Stan was not a factor...

[Correspondent Kiu]

...during 2014 Clay season!
Rumor was this was his best surface!!
Pressure?
http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/news/articles/2014-05-26/201405261401136948317.html

I don't think so, Stan is really not that good, before this year he had never won anything of significance.

This year he won a slam and a 1000 pointer, right?

Will he win another?
Slam??!!
Master???!!!

I don't think Stan will win any more slams,...

 

[Riotbeard]

...during 2014 Clay season!
Rumor was this was his best surface!!
Pressure?
I don't think so, Stan is really not that good, before this year he had never won anything of significance.

This year he won a slam and a 1000 pointer, right?

Will he win another?
Slam??!!
Master???!!!

I don't think Stan will win any more slams,...

I think Stan has a legit shot at another significant title not sure if it's a slam. So much of tennis is mental, and he always had the weapons (a bunch of players do). If he can put his brain together at the AO and Monte Carlo, no reason he can't do it again.

 

[Moxie]

Kiu, your OP doesn't leave a lot of room, as your own opinion is quite clear. As I said on another thread, Stan is a question mark. Like Juan Martin Del Potro. It's going to be mental for Stan, but he's not without big skills. Personally, I don't think there's another Slam in his future. If he were younger, he'd have a better shot…he could be perfectly positioned to slide in as the big 4 age-out. Given his age, though, I think other, younger ones will pass him by.

 

[Correspondent Kiu]

Kiu, your OP doesn't leave a lot of room, as your own opinion is quite clear. As I said on another thread, Stan is a question mark. Like Juan Martin Del Potro. It's going to be mental for Stan, but he's not without big skills. Personally, I don't think there's another Slam in his future. If he were younger, he'd have a better shot…he could be perfectly positioned to slide in as the big 4 age-out. Given his age, though, I think other, younger ones will pass him by.

It's not my fault there is little to argue with!
, but I am willing to argue! I did post the subject.

I don't think Delpo is as much of a question mark as Stan is, Delpo is injured too much. That is his issue, Stan doesn't have injury issues, Not that I can remember...

How about Gasquet? Isn't he in the same league as Stan? Richard has never won anything....

D. Ferrer desreves a slam more than Stan does, but then I don't see him winning any.

 

[Moxie]

Kiu, your OP doesn't leave a lot of room, as your own opinion is quite clear. As I said on another thread, Stan is a question mark. Like Juan Martin Del Potro. It's going to be mental for Stan, but he's not without big skills. Personally, I don't think there's another Slam in his future. If he were younger, he'd have a better shot…he could be perfectly positioned to slide in as the big 4 age-out. Given his age, though, I think other, younger ones will pass him by.

It's not my fault there is little to argue with!
, but I am willing to argue! I did post the subject.

I don't think Delpo is as much of a question mark as Stan is, Delpo is injured too much. That is his issue, Stan doesn't have injury issues, Not that I can remember...

How about Gasquet? Isn't he in the same league as Stan? Richard has never won anything....

D. Ferrer desreves a slam more than Stan does, but then I don't see him winning any.

Surely, you are willing to argue. Whether you know what you're putting out there or not. Gasquet was an early promise, mostly unfulfilled; Del Potro was a serious comer, also early, whose future remains in question due to injury; Ferrer is a solid top player working in an era when more than what he possesses is required; Stan is a late-bloomer, though we have yet to determine if he had a short peak, and we've seen his best, or if there is more to come. In a way, these 4 have nothing in common. Only that Del Potro and Wawrinka have won Slams in this age when few but the big 4 do, and Ferrer has made a Major final. Otherwise, they aren't 4 I'd pick to compare. :huh:

 

[TsarMatt]

WHAT. THE. HELL.

I just remembered Stan played yesterday, so I went to check the scores right now and he LOST?! How? Why? Oh my...

 

[jhar26]

I see Stan more as a streak player. Someone who can make a complete mess of things in one tournament, but if he gets on a roll in the next he's a handful for everyone. Is that good enough to make him a factor going into a major? Potentially, yes. It's just impossible to say with him. He's not like delPotro who's valleys (when healthy) are not as deep as Stan's, but Stan's peaks are just as high. I think he CAN win another major or another masters 1000, which is not the same thing as saying that he WILL win them. There are several contenders for any title, but only one who ends up walking away with it.

 

[El Dude]

He wasn't a factor in the clay season yet he won one out of the three Master's level tournaments? That isn't so bad. Yeah, he's streaky, and no he's not on a level with the Big Four, but he's a legit top ten player now, certainly in a category with Ferrer, Berdych, and Tsonga. The question is, how long can he maintain that? He's already 29 years old. Maybe another couple years?

