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

[Luxilon Borg]

The Great Pretenders continue their miserable slides:

Nishikori. A pro tennis player in juniors body. What a crappy showing.

Goffin, Belluci, Popiscle, Rosol, Andujar...eh, next. Bye bye Davy.

Well, at least we have Fabio and Ernie. Surprised Paire came through.

Hooray for Jerzey Boy! Broke the streak!!

 

[Moxie]

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...

He's not a kid, but he's in unfamiliar territory. He's only recently emerged from under Roger's shadow, and the pressure showed in DC this past round. Yes, he beat Roger at MC, but he has been up and down.

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.

Stan's one who does well on clay, but I can't find a quality win on grass. RG was a good moment for him to consolidate. I'd be surprised if we find a big push by Stan on grass this year. He probably won't be resurgent until the HC season, IMO.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

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...

He's not a kid, but he's in unfamiliar territory. He's only recently emerged from under Roger's shadow, and the pressure showed in DC this past round. Yes, he beat Roger at MC, but he has been up and down.

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.

Stan's one who does well on clay, but I can't find a quality win on grass. RG was a good moment for him to consolidate. I'd be surprised if we find a big push by Stan on grass this year. He probably won't be resurgent until the HC season, IMO.

Forget it. He is too mechanical for grass. He needs time. He also lacks natural agility. He is essentially an elite graduate of the grip and rip school. As I noted in my thread about coaching, he desperately needs a plan B.

 

[Riotbeard]

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.

No I think you are right on a career level. I meant more that his quality at one tournament isn't as contingent on play the week before like Andy where he can have baffling loses, and he could play at a really high level next week. I think it's fair to say Andy is in general more susceptible to early round losses than Fed, Novak or Rafa (Mind you in the case of Rafa and Roger, we are talking about maybe the two most consistent players in the history of the game, so I wouldn't have said Andy is comparatively inconsistent in a different era). I am not sure delpo is a great comparison, because of how much his career has been contingent on injury, which is quite different from mental inconsistency. It at the very least make more difficult to figure out what type of contender Delpo would have been if the wrist had never been a problem.

It's all conjecture as we try to figure out what stan will be for say the next year or two.

 

[TennisFanatic7]

Murray is more prone to those early defeats at Masters 1000 level but he's done more than enough to prove that he's generally not going to get dumped out in the first week of slams (touch wood) any more than Rafa, Roger and Novak. He's currently on a streak of 12 consecutive QF appearances since losing to Stan in New York 2010 third round.

 

[Moxie]

^ The Del Potro comparison is mine, and I agree that it's hugely imperfect. I only thought you were reaching for a comparison to an active player that has won a Major, of which there are so few. Realistically, I'd compare Wawrinka more closely with Berdych or Tsonga. They've got strong skills, but are not to be counted on, beyond spoiling.

 

[Riotbeard]

^ The Del Potro comparison is mine, and I agree that it's hugely imperfect. I only thought you were reaching for a comparison to an active player that has won a Major, of which there are so few. Realistically, I'd compare Wawrinka more closely with Berdych or Tsonga. They've got strong skills, but are not to be counted on, beyond spoiling.

I think ultimately Stan's his own man. There really isn't quite an active comparable player, to have a truly exceptional breakthrough (two big title in about three months!) when he is over the hill in tennis years, but I think he is comparable with select aspects of Andy (and a bunch of other players). I am also not a tennis royalist fuddie-duddie , and am really hoping for more shake ups in tournaments that novak doesn't win. I also like to root for the underdog-ish.

 

[Moxie]

^ The Del Potro comparison is mine, and I agree that it's hugely imperfect. I only thought you were reaching for a comparison to an active player that has won a Major, of which there are so few. Realistically, I'd compare Wawrinka more closely with Berdych or Tsonga. They've got strong skills, but are not to be counted on, beyond spoiling.

I think ultimately Stan's his own man. There really isn't quite an active comparable player, to have a truly exceptional breakthrough (two big title in about three months!) when he is over the hill in tennis years, but I think he is comparable with select aspects of Andy (and a bunch of other players). I am also not a tennis royalist fuddie-duddie , and am really hoping for more shake ups in tournaments that novak doesn't win. I also like to root for the underdog-ish.

I rather agree that there is no current comparison to Stan. You started it with the comparison to Murray. (Not giving you a hard time, but…) Wawrinka is, in some ways, uncharted territory. Where he goes from here is unknowable and mysterious. Surely, though, he's not the only player playing now that's having a better late-career than their early one.

 

[Riotbeard]

^ The Del Potro comparison is mine, and I agree that it's hugely imperfect. I only thought you were reaching for a comparison to an active player that has won a Major, of which there are so few. Realistically, I'd compare Wawrinka more closely with Berdych or Tsonga. They've got strong skills, but are not to be counted on, beyond spoiling.

I think ultimately Stan's his own man. There really isn't quite an active comparable player, to have a truly exceptional breakthrough (two big title in about three months!) when he is over the hill in tennis years, but I think he is comparable with select aspects of Andy (and a bunch of other players). I am also not a tennis royalist fuddie-duddie , and am really hoping for more shake ups in tournaments that novak doesn't win. I also like to root for the underdog-ish.

I rather agree that there is no current comparison to Stan. You started it with the comparison to Murray. (Not giving you a hard time, but…) Wawrinka is, in some ways, uncharted territory. Where he goes from here is unknowable and mysterious. Surely, though, he's not the only player playing now that's having a better late-career than their early one.

True, but to compare isn't to say they are the same person, and it's more an effort to paint an argument through familiar images. I am not the tennis historian like other posters, so I will leave reaching back for them. I am doing the best I can and readily concede it is not a perfect comparison.

