Poll: Who’ll Win More Grand Slams, Andy Murray Or Stan Wawrinka?
by Staff | June 10th, 2015, 1:45 pm
  • 103 Comments

Now that they are tied at two apiece in the Grand Slam count (together they have won the Career Slam), who’ll win more Slams between Andy Murray and Stan Wawrinka?

The Case For Andy Murray:
- More experienced – been a top 5 member for years
- Has won more titles
- More versatile than Wawrinka
- Has $$$ support from Great Britain
- Has made 8 Grand Slam finals
- Two years younger than Wawrinka
- Better chance of winning on grass than Wawrinka

The Case For Stan Wawrinka:
- Has recently beaten Nadal and Djokovic in Slam finals (Murray has struggled v Big 3 since back surgery – 1 win)
- More offensive than Murray
- Has the support of Roger Federer
- Also beat Federer in Monte Carlo
- Is 2-0 in Slam finals (Murray 2-6)
- Has Magnus Norman (Murray lost Lendl)
- Has won 2 Slams titles while Murray hasn’t won a Slam since Wimbledon 2013
- Has been durable – played in 41 straight Grand Slams – with no major injuries
- Better chance of winning on clay than Murray


You Might Like:
Poll: Who’ll Win The French Open Final Between Novak Djokovic And Stan Wawrinka?
Poll: Novak Djokovic Or Andy Murray, Who’ll Win The 2016 French Open Men’s Final?
Poll: Who’ll Win The ATP Finals Where Federer Is The Favorite
Poll: Who’ll Win The Wimbledon Final, Novak Djokovic Or Roger Federer?
Poll: Who’ll Win More Wimbledons, Novak Djokovic Or Petra Kvitova?

Don't miss any tennis action, stay connected with Tennis-X

Get the FREE TX daily newsletter

103 Comments for Poll: Who’ll Win More Grand Slams, Andy Murray Or Stan Wawrinka?

Giles Says:

Murphy!


calmdownplease Says:

The case for Stan?

There is no case for Stan.

If he ends up winning more slams than Andy it has sadly meant that while Wawa has (presently & finally) maximised his true potential.
Andy has not.
And that will be a shame and a loss to tennis overall.
Unlike anything Wawrinka is going to do going on.
Face it Fed fans, your number 2 swiss favourite has had great fortune to be in the right place at the right time on 2 occasions.
Albeit deservedly so.
He wont be winning a third without lightening striking for a third time.


Hippy Chick Says:

Andys my favorite,although i do also like Stan,and i hope both win more GS,as it makes the tennis landscape looks great with more players in the mix,however i digress,i think Andy has been the more consistent of the two been a top 4 player,for the best part of a decade,Stan is brilliant and beautiful to watch when hes on,but has a tendency to blow hot and cold,Andy has gone deep in most of the GS,where as Stan can suffer an unexpected loss,i think both will win more,but Andy has the edge….

Next question will Cilic win another,as he looked to be getting back to his best,still early days though i suppose?….


brando Says:

Really, really good question and excellent topic to discuss. I’m going to make a call later after some thought but Andy is 2 years younger which makes a significant difference especially when both are over the mark of age 28.


dari Says:

Ummmmm $ support plays nothing into either of their careers at this point. They can independently bank roll anything by now. Earlier in career maybe but not now. Doubt Andy takes $ from lta now.
Not to mention that $witzerland is no slouch financially.
Anywho I pick Murray simply due to age


KatH Says:

I think Stan maybe on a roll and predict one more soon. Andy will end up with another 3 by the time he reaches Stan’s age.

Neither of them will overcome the nos. of Federer, Nole or Rafa. But who cares – let’s just enjoy all of them — would be good if Gael wins one – gosh wouldn’t that be good – also Tsonga…they have the quality.


DC Says:

if you leave mathematics aside, Andys 2 are more than Stans 2. Since Andy has been to more finals, hes been closer to many more than Stan. Andy has been an overall better GS performer than Stan.
that being Said, Wawa will win more GSs than Andy.

If Wawa is on a roll, no one can stop him. When Andy is on a roll, many players having a good day at work can stop him. Though Andy does get on a roll more often than Wawa, its highly likely that Wawa once or twice has a good fortnight at work.


Tennis Vagabond Says:

Ah, Calmdownplease, that was funny. What was the right place and right time for lucky Stan to win? Centre court on the final Sunday?

I think Murray will win more Slams because he is more often in the mix. I don’t think his top end is as high as Wawrinka’s – right now, I don’t believe ANYONE’s top end is as high as Stan’s. But if Novak goes down with an injury, or has to babysit, for example, Murray is like his stand-in.

In other words, Wawrinka has a better chance of beating Novak than Murray does, but Murray has a better chance against the field.


brando Says:

@TV: lol, glad someone picked up on that one. Wawa was lucky? Yeah he sure was out playing Novak, Rafa (saw first set again recently: I admit he was) at AO, then Federer and Novak at FO. Such a lucky boy: having the ability to completely outplay, blast off the court certified legends. He’s lucky on that front. But as for his slams win: there is no doubt about it. He came he saw and he conquered. Right now Novak, Rafa and Roger would EASILY pick a on Muzza over a hot wawa since with muzza IF those guys click they know they can beat him with their best. But with wawa: it’s not as clear. Wawrinka’s aggressive hitting is far more dangerous, intimidating than Andy’s counterpunching. Just ask the best in the business right now.


RZ Says:

Murray, simply because his consistency will give him more chances to win a GS as he is more likely to reach finals. This is assuming that Wawrinka is going to continue with his hot-and-cold play and have a bunch of early exits.

Also, I have a feeling that Murray will win one of the next 3 slams.


Rich Says:

Murray has so much more speed than Wawrinka, has the better backhand on fast surfaces, and is great on all surfaces.

Wawrinka has not looked good on grass, although much credit to him for vastly improved clay court performances. His 1-hander, while a stroke of beauty, requires more time and better balance to launch, and therefore is a disadvantage against 2-handed competition.

