What is stan's ceiling?

[Riotbeard]

What is his ceiling of achievement?

I was thinking about this, because of how dismissive people were when I and others suggested he would beat Fed yesterday or even worse when JLLB suggested he may get to #1. So far, Stan continues to surprise me, which leads me to believe that assuming he is going to revert back to previous form tomorrow is unwise.

Just think of where he was 12 months ago. While unconventional for his age, he has had a meteoric rise and may truly be "a new player". Can he exploit a few more years of relative peak physical condition? It couldn't be a better time to be on the rise given the state of the other top players, Novak injured, Fed decrepit although better, Rafa having maybe the first serious mental lapse of his career, Delpo injured, and Murphy still trying to find his game on the comeback trail.

We all looked for a young person to shake things up...

 

[brokenshoelace]

He won a slam, and he's beaten all the top guys. If he does have a ceiling, it's pretty high. But I don't think he'll be a dominant force or challenge for the number 1 ranking, if that's what you're asking.

 

[brokenshoelace]

To elaborate, Stan is too much of a shot-maker. In other words, if he's not sharp, he doesn't have something to fall back on since his movement and defense are not particularly top notch compared to the rest of the top players. Therefore, when he's playing well, he can beat anybody, because the sort of power and shotmaking he can produce is second to none. However, when he's a bit off, he can lose to just about anybody good, and that's why you see some inconsistent results, even this year.

Guys like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have won so many matches without playing well, and contrary to popular belief, it's not due to their opponents choking or "allowing" them to win (though I'm sure there were instances when that was the case). It's because they have a sort of tennis savvy, experience, and repertoire to deal with these situations. Whether it is breaking rhythm, win with defense, turn the match into a physical contest, make some tactical adjustments, etc...

I'm not saying Stan is one dimensional since he can hit just about every shot in the book. The problem is his game relies on hitting every shot in the book, and though he possesses variety, it's all built on shot-making.

 

[nehmeth]

I agree with Broken that it's all about Stan's shot making. At the same time, unlike Soderling, he doesn't have to redline to win against the top players. When he plays within himself (like he did that third set against Fed), he has all the tools to win consistently.

He will have more peaks and dips, but in the next year or two I believe he may well remain as part of the top four or five players in the world... and may add another slam or two alongside of Oz 14.

 

[nehmeth]

Riotbeard... your poll says what will "Fed" achieve. Did you mean Fed or Stan?

Fed I think maybe (if things line up well for him), a slam and a at least a few more masters.

Stan, I'm not sure of #1, but possibly another slam or two and other masters to come.

 

[the AntiPusher]

To elaborate, Stan is too much of a shot-maker. In other words, if he's not sharp, he doesn't have something to fall back on since his movement and defense are particularly top notch compared to the rest of the top players. Therefore, when he's playing well, he can beat anybody, because the sort of power and shotmaking he can produce is second to none. However, when he's a bit off, he can lose to just about anybody good, and that's why you see some inconsistent results, even this year.

Guys like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have won so many matches without playing well, and contrary to popular belief, it's not due to their opponents choking or "allowing" them to win (though I'm sure there were instances when that was the case). It's because they have a sort of tennis savvy, experience, and repertoire to deal with these situations. Whether it is breaking rhythm, win with defense, turn the match into a physical contest, make some tactical adjustments, etc...

I'm not saying Stan is one dimensional since he can hit just about every shot in the book. The problem is his game relies on hitting every shot in the book, and though he possesses variety, it's all built on shot-making.

Excellent BS... As for Stan pulling off another GS title vs Rafa, Djoker, Murray or Fed.. that's a huge question but Lord's knows he has the talent and we know that he can battle five deep sets if needed.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

With the arsenal of shots he has, he can beat anyone on any given day. He has shown that. Sustained consistency in a long period of time is not something he has shown yet. The rest of this year will tell us a lot about that. Maybe he will remain a consistent top 5 player...but challenging for the top 2 spots, I am not too sure.

 

[Riotbeard]

Riotbeard... your poll says what will "Fed" achieve. Did you mean Fed or Stan?

Fed I think maybe (if things line up well for him), a slam and a at least a few more masters.

Stan, I'm not sure of #1, but possibly another slam or two and other masters to come.

