What is stan's ceiling?

[Kieran]

It's Murphy's Law...

 

[Moxie]

I think the feeling is that inconsistency is more Stan's default setting, where as it's anomalous in the likes of Rafa, Nole and Roger...

I agree that this is the prevailing thought, the point of the thread is asking whether or not that is a flawed perspective given his performance over the last last two seasons.

I am not sure either way, it's possible he could go back to pre-2013 or just 2013 Stan for the rest of the season. I also wonder if Stan were a younger guy, we would see these last two seasons in the same light. If Dimitrov had identical results over the last two seasons, would we bring up losses from 2012 as evidence for what we expect from him over the rest of 2014? I am not sure we would. What is impressive also is Stan's results show a progression to where he is now over a 15-16 month period instead of an anomalous performance after years of hovering around the 20s and somehow winning a slam.

I think the fact that people got so comfortable with the old stan for years, makes it difficult to think there might really be a new Stan that could hold together for some time.

I do agree that we need to judge the New Stan, and rather forget about the Old one. Belief and confidence are big things, and he's moved into believing (well, knowing,) he can beat the big guys and win the big titles. But it's a rather late career surge, so hard to know if it includes another Major…but lots of things are getting less certain than even last year.

 

[Riotbeard]

I think the feeling is that inconsistency is more Stan's default setting, where as it's anomalous in the likes of Rafa, Nole and Roger...

I agree that this is the prevailing thought, the point of the thread is asking whether or not that is a flawed perspective given his performance over the last last two seasons.

I am not sure either way, it's possible he could go back to pre-2013 or just 2013 Stan for the rest of the season. I also wonder if Stan were a younger guy, we would see these last two seasons in the same light. If Dimitrov had identical results over the last two seasons, would we bring up losses from 2012 as evidence for what we expect from him over the rest of 2014? I am not sure we would. What is impressive also is Stan's results show a progression to where he is now over a 15-16 month period instead of an anomalous performance after years of hovering around the 20s and somehow winning a slam.

I think the fact that people got so comfortable with the old stan for years, makes it difficult to think there might really be a new Stan that could hold together for some time.

I do agree that we need to judge the New Stan, and rather forget about the Old one. Belief and confidence are big things, and he's moved into believing (well, knowing,) he can beat the big guys and win the big titles. But it's a rather late career surge, so hard to know if it includes another Major…but lots of things are getting less certain that even last year.

This is pretty much how I feel. I think he has a shot at majors, but I am not gonna pick as the favorite for any.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Guys, I have the answer...this is a picture of Stan's house...I took it...It is called Cathedral Ceiling. That is his ceiling....

:snigger

 

[tented]

^ So that's settled. Should we close the thread?

 

[herios]

I think the feeling is that inconsistency is more Stan's default setting, where as it's anomalous in the likes of Rafa, Nole and Roger...

I agree that this is the prevailing thought, the point of the thread is asking whether or not that is a flawed perspective given his performance over the last last two seasons.

I am not sure either way, it's possible he could go back to pre-2013 or just 2013 Stan for the rest of the season. I also wonder if Stan were a younger guy, we would see these last two seasons in the same light. If Dimitrov had identical results over the last two seasons, would we bring up losses from 2012 as evidence for what we expect from him over the rest of 2014? I am not sure we would. What is impressive also is Stan's results show a progression to where he is now over a 15-16 month period instead of an anomalous performance after years of hovering around the 20s and somehow winning a slam.

I think the fact that people got so comfortable with the old stan for years, makes it difficult to think there might really be a new Stan that could hold together for some time.

I do agree that we need to judge the New Stan, and rather forget about the Old one. Belief and confidence are big things, and he's moved into believing (well, knowing,) he can beat the big guys and win the big titles. But it's a rather late career surge, so hard to know if it includes another Major…but lots of things are getting less certain that even last year.

This is pretty much how I feel. I think he has a shot at majors, but I am not gonna pick as the favorite for any.

Picking him as the favorite, is a stretch, at the moment. Let's now wait what happens at the next masters as well.
By the way, I am going to start to monitor the odds for RG from here on, to see how they will move based on these prep. events.