Due to the speed and the backhands, Murray matches up better against Djokovic, assuming Novak is coached properly and moves Wawrinka side-to-side, focusing mostly on forcing Wawrinka to hit moving backhands off balance, none of which Novak did in the FO Final (shame on Becker/Vajda, plus Novak might have been too exhausted).

Regarding Hippy Chick’s Q about Cilic winning another Slam, he should, given his immense talent, great serve and fine groundstrokes, but he probably won’t given his between-the-ears issues. His US Open win did not surprise me, however, just as Gasquet winning a Slam during his career would not have surprised me (now, it would, as Richard these days stands 40 feet behind the baseline, and has stopped attacking the net).


RZ Says:

I think the real question, though, is what would you rather wear: Murray’s Christmas sweater or Wawrinka’s shorts? :-)


sienna Says:

Gael Monfils winning a slam? Crazy talk. How it is at the moment he will never win a slam.
And so it should he doesn’t deserve it throwing away points.


RZ Says:

BTW,I am getting really tired of the Tennis-X staff’s slights against Amelie Mauresmo. The statement that Stan “has Magnus Norman (Murray lost Lendl)” clearly indicates that she is not worth considering as a strength for Murray’s side and only Lendl was. Well, Lendl never got Murray to a claycourt final let alone title, while Mauresmo got him to 2.


Markus Says:

How about pairing Andy’s sweater with Stan’s shorts? They look perfect together.


Markus Says:

How about pairing Andy’s sweater with Stan’s shorts? They look perfect together.


Brando Says:

Cannot really decide so i’ll do a quick run over as to how I see it unfolding for the 2:

ANDY MURRAY:

I think Andy will create more chances due to youth and consistency in doing so at Slams. In Wimbledon he also has a major in which he can bank in being a top tier contender in a manner than maybe wawa cannot do so at a slam…..BUT i think he’ll blow most of the the chances he has. At the end of the day when it comes down it: he’s 2/8 in Slam finals. That fact tells me losing rather than winning is moreso his habit on the biggest stage of all in Tennis.

That horrible losing habit and 2 other points make me doubt him:

1. His mental frailty: I think Andy has some mental vulnerability about him. Enough so that under the tremendous spotlight and pressure of Grand Slam final, he will crack. Just cast your mind back to AO final this year. What a ridiculous self implosion. And unfortunately I can see that happening again with him. At the highest level: he’s clearly the weakest upstairs for me. And more often than not: that’s what matters the most in Slam final: can you keep your head and think clearly under the pressure? History tells me Andy 75% of the time cannot do so and is likely to implode under the pressure.

2. Lack of any real offensive weapon: Wawrinka won FO. Everyone spoke of how he hit 60 winners and how insane his hitting was on either wing. Novak won AO. Many were in awe of how aggressively he was hitting the lines in set 3 and 4. Cilic at USO: serve and FH. Rafa at FO last year: stepping in and cracking that FH.

What has Andy got in his locker that when the fight is tight, he can bring out a major weapon and seize the match? What is his dominating stroke? That game changing/match winning shot? To me really he just does not have it.

To win Slams when it really comes down to it: you must be AGGRESSIVE AND SEIZE THE MATCH in the Andy. You MUST HAVE A MAJOR SHOT that can dictate/change a rally at any point. And to me Andy really lacks on both fronts: aggression is not his style and he really does not that killer shot in his locker either.

His forte is defense, retrieving and counterpunching and that can get you far. But in a major final: it’s just not enough majority of the time.

- STAN WAWRINKA:

For me Wawa has 2 major issues in that he’s 30 so he has a limited window of opportunity. And that he’s inconsistent between Slams so that can make it difficult for him to step up when a major arrives. But beyond that:

I think Wawa is the real deal.

I think a ON Wawrinka scares the #### out of Fedal and Novak. Why? Since Wawa is bringing serious heat to the party. BH/FH: he can kill the point off. His power is easy and consistent. His aggression is natural and there from start to end.

And then mentally:

2/2 is 2/2. He has a 100% Slam final winning record. He was not intimidated by Djokovic at AO. He beat him. Something Andy is yet to do. Nor was he intimidated by Nadal in the final. Set 1- I have to admit- he was running the show.

Roland Garros: Federer, QF, Wawa just blew him off the court. And then the big one: World number 1, prime of his career, winning everything in sight, 25 plus matches unbeaten, and DESPERATELY wanting to win this match more than any:

Wawa beats him. Decisively. Lose the opening set? No matter I win next 3. Go down 0-3 in set 4? No matter i’ll win the set anyhow. Pressure points, facing multiple BP? It’s all good since my aggression will see me tough out this scenario.

Wawa was just unreal in that match.

Put simply:

IF Andy Murray plays his best tennis………..Fedal and Novak will still think they can win IF they produce their best.

IF wawa plays his best though……..Fedal and Novak will still question themselves IF they can produce their best since Wawa brings aggression unlike any to the table. They know the match will not be on their racquet: it’s on Wawrinka’s.

And for me that quality makes me believe that IF wawrinka is on his game then he not Andy Murray will make the greater noise in future Slams since he not Andy is the one fedal and Novak are intimidated by.


Okiegal Says:

Andy would have to be a blast to hang out with. The sweater says it all……great sense of humor this chap has! Love him……have no clue who will get more slams! Stan is playing out of his mind atm….but can he keep this level of play the rest of the year?? It won’t be long until we can see who will hoist the Wimby trophy. We may all be in for a surprise!! Will Queens tune up give us any clues???


Okiegal Says:

@Brando

Did you write this long post with Sienna in mind?? Lol. :)


RZ Says:

@Markus – I can’t decide whether to laugh hysterically at the notion of Andy’s sweater with Stan’s shorts or shudder in horror. :-)


Markus Says:

@RZ: I know where to get the pants but where can I buy that sweater? I would like them for my Halloween costume this year! My tennis friends will die when they see me in them.