Oops, yes stan. I will say, I kind of voted arbitrarily, and am still thinking on my own questions. This thread is an opportunity to voice some thoughts and theories publicly. I am not sure whether I think the thoughts are right.

I agree with Nehmeth that Stan has a more comfortable power, where he can stay within himself and win. More like a mentally stronger Berdych.

One thing, I am thinking about is if we are using an out of date data set to consider Stan's potential. This may have been evident in predictions for the final yesterday and reactions to it. I think if Stan were a much younger player, we would to some degree have reset his context after the AO, relying more on his results from say the last two season and look at him more in the context of his rise and current standards. Also as much as we talk about inconsistency post Aussie, we are really talking about poor results at only 2 big tournaments between his first major win and his first masters win (Not too bad a letdown IMO). That really isn't as inconsistent as people are making it out to be. Further perspective, he has won 3 out 5 tournaments he has played in this year.

What I am thinking about is if this "new" Stan should only be understood on the basis of his last two seasons.

If we take his last 5 slams results, he looks like a player who really could win multiple slams.

AO 13: 4th round but lost in 5 to eventual champion.
FO 13: QF but lost to eventual Champion
Wimby 13: 1st round (does not help my argument...)
USO13: SF lost in 5 to former champion and arguably the best hard courter on tour.
A0 14: Champion knocking off the 4 time champion and another former champion en route.

Other big results: Final of Madrid, Semi Final at his first WTF and winning Monte Carlo.

Record vs. top 10: 2013: Logged 8 top 10 wins last season, beating Murray and Ferrer twice each.
2014: 6-0 vs. the top 10.

Before last year, he never had more than 4 top 10 wins in a single season. Only contested 1 masters final, never made major semi, and never made the wtf.

I am thinking also relatively immediate Stan fortune telling might need a new context for making predictions. We might not even have a good data set for his trajectory.

This is at least some more details for the questions I am asking myself.

 

[DarthFed]

Stan has already done 2 things this year I'd never have expected: winning a slam and becoming a top 3 player. Of course the 2nd was bolstered by the 1st but winning a tourney like MC really solidifies his ranking as in we can't just call it a hot streak at this point and call it luck/taking advantage of injuries, specifically Murray's. He might be above Murray at this point even if Andy hadn't missed time.

I get what BS is saying but Stan's movement and defense aren't THAT bad to the point where he is helpless if his shots are misfiring, and he also possesses a bigger serve than the top guys. It's not the same as someone like Berd or Sod who can't move anywhere near as well as Stan and are/were wounded ducks if their bombs aren't consistently finding the court. Now if Stan's serve and backhand are rubbish then yes he will struggle but you could say that for just about anyone.

So I guess in short I wouldn't be surprised if Stan continues to build from here. Confidence is a big thing and something he now possesses in spades. Clay has always been his best and it will be interesting to see if he can reach the semi or better at RG. He definitely figures to have a good chance to. Also a big key for him will be grass where I am pretty sure he has done next to nothing his entire career.

 

[Riotbeard]

Stan has already done 2 things this year I'd never have expected: winning a slam and becoming a top 3 player. Of course the 2nd was bolstered by the 1st but winning a tourney like MC really solidifies his ranking.

I get what BS is saying but Stan's movement and defense isn't THAT bad to the point where he is helpless if his shots are misfiring, and he also possesses a bigger serve than the top guys. It's not the same as someone like Berd or Sod who can't move anywhere near as well as Stan and are/were wounded ducks if their bombs aren't consistently finding the court. Now if Stan's serve and backhand are rubbish then yes he will struggle but you could say that for just about anyone.

So I guess in short I wouldn't be surprised if Stan continues to build from here. Confidence is a big thing and something he now possesses in spades. Clay has always been his best and it will be interesting to see if he can reach the semi or better at RG. He definitely figures to have a good chance to. Also a big key for him will be grass where I am pretty sure he has done next to nothing his entire career.

Also worth noting that Stan is really quite good at the net.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

slanley has been consistant since last year monte carlo ..5 masters QF or better plus title; QF, SF, in majors plus a title; and reached SF of world tour finals in first appearance.

he has bust his way through the mental glass ceiling of mental midgetness that he was stuck behind like a depressed but agitated wasp along with ferrer / Tsonga / burdych. much to do with his coach as well as in stans head.

looks like in winter 2012/13 before 2013 season at 27yrs old all the bits fell into place, I believe he moved out of his home for a bit to focus on his career which shows how serious he was/is about getting the maximum out of his career.

its not been an overnight thing if you look back..but since start 2013 we have a different winning stan, that much is clear. I see no ceiling if you look at his game, it was in his head and he changed stuff around, got superfit, listened to his coach (which a lot of players don't do) and got on with it.

