[zjtennis]

I know this is farfetched, but seeing Cilic reaching the RG 2022 SF, I imagined this scenario: Stan broke out to the Top 4 a bit earlier, maybe 26 rather than 28, and maybe have few more years of staying there. He did win 3 Slams in the 1st 3 years he broke to the Top 4, then reached a Slam Final in the 4th year. Maybe did have an injury drop, but younger age made him recover quicker. Weaker grass field with the metagame being more about baseliners there.

If he had won 1 Wimbledon title after those 3 and dropped pretty badly after (may still have won a 250 or 500 title), will he be considered an all time great for winning Slams, especially say he beat Djokovic in his path? When I think about it, should've he dedicated his game all in focusing on grass prowess after his 2017 injury break? He may win a 500 HC or Clay title, but so what, it doesn't complete a set of something big. Same question too if someone in the future also does it, 3 of the 4 Slams but relatively few titles.

 

[Moozza]

Absolutely. Career grand slam would make him one of the greats.

He never has and never will get near winning Wimbledon though.

 

[Rik1001]

I have to agree with @Moozza here. His best result at Wimbledon is a quarter-final appearance. It's his worst performing slam out of the four. Have a look below.

His win % at Wimbledon is 57% - compare that to the other three slams where he is in the 70's. Also - his best results at Wimbledon came in 2014 and 2015 - that's 7/8 years ago. He's an old fart now so it will be almost impossible for him to match that result or better.

His game is not suited to grass - ball moves very fast and low which means he has less time to power up his groundstrokes, and his return is sub-par which is devastatingly exposed on grass.

 

[ballbashingmug]

I’ve never really heard the term properly defined so, who knows?

 

[weakeraprophet]

An ATG is not one who simply completes the career grand slam especially in an era of homogenized surfaces. You need to see a lot of other things. If Stan had won Wimbledon, I would have still rated Murray above him. Murray has more finals (11), more semifinals (21), two Olympic golds in singles, finished a year as number one and won a YEC. When the difference in grand slam count is small, you need to look at other things as well.

Courier and Vilas were great players who won four slams but not everyone considers them to be ATGs. On the other hand, Edberg and Becker, who won six slams are almost universally recognized as ATGs. I would say if a player does not have too many secondary achievements to boast of, the player must win at least six or seven grand slam titles to be called an ATG (in this era of increased longevities).

 

[BlackBalls]

Either way, I think he's up there in the top 15, though? His achievements can't be overstated. Winning 3 grand slams when the big 3 were legit threats on tour.

 

[Shappy]

I remember in 2017 many were willing him to win Wimbledon to complete a different slam won every year for four years. He lost in R1.

 

[zjtennis]

Like I know he isn't ideal on grass, and I know Murray has a lot more achievements and he is currently an ATG (has a lot of Masters, ATP titles, good W/L percentage and his World #1 run), but it's not like couldn't have fluked 1, he was pretty close in his QF against Gasquet in 2015 (was leading 2-1 Sets up) and remember he won RG already on that year so it was already an excellent run of form. 2008 and 2009 he did reach the 4th Round, famously losing against Murray in 5 in the first time the Centre Court roof was used in 2009, he could've grown more in confidence.

The examples given with the veterans are not as applicable as Courier only won in 2 Slams.

I will say this though — seeing his record, Vilas should be considered as an ATG, lots of clay wins, great record on Slams (100+ wins), and supposedly had been World #1 with the help of @Slasher1985 uncovering the truth.

 

[Nadalgoat2]

IMO Wawrinka already ATG in tennis

 

[nadalvamos]

I know this is farfetched, but seeing Cilic reaching the RG 2022 SF, I imagined this scenario: Stan broke out to the Top 4 a bit earlier, maybe 26 rather than 28, and maybe have few more years of staying there. Won 3 Slams in the 1st 3 years, then reached a Slam Final in the 4th year. Maybe did have an injury drop, but younger age made him recover quicker. Weaker grass field with the metagame being more about baseliners there.

