Murray v. Wawrinka - As it stands

[Ricardo]

I am being repetitive about the "peak Wawrinka > peak Murray", but after yesterday I think I can correct it to:

peak Wawrinka >> peak Murray

peak Stan > peak Novak/Nadal.

Best offence still edges best defence imo.

 

[Ricardo]

Yes but since it is all about coulda woulda I think it's fair to use Stan's track record in finals to say that chances are pretty damn good that he wasn't going to flinch hard. Immediately after the match Nadal nuts were screaming bloody murder to anyone saying Stan may have won anyways. They pointed out he had done nothing up until that point and was a known choker. Well given that he beat the 3-time defending AO champion in a 5 set thriller and has now gone onto show that he plays like a superhuman on the big stage, it's fair to say in retrospect that he was probably not going to choke it away. If Rafa was going to win he probably would've had to earn it in a huge way. A solid chance that Rafa would've come back from a set and break down? I'd say well under 50%.

Novak has aged extremely well, so yes the tennis he is playing now isn't really any worse than it was in 2012 or 2013, years in which he only won 1 slam and lost #1 to 31 year old Federer for a couple months and then Nadal for the year in 2013. I don't think Nole lost to Murray in 2013 because he was tired either just to make that clear, but I find the argument that Stan won because Nole is injured to be equally as weak.

And the 2012 AO is actually not an example that works in your favor here, he clearly was flat vs. Nadal for much of that final but pulled it out anyways. I felt the same way about the 2009 final with Roger losing to Rafa. At various points in that match it was clear Rafa was struggling with the effects of the brawl with Verdasco. In 2012 it was similar for Nole after the Murray brawl. Those losses were pretty damning to the loser because of that. Fatigue is real, these guys are human, but here's the problem...it's still just an excuse and you can't truly estimate the total impact it has on a player in a given match, just like injuries.

Forget trying to explain to Moxie, she has no common sense and is only capable of agendas. There must be a reason why Stan since years ago has either beaten or come close to beaten Novak in every slam they met, on all surfaces except grass.

And it couldn't be that Novak happened to be lame in some way in all of those matches.

You know when she does't like someone, she'll make up absolutely everything and anything in her argument.

Anybody who is fair can see that Stan has won his slams as tough as it gets. He has had to go through Novak every time, and beaten Nadal and Fed at least once in all the slams he won. He's really gone through the sternest test yet some would be thick skinned enough to try to discredit his wins.....just disgusting.

 

[Federberg]

All this is "woulda coulda" that's exactly my point. I just think that the injury and fatigue excuses are always pretty similar. It's tough to say how much any injury affected Novak yesterday aside from what appeared to be very brief issues at the start of the 4th set. Did Nole play any worse yesterday than he did in the 2015 RG final when he definitely had no physical issues? I don't think there was a huge difference, he served poorly in both and Stan just ended up overpowering him from the baseline which appears to be something only he is capable of. I actually think Djokovic was hitting cleaner yesterday, in the 2015 final his forehand was harmless.

I do disagree that winning a career slam is not a big deal. Being able to get it done on the big stage on all the surfaces has to count for something IMO. And even though it pains me that's why I'd have Nadal ahead of Sampras despite being a way less dominant #1 (which I think is the 2nd biggest thing in tennis next to slams).

I guess we have a difference of opinion. Yes it shows versatility on different surfaces although I would argue that the meaning of that is somewhat different in this era than say in Borg's era which immediately devalues it as a cross-era comparison. For me dominance of the field is a far more important standard to measure players against. Far more important for me to be honest... not even close. Sampras was an absolute alpha dog, Rafa was not. In my mind Novak has been the true successor to Federer's dominance because we haven't had a really sustained period of Rafa dominance. This is why it would take one more slam for Rafa to edge past the Pistol in my mind. Just think about it... right now is there any doubt in anyone's mind about who the alpha dog of mens tennis is? In the past we've felt the same way about Connors, Borg, Mac, Llendl, Edberg, Sampras, Hewitt, Federer. Note the names which are missing... Wilander and Nadal. When they were number ones, you could put it down to a strong streak, they never settled into persistant dominance, everyone knew it. That's a valuable quality as far as I'm concerned, just my opinion of course