 

[Kieran]

Well, he's definitely made a stellar leap this season, no question about it, and he wasn't far off last season, but he lacked confidence - and a big win. I think we're seeing him negotiate his peak now, and like a few others here, I don't have him as a consistent enough guy to be #1, but he's over the hump in terms of achievements and so he stands on court now as a genuine challenger.

His ceiling? Where he is now. The question is how long he can maintain it...

 

[britbox]

If we're talking about stewardship of the Number 1 ranking then you're better asking yourself where was Stan at Indian Wells and Miami, because consistency wins the day.

.. and I seriously doubt Stan will meet that level of consistency.

On the other hand, if we are talking about a guy who on his day has the belief to beat the best, then Stan has already answered the question.

As for ceilings... I think Stan will possibly win another masters and take scalps at majors. Will he win another? Who knows... but I doubt he will hold more than one major in a rolling year... so on that basis, I'd suggest that this is as good as it gets.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I get what BS is saying but Stan's movement and defense aren't THAT bad to the point where he is helpless if his shots are misfiring, and he also possesses a bigger serve than the top guys. It's not the same as someone like Berd or Sod who can't move anywhere near as well as Stan and are/were wounded ducks if their bombs aren't consistently finding the court. Now if Stan's serve and backhand are rubbish then yes he will struggle but you could say that for just about anyone.

Good point about the serve. However, where Stan differs from the top 4 is that even his point construction relies on shot-making. In other words, his rally shots rely on a lot of power and depth, otherwise they're relatively harmless. His backhand is actually the best example. Everyone pretty much agrees it's his best shot, but watch any match where Stan isn't really clicking, and notice how "normal" it looks if he's not pulling the trigger.

Of course, part of that is related to how far back he has to stand behind the baseline to take huge cuts at the ball (another aspect that at times plays against him). Nevertheless, for Stan's rally shots to be effective, he needs his CC backhand to be firing in order to take his opponent off the court (his main method of point construction). When he's not super sharp, that's just not possible. His first set against Novak at the AO this year is good example, where he was just a bit off in the first set, and the rallies weren't even competitive. Once he clicked, it all changed of course.

The difference between that and say, Nadal, is that even if the Nadal isn't playing that well, he can still use his cross court forehand to try to dictate, pound on his opponent's backhand, and set up high percentage shots into the open court (the kind of inside out forehands that have minimal risks where he doesn't go for the outright winner). Meanwhile, Murray can just defend, break the rhythm, counter-punch, use variety, etc...

Stan doesn't have that because the very foundation of his point construction is based on shot-making.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

stans future success also depends on djokovics injury and whether rafa's declining speed around the court is terminal.

easier for stan to win if those two are not around.

 

[tented]

stans future success also depends on djokovics injury and whether rafa's declining speed around the court is terminal.

easier for stan to win if those two are not around.

Uh oh ... you used the "I" word.

Seriously, though, you make a good point. When guys like JMDP, Murray, Rafa, and now Djokovic are sidelined, the guys right below them can take advantage of their absence(s), and win titles they may not have had they been around, be seeded higher than they would have been, etc. Those wins, combined with the loss of ranking points for the sidelined players, help to put them in a situation they probably wouldn't otherwise be in.

David Ferrer, for example, benefited greatly from Murray's absence. Ferrer filled the vacuum created when Murray had to take time off for surgery and recovery.

I'm not trying to diminish Ferrer's achievements, either. It's beyond his control that Murray had to leave the tour for several months. If anything, Ferrer is to be congratulated for having been playing well enough, consistently enough to have been there ready to fill the vacuum. Something which cannot be said about anyone else.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

^^yes, ferrer made the most of things..and now stan is doing the same.

 

[herios]

stans future success also depends on djokovics injury and whether rafa's declining speed around the court is terminal.

easier for stan to win if those two are not around.

Uh oh ... you used the "I" word.

