 ATP 250
HEWITT: 2 Slams, 2 YEC, 2 Masters, 2 ATP 500, 22 ATP 250
SAFIN: 2 Slams, 5 Masters, 1 ATP 500, 7 ATP 500
RAFTER: 2 Slams, 2 Masters, 1 ATP 500, 6 ATP 250

As you can see, Kuerten, Hewitt, and even Safin all have fuller non-Slam resumes; Rafter is close, with that extra Masters but fewer lower level titles. And of course Stan isn't done: maybe he wins a couple more Masters and ATP 500s to flesh things out.

But here's the point: Stan became an elite player at age 28, which is unheard of. Before that he wasn't even Tomas Berdych, he was closer to John Isner or Nicolas Almagro...and maybe not even quite that. But things started coming together for him around age 27-28 (2013) and he went from being a top 20ish guy to a top 10 guy; but then in 2014, he jumped even higher and won his first Slam just before turning 29 years old. Since then--a span of three years and 12 Slams--he's won more Slams than anyone on tour except for Novak Djokovic.

This is my long-winded way of saying that I think the reason Stan doesn't get flak for losing big matches, is because his success was so unexpected and unusual. It isn't unheard of for players to have peak years in their late 20s or jump a notch later in their career; David Ferrer is a case in point. But it is completely unique to go from being a perennial #20ish ranked player (what I call 3rd tier) to #10ish (2nd tier) at age 28 AND #5ish and a multi-Slam winner (1st tier) after that.

To put all of this another way, Stan started winning Slams at an older age than the LAST Slams won by Becker, Edberg, Wilander, McEnroe, and Borg. He is truly one of a kind and, through his uniqueness, has somehow evaded the usual criticisms that top players face.

 

[mightyjeditribble]

Djokovic just won the first set against Goffin easily, 6-1, and is now up 2-1 with a break in the second.

However, I don't think it looks as though Djoko is firing on all cylinders yet.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Djoker wins; as easy as 1 and 2.

I did not see the match. Going by the scoreline, may be Novak is rounding up to form.

 

[Fiero425]

Stan is much more effective as a sniper than a front runner. He gets great kudos for his remarkable victories, and never really catches much flak for his absences in big matches.

An interesting view; I hadn't thought of it that way, but I think it could hold water. If true, the reason could be that Stan has such an unusual career in that if you take away his three best tournaments, or even just his three best matches, he goes from being a three-Slam winner to a career similar to a second tier player like Tomas Berdych's. Consider:

STAN: 3 Slams, 1 Masters, 3 ATP 500s, 8 ATP 250s

TOMAS: 0 Slams, 1 Masters, 3 ATP 500s, 9 ATP 250s

Now of course you could argue that, duh, you can't take away Stan's Slams, so the comparison is meaningless. But compare, for instance, Andy:

ANDY: 3 Slams, 14 Masters, 2 Olympic Golds, 8 ATP 500s, 16 ATP 250s

Andy's title count, aside from same number of Slams, is vastly better than Stan's. And of course he's not a great comparison because Andy has the overall resume closer to a 6-Slam winner like Edberg or Becker. But look at other recent 2-3 Slam winners:

KUERTEN: 3 Slams, 1 YEC, 5 Masters, 3 ATP 500, 7 ATP 250
HEWITT: 2 Slams, 2 YEC, 2 Masters, 2 ATP 500, 22 ATP 250
SAFIN: 2 Slams, 5 Masters, 1 ATP 500, 7 ATP 500
RAFTER: 2 Slams, 2 Masters, 1 ATP 500, 6 ATP 250

As you can see, Kuerten, Hewitt, and even Safin all have fuller non-Slam resumes; Rafter is close, with that extra Masters but fewer lower level titles. And of course Stan isn't done: maybe he wins a couple more Masters and ATP 500s to flesh things out.

But here's the point: Stan became an elite player at age 28, which is unheard of. Before that he wasn't even Tomas Berdych, he was closer to John Isner or Nicolas Almagro...and maybe not even quite that. But things started coming together for him around age 27-28 (2013) and he went from being a top 20ish guy to a top 10 guy; but then in 2014, he jumped even higher and won his first Slam just before turning 29 years old. Since then--a span of three years and 12 Slams--he's won more Slams than anyone on tour except for Novak Djokovic.