The problem is when we expect more. Stan is what he is: a very good player who has had moments of greatness. No shame in that.

 

[Federberg]

I think you do Stan a disservice if you equate him with Gasquet. Richard is a mental midget, and has serious technical and strategic issues that can be exploited (exaggerated take back, and court position). Stan doesn't have these issues. His problem has always been about lack of belief. I think that Delpo and Berdy are the correct comparisons.

Delpo is limited by injuries and not much else, when he's playing he believes in a way only the big 4 do, and he's fully capable of beating any one of them. If Delpo were to win another slam, I don't think anyone would be shocked. I would say however that since his first wrist injury his backhand has not been the point ender it could be. Does anyone remember the backhands he was firing at Roger at RG thee year Roger won? Some of those were absolutely terrifying.

Berdy has the equipment to beat anyone, even though his movement is a slight weakness it's improved tremendously in the last few years. He's able to take out the rest of the field relatively consistently these days, but still seems to lack belief or resolution at critical moments against the big guys.

As for Ferrer? I can't see it. He's a talent for sure, but I just don't think he has the ability to beat the top guys in a final. He's just not quite good enough. That said if he were to get there and somehow none of the big 4 are facing him, I would put serious money on him getting the W. His problem is his star quality opposition, so what are the odds that all 4 of them fail to get to a slam final?

As for Stan? He definitely has the ability to win a slam, he's done it once, and if the draw works for him he can definitely do it again. I think the issue for him, is that it's still taking him time to feel comfortable with his new shoes. It's not a great surprise to me that he failed here. It's too soon since his big win. If he had somehow managed to get to the 2nd week, I think he would have been a serious serious threat. The question is.. can Stan work through his issues and acquire the belief that he's truly worthy of what he already has? Winning Monte Carlo and beating Roger in a final is clear evidence that he can do, but it's going to take time getting used to being spoken of as a legitimate contender at Slams. Let's see what happens at Flushing. For what it's worth Australia next year might be tough for him, for exactly the same reasons as RG has been tough... but it might also inspire him. We just can't know

 

[brokenshoelace]

Stan does have limitations to his game. Staying far back behind the baseline is one of them, but that's a compromise he has to make due to the big cuts he likes to take at the ball with his one handed backhand. That's why many other one-handed backhand players have that problem (Gasquet and Dimitrov for example). Roger is an exception nowadays, in that regard.

That makes it difficult for him sometimes as his movement, while good, is not quite on the level of the elite, so when they get on top of the rally and move him around, his method of getting back and turning the point around is to let rip from really far back. The problem is, he needs to be playing really well for this to work, as anything other than perfect execution isn't enough. That's why you see him hit some of those breathtaking shots one match (say against Novak in AO this year and last year), and fall on his face against unknown opponents in others.

 

[Federberg]

Yes that's very true. His court positioning is a weakness, but unlike Gasquet he can make up for it by crushing the ball back. I think you back up my point, that when his game is on, he can definitely be a contender. I'm not suggesting for a moment that he'll be a consistent contender, but he's in the discussion going forward. If he makes it through to the second week of a slam it's safe to say he's firing, at that point you can't dismiss him

 

[Ricardo]

what a dumb thread, opened to diss a player ignoring facts. Fact is, Stan has won one of the three clay MS1000 and that alone is on par with Novak and Nadal this year. Is he the fav to win RG? nobody said so. The common opinion is that he is very good when on, nothing more so why anyone would feel the need to dismiss him in particular is beyond me.

 

[isabelle]

Sad for Stan didn't expect such a disaster. Very disappointing tourney

 

[Riotbeard]

Also Stan has won 2 of the 7 big tournaments this year... He was also pretty close to getting to final at the USO last year, made a good showing at the year end championships. He has had more good non-win tournaments than people give him credit for.

 

[Correspondent Kiu]

what a dumb thread, opened to diss a player ignoring facts. Fact is, Stan has won one of the three clay MS1000 and that alone is on par with Novak and Nadal this year. Is he the fav to win RG? nobody said so. The common opinion is that he is very good when on, nothing more so why anyone would feel the need to dismiss him in particular is beyond me.

The point was not what he won, I stated that, but will he win another? Before this year he was averaging 1 event a year during this decade, last decade he only won one! Stan turned pro in 2003, that's an eleven year career. It is impressive that he peaked this year when he is 29... but I don't think he will win another slam, I think all the dominos have to fall in place for him to win another master.

I didn't dismiss him, he did it to himself, he was in position to gain ground this clay season but what did he get, a first round exit in the big one.

As a last note, I like to think that I normally don't reply to dumb threads.