Shanghai Rolex Masters, ATP Masters 1000

[teddytennisfan]

WE HAVEN'T GIVEN ANDY ENOUGH CONGRATS ON HIS NEW TITLE!

AND for a really beautiful display of tennis and athleticism.

WHAT A PLEASURE to watch him play like that!
hitting that forehand HEAVY and hard -- uhmm!! and some of those late serves were something! wow!

 

[Moxie]

Surely more than I saw him getting the 3 he has now.

He's 31. If the first 3 surprised you, how would the next 3 possibly make more sense? He's a player with a high ceiling, for sure, but a lot of downside. I agree he seems to shine during the Majors, but, in the same way we would argue about Djokovic: the opposition gets stronger, and they get older.

 

[DarthFed]

You have to think, at 32 next summer, that Wawrinka's not winning Wimbledon. But he added Krajicek to the team, so he's implied that he's serious about winning on grass. Who knows, with Stan? Murray looks like the one with more general upside, and he might be ready to finally get that AO that has alluded him. Given age and relative options, I have a hard time seeing Stan usurping Murray's standing.

If you'd have told me that Stan would win RG in 2015, a few weeks after losing in Rome something like 6-3, 6-1 to Federer I'd think you were a little crazy. If you told me Stan would win the USO this year a few weeks after losing in straights to Dimitrov (an ugly affair which I saw in person) I'd think you were even crazier.

Point is you can't count him out anywhere. After what we've seen him do so far, particularly late in slams, there'd be a lot bigger surprises than Stan winning Wimbledon.

 

[mrzz]

He's 31. If the first 3 surprised you, how would the next 3 possibly make more sense? He's a player with a high ceiling, for sure, but a lot of downside. I agree he seems to shine during the Majors, but, in the same way we would argue about Djokovic: the opposition gets stronger, and they get older.

First remember that I was just discussing the possibility of Wawrinka ending up with more slams than Murray. Given that in the last three years Wawrinka won one each year, and specially considering how, and against who, he won it, I guess that this is a quite reasonable possibility.

The number itself (6) was nothing more than a wild guess. But if you want to look it closely, I stand by the idea that those further three would be far less surprising than the first three. In simple terms, he is a proven GS champion now. In statistical terms, the odds for a GS winner to repeat the feat are much better than the odds of someone who never won one (this is to compare 2017 Wawrinka with pre AO 2014 Wawrinka), even factoring in the age. He won one just a month ago, after all.

Even more (the topic does not deserve that much writing, but I am keeping my head away from work): Given the field we have now, that Djokovic seemingly fading a bit, the fact that the number 2 player is far from scary at slams (sorry), that Fedal is slamless in the last 2,5 years, that del Potro is still in the recovery curve and Cilic, the other GS winner around, is as inconsistent as Wawrinka himself, you gotta admit that he is, at the very least, the third favourite in each and every slam next year, until someone else proves otherwise. In fact, if you think of all the factors above, it is quite an alignment of stars....

By the way... "seems to shine"? What else does he need to do? Fuse hydrogen to helium?

 

[Moxie]

Look, I don't totally disagree with you guys about Stan, @Twisted and @mrzz. The only guy to beat Novak in the last two years in the finals of a Major is the Stanimal. This is a huge plus in his favor. Also, his career trajectory is so uncommon that it's harder to predict when the slide will begin. I agree that, until further notice, he'll be in the top 3 favorites of all the Majors next year. He's a very unpredictable player, so I won't be shocked if he wins a few more, or never wins another one. But if he keeps to the pace of one a year, I will be shocked if he's still winning them at 35.

 

[Billie]

I don't think anyone seriously thinks Wawrinka is greater than Murray at this point. The discussion is what if Stan somehow finishes with more slams including possibly winning a career slam. In that case it'd be a serious debate.

First of all, Stan is not finishing with more slams than Andy. Even if he had 1 or 2 more, would you think that his career was better than Andy's, if Andy doesn't win another major for the rest of his career? With more tournament wins and higher ranking for Andy's whole career? I don't think so.

 

[Moxie]

First of all, Stan is not finishing with more slams than Andy. Even if he had 1 or 2 more, would you think that his career was better than Andy's, if Andy doesn't win another major for the rest of his career? With more tournament wins and higher ranking for Andy's whole career? I don't think so.

This is exactly where the whole rating of players above or below each other becomes complicated. You really can't say that Stan won't finish with more Majors than Murray. That's unknowable. But there is a whole career to be considered, and are Major wins the total deal-breaker? Marin bloody Cilic has a Major win, but would you put him above Kei Nishikori, overall? I wouldn't.

Interestingly nerdy point about Wawrinka and Cilic: Both have 15 titles. Each has only 1 MS1000. Stan has 3 Majors, Cilic 1. Kind of strange stats.

 

[britbox]

 

[mrzz]

First of all, Stan is not finishing with more slams than Andy. Even if he had 1 or 2 more, would you think that his career was better than Andy's, if Andy doesn't win another major for the rest of his career? With more tournament wins and higher ranking for Andy's whole career? I don't think so.

hmmm... (remember, we are in "big IF land")... ultimately we are not discussing careers, the question is always "who is the better player" (an over-simplistic question in itself, I agree), and IF Wawrinka ends up with more slams than Murray, all things considered, I would be strongly inclined in his favor.