This is my long-winded way of saying that I think the reason Stan doesn't get flak for losing big matches, is because his success was so unexpected and unusual. It isn't unheard of for players to have peak years in their late 20s or jump a notch later in their career; David Ferrer is a case in point. But it is completely unique to go from being a perennial #20ish ranked player (what I call 3rd tier) to #10ish (2nd tier) at age 28 AND #5ish and a multi-Slam winner (1st tier) after that.

To put all of this another way, Stan started winning Slams at an older age than the LAST Slams won by Becker, Edberg, Wilander, McEnroe, and Borg. He is truly one of a kind and, through his uniqueness, has somehow evaded the usual criticisms that top players face.

Hey; I've already said let's not even mention Borg's name when discussing Murray! Borg won 90% percent of his "major" matches, ending with 11 SLAMS which is almost half played before he turned 27! In comparison, Murray woefully underachieved and can't even wallow in the wake of a Courier who held the #1 ranking for quite a while waiting for Sampras to come into his own! Come on; all those players outshone Andy! Mon Dieu! IMO there's only one thing he has a chance to make a real name for himself and that completing a CGS and it doesn't look like that's going to happen! uzzled :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover - - http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - -

 

[El Dude]

Huh? Who is comparing Borg and Andy? That's silly and completely beside the point of my post.

 

[TennisFanatic7]

Stan is much more effective as a sniper than a front runner. He gets great kudos for his remarkable victories, and never really catches much flak for his absences in big matches.

An interesting view; I hadn't thought of it that way, but I think it could hold water. If true, the reason could be that Stan has such an unusual career in that if you take away his three best tournaments, or even just his three best matches, he goes from being a three-Slam winner to a career similar to a second tier player like Tomas Berdych's. Consider:

STAN: 3 Slams, 1 Masters, 3 ATP 500s, 8 ATP 250s

TOMAS: 0 Slams, 1 Masters, 3 ATP 500s, 9 ATP 250s

Now of course you could argue that, duh, you can't take away Stan's Slams, so the comparison is meaningless. But compare, for instance, Andy:

ANDY: 3 Slams, 14 Masters, 2 Olympic Golds, 8 ATP 500s, 16 ATP 250s

Andy's title count, aside from same number of Slams, is vastly better than Stan's. And of course he's not a great comparison because Andy has the overall resume closer to a 6-Slam winner like Edberg or Becker. But look at other recent 2-3 Slam winners:

KUERTEN: 3 Slams, 1 YEC, 5 Masters, 3 ATP 500, 7 ATP 250
HEWITT: 2 Slams, 2 YEC, 2 Masters, 2 ATP 500, 22 ATP 250
SAFIN: 2 Slams, 5 Masters, 1 ATP 500, 7 ATP 500
RAFTER: 2 Slams, 2 Masters, 1 ATP 500, 6 ATP 250

As you can see, Kuerten, Hewitt, and even Safin all have fuller non-Slam resumes; Rafter is close, with that extra Masters but fewer lower level titles. And of course Stan isn't done: maybe he wins a couple more Masters and ATP 500s to flesh things out.

But here's the point: Stan became an elite player at age 28, which is unheard of. Before that he wasn't even Tomas Berdych, he was closer to John Isner or Nicolas Almagro...and maybe not even quite that. But things started coming together for him around age 27-28 (2013) and he went from being a top 20ish guy to a top 10 guy; but then in 2014, he jumped even higher and won his first Slam just before turning 29 years old. Since then--a span of three years and 12 Slams--he's won more Slams than anyone on tour except for Novak Djokovic.

This is my long-winded way of saying that I think the reason Stan doesn't get flak for losing big matches, is because his success was so unexpected and unusual. It isn't unheard of for players to have peak years in their late 20s or jump a notch later in their career; David Ferrer is a case in point. But it is completely unique to go from being a perennial #20ish ranked player (what I call 3rd tier) to #10ish (2nd tier) at age 28 AND #5ish and a multi-Slam winner (1st tier) after that.

