Is Stanimal the prototype for the future champion?

[brokenshoelace]

Actually, the OP may be on to something here. While this prototype may not be the best way to achieve success, this prototype seems to be the only way to achieve success in the era of Big Four by thwarting them.

Let us look at recent successes of Non-Big Four players and more importantly how they achieved it.

1. Stan: AO 14, MC 14, RG 15. In all cases he basically overpowered the opponent.

2. Cilic: USO 15, Essentially played lights out tennis to eliminate Roger (and others).

3. Tsonga: Toronto 14, He basically blew the field including Novak and Roger by big hitting.

In all cases, there was not much of finesse or head games involved. It is just raw power, redlining and lights out tennis. Seems to be the only way to succeed against the Big-4.

Thing is, this requires way too much perfection. That's sort of why I can't see it as a blueprint. Yes, in theory, if you redline your game, hit huge off of both wings, paint the lines, hit winners from ludicrous positions, serve like a giant, while keeping errors to a minimum, you're going to win.

well, i think then the question is what people are aiming for. Big Hitting definitely is not the way to sustained excellence a la Novak/Rafa/Roger. but who can really do that? winning a slam, or even two, on the other hand? it seems that the best chance is to hit Big (albeit with more spin than the bashers of old) and hope to be able to string it together for a full two weeks. so this might be A valid blueprint for a tier that we just didn't have for a while, the average Slam winner.

Absolutely, though the thread title stated "future champion" which I took as someone who's going to be a notch above the average slam winner.

 

[Federberg]

I think we're missing a trick here. Stan only has to redline (or apply his A+ game) against the monster movers. Every other player he can beat with his A or B game..

So I'm not so sure it's that infeasible to do. After all the due HAS done this now in 2 out of the last 6 slams. And as I've said before, his mentality now, after this particular victory, and in the way that he achieved it, may take him on to an entirely different plane of self belief

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

^ actually no, Stan's B game is not good enough to beat the rest of the tour consistently. check out his other results of those 18 months.

well, i think then the question is what people are aiming for. Big Hitting definitely is not the way to sustained excellence a la Novak/Rafa/Roger. but who can really do that? winning a slam, or even two, on the other hand? it seems that the best chance is to hit Big (albeit with more spin than the bashers of old) and hope to be able to string it together for a full two weeks. so this might be A valid blueprint for a tier that we just didn't have for a while, the average Slam winner.

Absolutely, though the thread title stated "future champion" which I took as someone who's going to be a notch above the average slam winner.

as did i, at first. i think the discussion benefits from making a distinction here.

 

[Federberg]

^B game for weaker players, A game for top 20 if you like. Bear in mind that in the last 18 months he's had personal issues and was coming to terms with being a major winner. Perhaps now he's confirmed his greatness he'll enjoy his place in the elite. Only speculation of course, the rest of the year will tell us a lot.

Thought this was an interesting read...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/11660963/Stan-Wawrinka-must-turn-attention-to-toppling-Big-Four.html

 

[Haelfix]

Stan is what I consider a bit of a throwback player to the early 2k mold of what it meant to be a good player.

Highly offensive tennis, with powerful shotmaking from both wings (including a rather deep bh hit radius), big serve, and the ability to hit return winners off the backhand wing. His rally strokes are construction based, to setup an offensive winner. This mold has mostly given way to the Spanish style and very few players who play this style are actively winning majors (other than Federer, Stan and kinda/sorta Cilic). By spanish style, I mean the very methodical grind/transition game meant to win the position war pretty much exemplified by David Ferrer.

We used to see a lot more players play this way. Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Safin, Nalbandian, and of course the most shining example perhaps of all time, Roger Federer.

I think the consensus is that like Broken said, this offensive style and many of its variants really requires such an enormous amount of high risk shotmaking talent that the only guy who has consistently been there is perhaps the worlds most singular talent.

Yes it can win majors, and yes it can beat the Nadal and Djokovics of the world when its at its best. BUt the percentages favor the former, and hence the ranking points lost makes it less and less relevant.

 

[Moxie]

Stan is what I consider a bit of a throwback player to the early 2k mold of what it meant to be a good player.

Highly offensive tennis, with powerful shotmaking from both wings (including a rather deep bh hit radius), big serve, and the ability to hit return winners off the backhand wing. His rally strokes are construction based, to setup an offensive winner. This mold has mostly given way to the Spanish style and very few players who play this style are actively winning majors (other than Federer, Stan and kinda/sorta Cilic). By spanish style, I mean the very methodical grind/transition game meant to win the position war pretty much exemplified by David Ferrer.

We used to see a lot more players play this way. Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Safin, Nalbandian, and of course the most shining example perhaps of all time, Roger Federer.

I think the consensus is that like Broken said, this offensive style and many of its variants really requires such an enormous amount of high risk shotmaking talent that the only guy who has consistently been there is perhaps the worlds most singular talent.

Yes it can win majors, and yes it can beat the Nadal and Djokovics of the world when its at its best. BUt the percentages favor the former, and hence the ranking points lost makes it less and less relevant.

Even Roger isn't exactly that guy. He's not the most powerful guy in tennis, and hits with a lot of spin, often, to buy the margin. He's always been more precision than power. We don't really have an example of a big, powerful, flat-hitter who has the consistency to keep it going for long enough, in this era of the baseline. Broken makes a good argument for Del Potro, if he could have kept it up. There is a level of confidence required to keep up the aggression, and to see the ball well-enough to keep hitting the lines. That's a rare player. Everyone is looking at you, Nick Kyrgios.

 

[Haelfix]

Federer from his prime was hitting pretty powerful strokes, but you are right he wasn't hitting the same type of power as Del Potro or Wawrinka, so its obviously much less ballbashy. Still its what I would call a pretty prototypical shotmaker. Whether its angles, or precise locations or heavy topspin or flat hitting, the design is to setup up offense and a winner, as opposed to forcing a mistake or to setup a few inches of better court position via an endless grinding rally. I mean Gonzalez hit with a ton of topspin on his forehand, but it was a winner almost every single time he could get a good crack at it.

I consider Stanislas and Federer to share a lot of developmental similarities in their games and I also consider their styles to be a bit dated. You don't see many young players adopting it. Even Kyrgios shares more in common with Safin and DelPotro then the Swiss players.

 

[Federberg]

I recall Murray's observations after his first match against Roger. He said that Federer's ground strokes weren't as powerful as he had expected, but his serve had far more bite than he had anticipated. I have never considered Roger a power hitter per se. His strengths were more towards accuracy and the extreme angles he could generate.

I'm not sure that Federer and Wawrinka are the same type of category player at all. The only thing they really have in common is the one handed backhand. As for throwbacks... I'm not so sure. The rationale for the double handed backhand in this day and age, is that it's far easier for kids growing up to obtain proficiency with a two hander. I would argue that Stan in particular with his rather more muscular one handed technique might be a guide for the potential of that shot in the modern age. If it works it is an extremely versatile style. Perhaps Thiem might become another exponent that we grow to respect in the coming years?