Note: "On average", as things stand now, Murray is far better than Wawrinka. But after all is said and done, I guess we will focus more on achievements, and thus on peak performance, than on the "career". Remember that, after all, peak Wawrinka > peak Murray (yes! I constructed the whole argument just to be able to insert my favorite annoying phrase!!!!)

 

[DarthFed]

First of all, Stan is not finishing with more slams than Andy. Even if he had 1 or 2 more, would you think that his career was better than Andy's, if Andy doesn't win another major for the rest of his career? With more tournament wins and higher ranking for Andy's whole career? I don't think so.

I don't think Stan will finish with more slams than Murray either. But if he does and if Stan wins a career slam to boot it would definitely be a decent debate. You know I'm all about the majors but Stan has been so inconsistent outside of them that if it does end up being 4-3 Stan at the end of their careers I would probably still give the edge to Murray but by just a hair. Murray has and will always be ranked higher, he has 2 gold medals, and tons more MS and overall titles. I'd say that makes up for 1 additional slam though if it is a career slam for Stan it is REALLY close IMO. Similar debate on whether you would take Roddick's career over Safin despite Marat winning one more slam.

 

[Billie]

hmmm... (remember, we are in "big IF land")... ultimately we are not discussing careers, the question is always "who is the better player" (an over-simplistic question in itself, I agree), and IF Wawrinka ends up with more slams than Murray, all things considered, I would be strongly inclined in his favor.

Note: "On average", as things stand now, Murray is far better than Wawrinka. But after all is said and done, I guess we will focus more on achievements, and thus on peak performance, than on the "career". Remember that, after all, peak Wawrinka > peak Murray (yes! I constructed the whole argument just to be able to insert my favorite annoying phrase!!!!)

Far from annoying, I am afraid. I understand where you are coming from.

 

[Billie]

I don't think Stan will finish with more slams than Murray either. But if he does and if Stan wins a career slam to boot it would definitely be a decent debate. You know I'm all about the majors but Stan has been so inconsistent outside of them that if it does end up being 4-3 Stan at the end of their careers I would probably still give the edge to Murray but by just a hair. Murray has and will always be ranked higher, he has 2 gold medals, and tons more MS and overall titles. I'd say that makes up for 1 additional slam though if it is a career slam for Stan it is REALLY close IMO. Similar debate on whether you would take Roddick's career over Safin despite Marat winning one more slam.

I am afraid that even the career slam for Stan won't make it a better career and player than Murray for me. You can't just disregard the fact that Murray won so many more Masters 1000 titles, made so many more major finals than Stan. Career titles 15 for Stan and 41 for Andy, really can't compare.

Andy Roddick career titles 32, Marat Safin 15, numbers a bit closer so you can take your pick with these 2 and take whoever's career you want. They were both solid careers. Safin has double the amount of Roddick's majors

 

[mrzz]

Far from annoying, I am afraid. I understand where you are coming from.

Hey Billie! Good to chat with someone with sense of humor, for a change... but that means I need to find new annoying phrases. Back to drawing board...

Anyway (and I say this as lighthearted as possible), where do am I coming from? I ask this myself a lot, so I could not miss the opportunity...

 

[Billie]

Hey Billie! Good to chat with someone with sense of humor, for a change... but that means I need to find new annoying phrases. Back to drawing board...

Anyway (and I say this as lighthearted as possible), where do am I coming from? I ask this myself a lot, so I could not miss the opportunity...

The work never stops Mrzz !!!

I thought you were coming from São Paulo

 

[Tennis Fan]

i also think that just like with DEL POTRO -- or anyone that has had a string of injuries -- it seems to really take time to get real confidence back - no matter how good their game is.

lack of matches, looking for that ''habit'' of winning - but again we are reminded -- his opponent was in the SAME situation also...lack of matches, even that ban, then injuries of his own perhaps, ..

AND meanwhile -- as they struggle -- they see all around them their rivals doing so well..with NEW fresh faces -- oops...the crowd got thicker...

that's hard....

I always take that into account. Those are factors. You can't compare two people when one has been on and off the tour and the other one hasn't.

 

[Tennis Fan]

First of all, Stan is not finishing with more slams than Andy. Even if he had 1 or 2 more, would you think that his career was better than Andy's, if Andy doesn't win another major for the rest of his career? With more tournament wins and higher ranking for Andy's whole career? I don't think so.

That's how I see it too, Billie. It's more than that one number. Andy has been consistent for a decade, has won more, and been higher ranked. Just counting majors comes short. doesn't tell the whole story.

 

[Tennis Fan]

This is exactly where the whole rating of players above or below each other becomes complicated. You really can't say that Stan won't finish with more Majors than Murray. That's unknowable. But there is a whole career to be considered, and are Major wins the total deal-breaker? Marin bloody Cilic has a Major win, but would you put him above Kei Nishikori, overall? I wouldn't.

Interestingly nerdy point about Wawrinka and Cilic: Both have 15 titles. Each has only 1 MS1000. Stan has 3 Majors, Cilic 1. Kind of strange stats.

That's why I shy away from comparisons; too faulty and too much to consider overall.