 

[Moxie]

^ The Del Potro comparison is mine, and I agree that it's hugely imperfect. I only thought you were reaching for a comparison to an active player that has won a Major, of which there are so few. Realistically, I'd compare Wawrinka more closely with Berdych or Tsonga. They've got strong skills, but are not to be counted on, beyond spoiling.

I think ultimately Stan's his own man. There really isn't quite an active comparable player, to have a truly exceptional breakthrough (two big title in about three months!) when he is over the hill in tennis years, but I think he is comparable with select aspects of Andy (and a bunch of other players). I am also not a tennis royalist fuddie-duddie , and am really hoping for more shake ups in tournaments that novak doesn't win. I also like to root for the underdog-ish.

I rather agree that there is no current comparison to Stan. You started it with the comparison to Murray. (Not giving you a hard time, but…) Wawrinka is, in some ways, uncharted territory. Where he goes from here is unknowable and mysterious. Surely, though, he's not the only player playing now that's having a better late-career than their early one.

True, but to compare isn't to say they are the same person, and it's more an effort to paint an argument through familiar images. I am not the tennis historian like other posters, so I will leave reaching back for them. I am doing the best I can and readily concede it is not a perfect comparison.

No harm no foul. We're all having a conversation here. I don't like to see folks tripped up on a point they make, and held accountable for it for the rest of their natural internet lives. :hug

 

[Riotbeard]

^ The Del Potro comparison is mine, and I agree that it's hugely imperfect. I only thought you were reaching for a comparison to an active player that has won a Major, of which there are so few. Realistically, I'd compare Wawrinka more closely with Berdych or Tsonga. They've got strong skills, but are not to be counted on, beyond spoiling.

I think ultimately Stan's his own man. There really isn't quite an active comparable player, to have a truly exceptional breakthrough (two big title in about three months!) when he is over the hill in tennis years, but I think he is comparable with select aspects of Andy (and a bunch of other players). I am also not a tennis royalist fuddie-duddie , and am really hoping for more shake ups in tournaments that novak doesn't win. I also like to root for the underdog-ish.

I rather agree that there is no current comparison to Stan. You started it with the comparison to Murray. (Not giving you a hard time, but…) Wawrinka is, in some ways, uncharted territory. Where he goes from here is unknowable and mysterious. Surely, though, he's not the only player playing now that's having a better late-career than their early one.

True, but to compare isn't to say they are the same person, and it's more an effort to paint an argument through familiar images. I am not the tennis historian like other posters, so I will leave reaching back for them. I am doing the best I can and readily concede it is not a perfect comparison.

No harm no foul. We're all having a conversation here. I don't like to see folks tripped up on a point they make, and held accountable for it for the rest of their natural internet lives. :hug

Then why did you help found an internet forum Mox :laydownlaughing

 

[Moxie]

I think ultimately Stan's his own man. There really isn't quite an active comparable player, to have a truly exceptional breakthrough (two big title in about three months!) when he is over the hill in tennis years, but I think he is comparable with select aspects of Andy (and a bunch of other players). I am also not a tennis royalist fuddie-duddie , and am really hoping for more shake ups in tournaments that novak doesn't win. I also like to root for the underdog-ish.

I rather agree that there is no current comparison to Stan. You started it with the comparison to Murray. (Not giving you a hard time, but…) Wawrinka is, in some ways, uncharted territory. Where he goes from here is unknowable and mysterious. Surely, though, he's not the only player playing now that's having a better late-career than their early one.

True, but to compare isn't to say they are the same person, and it's more an effort to paint an argument through familiar images. I am not the tennis historian like other posters, so I will leave reaching back for them. I am doing the best I can and readily concede it is not a perfect comparison.

No harm no foul. We're all having a conversation here. I don't like to see folks tripped up on a point they make, and held accountable for it for the rest of their natural internet lives. :hug

Then why did you help found an internet forum Mox :laydownlaughing

I know you're teasing, but the point here is supposed to be genial discourse. That's why. :heart: However, tails will always be tweaked. That's inevitable. As long as it's friendly, and in the service of good conversation, I feel we're on mandate.

 

[Riotbeard]

I rather agree that there is no current comparison to Stan. You started it with the comparison to Murray. (Not giving you a hard time, but…) Wawrinka is, in some ways, uncharted territory. Where he goes from here is unknowable and mysterious. Surely, though, he's not the only player playing now that's having a better late-career than their early one.

True, but to compare isn't to say they are the same person, and it's more an effort to paint an argument through familiar images. I am not the tennis historian like other posters, so I will leave reaching back for them. I am doing the best I can and readily concede it is not a perfect comparison.

No harm no foul. We're all having a conversation here. I don't like to see folks tripped up on a point they make, and held accountable for it for the rest of their natural internet lives. :hug

Then why did you help found an internet forum Mox :laydownlaughing

I know you're teasing, but the point here is supposed to be genial discourse. That's why. :heart: However, tails will always be tweaked. That's inevitable. As long as it's friendly, and in the service of good conversation, I feel we're on mandate.

I am here because it is a good discourse. Written language and anonymity will always lead to some misunderstanding. This is one of the few civilized corners of the internet.

 

[Moxie]

^ Thanks for saying that, and for being here. I do wish that there wasn't so much "gotcha" mentality, even here. We can all have an opinion, in the moment, and it can move and take shape, across the course of the conversation. We are also here to inform each other. A little flexibility and forgiveness doesn't go astray.

 

[tented]

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YskqvyX1W7M[/video]