Wog Boy Says:

“Well, Lendl never got Murray to a claycourt final let alone title, while Mauresmo got him to 2.”

RZ, I like your posts but I think two GS titles and Olympic gold that Andy won under Lendl guidance worth much more than two CC titles, it is just not comparable. Now with the baby on the way forget Amelie and let’s see what Jonas can do.


Snowbird Says:

It’s difficult to predict who’ll win more. Going by their age, it would be logical for me to assume it will be Murray winning more slams. However, the way things are at the moment, it’s logical to assume that Djoko will be waiting in the finals as usual. Either guy would have to beat him to win another slam, unless he gets beaten early by another player. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see how it all unfolds.


RZ Says:

@Wog Boy – I don’t disagree with you in the least. Lendl did great with Andy, getting him over the finish line on 3 important occasions and achieving the main goals of their partnership. My overall point is that the Tennis-X staff tend to be very dismissive of Amelie as Andy’s coach (e.g., calling it an “experiment,” when Nole taking on Becker, Federer taking on Edberg, or even Isner taking on Gimblestob were never referred to as “experiments”_, and never seem to take into account that she took the job on when he was only recently back from back surgery (which would take a while to get up to speed). Also, it’s only been on year and all the coaches, pros, and commentators say that it takes a while for changes to be seen. I mentioned those 2 claycourt titles to prove that there has been value to the still fairly new relationship between the two.


RZ Says:

@Markus – if you have that Halloween costume, you need to post a link to a pic somewhere. I would also die from laughter. Don’t know where you’d find that exact sweater but I think you could make something very similar. A quick Google search and I came up with this option: (http://www.collectionsetc.com/Product/diy-ugly-christmas-sweater-kit.aspx)


The Great Davy Says:

It’s is surprising either of this players has more slams than me…


Emily Says:

Agree w/ a lot of Brando’s comments.

While Stan is older, he has a few other things going for him. He has never been a slam runner-up and while he certainly hasn’t been to as many finals as Andy, that knowledge that you play your best when the stakes are at their highest helps so much mentally. Any histrionics from his opponent wouldn’t have interrupted his rhythm.

Stan also prefers the slam’s best of 5 format b/c if he is having an off day or his confidence isn’t there, he can work his way into a match. He loses that first set to Novak in a MA, he loses the match. In a slam, he knows he can come back from a set down and go the distance to get the win (though 4 sets is preferable). Andy seems to be the opposite in that just when he looks to be taking control of a match, for example winning the 2nd set in AO, he doesn’t keep the momentum. Against Novak in both AO and 2014 UO, he just deflated, even though they were tied at a set apiece. Stan was in the same position, and while it is hard to compare, he didn’t look back after set 2, but adjusted his game to how Novak was playing and remained consistent.

I also agree w/ Brando in Andy’s lack of a weapon. With Stan’s run in Paris, it obviously shows that sustained aggression is essential in order to beat Novak or Fedal. My sister (who knows nothing about tennis) was watching Novak and Andy playing, and she thought it looked like pong at times. When she watched the final, she liked watching the long rallies, seeing the angles and weight of the shots. You can’t just outlast Nole as both Roger and Stan have shown this year. You have to play a smart and aggressive game. During both of those Novak losses, his opponent was playing really smart tennis and didn’t let him stay in his comfort zone. Andy needs a new approach and I do wish you could point to a weapon other than great defensive skills or movement, for example. Novak has these as well, so Andy has to bring something else to the table otherwise he becomes Novak-lite.

I do think Stan definitely has struck some fear in the other players right now, and if he can keep that going, I would say he wins another slam sooner than Andy. While Andy has the luxury of time, he will always have Novak right beside him and that may be one of the most important factors in terms of winning more slams.


Daniel Says:

The things is of the last 6 Slams, Wawa won 2 and Djoko 2. mUrray hasn’t won a Slam of the last 8, this Wimbledon will be his 9 Slam after his 2013 title. Federe is on 12 Slams with no title. Nadal won RG last year but is 4 without a title. @ more Slams to go this year and let’s see if Djoko gets at least 1 more or someone else steps in, or the other Big 4 can get 1.


roy Says:

the simple fact is if nadal didn’t injure his back and deliver only second serves in the AO final, stan would have been beaten. nadal actually won a set without a first serve. if it had been a regular match, nadal would have retired.

and novak was under a ton of pressure to win the french, and that did have an impact.

the details matter.


Dan Says:

This is a great topic for discussion.

I find it amusing the people that think with their hearts and not their heads. I read someone on here talk about how Murray technically has more majors than Stan because he’s lost in an additional 6 finals. ???? Excuse me, that’s the whole point, how many would each WIN.

None of us really knows, but I am leaning to Wawrinka because when he makes it to the late rounds, he can beat everyone. Murray has been more consistent over the years, but that hasn’t won him very many titles.

Another big factor is ability to beat the big players in the majors. If you look at the two majors Murray won, he only needed to beat one big player in his run. In the U.S. Open he lucked out having Berdych for his semi before beating Djokovic. Same at Wimbledon, he only had to beat Tsonga before beating Djokovic. Both majors Stan has won, he beat the reigning #1 and #2 in the tournament. When he is on he can beat everyone. In majors, Murray has only been able to beat one big player. Never has he beaten two.

Still, injuries, etc could decide this discussion, only time will tell.


skeezer Says:

“the simple fact is if nadal didn’t injure his back and deliver only second serves in the AO final, stan would have been beaten.”
Ya got some medical proof on that?
Details matter.


sienna Says:

Fed should have had:
-AO open 08 (obvious)
-Wimbly 08 (lacking fysique due Mono)
-AO open 09 (back problem due to overtraining after monoyear compensate)
- Wimbly 10 ( lacking fysique due to lunginfectie)
-Us open 10 ditto

so i wont go further. I feel 2010 could have been the last of TMF years but for 2 severe career threathening non tennis related sicknesses.