If he had won 1 Wimbledon title after those 3 and dropped pretty badly after (may still have won a 250 or 500 title), will he be considered an all time great for winning Slams, especially say he beat Djokovic in his path? When I think about it, should've he dedicated his game all in focusing on grass prowess after his 2017 injury break? He may win a 500 HC or Clay title, but so what, it doesn't complete a set of something big. Same question too if someone in the future also does it, 3 of the 4 Slams but relatively few titles.

YES. if he win Wimbledon and deny Novak his 21 slams, while completing the career grand slam, He does not need 6 slams, 4 slams is enough.

 

[Tennis Oracle]

An ATG is not one who simply completes the career grand slam especially in an era of homogenized surfaces. You need to see a lot of other things. If Stan had won Wimbledon, I would have still rated Murray above him. Murray has more finals (11), more semifinals (21), two Olympic golds in singles, finished a year as number one and won a YEC. When the difference in grand slam count is small, you need to look at other things as well.

Courier and Vilas were great players who won four slams but not everyone considers them to be ATGs. On the other hand, Edberg and Becker, who won six slams are almost universally recognized as ATGs. I would say if a player does not have too many secondary achievements to boast of, the player must win at least six or seven grand slam titles to be called an ATG (in this era of increased longevities).

True Murray is very much above Stan . Stan just peaked in 3 majors and had some luck .

 

[Yukimura]

In my view, besides Wawrinka, Karlovic is also an all time great

 

[TheBigThree]

Either way, I think he's up there in the top 15, though? His achievements can't be overstated. Winning 3 grand slams when the big 3 were legit threats on tour.

While his 3 slam wins in the Big 3 era are impressive, the rest of his resume is rather underwhelming (only 1 other slam final, 1 other big title, low overall win rate of 63%, never finished a year in the top 3).

I also don't think he's in the top 15, although he's probably a contender for the top 20 among those who've won slams in the Open Era (so I'm ignoring players like Emerson, Tilden, Renshaw, etc.):

IMO, the Big 3, Sampras, Borg, Agassi, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Murray, Vilas, Courier, and Ashe are all ahead of him. That's 19 players, but unless I'm missing someone obvious, I can see Stan in the #20 slot.

 

[guitarra]

@zjtennis I am with you, mate, but this is only dreams unfortunately... Stan is done, we fans have to deal with it.

 

[florentine]

2009 he did reach the 4th Round, famously losing against Murray in 5 in the first time the Centre Court roof was used in 2009, he could've grown more in confidence.

The funniest thing is that he prepared for Wimbledon by playing..
challenger Lugano on clay.

He could do well on grass.

 

[artilerist13]

Any info would he play WB.I don't see him at Entry list

 

[Waz]

In-hindsight, his best opportunity to win Wimbledon was probably in 2015, where he lost to Gasquet in the quarter final. I know Gasquet is a more natural grass court player, but that was Stan at his peak and he shouldn't have been losing to Gasquet there. If he had gotten past Gasquet, he would have been up against Djokovic in the semi final and we all know that Stan owns Djokovic in slams, so I think he would have got the job done in the semi final to set up a final against Federer, where anything could have happened.

 

[nadalvamos]

Career grand slam while beating the big three in grand slams is enough to be an Atg. I would accept him with only 4 slams (have to be career grand slam though) and not 6 slams because he had to compete against the big three.

 

[Frontin]

In-hindsight, his best opportunity to win Wimbledon was probably in 2015, where he lost to Gasquet in the quarter final. I know Gasquet is a more natural grass court player, but that was Stan at his peak and he shouldn't have been losing to Gasquet there. If he had gotten past Gasquet, he would have been up against Djokovic in the semi final and we all know that Stan owns Djokovic in slams, so I think he would have got the job done in the semi final to set up a final against Federer, where anything could have happened.

shoulda woulda coulda

 

[VamosRafaSince02]

Wawrinka should be in the Hall-of-Really-Good