To put all of this another way, Stan started winning Slams at an older age than the LAST Slams won by Becker, Edberg, Wilander, McEnroe, and Borg. He is truly one of a kind and, through his uniqueness, has somehow evaded the usual criticisms that top players face.

Hey; I've already said let's not even mention Borg's name when discussing Murray! Borg won 90% percent of his "major" matches, ending with 11 SLAMS which is almost half played before he turned 27! In comparison, Murray woefully underachieved and can't even wallow in the wake of a Courier who held the #1 ranking for quite a while waiting for Sampras to come into his own! Come on; all those players outshone Andy! Mon Dieu! IMO there's only one thing he has a chance to make a real name for himself and that completing a CGS and it doesn't look like that's going to happen! uzzled :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover

What's this obsession with Murray and comparing him to people who are contenders for all time GOAT? He's obviously not in that bracket so why keep comparing him to Borg or Fedalovic?

Murray is what he is - a multiple slam winner, double Olympic champion and a world number 1, no matter how briefly that turns out to be. He is below the likes of Borg and Federer but above the likes of Wawrinka and that's what he is. It would make more sense to compare him to the players mentioned by El Dude - the likes of Hewitt and Kuerten - because that's the bracket he's in.

In terms of making a name for himself, he's already done that, whether he wins more majors or he never even wins another ATP 250.

 

[Busted]

Stan is much more effective as a sniper than a front runner. He gets great kudos for his remarkable victories, and never really catches much flak for his absences in big matches. So he faces murray with less pressure on him than Andy faces. The beauty of the round robin, Andy could wind up second, and face a huge duel with Novak in the semis. That'll be great. Once we get the Andy-Novak match somewhere, it'll be worth it...

Stan's a total head case and easily the most inconsistent multiple slam winner in men's tennis history. He's making Marat Safin's mental holidays look like nothing in comparison. How can you win a Slam one week and then 3 weeks later not win a 250 event against the #27 ranked player - and then follow that up with a 2nd round Master loss (to #32), a 3rd round 250 ( to #72) loss and 1st round Masters (to #91) loss? How? With your head up your butt.

 

[Fiero425]

Huh? Who is comparing Borg and Andy? That's silly and completely beside the point of my post.

I'm offending by Borg's name appearing in the same post with the likes of a Murray! The only thing they have in common is they played the same game; 1 woefully beneath the level of the other! :angel: :dodgy: :cover

 

[El Dude]

Dude, you're hopeless.

 

[El Dude]

Stan is much more effective as a sniper than a front runner. He gets great kudos for his remarkable victories, and never really catches much flak for his absences in big matches. So he faces murray with less pressure on him than Andy faces. The beauty of the round robin, Andy could wind up second, and face a huge duel with Novak in the semis. That'll be great. Once we get the Andy-Novak match somewhere, it'll be worth it...

Stan's a total head case and easily the most inconsistent multiple slam winner in men's tennis history. He's making Marat Safin's mental holidays look like nothing in comparison. How can you win a Slam one week and then 3 weeks later not win a 250 event against the #27 ranked player - and then follow that up with a 2nd round Master loss (to #32), a 3rd round 250 ( to #72) loss and 1st round Masters (to #91) loss? How? With your head up your butt.

That's one narrative that, I think, has some truth to it. But let me present a different one. First of all, we have to remember who Stan was before 2013. He finished 2012 as a 27-year old who had briefly sniffed the top 10 four years previously but essentially stablized as a #20ish player, having finished 2008-2012 at #13, #21, #21, #17, #17; further, he had only won three ATP 250s. 27 year olds rarely get better, so it seemed that Stan was who he was: a third tier player who ranked around #20 and won the occasional ATP 250.

Something changed in 2013. Someone with a better knowledge of the game can explain that, but what is clear is that Stan got better, and this was capped by his SF match against Novak which he narrowly lost in five sets. But then he did the unimaginable: he beat Rafael Nadal at the 2014 AO. At the time we were writing it off as a fluke, fueled by Rafa's injury. But Stan backed it up with a Masters title at Monte Carlo, beating Roger Federer in the final. He then followed it up with two more surprising Slam titles in 2015 and 2016.