Hippy Chick Says:

Rich thanks,and i agree,but personally i hope not….


Margot Says:

On grass: Stan 21 wins, 20 losses.


KatH Says:

What has yet to occur is Andy v Stan at the business end of a GS tournament? All things being equal – i.e. neither nursing an injury – my money is on Andy — even though Stan can storm his way thru Nole/Fed/Rafa (when he’s on fire) – he has yet to defeat Andy in a similar situation/and Andy has yet to beat Stan.


danica Says:

Roy,
I don’t think the details matter. At the end of the day, Stan was a more deserving player in both of those finals. I am a Nole fan but there are no excuses for his loss. I read a lot about the pressure, history making, fatigue, groin injury… but hey, tough luck. It’s not Stan’s problem. He got out there, he played, he was better than those two, he won. No one can take those titles from him.

To answer the question of this article, I won’t elaborate (too tired) but Andy hands down.


brando Says:

@KatH: wawrinka stepped up- or did his wawa 2.0 debut akin to nole 2.0 in 2011- in the calendar year 2013. He was a new man in the big time. He played Andy twice. Won both times. Won both in straight sets. Blasted him off the court and in USO 13′. For me: Andy’s style matches up very well with this wawa, a on wawa. Andy brings no real power, aggression or offensive weapons to the party so wawa can easily dictate the match. That’s all he wants. Andy’s forte is defense, retrieving and counterpunching. That suits wawa just fine. The overall h2h is 8-6 Murray. That’s close. A lot closer than wawa v nole, wawa v rafa or wawa v fed. Now if he’s enjoying real success v the big 3 now: imagine what he’ll do to a Murray he’s ONLY 2 behind in the h2h. A Murray he’s 2-0 up on from 2013. A Murray who has NEVER faced grand slam winner Wawrinka. In my opinion that matchup suits wawrinka very well. The historic h2h indicates its not a major problem for him, the recent h2h and the new wawa suggests it will be one he’ll really enjoy. I think outside grass courts: wawa would fancy his chances v Andy pretty much anywhere at a slam strongly.


brando Says:

@Roy: I disagree. I’m a major Nadal fan. Until recently I always that rafa was unlucky (which all agree he was) not to have had the chance to mount a comeback in the match. A set and a break does not mean a match is over in best of 3, let alone best of 5. So I think everyone agrees with that. BUT until recently I thought rafa was with wawa in the first set in the match, but having seen highlights for the first time since that match: it was DEFINITELY all wawrinka. He was running the show no doubt. Now rafa did say he pulled his back in the day prior to the final so it could be he walked into a losing battle, but the truth is: wawrinka was running that set. And I think had rafa been healthy and wawa still played like that: I see no real reason to doubt wawrinka in that possibility at all. Besides: he is the ONLY ONE to beat AO king Novak so he 110% deserved that title. No asterisks, no he was lucky etc. He was just too damn good. Like he was at RG this year.


brando Says:

@Emily: completely agree with your posts and would like to add the following: 1- wawa is less injury prone than Andy: he’s had fewer injuries, injury breaks, absence from slams than Andy. Health is always the main starting point and for him it seems easier to maintain. 2- less punishing, taxing style for wawa: Andy needs his body to be in peak condition since his retriever, defense style depends on it. It’s his edge, main weapon on tour. That tails and off a bit and he’s in trouble. For wawa though: it’s all about his shots. 3- ANDY MURRAY HAS PLAYED MORE CAREER MATCHES: muzza has played over 75 more matches than wawa. That means wawa’s body has clocked less mileage and arguably is the more fresher of the 2. 4- wawa less likely to waste energy outside slams: it’s quite clear wawa hardly plays much outside slams since he does not go consistently deep in events. And I don’t think he cares much about that either. Andy though does. He’s pretty consistent, which is means he’s likely to expend more energy and be the less fresher of the 2. That matters huge: just look at Andy’s pre RG Rome withdrawal for proof. So for me when you study, investigate the facts, their history, recent years I think that the gap between the 2- strictly at slam winning capability- is a lot closer than many think and I actually favour wawrinka or envisage him to be the more likely winner out of the 2 in slams outside Wimbledon. When it comes to it: can one see better players out there than a inform Murray? I’d say YES. A peak Novak for one can topple him. But can one see better players than a hot wawrinka? Honestly speaking: I think I agree with Mats Wilander when he said that a on wawrinka is the most dangerous top tier on tour. Hence: I’m leaning towards wawa for future wins.


KatH Says:

@ Brando
Two articles I read recently mentioned Andy and Stan contests – but I didn’t gather that they met at the Business end of a GS. You mentioned 2013 GS – I don’t recall Andy going deep there – but what you say indicates I’m wrong – OK. My apologies for not checking the accuracy of what I read.

Re. Stan- he has been one of my favourites for a while – and still is….I also said that Stan is likely to win another GS soon and that Andy would win 3 more GS within next 2 years.

While there is logic in saying that if Stan can beat Nole/Rafa/Roger, he should find Andy “a-walk-in-the-park”. My own view is that match-ups are never that simple.
Cheers

Cheers


Markus Says:

Andy and Stan, both great and hopefully both will win more slams. It does not matter to me who wins more as long as either, hopefully, both or them add more to their slam titles.