 

[herios]

@ Iona

I checked the pecking order as of now of the odd makers for who would be the favorite to win RG:

1. Nadal
2. Djokovic
3. Wawrinka
4. Federer
5. Ferrer
6. Murray
7. Berdych
8. Close call between Fognini and Tsonga.

I think this makes sense. By the way, Ndal and Djokovic are very close to each other, Wawrinka is a distant third.

 

[DarthFed]

^ Looks about right to me.

 

[Moxie]

^ Looks about right to me.

Co-signed. I'd pick that order. If Fognini were more consistent, I'd pick him over Berdych on clay…but he's not reliable, and Berdy has declared himself more focused, and hungry for big titles.

 

[tented]

@ Iona

I checked the pecking order as of now of the odd makers for who would be the favorite to win RG:

1. Nadal
2. Djokovic
3. Wawrinka
4. Federer
5. Ferrer
6. Murray
7. Berdych
8. Close call between Fognini and Tsonga.

I think this makes sense. By the way, Ndal and Djokovic are very close to each other, Wawrinka is a distant third.

Arguably all recent evidence points to the contrary, but nevertheless I would put Federer above Wawrinka.

Look closely at their results at RG:

Wawrinka: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Stanislas-Wawrinka.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=520#

Federer: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=520#

Notice how many 4 and 5 set matches Wawrinka has had to play, even in early rounds against unseeded, lower-ranked opponents, whereas Roger has consistently had a much easier time of it, even in his dotage ( ).

I know this is Wawrinka 2.0: AO champion, MC Masters 1000 winner. But he still hasn't shown a consistently high enough level for me to think he's going to win two Majors in a row. We'll see.

 

[El Dude]

So here's a question about Stan. If you look at his career trajectory, this year and last might have been less anomalous if they had followed on his semi-breakthrough in 2008 when, at age 23, he rose from #36 to #13. But then from 2009-2012 he finished the year 21, 21, 17, 17, with no real development. In other words, he stagnated as around a top 20 player. But then he broke out last year and finished #8 and is playing like an elite player this year.

If I had the time, I'd love to do a study of players who have their best years at, say, age 27 or later. But my question is this: what happened in 2009-2012? Why did Stan stagnate? if we cut those years out and push the last two years up against 2008, then 2013 would have been his age 24 year and this year his age 25 season - not so unusual for a breakout. But rising to elite level at age 28-29? That's unusual - especially after his already established level of play throughout what is usually considered the peak years.

 

[Federberg]

^I wouldn't call it stagnation... rather stabilisation. A lot of the time it also depends on the luck you have in the draw. If you keep having to face Rafa in the 4th round it's a bit tough to push forward. The fact that he didn't drop precipitously is why I think it's stabilisation. It says he was taking care of who he had to, and his success wasn't a one off. Of course he's more than proved that now

 

[Federberg]

@ Iona

I checked the pecking order as of now of the odd makers for who would be the favorite to win RG:

1. Nadal
2. Djokovic
3. Wawrinka
4. Federer
5. Ferrer
6. Murray
7. Berdych
8. Close call between Fognini and Tsonga.

I think this makes sense. By the way, Ndal and Djokovic are very close to each other, Wawrinka is a distant third.

I'm not sure Murray should be this high. I would suggest that both Monfils and Tsonga have as good a chance at RG as he does. They're better on the dirt. A bit flakey, but I would be less surprised to see either of them win the whole thing than Murray.

I think Fognini is a better clay courter than Murray, but he's flakey too. I don't see him being inspired enough (as Tsonga or Le Monf would be) to get through the field

 

[DarthFed]

@ Iona

I checked the pecking order as of now of the odd makers for who would be the favorite to win RG:

1. Nadal
2. Djokovic
3. Wawrinka
4. Federer
5. Ferrer
6. Murray
7. Berdych
8. Close call between Fognini and Tsonga.

I think this makes sense. By the way, Ndal and Djokovic are very close to each other, Wawrinka is a distant third.

I'm not sure Murray should be this high. I would suggest that both Monfils and Tsonga have as good a chance at RG as he does. They're better on the dirt. A bit flakey, but I would be less surprised to see either of them win the whole thing than Murray.

