Mens Tennis Forums banner

The very firm & objective reason why Wawrinka cannot be called greater than Murray

9K views 151 replies 46 participants last post by  Featherer 
#1 · (Edited)
The very firm & objective reason why Wawrinka cannot be called greater than Murray

In addition to the obvious aspects of Murray having reached the Autralian Open final 5 times and losing to who is without question the greatest hard courter our game has seen, each occasion. Winning 12 Masters 1000 titles and 2 Olympic Gold medals. There is the factor of doing what Stan will never be able to do and that's win on a specialised surface like grass.

Grass is a very unique surface, even in today's game, as with the way balls react after an opponent slices it or hits a flat shot at you. So Wawrinka would never be able to adopt the style of game he has on other surfaces, on grass surfaces. Chipping the ball back on return, standing far back behind the baseline and taking swings at the ball just wouldn't work. Not with the ball bouncing at your knee caps. This is afterall what Wawrinka does, particularly in return games where he cannot gain the upper edge in the rally (Or stay neutral) with ease, from possessing a good or even reasonable return.

The point is Murray is more capable across a wide range of surfaces and that has been proven by his results on Hard, Grass and even Clay. Or wait, does clay not count because he hasn't won the French, but has beaten Wawrinka at the semi final stage there, Djokovic in the Rome Masters final and Nadal in the Madrid?

Other reasons are one of the keys to being great and achieving in the game is consistency. Wawrinka has none of it. Why? Because he can only play to the level he does occasionally in majors, which is good enough to beat the very elite, when he is FEELING PERFECT.

This shows his game isn't able to stand the test of adversity.
Players with great games can stand the test of adversity. When Wawrinka is slightly bothered mentally, he can't play flawless tennis and it's because there is no down-gear from the all-or-nothing style he aims for. Of course he is mentally not the greatest and when faced with adversity the bloke typically throws in the towel. Even Kyrgios has more spirit than this guy. But the fact of the matter is, he needs to be feeling ontop of the world and in perfect harmony with his mind and soul (And hitting rhythm) to perform any where near his best. This is why he plays his best tennis the deeper he goes in a tournament. Both Federer and Djokovic have confirmed this.

You have to look at the picture as a whole, not just in a shallow 'how many majors has he got' context.

For me revolting fan boys like the ones who are making superficial arguments are falling into the 'recency bias' trap.

"Recency bias" is the phenomenon of a person most easily remembering something that has happened recently, compared to remembering something that may have occurred a while back.
 
See less See more
#3 ·
Re: The very firm & objective reason why Wawrinka cannot be called greater than Murra

Grass nowadays is almost as slow as clay, get a grip.
Bollocks. Absolutely fucking bullshit.

This is the type of main stream garbage that is fed to jokes that live in their own virtual world of what the game is like on tour.

Grass is still EXTREMELY very much like grass. To even insinuate it is anywhere near as close to clay is not only muppet-like, but pathetically ignorant and a showcase of how easily influenced jokes like you are by main stream media crap journalists like Ben Rothernberg and company who are absolutely boring and vacuous. Pro feminists who have no interest or love in the game. Stop reading main stream garbage media.

Grass is still very much grass, it is just NOT AS FAST as it once used to be back in the 1990s and early 2000s. The balls have also become heavier at wimbledon, but if you actually observe (Rather than posting inanely all day every day in this shit forum) the tennis that is going in Halle, Queens and Wimbledon... the effects of grass are still seen. Obviously Halle is still very much fast (Not as fast it used to be) and Queens and Wimbledon are medium fast. The thing that still remains is the way the ball reacts after it makes contact with the surface. If you have a slice serve it benefits you more in especially the first week of wimbledon. Kick serves even out more on the grass. Topspin allows you to dig understand the ball and get it up and over the net, but not if you have an extreme grip like Wawrinka does then being either rushed or dealing with a lower point of contact (Which you get on grass) is not favourable.

IF grass was similar to hard court and clay then you would see Wawrinka do much better on it. You wouldn't see Federer in 2015 serve Murray, the greatest returner the game has seen alongside Djokovic, out of the match. You wouldn't see Feliciano Lopez winning grass titles and going deep at Wimbledon. You WOULDN'T SEE NICOLAS FLIPPING MAHUT WIN Hertogenbosch EVERY FUCKING YEAR.

So don't use that superficial argument here which is based of untruths and media hyperbole/exaggeration. Serious points in this thread only, please.
 
#5 ·
Re: The very firm & objective reason why Wawrinka cannot be called greater than Murra

The fact is, peak Wawa beats peak Murray at 3 out of 4 Majors.
If that was 'the fact' as you say, then this would never have happened.