 

[Federberg]

I am being repetitive about the "peak Wawrinka > peak Murray", but after yesterday I think I can correct it to:

peak Wawrinka >> peak Murray

hard to argue with that.
But overall we still have give Murray the edge over the rest of the field and general consistency

 

[Federberg]

^btw.. maybe I let my Edberg fandom include him in that list But he was oddly more dominant than Becker despite the match up in Boris' favour

 

[britbox]

^btw.. maybe I let my Edberg fandom include him in that list But he was oddly more dominant than Becker despite the match up in Boris' favour

But 3-1 over Boris in the grand slams.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I don't see how it's close. Murray's had a significantly better career.

 

[brokenshoelace]

And, at the risk of being controversial, (hehe), Murray has, I believe, played all of his Major finals against Roger and Novak, and both in good form. Stan has played two of his three in which the opponent was hampered enough for the commentators to wonder if they would retire, not a small thing. Does anyone else consider this a mitigating factor? Personally, I do.

Nah.

There's more to majors than strictly the final. Stan beat Djokovic on his way to the 2014 AO final anyway, which is a huge achievement in its own right. And when did Novak's injury appear? When he was down two sets to 1?

I don't want to revisit the Nadal debate, but Stan was already up a set. Now, you know where I stand on this (basically that it's ridiculous for people to assume Stan was anything over a 55% favorite to win that match at that point had Nadal stayed healthy), but he still got the job done.

 

[brokenshoelace]

peak Stan > peak Novak/Nadal.

Best offence still edges best defence imo.

Tennis isn't nearly that simple, and I don't think the above true.

For starters, "peak" Stan is something that has happened once a year for the past 3 years only. whereas "peak Nadal" or "peak Djokovic" happened for months at a time, multiple times (which amounts to years).

Secondly, you're punishing Nadal and Djokovic for being flat out better tennis players. In other words, they don't need to have the sort of performance Wawrinka did at say, the FO final in 2015 to win, so a lot of the times they're racking up majors without looking like they're playing out of their mind, and you naturally believe that's their peak (and it is) because they're winning so much.

Meanwhile, you're looking at Stan's majors as his peak (rightfully), but you're ignoring that he had to play out of his mind throughout (less so this US Open, to be fair) to win, because anything less would probably not have been enough.

For this to be a fairer comparison, you need to look at matches in which Novak and Nadal looked sensational even by their standards. When that happens, the big difference is, no matter who they're playing against, it's usually not much of a contest (see Nadal vs. Djokovic and Federer at the FO in 2008) for instance, or Novak vs. Nadal in Rome on clay in 2011.

Plus, I still think Stan's second best performance ever was against Novak at the AO in 2013...a match he lost, to a guy whose peak you're saying is inferior to Stan's. And yeah, I believe Stan played better in that match than he did in every other match in which he's beaten Novak except for the 2015 FO final which was one of the best displays I've seen by anyone ever.

 

[DarthFed]

Nah.

There's more to majors than strictly the final. Stan beat Djokovic on his way to the 2014 AO final anyway, which is a huge achievement in its own right. And when did Novak's injury appear? When he was down two sets to 1?

I don't want to revisit the Nadal debate, but Stan was already up a set. Now, you know where I stand on this (basically that it's ridiculous for people to assume Stan was anything over a 55% favorite to win that match at that point had Nadal stayed healthy), but he still got the job done.

I'd gladly take those odds (only 55%) for Stan up a set and a break given what we've seen from him on the big stage. I know matchups are a big thing but he was taking it to Rafa and this was days after he beat someone who is leagues better than Rafa on slow hardcourts. Basically the argument is that Stan would have choked hard.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I'd gladly take those odds (only 55%) for Stan up a set and a break given what we've seen from him on the big stage. I know matchups are a big thing but he was taking it to Rafa and this was days after he beat someone who is leagues better than Rafa on slow hardcourts. Basically the argument is that Stan would have choked hard.

Well, 55% odds means he was the favorite to win that match at that point even against a healthy Rafa, which I'm conceding (since I arbitrarily came up with those odds anyway).