Now if we look at Stan and we think "three-Slam winner" without understanding the context, we might think "inconsistent." But if we remember that up until he was 28 years old, he was basically a #20 player, we can look at his later success as being essentially the same player who is able to tap into a vast reservoir of talent at crucial times. We see a lesser version of this in Marin Cilic or even Marat Safin. In a way Stan is like the reverse Marat: Safin was an immensely talented young player, finishing his age 20 season at #2 (after a brief stint at #1), including a Slam title and two Masters. If you dial back to the end of 2000, there is no reason not to think that Safin would be the next dominant player with a good chance of being an all-time great. But Safin didn't have the consistency or focus. He was generally healthy and was an elite player from 2000-05, but he's more of the type of player you think Stan is. Stan is a bit different. I believe he was always considered talented, but by the time he was 27 he was accepted for what he was. This is why I think that what he's done over the last 3-4 years shouldn't be viewed as "horribly consistent" but "an unprecedented late peak."

 

[Puppet Master]

Seems David Goffin is in the wrong event. When will the challenger tour finals be played? :laydownlaughing
Anyways, both had like less than -10 W/UE differential, Djokovic essentially proving how over ranked Goffin is, even though he played horrifyingly bad himself, it has to be said. It will be interesting to see how things unfold from here, how hard will Nishikori choke in the semis :nono

 

[Fiero425]

Seems David Goffin is in the wrong event. When will the challenger tour finals be played? :laydownlaughing
Anyways, both had like less than -10 W/UE differential, Djokovic essentially proving how over ranked Goffin is, even though he played horrifyingly bad himself, it has to be said. It will be interesting to see how things unfold from here, how hard will Nishikori choke in the semis :nono

Goffin has no real weapon so his opponent can't be elite if he expects to compete! He's a solid enough player, but he'll be little more than other "also-rans" like Ferrer, Berdych, Gasquet, and Tsonga who have more talent and power! He's probably overachieving a little by breaking into the top 10, but it won't last unfortunately! He was not ready to play in this event and probably didn't think he would even appear in a single match! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

- - http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - -

 

[the AntiPusher]

Seems David Goffin is in the wrong event. When will the challenger tour finals be played? :laydownlaughing
Anyways, both had like less than -10 W/UE differential, Djokovic essentially proving how over ranked Goffin is, even though he played horrifyingly bad himself, it has to be said. It will be interesting to see how things unfold from here, how hard will Nishikori choke in the semis :nono

PM, I was in Cincy last year and saw Goffin really take it to Novak..maybe Obi Wan had a bad day..I saw Novak had a hissy fit over getting the Rafa rules enforced on him:nono

 

[10isfan]

Murray should be praying Thiem beats Raonic so he does not meet Raonic in the semi.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Murray should be praying Thiem beats Raonic so he does not meet Raonic in the semi.

Murray has always done well against net touching cheater. Andy is not worried about him.

 

[Carol]

My goodness, tennis is going through weird times......:huh:

 

[the AntiPusher]

My goodness, tennis is going through weird times......:huh:

Murray, Federer, Djoker and Nadal has had the best run of any big Four when they are all healthy and at their best. Since there hasn't been any super teenagers since 2004-2005 Nadal, we are forced to wait till these aging champions are able to consistently reinvent their games with only a few exceptions to challenge them at grand slams, (Cilic, Stan and JMDP). So it continues..that's what is so weird

 

[El Dude]

I don't know what people expected from Goffin: he is what he is, a third tier player along the lines of Almagro, Isner, Gasquet, Tipsarevic, etc. He might get lucky and the stars align for a Masters title, but more likely he'll win half a dozen low level tournaments and maybe dip into the top 10 for short spells. One of this strengths, though, is consistency. Like Ferrer, but at a lower level, he has a solid "floor" level: he's the opposite a more talented head-case like Monfils, always able to perform at a solid level but never showing Monfils' (occasional) brilliance. This means almost any player in the top 50 or so can beat him on a good day, and that he'll occasionally beat a top 10 (second tier) type, but that he'll rarely--if ever--beat a true elite. Right now he's got wins against Monfils, Wawrinka, Berdych, and Raonic among top 10 players...which I think is a rather telling list (i.e. no Big Four).

 

[herios]

This was a nice job by Milos. Well done. :clap