 
#6 · (Edited)
Re: The very firm & objective reason why Wawrinka cannot be called greater than Murra

Don't worry, we'll add your part to the fore as well. You raise some solid points. (Which though quite obvious are excellently dumbed down for the fanboys on here)

I really like Wawrinka, but for those getting blown away by his recent success, there are a couple things to keep in mind:

- Nadal and Federer are no more, while Murray had to battle these - two of the greatest players of all time - for all his career.
- Djokovic is the one of the three ever-greats still standing, and he happens to be a good style matchup for Wawrinka. While he is not a good style matchup for Murray.

A lot had to come together for Wawrinka to bloom so late in his career, and together it came. I am happy for him, I am happy for tennis, and I enjoy watching him and his beauty of a single handed backhand - more than I enjoy watching Murray. But it is simply childish to claim that his career was superior to Murray's along any relevant dimension.
And I know it's been a long life, but there's still plenty ahead. Wake up bro.
 
#11 ·
Re: The very firm & objective reason why Wawrinka cannot be called greater than Murra

“Few men think; yet all have opinions. ”
Berkeley
 
#14 ·
Re: The very firm & objective reason why Wawrinka cannot be called greater than Murra

^ Good news is that you're not a man, but a mere muppet.
Did you see that as your comedic cue for a cheap half witted line to make yourself appear positive on the muppet tennis forum? :wink2: Good try. Failed though.
 
This post has been deleted
#16 ·
Re: The very firm & objective reason why Wawrinka cannot be called greater than Murra

Anyone here who isn't a degenerate tennis fanboy have the understanding, knowledge and objectivity on this sport, to either add to this discussion or debate with me the points that have been made?

Or is this just sheep hour?
 
#22 ·
Re: The very firm & objective reason why Wawrinka cannot be called greater than Murra

Wawrinka has basically benefited from being a bad match-up for Djokovic (in matches that last long enough for him to find his rhythm at least), and fortunately for him Djokovic is the slam gatekeeper at the moment. USO'16 in particular, he had a physical edge over most of his opponents who had gone deep at the Olympics.

Tennis is a fickle sport, were it not for some stupid gong noise in the QF we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

But seriously Djokovic needs to get an extra coach to deal with the 'Wawrinka problem' how many times does he need to lose or be dragged to 5 sets to realise his game doesn't work against him in long matches. It's becoming embarrassing frankly :facepalm:.
 
#23 ·
Re: The very firm & objective reason why Wawrinka cannot be called greater than Murra

Wawrinka cannot be called greater than Andy because Andy's career, outside their three slam wins, fucking shits all over his. 12 masters titles against one; 8 other slam finals against ZERO; 2 olympic golds against 1; 39 titles against 15; EIGHT years in or around the top 4 vs. three (soon to be)...I could go on and on here.

Then we come to their games, where Andy has so much more to give that it's hilariously embarrassing. Wawrinka has power and a damn good backhand. Andy has a damn good backhand, occasional power, tons of variety, court craft and intelligence. There's really no fucking competition whatsoever. It's a damn shame Andy has the amount of slams he does. He should be sitting on six or seven, with his game, talent and career.

Wawrinka comes nowhere close to his greatness, in slams or outside of them. End of story.
 
#29 ·
Re: The very firm & objective reason why Wawrinka cannot be called greater than Murra

Wawrinka cannot be called greater than Andy because Andy's career, outside their three slam wins, fucking shits all over his. 12 masters titles against one; 8 other slam finals against ZERO; 2 olympic golds against 1; 39 titles against 15; EIGHT years in or around the top 4 vs. three (soon to be)...I could go on and on here.

Wawrinka comes nowhere close to his greatness, in slams or outside of them. End of story.
Pretty much sums up why on paper (Achievments) he is streaks ahead of Wawrinka.

Good post, for once.
 
#24 ·
Re: The very firm & objective reason why Wawrinka cannot be called greater than Murra

The "lucky Wawrinka" theory . . . Seems like it will never die. 3 different slams beating the top players, yet from some of the posts you'd think the guy could barely hit a volley or decent serve.

It's amazing how such a player seems to win. Swiss Voodoo?

Regardless of the Muzza vs. Stanimal issue, Stan has made his mark.
 
#25 ·
Re: The very firm & objective reason why Wawrinka cannot be called greater than Murra

Wawrinka being unable to adapt his game for grass is a myth. Look at Wimbledon '08, '09, and especially '14. He can play at a very high level on grass (which shouldn't be a surprise as he has some of the best tools - look at his serve, slice, volleys...) although so far he has not "peaked" on the surface (note the same would be said of DecoTurf before last week).

