Tennis 2016

[Stringer]

Wawrinka has the same number of grand slam titles as Murray...and Murray is meant to be one of the "big 4" and one of the modern greats yet Stan isn't ever mentioned...

Yeah I never understood how Murray seemed to get grouped in with those three. They were/are on another level to him.

 

[wr8_utd]

Stan. 1 Masters title and 3 Slams.

 

[Bole Top]

Waw tied with Murray again in terms of GS titles.

 

[Kevin]

But he wasn't faking injury though.

I believe he was. Again. But obviously this is a fruitless discussion.

 

[Bojan11]

Wawrinka has the same number of grand slam titles as Murray...and Murray is meant to be one of the "big 4" and one of the modern greats yet Stan isn't ever mentioned...

Yeah because all the masters and Olympic titles Murray has won don't count.

Wawrinka has won one master and Murray has won 12.

Wawrinka has won 15 titles and Murray 41.

 

[Kevin]

Wawrinka has beaten Djokovic and Nadal in top form on clay before too. That top level though... If only he had as much ambition and mental strength as Federer/Djoko/Nadal and played like that consistently...

 

[Jazz]

What a match! Get in Stan the Man! Well deserved.

 

[Bole Top]

Waw also has olympics - but in doubles.

 

[wr8_utd]

Stan has an Olympics double and has won the Davis Cup. Stan hadn't beaten a single top ten player all season before the USO

 

[Bojan11]

Wawrinka has beaten Djokovic and Nadal in top form on clay before too. That top level though... If only he had as much ambition and mental strength as Federer/Djoko/Nadal and played like that consistently...

He's beaten Nadal once on clay and that was in 2015. Nadal was hardly in top form.

 

[Ole's_toe_poke]

Stan has become so much more than I thought he'd be.

Could win the career slam if he wins Wimbledon. Incredible.

 

[Jazz]

Wawrinka has beaten Djokovic and Nadal in top form on clay before too. That top level though... If only he had as much ambition and mental strength as Federer/Djoko/Nadal and played like that consistently...

It's the lack of mental strength (though that's improved massively under Magnus Norman) and consistency.
Stan is up and down - hence not that many Masters titles and such. Anyway, winning slams is the goal and he's got 3. Wonder if he'll win Wimbledon to join the small list of players that have won all four slams?

 

[Piratesoup]

Who would've thought 5 years ago, when Wawrinka should have been in his prime and had 0 GS, that he'd be only one Wimbledon title away from completing the career grand slam aged 31?

 

[Wayne's World]

Yeah because all the masters and Olympic titles Murray has won don't count.

Wawrinka has won one master and Murray has won 12.

Wawrinka has won 15 titles and Murray 41.

And when both finish their careers, I doubt they will look very much into Masters titles and for the Olympic gold, I'm sure Murray would swap it for at least a couple more majors deep down

 

[Kevin]

He's beaten Nadal once on clay and that was in 2015. Nadal was hardly in top form.

He's destroyed Djokovic in Rome though when your man was in amazing form and on a long winning streak... What a sight, he just overpowered a top form djokovic.

 

[Bojan11]

And when both finish their careers, I doubt they will look very much into Masters titles and for the Olympic gold, I'm sure Murray would swap it for at least a couple more majors deep down

What?

Did you see Djokovic crying a few weeks ago? Roger would drop one of his slams for a singles Olympic gold and so would Djokovic.

 

[Wayne's World]

What?

Did you see Djokovic crying a few weeks ago? Roger would drop one of his slams for a singles Olympic gold and so would Djokovic.

Because Djokovic has 12 majors and Federer has 16, of course both of them would swap a major for that but Murray only has three when really he could have had much more

 

[Kevin]

What?

Did you see Djokovic crying a few weeks ago? Roger would drop one of his slams for a singles Olympic gold and so would Djokovic.

Djokovic maybe, since these Eastern Europeans care more deeply for their nation, but would Roger feck give up a GS and risk Djokovic (or Nadal a few years ago) catching up with his precious GS record.

 

[Jazz]

He's destroyed Djokovic in Rome though when your man was in amazing form and on a long winning streak... What a sight, he just overpowered a top form djokovic.

And the medical time outs

 

[Jazz]

Because Djokovic has 12 majors and Federer has 16, of course both of them would swap a major for that but Murray only has three when really he could have had much more

17

 

[Bojan11]

He's destroyed Djokovic in Rome though when your man was in amazing form and on a long winning streak... What a sight, he just overpowered a top form djokovic.

But you said he destroyed Nadal in top form. Nadal was far from top form in 2015.

He's also never played Djokovic at Rome.

My man? I prefer Nadal and Del Potro. But I don't dislike Djokovic.

 

[Kevin]

And the medical time outs

Yep. But I meant Djokovic at the time in that Rome final, he was an al conquering beast and Wawrinka not only matched, but overpowered him shot for shot.

 

[Jazz]

Yep. But I meant Djokovic at the time in that Rome final, he was an al conquering beast and Wawrinka not only matched, but overpowered him shot for shot.

Did they play in Rome? Not sure... or do you mean the French Open final?

 

[ZDwyr]

Yeah because all the masters and Olympic titles Murray has won don't count.

Wawrinka has won one master and Murray has won 12.