But to me, to even begin to act like a grand slam final between a new-comer to that stage (meaning Stan's first grand slam final) and a then 13 time major winner was a done deal after the former won the first set is ludicrous and you have to concede that as well. The nature of the two players makes it an even more egregious proposition. Stan, at that point, was someone who's prone to falling apart (and in fact still is). Meanwhile, Nadal is perhaps history's best player at clawing his way back into matches and problem solving. Hell, he took a set while barely moving in the match in question...

After Novak went up two sets to 1 against Nadal in the 2012 AO final, would anyone in their wildest dreams have thought Nadal had a chance in hell in that match, especially given the events leading up to it in the previous year? And yet, not only did he come back into it against a player with a mental edge over him and a far more difficult match-up than Stan, he almost had it won then choked hard himself.

It's not like it required an all time choke from Stan either. Nadal wasn't playing well at all up until that point (and wasn't being allowed to, in fairness), so a raise in level on his end, couple with a drop in level on Stan's end (which happened after Nadal's injury anyway) could have been all that is required.

Again, I refuse to even begin to contemplate that Rafael Nadal, down a set against a guy he had beaten 11 straight times without dropping a single set in a grand slam final, was anything less than a slight underdog at that point.

 

[DarthFed]

Well, 55% odds means he was the favorite to win that match at that point even against a healthy Rafa, which I'm conceding (since I arbitrarily came up with those odds anyway).

But to me, to even begin to act like a grand slam final between a new-comer to that stage (meaning Stan's first grand slam final) and a then 13 time major winner was a done deal after the former won the first set is ludicrous and you have to concede that as well. The nature of the two players makes it an even more egregious proposition. Stan, at that point, was someone who's prone to falling apart (and in fact still is). Meanwhile, Nadal is perhaps history's best player at clawing his way back into matches and problem solving. Hell, he took a set while barely moving in the match in question...

After Novak went up two sets to 1 against Nadal in the 2012 AO final, would anyone in their wildest dreams have thought Nadal had a chance in hell in that match, especially given the events leading up to it in the previous year? And yet, not only did he come back into it against a player with a mental edge over him and a far more difficult match-up than Stan, he almost had it won then choked hard himself.

It's not like it required an all time choke from Stan either. Nadal wasn't playing well at all up until that point (and wasn't being allowed to, in fairness), so a raise in level on his end, couple with a drop in level on Stan's end (which happened after Nadal's injury anyway) could have been all that is required.

Again, I refuse to even begin to contemplate that Rafael Nadal, down a set against a guy he had beaten 11 straight times without dropping a single set in a grand slam final, was anything less than a slight underdog at that point.

It definitely wasn't a done deal and I never said as much. My argument is with those Rafa nuts that seem to think it was a given that he would've rallied and they base it off of what we saw from Stan before he won his first major. You are not in that camp, though we do disagree on the odds at a set and a break down (not just a set).

The point is Stan had already turned the corner by beating Novak at his dominant slam and though we can't truly talk in retrospect I think the fact that he has gone onto win 2 other slams with huge performances against Novak, Roger and others shows that he probably wasn't going to hand it to Rafa. Rafa may have come back and who knows, maybe that day Stan would've gagged and got run over, but what we saw at the 2014 AO and after shows that it was probably not going to happen (Stan choking that is). Yes he lost a set but we've seen many times where players can get unnerved when their opponent is clearly injured.

 

[Moxie]

Yes but since it is all about coulda woulda I think it's fair to use Stan's track record in finals to say that chances are pretty damn good that he wasn't going to flinch hard. Immediately after the match Nadal nuts were screaming bloody murder to anyone saying Stan may have won anyways. They pointed out he had done nothing up until that point and was a known choker. Well given that he beat the 3-time defending AO champion in a 5 set thriller and has now gone onto show that he plays like a superhuman on the big stage, it's fair to say in retrospect that he was probably not going to choke it away. If Rafa was going to win he probably would've had to earn it in a huge way. A solid chance that Rafa would've come back from a set and break down? I'd say well under 50%.

