Petr Korda. Thomas Johansson. Albert Costa. Gaston Gaudio. All these men have one thing in common: one grand-slam singles title.
While the tennis tragics among us will remember these now forgotten men, when they each won their respective slams, they looked like they had all the potential in the world.
The situations they were once in were not dissimilar to the one Australian Open champion Stanislas Wawrinka is in right now.
The new Swiss maestro and now world number three just won his first grand slam, but is it possible that runner-up, Rafael Nadal, won more?
Yes in fact he has won 12 more grand slams than the Stanimal, but in fighting through what appeared to be intense pain to win a set off the seemingly uncrackable Wawrinka, Nadal cemented himself in the annals of not only Australian Open history, but tennis history, as one of the very greatest to pick up a racket.
Nadal already had myself convinced, along with many others, that he was one of the greats of the sport. In my opinion, behind only Roger Federer and Pete Sampras.
But for anyone looking for any more proof that Nadal may one day have the Parisian centre court named after him, look no further than last night’s performance.
Not only did Nadal do his opponent, the game, the tournament, the fans, his coach and supporters and himself the respect of playing on, he took a set off the impeccable Wawrinka.
Could it be that one of the most painful and no doubt upsetting experiences of Nadal’s career be that which is most defining of his champion qualities and unquestionable love and respect for the game?
I’ll let you decide, Roarers. He has, after all, won a lot of titles.
But what does this have to do with Stan the Man? He still won the Open. He still beat the world number 1, one of the greats of the sport.
Certainly he is destined for as bright a future as any?
Perhaps he is, perhaps he isn’t. Surely Richard Krajicek also was when he won his one and only slam, dethroning Pistol Pete to win Wimbledon in 1996.
I, as well as the rest of the tennis-loving world, hope Stanislas Wawrinka has as good a career as any.
Even if he doesn’t, look at Andy Roddick. Only one of his 32 career titles was a grand slam win (US Open, 2003), but he went on to have a great career.
Last night may have been the beginning of something big for Stan.
Or not. Either way, the 2014 Australian Open men’s final will certainly be remembered. But for what exactly?
The night Stanislas Wawrinka won his first slam? Or the night Rafael Nadal immortalised himself as one of the greatest fighters the sport has ever seen.
Slams are soon forgotten; legends are not.
As Bruce McAvaney said last night, you learn more about a champion when he’s at the bottom of the mountain than when he’s at the top.
John Fedec
Guest
ALL the posts here are all mixed up ????????? I feel sorry for almost everyone here ! some facts for everyone to digest !! 1) Wawrinka was 33.00 before he played Djokovic !! 2) He had previously taken Djokovic to 5 sets in both the 2013 AO and US Open and had a commanding lead in both matches before Djokovic caught up !! 3) Djokovic doesn't play Wawrinka quite as well as he plays Nadal (court tactics and shot selection) 4) Wawrinka had previously lost 26 straight sets to Nadal, then takes 3 in a 4 set match ????....A RECORD for almost anyone in the men's top 100 ( I'm still looking.....maybe 1904 french open....no wait....sorry, it's NEVER HAPPENED) 5) Nadal was HURT before the match began........There is PROOF of this !! 6) Nadal's first set showed him taking the ball LATER and not doing enough to control points .....because he was HURT 7) I had 10 on Wawrinka at 33.00 ......and was upset he won this way 8) Wawrinka is JUICY odds for next 3 slams....ANYONE going to put the house on him, thought so 9) Wawrinka and Nadal are great friends....Nadal and him are closer than most people think , Federer isn't as close !! 10) Wawrinka will stay in the top 10 .......that's all I know for sure PS.....3 of the last 4 sets these two played involved tiebreakers !! Nadal knew what to expect...LOTS of running, but he couldn't !!
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Actually, you can have a medical evaluation at any point in the match, but you're right that it doesn't matter whether your opponent is serving next.
BennO
Guest
Oh gees, I dunno, maybe because - and look I'm just gonna throw this out there as some kind of crazy conspiracy theory - it was the end of the third game of the set and medical evaluations can only happen during the change of ends. And maybe it was also because his back flared during that third game, which happened to be his own service game. Oh wait, not maybe, that's what happened. But you're right, it was quite conniving of him to seek treatment right away. He should have waited til Stan was mentally ready for him to have some treatment. Maybe two games later at the next change of ends would have suited Stan better.