What I find remarkable in Andy is that two of his biggest wins were sources of national pride for his country, Scotland, and the United Kingdom in general: Wimbledon after so many years without its own homebred champion and the Olympics when it was held in its backyard in 2012.


jane Says:

kath, stan and andy have played 4 times at slams:

USO 08 R16 – andy won in straights

wimbledon 09 R16 – andy won in 5 sets. was a roof involved? can’t remember

USO 09 R32 – stan won in 4 sets

USO 13 Quarterfinals – stan won in straights, and that’s the last time they’ve played

andy leads the h2h 8-6.
stan’s won the last 2.
they have not played in nearly 2 years.

a match between them now would be intriguing since they are both in form.

it’s true stan generally doesn’t do as well on grass as on clay and hard courts; however, he played fed very close last year at wimbledon in the quarterfinals, winning set 1, and set 2 going to a tiebreak. the last 2 sets had just one break of serve. definitely he’s a new player since 2013. is that when magnus norman joined his team?


calmdownplease Says:

Listen dumb*sses, Andy’s form declined because (now pay attention)he had SURGERY
That’s not an excuse, it’s a fact
He is the better, more talented player
Without this injury/surgery interlude it would be a no-brainer.
Wawrinka thinks Murray’s the better player too and has basically said so
Wawrinka was LUCKY to beat an injured Nadal in the AO final but deserved it anyway because he beat Novak on the way to the final
Wawrinka was lucky to beat an emotionally spent Djokovic at the FO, but deserved it given his form.
He wasn’t even near slams or Masters titles prior to the cracking of the top 4 through injury, age, etc and that is that
He knows it too, deal!
lol
(And he is still a great player, and may I add a bit of an inspiration).
And Wawrinka’s form is not higher than Murray’s
I mean, WHAT?
Okay some people really much prefer his style of tennis, or Fed’s.
But have some perspective and accept that’s what you are actually expressing.


Daniel Says:

Anyone knows if Djoko will play Halle or Queens next week, did he announced it yet?

Think draws should come out tomorrow or early Saturday.


jane Says:

daniel, i was wondering the same thing myself. i haven’t heard anything but the website says his next event is wimbledon.

cdp, if you had to pick who’s had the better career until now, there is no question it’s andy. he has more titles, more slam finals, and his ranking has been much more consistent and high.


Markus Says:

cdp: I couldn’t reconcile how surgery could be blamed for Andy’s “decline” while it was also after that surgery that he made the finals at the Australian, won 2 clay events one of which is a Masters 1000 and reached number 2 in the ranking again. Are those achievements considered “decline” in your vocabulary?


KatH Says:

OK Jane – Believe you all – If I can spot the articles I’ll check — but they used the “business end of GS” – even so, I would consider a quarter final the “business end” and there was certainly one of those as you said.

As to CDP’s – spirited comment…was great – but I still think match-ups can be a very significant factor.

Looking forward to Wimbledon.


Margot Says:

Lol.Could be Andy has played more matches than Stan because he has gone deeper in tournaments? Rocket science…not.
Fed is 7th on win/loss ratio on grass. Andy is 23rd. Don’t know where anyone else is.
Andy is a better player at the net than anyone else in the top 10, bar Fed. This is telling on grass, even with it being slowed down. Andy doesn’t come to the net nearly as much as he could/should, am wondering if this was one of the reasons Jonas has been taken on board.
@Daniel
Don’t think Nole is playing Queens. He usually plays a couple of matches at the Hurlington Club. A v. v. posh venue.


jane Says:

kath i was curious myself so i checked the atp site for that reason. no worries. :)


calmdownplease Says:

Markus
Andy was getting his ass HANDED to him for over a year after coming back (sic)
And by everyone and his dog, no less.
I was there like real Muzz fans and had to buy the T-Shirt
Yes there came a point where he was almost back and only the best (ie Novak) could trouble him
And beat him he does 8 times in a row.
Its perhaps where we still are right now, although again Andy seems to have inched nearer.
These things just take a long time
As Rafa has discovered to his detriment.


calmdownplease Says:

beat him he did
oh dear!


jane Says:

i was thinking about wawrinka’s slam runs last year. this is purely hypothetical, but in hindsight, he had good winning chances at 3 of the 4 slams….

he won the AO of course.
he lost early at the french.

but let’s say he beat fed at wimbledon in the quarters, i.e., if he had won the second set tiebreak, he would’ve been up 2 sets to none, then who knows? he could’ve beaten raonic in the semis methinks. would he have beaten novak in the finals? i don’t know but it’s possible.

at the us open, he lost a long 5 setter versus kei in the quarters. if he had won that match, it would’ve been him facing novak in the semis, and nole was off his game that day. stan could’ve won that, and if he had, would he have beaten cilic in the finals? chances are decent to good.

this year, he pushed novak to 5 sets at the AO before winning the FO. so it seems like he’s been inching closer-and-closer, performing well at most of the slams for a full two years. he’s very up and down at the rest of the events, though.


Margot Says:

@CDP
Yep. Andy was outside the top 10, Autumn last year. How Andy fans suffered with all the “Andy is finished” comments from the foolish.


calmdownplease Says:

Jane
I think, and it’s a bit cliched however, that perhaps living under Federer’s shadow for so long took away some of his confidence, and so it has taken him a long time to evolve to his present state. It is no surprise that to me that this evolution has occured while Fed has started to show signs of not being a factor at the slams.
As for the speculation on his missed slam success, well `if ifs and ans were pots and pans…` jumps to mind on that one.


Felipe Says:

Stop the crap with “a healthy Nadal would have beaten Wawa”…Nadal disrespectfully took all the credit from Wawrinka, saying “i was not able to compete”…and once winning the Frech open last year saying “Tennis owed me”…implying that his bad luck prevented him to obtaining the second slam.
Now, if any of you objectively take a look at that match, we can say that Nadal looked perfectly fine during set one until second set 2-1 down, break down. He then proceeded to let us know that he could barely move trough the remaining set two but then, with the help of some painkillers and masagge he started to move better, play better, serve better (not up to his top potential)and by set 4 he was just like in set 1.
Its there, the images are there, during set 4 he was running like the first set, since he was feeling better AND saw that maybe after winning the third set, Wawrinka might be getting tight and a comeback could be done….however, Wawrinka displayed amazing aggresion and after 3 consecutive trade of breaks proceeded to finsih Nadal off. So in my book, set 1 and 4 where played in fair conditions, with an score 6-3 / 6-3 Wawrinka.
Wawrinkas level during his both slams triumphs were sublime.
Now on the subject, Murray might have more chances than Wawrinka, but it looks like Wawrinka actually TAKES his chances, while Murray more often than not fails.