Seriously, though, you make a good point. When guys like JMDP, Murray, Rafa, and now Djokovic are sidelined, the guys right below them can take advantage of their absence(s), and win titles they may not have had they been around, be seeded higher than they would have been, etc. Those wins, combined with the loss of ranking points for the sidelined players, help to put them in a situation they probably wouldn't otherwise be in.

David Ferrer, for example, benefited greatly from Murray's absence. Ferrer filled the vacuum created when Murray had to take time off for surgery and recovery.

I'm not trying to diminish Ferrer's achievements, either. It's beyond his control that Murray had to leave the tour for several months. If anything, Ferrer is to be congratulated for having been playing well enough, consistently enough to have been there ready to fill the vacuum. Something which cannot be said about anyone else.

Actually Ferrer took advantage even more by Nadal's absence, because that is when he moved up first into the top 4 and converted on his opportunity, making SF both at the USO and AO, with the points under his belt he stayed in the top 4 longer and was able to punch in his first RG final.
It is all about cashing in when you can.
Stan did a more impressive achievement, because his first SF in a slam at the USO and his first slam win were both obtained while seeded outside of the top 5.
As far as the ceiling is concerned, I am sure we have started the transition period to the next phase when the new leaders will take over. In this transition period, we will have more opportunistic winners than before, something like currently in the women tour right now.
When Serena is getting kicked out, you never know who will win. This way one slam wonders may grab a title here there (Schiavone, Stosur, Bartoli).
Stan started the process, and you may say the Big 4 are still around, but various issues: aging, injuries out of form happen more often with them and there are not lined up like a barrier impossible to conquer.
Stan will have a window in this timeframe of 1-2 years max to grab a few more titles, no idea how many.
His biggest obstacle, his mental weakness is out of the way, yesterday win was extremely important to convert for his confidence, considering his record with Roger.
Now he may do more damage. I really wish him good luck.
Just please Stan, do not stop Nole from winning RG, otherwise I will root for you all the time:lolz:

 

[El Dude]

God, who knows. There's a big different between Ferrer and Wawrinka in that Stan won not only a Slam, but an ATP 1000 that wasn't the free-for-all Paris Masters. One could argue that Stan defeated an injured Nadal and an aging Federer to get those titles, but he still got those titles - and beat some pretty damn good players to do so.

I think Kieran has it right - this IS his ceiling. But as far as further accomplishes, while anything is possible I have a hard time imagining him wrestling #1 from not only Rafa but Novak. I suppose there is a way through - maybe Novak isn't at full power for Roland Garros, and Roger sits out for his children's birth. And maybe Stan makes it to the Final and loses to Rafa - some points gained there for Stan. But he'd still need to take one of Wimbledon or the US Open, which just seems like a tall order.

But who knows. This run by Stanislas was really unexpected. Just think that a year ago he was on the edge of the top 20 and no one was expecting such a meteoric rise, not from a player aged 28-29.

Actually, his best comp statistically speaking is probably Thomas Muster who won his first and only Slam at the ripe age of 27 (Stan was 28), and had his best year at age 27-28 and a strong run from 27-30.

I'm guessing that last year started a 3-4 year run in the top ten for Stan, with 2014 going down as his best year. 2015 will be very good but not as good, and 2016 will be further decline.

Fearless prediction (year-end rankings):
2014: 3
2015: 7
2016: 12
2017: 28
2018: ~200 (retires)

 

[Moxie]

If we're talking about stewardship of the Number 1 ranking then you're better asking yourself where was Stan at Indian Wells and Miami, because consistency wins the day.

.. and I seriously doubt Stan will meet that level of consistency.

On the other hand, if we are talking about a guy who on his day has the belief to beat the best, then Stan has already answered the question.

As for ceilings... I think Stan will possibly win another masters and take scalps at majors. Will he win another? Who knows... but I doubt he will hold more than one major in a rolling year... so on that basis, I'd suggest that this is as good as it gets.

I'd say I fall most closely in line with you, Baron. I wasn't trying to be rude to Stan when I picked Roger to win on Sunday, but Federer had played really cleanly and well on Sat., and Stan had been struggling since the AO. If anyone watched DC, his form and his confidence were mostly in the toilet. Obviously, this win is a big boost, and he's got a chance to threaten big time on clay this season. But the jury is still out on his consistency.