I'm going to take this one, point by point.
dante1976 said:
He was very, very lucky and that's all
I disagree. He played great against Novak in the Roland Garros final and Rafa at the 2014 AO. Yes, Rafa was injured, but Stan was more than holding his own before the injury.
dante1976 said:
Yes he improved a lot but with healthy Delpo and Soderling (both of them can hit even harder than him imho) I doubt that he would even come close winning a slam
And somehow, magically, Delpo or Soderling would have blocked Stan at both Slams, playing their best tennis and Stan slipping? Come on. Anyhow, I think Stan's very highest level is higher than Soderling's, probably Delpo's as well.
dante1976 said:
He holds awful H2H record with all big players so his "consistency" is not that good (from the end of 2013 definitely better but still). Enormously hyped player and that's about it
This has more to do with the fact that he broke out late. He was a top 20 player until 2013 when jumped into the top 10, then worked his way up into the top 5 in 2014. Since the beginning of 2014, here are his H2Hs against the Big Four:
Rafa: 2-0
Novak: 2-3
Roger: 2-4
Andy: 0-0
So over the last two seasons he's 6-7 against Rafa, Novak, and Roger. Also, note that he's 2-0 in his last two meetings vs Andy, but those are back in 2013.
dante1976 said:
I lol big time when someone try to make him greater than Andy for example, because Murray is top 5 player for almost a decade with tons of 1000 masters titles and 8 GS finals
and basically Andy is such a good "comparison tool" to consider Stan as a "very lucky GS winner" (and he got lucky 2 times which is better than Cilic ofc but pretty much the "similar league"
). Oh and add a fact that 99% of "Fedalistas" hype/support him 'cause of that RG 2015 win which prevents Djokos CYGS
Great one handed backhand and (in some rarely times) very good "attacking mindset" but I doubt he will raise himself above all the hype and possibly win another GS.
This is just silly. No one is saying that's better than Andy, although I think he has been better than Andy over the last two years and he is arguably as good or a better player right now. But Andy has a better career.
Obviously not all two-Slam winners are equal. Consider the players who have won two Slams during the Open Era: Ilie Nastase, Stan Smith, Johan Kriek, Sergiy Bruguera, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Patrick Rafter, Marat Safin, Lleyton Hewitt, Andy Murray, and Stan Wawrinka. Looking at that list, I think the best overall players in terms of career accomplishments are either Nastase, Hewitt, or Murray. The worst overall players are probably Kriek and Bruguera; Kriek won his two Slams at the Australian Open just before it got really competitive and Bruguera was a clay-courts specialist who was mediocre on grass and hard courts.
Stan might be after Kriek and Bruguera, below Smith, Kafelnikov, Rafter, and Safin. But this has a lot to do with era and the fact that Stan blossomed so late. If Stan wins another Slam, all of a sudden he's got three Slams and is another category. But of course it is important to remember that Slam titles isn't the only marker of greatness. For instance, Jan Kodes has three Slams but he was an inferior player to his two-Slam peers Nastase and Smith.
Anyhow, Stan is somewhat unique in tennis history. He started peaking at age 28 when most players are starting to decline. After Novak, Roger, and Andy, he's probably as good a bet as any to win a Slam in 2016. When he finds his best level he is pretty hard to beat. I'd even say that his best level is better than Andy's, but he's less consistent.