Daniel Says:

Jane,

Excellent observations, Wawa is only losing to the hot players in Slams (bar RG last year) and the matches he lost were close. Lost 2 5 setters in HC Slams and one 4 setter in Wimbledon to eventual finalist. He became a Big Match player. And now with improved rankings he can get easier draws and avoid dangerous players early on. Also he conserving energy and only spending mental fortitude for Slams is important as well.

Markus,

Andy is not #2 in rankings just yet, he is still #3 after Fed. He is #2 on the race this year so far.

Jane, Margot,

Checked both tourneys (Halle and Queens) and there is no Djokovic. There were some old news that he might play Halle but it was not confirmed. Think he will keep his same preparation for Wimbledon.


calmdownplease Says:

`Stop the crap with “a healthy Nadal would have beaten Wawa”…`

I don’t take orders from you thanks
And I didnt quite say that.
And also, anyone that discounts Rafa’s injury as if he couldn’t make a come back is deluded.
Sure Wawrinka could have still won.
But it would have been a lot harder, that’s for certain.


calmdownplease Says:

`Now on the subject, Murray might have more chances than Wawrinka, but it looks like Wawrinka actually TAKES his chances, while Murray more often than not fails…`

Er, I think you’ll find Andy was creating chances when he was much younger than Stan and against the stiffest opponents, not the best luck always.
And not quite ready.
But Wawrinkas chances have all been recent and clearly he HAS been ready (and good for him too).


jane Says:

daniel, and even in 2013, at the AO stan lost to novak 10-12 in the 5th or something, lost in quarters of french to nadal, did crappy at wimbledon, but then took novak to 5 sets again in the semis of the us open. so basically, once again, like in 2014, he was hot at 3 of the 4 slams, with one early loss (wimbledon in 2013 and FO in 2014). so far this year, he’s been semis and winner, meaning this is the 3rd year in a row that stan is producing strong results at the slams.

cdp, i know it’s all hypotheticals… i did mention that. but i was just trying to show that stan’s not a flash in the pan. he’s shown consistently strong results at the slams for a while now. you make a good case about living in fed’s shadow for a number of years. he also seems to have had some personal, off-court issues that may’ve (?) affected his on-court play.


Okiegal Says:

@Margot…..Keep your posts coming! Yours are the most sensible on this forum!! Have a good time at Queens and I’m jealous!! :( O


Markus Says:

@jane: “…Andy is not #2…just yet…

Correct. Just like Hippy Chick, I’m mixing up my numbers but everybody gets the message. It wouldn’t kill anyone.


Hippy Chick Says:

Markus lol i never was any good at maths at school….


Felipe Says:

In all fairness….its true that Murray first 3 slam finals (all losses) where against a top Federer (2008 and 2010) and Robot like Djoker (2011). those 3 losses might have costed him the wimbledon final 2012, in which he basically outplayed Federer on both first and second set, only to let Roger steal set 2 from him (thats why Federer y a legend) and then Roger just took care of business.
But is undeniable that Wawrinka has beaten Nadal and Djokovic in both Slams finals, and that his path to glory has been as tough as any other past champion (Djoker / Berdych / Nadal AUS 2014 and Federer / Tsonga / Djoker French 2015)


Margot Says:

Thanks OKgal.:)
At the mo. am doing a “sun dance!” If it rains at Queens it is dire. There is nothing to do except sit and shiver. Normally it’s a very expensive private club.
Cheers, KatH too.


KatH Says:

Margo – I envy you – but I am happy for you – have the greatest time.

Jane – Appreciate your candour.

To all – it’s good to communicate.


KatH Says:

PS: Off for a walk on the beach – keep well.


jane Says:

markus, it wasn’t me who commented on andy’s ranking. i realize he’s not at 2 yet, though he has been at #2 in the live race for most (if not all?) of this year. stan’s closed the gap considerably in the race rankings with his FO win. there are only 250 points between them now. both have quarters to defend at wimbledon. does anyone know if stan is playing a grass warm up?


Ace Says:

@CDP : What does murray show to you that you are thinking he is better than wawa ? i Seriously think that wawa will have more slam counts than murray

For example : if murray wins 4 out of 15 finals and wawa wins 5 out of 6 , what will you say then ????


Emily Says:

Stan is playing Queens, which has a crazy field this year.

I really thought after this FO, people still wouldn’t be playing the “Nadal was injured” card re. Stan’s win. It really doesn’t need to be pointed out, but he had to beat the #1 and #2 players in the world to win his slams, which none of the big 4 have done (at least in Australia and Paris).

Also, it’s completely ridiculous that Stan has gotten over being in Roger’s shadow b/c Federer is aging. His confidence, really beginning in 2013, is most linked w/ Magnus Norman. He still thinks beating Roger is a huge achievement and he was devastated when he lost in the WTF semis. This year, he seemed to turn his emotions off and just hit through Federer, which left Mirka very quiet.

Also, the post about Stan having a chance to win in NY last year is something I often think about b/c I watched Stan lose to Kei in a match he should have won. I think he would have definitely made the finals and it would have been interesting against Cilic.

It’s a real shame that Stan’s success turned into a him versus Andy debate, and after avoiding so many tennis-x debates, I can’t w/ some of the petty and inaccurate comments about my fave.


Snowbird Says:

@ 12:03pm “…if he had won that match, it would’ve been him facing novak in the semis, and nole was off his game that day. stan could’ve won that, …”

Was it that Djoko was off his game on that day, or was Kei just too good? If true, Djoko was off his game, what made it so? I think Kei played a great match and he beat Djoko fair and square.
———–

I’m glad to see that Stan’s playing a warm-up grass tourney. I’m hoping he can get some match wins under his belt as prep for Wimbledon, but I’m also wondering if it’s too soon after his FO win to give 100 per cent concentration.