I think Fognini is a better clay courter than Murray, but he's flakey too. I don't see him being inspired enough (as Tsonga or Le Monf would be) to get through the field

Yeah it's interesting as there is no way I'd call Murray the 6th best clay court player but as a threat to win RG I'd still place him above a couple players who are better than him on clay. The reasons being is that Andy is a great player who is more likely to upset one of the top players, more likely to take advantage of a big opportunity if it arises, etc. In thinking about it again I'd probably flip Berd and Murray but that's splitting hairs as neither has much of a prayer at RG.

 

[Federberg]

^That's fair enough Darth. If it turns out that there's a steep decline in the pricing for Murray and Berd vs the top 5, then I guess it really doesn't matter so much that he's priced for 6th place. Effectively the market will be saying they're no hopers..

 

[herios]

So here's a question about Stan. If you look at his career trajectory, this year and last might have been less anomalous if they had followed on his semi-breakthrough in 2008 when, at age 23, he rose from #36 to #13. But then from 2009-2012 he finished the year 21, 21, 17, 17, with no real development. In other words, he stagnated as around a top 20 player. But then he broke out last year and finished #8 and is playing like an elite player this year.

If I had the time, I'd love to do a study of players who have their best years at, say, age 27 or later. But my question is this: what happened in 2009-2012? Why did Stan stagnate? if we cut those years out and push the last two years up against 2008, then 2013 would have been his age 24 year and this year his age 25 season - not so unusual for a breakout. But rising to elite level at age 28-29? That's unusual - especially after his already established level of play throughout what is usually considered
the peak years.

Yes, it is unusual to have a breakout at this age, but we probably underestimate how much the mental aspect of the game can determine the outcome of one players performances.
It is now an entire year since Wawrinka teamed up with Magnus Norman. He truly become a better performer, someone who has been transformed.
I hope you remember my thread I launched a year ago, wondering where Stan will manage to arrive, under his tutelage.
I remember, without looking it up, that you were circumspect and said no higher than 8. I thought he may do with his something similar to Soderling, around 4-5 raked player range.
Now, look, he has surpassed even my expectations, in a shorter timeframe than he took Robin to that peak level.
Why? Simply because technically Stan is overall a more complete player than Robin.
Physically he is very strong, so 29 is not a very high age, at that age players are still able to win slams, and mentally, once you believe in yourself and have the confidence running high, there are no more barriers.
It will be very interesting to see, what he can st5ill do in terms of besting his previous results.
And about grass, do not think he cannot do some good results there as well, he has been in R4 twice, when he was insignificant as a player in the bigger picture. In one of those cases, he extended Murray to 5 sets, before going out. A QF or SF performance there is not out of question there as well for him. Just think about Del Potro. He was already a USO champion and people were writing him off on grass because he was upset there very early by Hewitt. Coincidence?
A few years later Del Potro gets the bronze at the Olympics on grass then he has an epic SF against Nole. That is why I am not writing Stan off on grass neither.

 

[herios]

OP
Because I did not vote in this poll, just reviewed it and I observed it is incomplete.
You should have had another option:
Multislam winner, without being #1

PS. I was going to go for that option, which is missing

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

Tsonga had some injuries in his early 20s though that held up his development, and he retired at Wimbledon last year 2nd rd with knee injury. don't think you can hold up tsonga's career as any guide to the whole tour.

 

[Ricardo]

lets simplify this: we have a Stan2.0 and if he is here to stay, he may well add 3-4 majors over the next few years but if he falls back to his old level, he will just be like any other top 20 players.

Of course, all we've seen is that Stan's A game is as good as anybody's but his B game? probably still not good enough, and is what separates him from the so called 'big 4'. His B game is vulnerable to many players and looking long term, a player is expected to play his B game more often than his A game and also more than his C game (where he is rubbish).

I don't like his chances of ever improving significantly his B game, but lets say he now has the confidence he might be able to bring out his A game more often..... and that will be enough for him to win more big tournaments.

 

[Riotbeard]

OP
Because I did not vote in this poll, just reviewed it and I observed it is incomplete.
You should have had another option:
Multislam winner, without being #1

PS. I was going to go for that option, which is missing

I hear ya. I am not a big poll or stats guy in general, so I put what i saw as four broad categories, basically A. he is going to really compete amongst the top guys, B. He is going to be some sort of missing link between big 4 and the rest who can win another masters or two but not much else, C. He will continue to play like 2013, top 8 but not winning anything big, or D. this was an aberration, and he will quickly return to a regular in the top 30.