Novak has aged extremely well, so yes the tennis he is playing now isn't really any worse than it was in 2012 or 2013, years in which he only won 1 slam and lost #1 to 31 year old Federer for a couple months and then Nadal for the year in 2013. I don't think Nole lost to Murray in 2013 because he was tired either just to make that clear, but I find the argument that Stan won because Nole is injured to be equally as weak.

And the 2012 AO is actually not an example that works in your favor here, he clearly was flat vs. Nadal for much of that final but pulled it out anyways. I felt the same way about the 2009 final with Roger losing to Rafa. At various points in that match it was clear Rafa was struggling with the effects of the brawl with Verdasco. In 2012 it was similar for Nole after the Murray brawl. Those losses were pretty damning to the loser because of that. Fatigue is real, these guys are human, but here's the problem...it's still just an excuse and you can't truly estimate the total impact it has on a player in a given match, just like injuries.

It definitely wasn't a done deal and I never said as much. My argument is with those Rafa nuts that seem to think it was a given that he would've rallied and they base it off of what we saw from Stan before he won his first major. You are not in that camp, though we do disagree on the odds at a set and a break down (not just a set).

The point is Stan had already turned the corner by beating Novak at his dominant slam and though we can't truly talk in retrospect I think the fact that he has gone onto win 2 other slams with huge performances against Novak, Roger and others shows that he probably wasn't going to hand it to Rafa. Rafa may have come back and who knows, maybe that day Stan would've gagged and got run over, but what we saw at the 2014 AO and after shows that it was probably not going to happen (Stan choking that is). Yes he lost a set but we've seen many times where players can get unnerved when their opponent is clearly injured.

I still think you're looking at this retrospectively. An example: Nadal was down a break to Djokovic in the 2012 FO final in the 4th, when the rain stopped them. He came back to win in 4, and the set where Novak led was nullified. He also came back to win the 3rd set against Djokovic in the USO 2013. An early break is not that deadly, especially off grass. I am not one of those people you are accusing of insisting Nadal would have won that match, which I never have, only that it was not a given he'd have lost it, anyway. Rafa is not the closer he was, but Stan was also not the beast he can be now. I don't love the alternative universe conversations, but it's worth keeping in mind the reality on the ground at the time.

 

[Moxie]

I guess we have a difference of opinion. Yes it shows versatility on different surfaces although I would argue that the meaning of that is somewhat different in this era than say in Borg's era which immediately devalues it as a cross-era comparison. For me dominance of the field is a far more important standard to measure players against. Far more important for me to be honest... not even close. Sampras was an absolute alpha dog, Rafa was not. In my mind Novak has been the true successor to Federer's dominance because we haven't had a really sustained period of Rafa dominance. This is why it would take one more slam for Rafa to edge past the Pistol in my mind. Just think about it... right now is there any doubt in anyone's mind about who the alpha dog of mens tennis is? In the past we've felt the same way about Connors, Borg, Mac, Llendl, Edberg, Sampras, Hewitt, Federer. Note the names which are missing... Wilander and Nadal. When they were number ones, you could put it down to a strong streak, they never settled into persistant dominance, everyone knew it. That's a valuable quality as far as I'm concerned, just my opinion of course

I know a lot of you guys value dominance, but, if you remember back, Rafa was the alpha dog in many ways, and for a lot of years. It's a question if you value it only by weeks at #1. And not for nothing, he was #1 for over 2 years (141 weeks) and is still #7 on the list. But I think you should factor in other criteria, and also just remember the vibe, at the time. Even when Roger was #1, Nadal had his number, and that of most of the field. He was the cock of the walk in many ways. Being younger, it took him time to make up ground on Roger, but he became #1 at 22. No one has ever had to win 5 Slams before becoming #1, which speaks to Roger's dominance, but it also tells us what the younger Nadal was up against. He won a Major in each of 10 consecutive years. No one has done that, not even non-consecutive, if I'm not wrong. He dealt with Roger, and everyone else for a lot of years. And just when it looked like he'd have the field to himself, and a breath, Novak found the magic bullet to his game.
I don't think it's fair to say that Nadal was never dominant. Firstly, he was for 141 weeks. Secondly, he was dominating the field, and his strongest rival, in Roger. Thirdly, Fed did have a bit of time without strong opponents, and Djokovic has had a period with a waning Roger and Rafa. Nice gig, if you can get it. Nadal, however, had really only 2010 to himself. He didn't dominate enough for you? He's dominated Federer, and he had the H2H against Djoker until just a few months ago. I think you people grade on a single-minded and not completely interesting curve. One single stat can reduce us to the simplest answer, but it doesn't always reveal the truth.