Next year perhaps he will prioritise the grass prep a little more and play an extra warm-up tournament before Wimbledon. I'm sure he's well aware how huge a Wimbledon title would be for his career now, being the final piece of the Career Slam jigsaw. That will give him more motivation than he has ever had playing SW19 before (there are those jokes about Djokovic being unbeatable when motivated, but really it is a motivated Wawrinka who is the scariest monster of a player).

Supposing he ran into del Potro in the first week again, or a rejuvinated Federer, then I would not be as optimistic about his chances. On the other hand, if he could reach week two and activate his "sixth gear" (which I really believe is a mental state of being as much as anything) the title would not be unattainable. It's a question of adapting to the surface first (maybe getting through some tough early matches) and building confidence to peak in the last rounds which is historically where he is able to play with most belief and disinhibition.
 
#27 ·
Re: The very firm & objective reason why Wawrinka cannot be called greater than Murra

Wawrinka being unable to adapt his game for grass is a myth. Look at Wimbledon '08, '09, and especially '14. He can play at a very high level on grass (which shouldn't be a surprise as he has some of the best tools - look at his serve, slice, volleys...) although so far he has not "peaked" on the surface (note the same would be said of DecoTurf before last week).

Next year perhaps he will prioritise the grass prep a little more and play an extra warm-up tournament before Wimbledon. I'm sure he's well aware how huge a Wimbledon title would be for his career now, being the final piece of the Career Slam jigsaw. That will give him more motivation than he has ever had playing SW19 before (there are those jokes about Djokovic being unbeatable when motivated, but really it is a motivated Wawrinka who is the scariest monster of a player).

Supposing he ran into del Potro in the first week again, or a rejuvinated Federer, then I would not be as optimistic about his chances. On the other hand, if he could reach week two and activate his "sixth gear" (which I really believe is a mental state of being as much as anything) the title would not be unattainable. It's a question of adapting to the surface first (maybe getting through some tough early matches) and building confidence to peak in the last rounds which is historically where he is able to play with most belief and disinhibition.
Sorry but this entire post shows poor critical thinking, but that may be because you are uninformed about a few certain things.

- You said look at his slice, volley and serve. Let's then.

Slice:

His slice is very mediocre and is not the groundstroke that enables him to beat the very elite players (Djokovic, Murray, Nadal, Federer, Nishikori etc) on the hard and clay courts. It is merely a 'containing' shot in the rally. A chip. It's a chip that flooats up and lands with no penetration, giving the opponent the ability and opportunity to dictate the rally/point.

The reason on clay and hard courts he gets away with these nothing slice returns of serve (Or general defensive chips in rallies) is because after hitting them he 'positions himself' a meter behind the baseline and takes swings at whatever comes at him. He has the power and spin in his ground game neccessery to play 'aggressively' from a meter behind the baseline. Not many guys can do that other than perhaps Dominic Thiem.

Now if you hit a defensive nothing chipped return slice 3/4 to the baseline, with no penetration, on grass, you cannot as Wawrinka position yourself a meter or so behind the baseline in readiness for the next shot. Why? Well the answer is obvious. The ball skids more on grass. There's less bounce. Especially when an opponent flattens their attacking stroke out. So think of these mechanics.

So his 'slice' (If we can even call it that) is actually a weakness for him on grass, because of the style/type of game he looks to employ. It is not a 'knife', he doesn't use low net clearance with it, it doesn't cut through the grass like a good slice backhand would.

Serve:

His serve is good, but his second serve is a kicker and he doesn't really possess much of a slice serve. As we know kick serves suit bouncy hard courts and clay courts and slice serves suit low skidding/bouncing grass courts and fast indoor hard courts. When you hit a kick serve on a grass surface, it won't have the same damaging affect it has on others. Bounce isn't as high and evens out. Obvious, right? So that weapon is less of a factor and his second serve is a little more attackable, therefore, on grass.

Volleys:

His volleys are okay, well actually no, they're very reasonable. Good I would say. However his 'winning game stategy' is not to come to hit great approach shots and finish points at the net. He doesn't chip and charge really, ever. Wawrinka simply comes to the net to put away a club-standard volley when players are chasing down his missiles. And of course having less time to load up on his groundstrokes on the low skidding grass would mean his missles wouldn't be able to fire.


Overall groundstrokes

These are big backswings and he obviously PREFERS greater time on them. He is at his best when he has time on the ball and can swing through his groundies. He needs that rhythm to play the style of game that will enable him to beat the best players in the world.

His grip:

Wawrinka uses a strong eastern, hammer grip. It's a bit more behind the handle than a classic eastern position, with almost no spread between his fingers. He uses a huge turso rotation through the shot. I think it's clearly visible to anyone he would struggle when presented with a lower bouncing ball that may skid off the court.