Markus Says:

@jane @Daniel: It was Daniel who corrected my ranking error. Not only am I bad at numbers, I’m also bad with names. Add to those how bad I am in predicting winners, I’m really bad at everything!

I also think that Stan losing to Kei at the USO last year was a big loss of opportunity. Djokovic was off in that semifinals. There is no way Kei can beat Djokovic unless the latter is having a bad day.


KatH Says:

Yes, as Emily says, Queens is crazy this year – I wouldn’t care to bet on it – last year’s winner will have a tough time – Nole may be wise to avoid it as he did last year.


calmdownplease Says:

`@CDP : What does murray show to you that you are thinking he is better than wawa ? i Seriously think that wawa will have more slam counts than murray…`

More talent?
Higher ranking?
Better masters and yes slam performances pverall….
But feel free to `seriously think` that all you want.
Lets just see how the next 4 months plays out, never mind the next few years.
I already clearly explained the disparity between opportunities taken and lost, but I concede that `Wawa` is still much better in that respect.


calmdownplease Says:

`overall`


Markus Says:

Slam totals being equal, wouldn’t you think that he who has been to many more finals be the better player? That’s plain logic, isn’t it?


sienna Says:

markus
look on this site for tennis records.
the answer you seek will be there. there are numerous players with equal slamcount. still they place one above the other not randomly.


SG1 Says:

I think Andy will ultimately end up with more slams. His age and consistency will net him a couple of more majors. Too bad Stan couldn’t have found himself 4 or 5 years earlier. He’s basically tennis’ equivalent of a wrecking ball.

Interestingly, I did a demo on Stan’s racket last night. Nice stick but kind of heavy. Wanna’ try the ProStaff 97 (not the autograph version). Anyone try it out yet?


Dan the Man Says:

The title of this article was about who will win more slams. It is spinning other discussions of better players, etc, but I find this main question the most interesting. ‘Better player’ is much harder to define, but for sure, up until this point in their careers, Murray has accomplished much more overall. The last 2 years, though, Wawrinka has accomplished much more in the big events. 2 grand slams and winning a davis cup. I compare it to what brokers say about buying stocks: past performance is not proof of current results. By that standard, Murray has been a solid but not stellar performer, with solid results, and Stan has been a star that has blown away the competition. As a predictor of the future, I would generally invest in who is doing well right now, but who really knows? An injury could put an end to this discussion in a heartbeat. I would also not rely too much on the fact that Murray is younger and has a couple of years more to produce. If one of the up and coming players emerges, he could block wins by anyone else. I would stick with present results, because the further away the predicting, the less reliable it becomes. Especially in sports.


Dan the Man Says:

Another point about predicting Slam Winners, it has been very unreliable in the men’s game in last few years. Back in 2011 when Djokovic raised his game and won 3/4 of the slams, everyone now predicts he will win everything, and they’ve almost always been wrong. Everybody picks him to win 3 out of the 4 slams each year, but in 2012, 2013 and 2014, he only won one each year. That isn’t a dominant #1. He has been the best men’s player (except for Nadal’s 2013 surge) overall, but he hasn’t been able to convert that into too many Slams. There is still a lot of uncertainty in the men’s game as much as he dominates the Men’s 1000 level events, and pundits always pick him to win the slams. He is always a safe pick, but just hasn’t been able to win the big matches.


Daniel Says:

Dan,

That’s why this spam of RG-Wimby is so important, for all of them. Nadal used to dominate RG, Fed best shot always is Wimbledon. Murray also is always expected to deliver at Wimbledon where he won and won Olympics, Djoko chasing RG. So all of them wants this titles and now that neither got RG (Wawa spoiled the party), who will get Wimbledon. There is kind of sense of urgency because realistically this could be Fed’s last shot at a Slam as he is #2 and could get a great draw (Djoko, Murray and Nadal could al be in the same part of the draw and he may have to face just 1 of them, if so). Wawa could be drawn in his side but lose early so his path could be clear to another final, and once there anything can happen no a good serving day.

Murray is dying to get another Slam after his RU and Semis losses to Novak. He lost last 3 Slams to Novak and kind of can’t afford to lose in grass in his home as well. That would be catastrophic for him, Because if he can’t beat Djoko on grass going for a 0-9 where will he win again?!

Nadal maybe be piss to prove himself. He can even get a title on grass this week in stuttgart (he plays Monfils next and Cilic isn’t looking that great either). Next week playing the big guys we’ll know for sure how he games stands, but he is a dark horde for Wimbledon, even not playing great, he always is in Slams.

Djoko may not have recovered from RG lost and if he is not careful he can have an upset in Wimbledon. Grass there is a lot of dangerous players and the margins are really slim, 2 bad points and two breaks and suddenly the other guy has 2 sets. He will have to be extra careful and ficus to regroup and deliver in Wimbledon once again. And even so, when the later rounds emerge knowing what happen in RG, he knows Murray, Fed and Wawa pose a threat to him there. So all eyes will be on him and how he poses there.

And the other guys, if Stan will continue good run, Raonic will be back or to early, if Kei will deliver, Dimitrov or another surprise.


jane Says:

“could get a great draw (Djoko, Murray and Nadal could al be in the same part of the draw and he may have to face just 1 of them”

it is possible of course, daniel, but fed’s already had 2 draws like this since wimbledon last year.

at the us open, nadal was out, but kei, wawrinka, andy and novak were all on the opposite side of fed.

and again at 2015 french open, nadal, andy, and novak were all on the opposite side of fed.

last year at wimbledon, novak and andy were on the same side, with fedal on the opposite one, but of course rafa lost early so fed’s draw opened up somewhat, though he still had to go through stan and milos.

anyhow, no matter how you slice it, once again the draw will be very important at wimbledon.


jane Says:

“but just hasn’t been able to win the big matches.”

i understand what you are saying but imo, this comment is quite debatable.

novak currently holds 2 of the 4 slams. he also holds wtf for the 3rd year in a row. in addition, while he didnt go the final step at roland garros, he did beat NADAL at the french open and then he beat a very game andy murray. personally, i would call those “big matches” myself.

