Roland Garros Day 2: Monday, May 26 - Order of Play

[GameSetAndMath]

Since becoming only the 2nd player outside Fedal, Djokovic and Murray to win a slam, Stan seems unable to find his mojo. His Oz trophy looks more and more to be a freak occurrence outside his normal game rather than the promise of better things to come.

Really thought he would step it up here.

OK. Give him a break. He won MC after OZ.

But it is terrible effort winning two games in the last two sets.

 

[Moxie]

Stan did say his back was bothering him in Rome. Maybe that would explain it. (I mean the lack of effort, not the loss.)

 

[brokenshoelace]

Since becoming only the 2nd player outside Fedal, Djokovic and Murray to win a slam, Stan seems unable to find his mojo. His Oz trophy looks more and more to be a freak occurrence outside his normal game rather than the promise of better things to come.

Really thought he would step it up here.

OK. Give him a break. He won MC after OZ.

But it is terrible effort winning two games in the last two sets.

I guess you could say this wasn't just "another day at the office" for Stan

 

[brokenshoelace]

Autamatic asterisk next to Nadal's RG win...He did not have to go through Stan The Man...:snigger

Now all I need is another asterisk, regarding not having to go through another, more menacing, player. If you know what i mean...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Stan did say his back was bothering him in Rome.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm............

Should I go there again?

 

[nehmeth]

Since becoming only the 2nd player outside Fedal, Djokovic and Murray to win a slam, Stan seems unable to find his mojo. His Oz trophy looks more and more to be a freak occurrence outside his normal game rather than the promise of better things to come.

Really thought he would step it up here.

Bit Harsh. He did win monte carlo!

I think we need to not compare him so much to the extreme consistency of Rafa, Novak, and Rog. He looks like he is the type of player who's form should be taken on a tourney by tourney basis. More like Andy who is capable of great and terrible tennis. Hence why Andy only won one slam and one master last year.

He did win MC. Maybe it's his back as moxie noted. Really thought he would step it up here and he did not.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Autamatic asterisk next to Nadal's RG win...He did not have to go through Stan The Man...:snigger

Now all I need is another asterisk, regarding not having to go through another, more menacing, player. If you know what i mean...

Hey, THAT asterisk is engraved on the cup itself, trust me...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Autamatic asterisk next to Nadal's RG win...He did not have to go through Stan The Man...:snigger

Now all I need is another asterisk, regarding not having to go through another, more menacing, player. If you know what i mean...

Hey, THAT asterisk is engraved on the cup itself, trust me...

Get somebody to take out Novak and I'll engrave that asterisk myself, I don't care.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Autamatic asterisk next to Nadal's RG win...He did not have to go through Stan The Man...:snigger

Now all I need is another asterisk, regarding not having to go through another, more menacing, player. If you know what i mean...

Hey, THAT asterisk is engraved on the cup itself, trust me...

Get somebody to take out Novak and I'll engrave that asterisk myself, I don't care.

Exactly what I said when Roger won...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Stan was defending quarter-final points but I don't see it being a big deal since David is defending final's points. He'll probably still be in the top 4 before Wimby, unless Birdman does something drastic.

 

[TennisFanatic7]

So who still thinks it was right for Stan to have shorter odds than Roger?

 

[Riotbeard]

So who still thinks it was right for Stan to have shorter odds than Roger?

Me. I still can't see fed getting through Rafa and Novak on clay in best of 5. Everybody not named rafael or Novak should have pretty long odds mind you, so it's kind of splitting hairs. I also have expressed the opinion that stan would be much more likely to go out early in a baffling loss than roger, and roger is more likely to go deep, but the odds only speak to the likelihood they win the entire tournament. Unless Fed wins, nothing has been proven. I would guess most odds makers would have stated Roger has a better chance of going deep in the tournament than stan, but stan has a better shot if he gets to the business end.

 

[TennisFanatic7]

So who still thinks it was right for Stan to have shorter odds than Roger?

Me. I still can't see fed getting through Rafa and Novak on clay in best of 5. Everybody not named rafael or Novak should have pretty long odds mind you, so it's kind of splitting hairs. I also have expressed the opinion that stan would be much more likely to go out early in a baffling loss than roger, and roger is more likely to go deep, but the odds only speak to the likelihood they win the entire tournament. Unless Fed wins, nothing has been proven. I would guess most odds makers would have stated Roger has a better chance of going deep in the tournament than stan, but stan has a better shot if he gets to the business end.

All fair points regarding that it only matters who wins when you go for that bet, but for me, Stan was never as significantly more likely to win the whole thing than Federer as the bookies were making out.

 

[DarthFed]

^ Neither has/had much of a prayer of winning RG. Stan's odds were incredibly short whereas Roger's odds aren't a terrible bet at 16/1. But even then I wouldn't put any significant money on anyone but the top 2. Nadal especially is a great bet at 6/4.

 

[Iona16]

Reaction from Wawrinka.