Wawrinka has won 15 titles and Murray 41.

This is correct.

EDIT: But congrats to Stan, when he is on he really is unbeatable.

 

[Kevin]

But you said he destroyed Nadal in top form. Nadal was far from top form in 2015.

He's also never played Djokovic at Rome.

My man? I prefer Nadal and Del Potro. But I don't dislike Djokovic.

Pardon, I meant the french open final. Don't know why I though Rome was Paris.

 

[Kevin]

Did they play in Rome? Not sure... or do you mean the French Open final?

Yes, brain fart. Didn't fake it.

 

[Bojan11]

The people that ridicule the masters clearly just watch the slams.

Masters are just as hard because if you start slowly then the game can be over with it being three sets. You play like 3 or 4 days straight.

 

[Kevin]

When I grew up the Masters was the fifth most important tennis tournament. Biggest one in the sport after the slams.

 

[friend]

Stan. 1 Masters title and 3 Slams.

Ridiculous stat, isn't it?

Congrats to Stan. He beat Djokovic at the Australian Open final (along with Roland Garros) as well right? That's pretty impressive to be fair.

 

[Jazz]

The people that ridicule the masters clearly just watch the slams.

Masters are just as hard because if you start slowly then the game can be over with it being three sets. You play like 3 or 4 days straight.

I watch as much of them as possible and yes they are difficult - but at the end of the day winning a slam is the ultimate achievement irrespective of the Masters imo

 

[Bojan11]

When I grew up the Masters was the fifth most important tennis tournament. Biggest one in the sport after the slams.

?

I'm talking about all the 1000 masters event. Like Rome, Miami, Monte Carlo, Toronto etc. Not the end of season finals. They are 5th important, but it's not easy winning them. There are like 9 masters a year. Wawrinka has only won one which is pretty piss poor, if I'm being honest.

 

[Jazz]

Ridiculous stat, isn't it?

Congrats to Stan. He beat Djokovic at the Australian Open final (along with Roland Garros) as well right? That's pretty impressive to be fair.

No only at the French. Beat Nadal in Australia

 

[friend]

The people that ridicule the masters clearly just watch the slams.

Masters are just as hard because if you start slowly then the game can be over with it being three sets. You play like 3 or 4 days straight.

I think there was a debate a while back among the commentators and pundits as to what is harder: winning a grand slam or the back to back masters? Don't remember what the consensus was at the time but I'm sure the players take Masters events very seriously as well. Of course not on the level of a slam but winning more than a few when all or most of the top players are present is a pretty big achievement.

 

[Bojan11]

I watch as much of them as possible and yes they are difficult - but at the end of the day winning a slam is the ultimate achievement irrespective of the Masters imo

I'm not denying that.

I'm just saying it's ridiculous to say Wawrinka is on par with Murray career wise because they won the same number of slams. Murray has won way more tournaments.

 

[Jazz]

I'm not denying that.

I'm just saying it's ridiculous to say Wawrinka is on par with Murray career wise because they won the same number of slams. Murray has won way more tournaments.

Oh my bad, didn't read through the posts properly.

 

[friend]

No only at the French. Beat Nadal in Australia

Hmm, my bad. Still, winning a grand slam against one of the big 3 (especially your first) is very impressive. And considering he is a pretty decent grass court player, he actually has a decent shot at winning Wimbledon too if he can manage to play at this level again, which he obviously can but doesn't often do it.

 

[Kevin]

?

I'm talking about all the 1000 masters event. Like Rome, Miami, Monte Carlo, Toronto etc. Not the end of season finals. They are 5th important, but it's not easy winning them. There are like 9 masters a year. Wawrinka has only won one which is pretty piss poor, if I'm being honest.

Feeling old now. What is the year end tournament called nowadays when the top 8 duke it out? It used to be the Masters.

I've had a mare in this thread You wouldn't know that i've played 10 years of competitive tennis being once ranked no. 7 among the juniors in Holland and used to follow all the tournaments, was able to rattle off the top 20 ranking and its weekly mutations on command and knew everything about my idol Pete Sampras if you'd see me posting in this thread. An embarrassment

 

[RooneyLegend]

When I grew up the Masters was the fifth most important tennis tournament. Biggest one in the sport after the slams.

It still is but not everyone is into tennis so they just care about the grand slams.
The hierarchy is something like this; Grand slams, end of year championships, masters 1000. When Federer, who is basically Jesus in the sport decided the Olympics was paramount importance to greatness in 08, that kind of elevated them to second place.

 

[ZDwyr]

No only at the French. Beat Nadal in Australia

Nadal's back was shot in that match. Stan may have gone on to win anyway but the injury definitely altered the match in a pretty big way.

 

[Bojan11]

I think there was a debate a while back among the commentators and pundits as to what is harder: winning a grand slam or the back to back masters? Don't remember what the consensus was at the time but I'm sure the players take Masters events very seriously as well. Of course not on the level of a slam but winning more than a few when all or most of the top players are present is a pretty big achievement.

Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and Murray have taken them seriously.

On the current tour, Berdych won his only master in 2005. Tsonga and Wawrinka won in 2014. Ferrer has won one. Cillic won this year when Federer and Djokovic weren't playing.

The big four have dominated them in the last 10 years. 75 of the last 90 masters have been won by them.