 

[DarthFed]

I know a lot of you guys value dominance, but, if you remember back, Rafa was the alpha dog in many ways, and for a lot of years. It's a question if you value it only by weeks at #1. And not for nothing, he was #1 for over 2 years (141 weeks) and is still #7 on the list. But I think you should factor in other criteria, and also just remember the vibe, at the time. Even when Roger was #1, Nadal had his number, and that of most of the field. He was the cock of the walk in many ways. Being younger, it took him time to make up ground on Roger, but he became #1 at 22. No one has ever had to win 5 Slams before becoming #1, which speaks to Roger's dominance, but it also tells us what the younger Nadal was up against. He won a Major in each of 10 consecutive years. No one has done that, not even non-consecutive, if I'm not wrong. He dealt with Roger, and everyone else for a lot of years. And just when it looked like he'd have the field to himself, and a breath, Novak found the magic bullet to his game.
I don't think it's fair to say that Nadal was never dominant. Firstly, he was for 141 weeks. Secondly, he was dominating the field, and his strongest rival, in Roger. Thirdly, Fed did have a bit of time without strong opponents, and Djokovic has had a period with a waning Roger and Rafa. Nice gig, if you can get it. Nadal, however, had really only 2010 to himself. He didn't dominate enough for you? He's dominated Federer, and he had the H2H against Djoker until just a few months ago. I think you people grade on a single-minded and not completely interesting curve. One single stat can reduce us to the simplest answer, but it doesn't always reveal the truth.

He simply was not a dominant #1 anywhere near as long as Roger and Nole. Rafa was clearly the best in 2008 and then by mid-2009 he was out with injury and Roger was the best player, then 2010 he was the best by far but then in 2011 Nole owned him to historic proportions, then 2013 he briefly got back to #1 and was the best player albeit by a slight amount, then 2014 Nole wrestled it away quickly. H2H's are nice but it is ultimately the whole field that a player is up against. Rafa owned the H2H vs. Roger from the start but he was not anywhere near the player Roger was until 2008. And after 2011 he is not anywhere near the player Nole is aside from the resurgent 2013.

Roger and Nole both have a lot more weeks at #1 and both are about to be on 5 year ends as #1 to Rafa's 3. Rafa's run of 10 years in a row with a slam is remarkable but a lot of those were just 1 slam years, no one would say Rafa was dominant in 2005-2007, 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2014.

 

[DarthFed]

I still think you're looking at this retrospectively. An example: Nadal was down a break to Djokovic in the 2012 FO final in the 4th, when the rain stopped them. He came back to win in 4, and the set where Novak led was nullified. He also came back to win the 3rd set against Djokovic in the USO 2013. An early break is not that deadly, especially off grass. I am not one of those people you are accusing of insisting Nadal would have won that match, which I never have, only that it was not a given he'd have lost it, anyway. Rafa is not the closer he was, but Stan was also not the beast he can be now. I don't love the alternative universe conversations, but it's worth keeping in mind the reality on the ground at the time.

I am looking at it retrospectively but given Stan's record in the big matches since 2014 I think it's fair to do that. The narrative before and even after the 2014 AO is that Stan was a bit of a basket case who was not a real contender at slams. He turned the corner by beating Novak and, with his new found belief and his sudden penchant for turning up big when it counts, he was pummeling Rafa. Given what we've seen from Stan since the start of 2014 I do believe it is a stretch to think Stan chokes that match. It doesn't mean that Rafa would've surely lost but I think he would've had to step it up big and basically play better than we've seen him play for the past few years.

But anyways this is a pointless argument, I won't bother estimating the % chance of Stan winning vs. a healthy Nadal. I just will say I think it is well over 50% at a set and break up with the way he was going and having the confidence of beating a much better hardcourt player than he was facing in the final.