"The match wasn’t good at all. I was trying to find my game, trying to find to be aggressive, trying to find anything, and I didn’t,” said Wawrinka. “It’s a big disappointment for sure. I’m really sad with that loss, but cannot change. I have to accept. I have to see what was wrong, to see what I want to change, the way I want to do it, and now think about the future and not about that match anymore, because I can’t change the result.”

“Before the match and during the match, it was not really about only the pressure. I think it’s just a different story,” said Wawrinka. “Now it’s a different picture for my career. I need to put the puzzle back together, but differently than in the past, because now after winning Grand Slam, Masters 1000, being No. 3 in the world, everything is different and I still didn’t find all the pieces.”

 

[Iona16]

Since becoming only the 2nd player outside Fedal, Djokovic and Murray to win a slam, Stan seems unable to find his mojo. His Oz trophy looks more and more to be a freak occurrence outside his normal game rather than the promise of better things to come.

Really thought he would step it up here.

Bit Harsh. He did win monte carlo!

I think we need to not compare him so much to the extreme consistency of Rafa, Novak, and Rog. He looks like he is the type of player who's form should be taken on a tourney by tourney basis. More like Andy who is capable of great and terrible tennis. Hence why Andy only won one slam and one master last year.

Not to be snippy but no, I don't think Wawrinka should be compared to Murray. Andy may only have won one slam and one masters last year but he was struggling with a back injury. It's to his credit that he was able to achieve what he did. In 2013 and 2012 during the clay season the back problems flared up. In the other 3 slams he has been remarkably consistent. He's also won 9 masters and reached countless finals at slam and masters level.

I think Wawrinka is feeling the pressure because some media, fans etc have been too quick to elevate him. Like the guy on sky sports that said after MC that Stan should be considered THE favourite at the French. Wawrinka does deserve credit for his AO win and his MC win - absolutely. However, I think he has to reach more finals in masters and slams before he gets more credit than the guys that have achieved far more in the sport.

Yes, I realise that I DO sound rather snippy. Sorry about that.

 

[Moxie]

Since becoming only the 2nd player outside Fedal, Djokovic and Murray to win a slam, Stan seems unable to find his mojo. His Oz trophy looks more and more to be a freak occurrence outside his normal game rather than the promise of better things to come.

Really thought he would step it up here.

Bit Harsh. He did win monte carlo!

I think we need to not compare him so much to the extreme consistency of Rafa, Novak, and Rog. He looks like he is the type of player who's form should be taken on a tourney by tourney basis. More like Andy who is capable of great and terrible tennis. Hence why Andy only won one slam and one master last year.

Not to snippy but no, I don't think Wawrinka should be compared to Murray. Andy may only have won one slam and one masters last year but he was struggling with a back injury. It's to his credit that he was able to achieve what he did. In 2013 and 2012 during the clay season the back problems flared up. In the other 3 slams he has been remarkably consistent. He's also won 9 masters and reached countless finals at slam and masters level.

I think Wawrinka is feeling the pressure because some media, fans etc have been too quick to elevate him. Like the guy on sky sports that said after MC that Stan should be considered THE favourite at the French. Wawrinka does deserve credit for his AO win and his MC win - absolutely. However, I think he has to reach more finals in masters and slams before he gets more credit than the guys that have achieved far more in the sport.

I agree that the comparison to Andy is not fair to Murray, who is a far more consistent player, and holder of 2 Slams, many MS titles, and the Olympic Gold Medal. If you need to compare Stan to a current player who holds a Major title, you'd be better to go with JMDP, in terms of what they'll do next, by which I mean…who knows? I'd have far more faith in Andy winning more Slams, and more MS titles, than either of those 2.

Amongst friends, we were wondering if the pressure on Stan might be too much unfamiliar territory at RG this year, though no one saw him going out 1st round, even with a tricky first opponent like GGL. I'll have to check out the highlights.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I am confused about Stan . It is not like he is a 19 year old kit who just won his first slam and has been caving under its pressure. The guy has been around for years. I would have expected him to handle his recent success much better than this, maybe get over his well known inconsistencies. Apparently I was wrong.

Unless , of course, there is something going on behind the scenes that we are not privy to...

 

[TennisFanatic7]

Wawrinka looked like a man who was burdened by the weight of expectation for sure. People hyped him up a bit too much based on a couple of big titles this year, but that's part and parcel when you become successful.

I have a feeling that, having lost on Philippe Chatrier in the first round of a slam with the world watching, there's not going to be a bigger comedown than that, so this defeat should take the pressure off him a bit now and hopefully allow him to loosen up and play his game a bit more. I guess we'll see whether that's the case when the grass comes around.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I went on record back in January and February. Saying that Stan winning in Australia would not be a game changer. Outside of Monte Carlo, which Federer handed to him on a a sliver platter, he has played mindless tennis.

I also still maintain he would have gotten his ass kicked in the final down under if Rafa was even 80%.

None of the big 4 had ever lost in the first rd of a slam right after after winning their first one. It was a nice story, but he ain't gonna dominate.

Reality bites.