becker described novak’s loss at the french in this way; and while i am not saying he’s 100% right, and have already mentioned that stan played amazingly, this is what coach boom boom said:

“World No 1 Djokovic arrives next week to practise after losing the French final, which Becker partly puts down to the resistance of Murray in their epic semi. ‘In many ways that was the final, five sets over two days,’ he said. ‘Novak played Nadal in the quarters, which had huge hype and then he had to play someone even better.
‘He had lost that extra 10 per cent you need in the final.’”

i agree that novak hasn’t won as many slam finals as (certainly) his fans would’ve liked him to, at only 50%; perhaps especially the 2013 us open smarts for some of us. however, he still has 8 slams to his name, and he consistently goes deep, so he must do okay in big matches. he’s almost sure to eclipse mcenroe’s 170 weeks at number 1. is that not a fairly dominant number 1? he hasn’t done this by loading up on small events either; he barely plays any. he’s done this by winning masters, a slam or two, and world tour finals consistently. not to mention going deep in the slams he doesn’t win, sitting at a consecutive streak of 24 grand slam quarterfinals, without missing any.

knock on wood that he’s had no serious injuries and hasn’t been upset early yet at the slams. these things can and have happened to the best of them. indeed, i agree with daniel that wimbledon seems the mostly likely of slams for early upsets.

anyhow, just wanted to say that i think novak is a big match player. he hasn’t always won them, but he’s won several, and sometimes in spectacular fashion.


sienna Says:

they’ll end up 2 each.
joker max out on 11, Nadal will get another Garros 15…
Feddy might get his window up tot #19
But Cilic can take another 5.


SG1 Says:

Stan’s top gear is better than Andy’s (and probably anyone in the top 3 right now). Andy’s better than Stan day in and day out. It’s personal preference as to which trait makes a player better.


SG1 Says:

Surface obviously plays a role too. I’d take Andy against Stan on grass or a fast hard court.


Daniel Says:

Jane,

I aslo agree with Becker. That 5 set versus Murray took something out of Novak. The “10″ % he was referring to.

It’s just a tiny beat of confidence maybe that would make few of those lobs get in, the drops would be better some BH DTL that was out for a mistiming, of course due to Stan good play. But the fact that Murray push him to the limit was tense and when he lost second serve to Wawa maybe he thought: Sh$%%t, this will go the distance again.

Also playing back to back in later stages is always bad, regardless if it was just 1 hour, I rather they had played 5 sets on Friday till 9:30 pm than have to return the other day. It mess up with their preparation.


Snowbird Says:

@Markus: There is no way Kei can beat Djokovic unless the latter is having a bad day.

June 11th, 2015 at 7:27 pm

So that win has an asterisk? I beg to differ. Kei, when he is on, like Stan, can beat any one of the top guys. On that day Kei was on.

Maybe some of you might laugh at me for saying this, but I believe the most difficult part of a slam are the matches leading up to the QFs. This is where the top guys get a huge advantage, because they play qualis and low ranked players.

Becker seems to be exercising damage control in his statement. Maybe protecting his job? Again, I’ll say that Stan had the more gruelling match. It’s not fun to play for 4 hours in such extreme temperatures. Of the two players, it would have to be Stan who should have lost the 10%.


Wog Boy Says:

jane,

It is true that Nole is “only” 50/50 in GS finals, but look who did he lose from in those finals (and who did he have to beat to get into finals at the first place) and who did he have to beat to win other finals. He just doesn’t get anything easy, does he?


Markus Says:

@Snowbird, yes when Kei is on he can beat any of the top guys…but the top guy has to be off that day. When those top (or any of the big poerful guys) guys are on, Kei will always be at their mercy. See how Cilic annihilated him in the finals? And Cilic is not even among the elite guys.


Wog Boy Says:

I like the way you put it:
“@Snowbird, yes when Kei is on he can beat any of the top guys…but the top guy has to be off that day.”

But with this one you you put yourself in a deep $hit:
“And Cilic is not even among the elite guys.”


jane Says:

wog boy, definitely; it’s “per aspera ad astra” for novak. ;)


Hippy Chick Says:

Novak is a pretty dominant number 1 from where im standing,as for him losing the FO,or Rafa losing the AO,Stan was simply the better player in both cases….


calmdownplease Says:

`But Cilic can take another 5….`

Can someone please FINALLY escort this dithering bag-lady out to the nearest welfare office ASAP?
I fear a complete collapse is imminent…………
hehe


calmdownplease Says:

`The last 2 years, though, Wawrinka has accomplished much more in the big events. 2 grand slams and winning a davis cup. I compare it to what brokers say about buying stocks: past performance is not proof of current results…`

Because he had surgery FFS
A fully fit Nadal and Murray would have locked everything out with Novak.
Having just one of them going for broke (ie Novak) was good for him but he couldn’t be expected to win everything.
The others chasing are good enough that if cracks start showing they’ll take advantage
Otherwise
Cilic Wawrinka and slams might never have happened.


KatH Says:

Queen’s Draw – 1st round

Stan v Kyrgios
Nadal v Dolgopolov
Murray v Qualifier (not named yet)
etc. etc.


Hippy Chick Says:

But Cilic can take another 5,urgh hope not?….


Hippy Chick Says:

Cilic won Queens a couple of years ago,but do we really count that as Nalbandian was disqualified for kicking the hoarding?….


Matador Says:

Murray and is not even close.
Is time for Muzza to avenge his recent losses against Nole and win in Wimbledon if they do meet.


Tennis Fan Says:

Warinka is quite obviously the better player.


Margot Says:

Murray is quite obviously the better player. QED


chda7777 Says:

My one and only favourite is Stan Wawrinka…but what do you mean by “has the support of Roger Federer”??? What in the world does that have to do with him winning another slam…?!?

Top story: Federer, Djokovic Lead Heavily Favored European Team Laver Cup This Weekend