Look here:



And yes he can revert to the slice, but is it in any way good enough after what I discussed above? No.


As well as having played and coached during my teens and early 20s, currently I am working as professional betfair tennis trader that's traded on the sport for 4 years now. I've closely monitored many of the top players, including Wawrinka. His style, his game, it suits the slower courts. It doesn't mean he cannot play on the faster ones too, but the fact of the matter his standard of tennis is not the same when he is unable to play in that 'style' and is able to beat up those other elite guys. He adjusts to fast surfaces, but the slightly adjusted style TAKES AWAY from what makes him unplayable on the hard and clay courts. That's what you may need to consider.
 
#26 ·
Re: The very firm & objective reason why Wawrinka cannot be called greater than Murra

Murray has more variety in his game for sure, and so far better accomplishments.

But Wawrinka is more clutch. 3-0 in grand slam finals vs. 3-8 for Murray
 
#35 · (Edited)
Re: The very firm & objective reason why Wawrinka cannot be called greater than Murra

Murray has more variety in his game for sure, and so far better accomplishments.

But Wawrinka is more clutch. 3-0 in grand slam finals vs. 3-8 for Murray
If you're going to compare the slam final percentage then Wawrinka is like the best player ever because no one else right now has a 100% record in slam finals.

Andy did have to play peak Fed and Djokovic for some of those slam finals. I think even if Andy was more clutch he woud have still lost some of them. Of course Wawrinka won those three finals but how many semis, quarters and even earlier exits has he had in slams? Andy is more clutch in general, which is why he has 39 titles to Wawrinka's 15.
 
#28 ·
Re: The very firm & objective reason why Wawrinka cannot be called greater than Murra

wawrinka should never be considered ahead of murray, even if he won more slams. why:

murray made more finals
murray has had more time in the top 10 and more time as an elite top player considered a slam contender
more titles won
more consistent in the masters and having won more masters
more variety in his game
double olympic gold
 
#31 ·
Re: The very firm & objective reason why Wawrinka cannot be called greater than Murra

Wawrinka is the cooler of the two, has more satisfying game to watch and plays interesting tennis. Murray is the more accomplished.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mimi
#34 ·
Re: The very firm & objective reason why Wawrinka cannot be called greater than Murra

Wawrinka is the cooler of the two, has more satisfying game to watch and plays interesting tennis. Murray is the more accomplished.
In terms of game I hope you mean. Wawrinka has the charisma of a peanut :haha:
 
#61 ·
Re: The very firm & objective reason why Wawrinka cannot be called greater than Murra

Stan beat dj at AO 14 and should've beaten him at AO 13. When did Murphy beat dj at AO or come close to it? If Murphy is more capable then he should've beaten dj atleast as much as Stan at AO if not more..On clay too.
OP conveniently ignoring the quote above.

That's when you know OP lost.
 
#33 ·
Re: The very firm & objective reason why Wawrinka cannot be called greater than Murra

I'm not even going to dignify the moronic idea that Wimbledon grass is green clay, with a response.

It's not even ignorance, it's beyond ignorance. A broke gambler, no wonder.
 
#36 ·
Re: The very firm & objective reason why Wawrinka cannot be called greater than Murra

The reason Stan is greater than Andy is because Stan is a courageous player when it matters most. Andy is a straight-up puss. He needed a serve bot to end his GS drought while Stan has spanked every cheat who dared to face him in the GS finals. Stan is pure greatness.
 
#40 ·
Re: The very firm & objective reason why Wawrinka cannot be called greater than Murra

The reason Stan is greater than Andy is because Stan is a courageous player when it matters most. Andy is a straight-up puss. He needed a serve bot to end his GS drought while Stan has spanked every cheat who dared to face him in the GS finals. Stan is pure greatness.

I see you've jumped onto the bandwagon quickly :spit: :rolls:
 
#38 ·
Re: The very firm & objective reason why Wawrinka cannot be called greater than Murra

:lol: Slade really is fanboying Wawrinka as he's the closest thing to Roger Federer.

What a shallow, shallow man.
 
#41 ·
Re: The very firm & objective reason why Wawrinka cannot be called greater than Murra



Sums up pretty much every fanboy's argument in this thread.
 
#43 ·
Re: The very firm & objective reason why Wawrinka cannot be called greater than Murra

Achievement wise, it's ridiculous to make this comparison. Murray won a lot more and was a top player since his early 20's, while Wawrinka wasn't even a solid top 10 before 2014.

But you can't deny Wawrinka's slams were way more tougher and impressive, specially RG 2015.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top