And what started all this was the comment that Stan has had it easier in his slam wins than Murray has. I will just say you are in the vast minority there.

 

[Billie]

AS it stands, it's not an issue with me. Andy has had a much better career. Stan is like a rare flower that blooms once in a year (and only the last 3 years at that) for a short period of time, is so bright and beautiful but fades quickly, while Andy has had years of getting to major finals and winning masters titles. His ranking has been higher for the most part of their respective career. Even Stan laughed it off when it was mentioned in the presser after the match, for basically the same reasons.

 

[Billie]

I agree, Stan did not have anything easy in any of his finals. I don't think it is easy to win any major, no matter what the competition is. Maybe sometimes luck plays a hand in it, but still, a lot good needs to happen for a player throughout 2 weeks to emerge as a winner. Stan knows, his coach admitted this several times, that he cannot compete with the best throughout the whole year, but any given match he feels he can beat anybody. Which is really true.

BTW Andy made 3 major finals this year alone, which is a total that Stan has reached so far in his career. So it caught up with him at USO, as we could all see. No, it's not an excuse, it is just a reality of long and exhausting tennis season. What did Stan do in majors from FO in 2015 until USO 2016? Stan is a great player and he can shine from time to time, but I would say this is over-reacting a bit. It's not like he didn't lose to top players numerous times before.

 

[Moxie]

He simply was not a dominant #1 anywhere near as long as Roger and Nole. Rafa was clearly the best in 2008 and then by mid-2009 he was out with injury and Roger was the best player, then 2010 he was the best by far but then in 2011 Nole owned him to historic proportions, then 2013 he briefly got back to #1 and was the best player albeit by a slight amount, then 2014 Nole wrestled it away quickly. H2H's are nice but it is ultimately the whole field that a player is up against. Rafa owned the H2H vs. Roger from the start but he was not anywhere near the player Roger was until 2008. And after 2011 he is not anywhere near the player Nole is aside from the resurgent 2013.

Roger and Nole both have a lot more weeks at #1 and both are about to be on 5 year ends as #1 to Rafa's 3. Rafa's run of 10 years in a row with a slam is remarkable but a lot of those were just 1 slam years, no one would say Rafa was dominant in 2005-2007, 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2014.

He hasn't had the #1 for as long as Roger and Novak for the reasons that you and I both explain, including injury lay-offs that took his #1 away and gifted it back to Roger. "Not anywhere near the player Roger was until 2008?" That's debatable. He was perfectly near from 2005, as he was the #2 almost all that time, and he was just 19-22 yrs old in that period. And he began owning the h2h against everyone he played. He was dominating a great deal of the field. He just hadn't gotten his whole game together, while Roger had #1 to himself. You can't really say that Nadal wasn't making an effort. And he actually was "near" the player Nole was since 2011, since he topped him in several Major finals and SFs. It's not easy to "dominate" when you have other all-time greats in your time. But Roger had a time to himself before Rafa came up, and Novak is having a time on his own as they decline. Rafa, with that crucible, and the injury lay-offs, has dominated both in many aspects. I think there are other ways of defining dominance. But I know you'd rather chew glass than give Nadal his due.

 

[Moxie]

I am looking at it retrospectively but given Stan's record in the big matches since 2014 I think it's fair to do that. The narrative before and even after the 2014 AO is that Stan was a bit of a basket case who was not a real contender at slams. He turned the corner by beating Novak and, with his new found belief and his sudden penchant for turning up big when it counts, he was pummeling Rafa. Given what we've seen from Stan since the start of 2014 I do believe it is a stretch to think Stan chokes that match. It doesn't mean that Rafa would've surely lost but I think he would've had to step it up big and basically play better than we've seen him play for the past few years.

But anyways this is a pointless argument, I won't bother estimating the % chance of Stan winning vs. a healthy Nadal. I just will say I think it is well over 50% at a set and break up with the way he was going and having the confidence of beating a much better hardcourt player than he was facing in the final.

And what started all this was the comment that Stan has had it easier in his slam wins than Murray has. I will just say you are in the vast minority there.

You've already read Broken's post above and conceded to it, for the most part. A minority opinion isn't always wrong.