Blackholesun
Guest
If Nadal was injured why was he playing? Does he not know that play can make his injury worse and may even ruin his season? Why did he retired against Murray in 2010 QF? Did he retired at that time because it was not the finals (It was still a Grand Slams Major QF) He didn't thought of the crowd at that time, why? The reason that Rafa continued was that it was the Finals. He was also on the verge of making the history. He also relied on his past wins against Stan, thinking he (Stan) would make a mistake, he will then take his opportunity. No player retires till the time they have self belief that they could make something out of the match or may be even win. He was almost successful in breaking Stan's rhythm. He simply took his chances which backfired as Stan was a better player on the day !
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Why did he take the medical break on Wawrinka's serve?
BennO
Guest
shame you didn't appreciate my reply to your petty line OJ. Thought you wanted a p!ssing contest. As for the substance on whether I think Nadal employs gamesmanship, you need to read my post again and stop reading what you think people write. Read closely and you'll see I was commenting on the final and that's it.
Robz
Guest
To say an elite athlete is faking an injury such as Nadal's and to that extent questions the integrity of not only the player, but also of the very highly trained, experienced and professional physio that treats them. Trust me - if Nadal was not genuinely and seriously injured the trainers would not have come out to continue treatment at every change of ends. And I in no way dis-credit Stan's win - he is a well deserving champion and was on fire at the start of the final. I would have loved to have seen if he could have kept up the standard had Nadal not suffered injury. It will be great to see these 2 going at each other both fully fit over the next couple of years.
duecer
Guest
Federer looked a lot better than last year, but the trouble now is that Nadal is back, and Federer always has trouble with him. Wawrinka could have had a golden two weeks or he could have had everything click into place and just be a late bloomer, time will tell
Little Bob
Guest
Korda. Johansson. Gaudio. Costa. Four men who all won their grand slam titles during some of the only lulls in men's tennis in the past 15 years. 2 drug cheats, one very good clay-counter and a guy who just had to hit the ball in and watch Marat Safin implode. Warwinka just won a grand slam in the toughest era in the history of the game. All of the top 10 were in the tournament. He beat the best two players in the world to do so. He deserves a hell of a lot of credit right now, not speculation.
The Table
Guest
Just because someone wins the first match... doesn't make it game set and match. Oh wait remember the time Hewitt schooled Safin in the first set... man he won that... oh oops he lost easily.
shadow
Guest
Stan beat the joker, berdych and rafa before liftingthe cup. Enough said. One might even surmise that Stan overcame himself to at last win the ao final. you can draw tenuous comparisons with Stan's career against korda et al when Stan retires. But to do so at the time Stan wins his first slam while lauding rafa's efforts comes across as... Well, ungracious Congrats Stan on a wonderful fortnight with some truly amazing tennis
axel
Guest
There was no injurie by Nadal...that bad acting make him to a pretty bad loser...ugly stuff...really,everybody saw it that Wawrinka so much dominating him and his art of Tennis that he started to CHEAT and make on "injuri"...so ugly stuff from Nadal
eric
Guest
Tragic for both blokes really. I don't doubt Nadal was genuinely injured but the painkillers kicked in and he seemed OK in the 4th set. BUT, Stan was flogging him before Nadal got hurt. Anyway, it's sad for Nadal to get injured in a final, and I wonder if the boos made him stick it out to win the crowd over. It's also sad for Stan that his win has been cheapened or tarnished. I cringed at the booing, felt embarrassed for Australia. But Rafa was dignified, said all the right things, best speech I have heard from him in fact, but I reckon he bawled his eyes out in the locker room.
BennO
Guest
I'm the bestest most dedicatedist tennis fan there is!
ohtani's jacket
Guest
He took an injury time out on Wawrinka's serve. He's done it before, most notably against Phillip Petzschner at Wimbledon. If you don't think Nadal employs gamesmanship you must be a pretty casual tennis fan.
BennO
Guest
Rubbish. Nadal was injured. Did everything h could to play on. Stan got the wobbles cos he didn't believe in himself and got distracted by the situation. That's Stan's issue and nothing to do with Nadal. Unless you do believe he faked it.
In Brief
Guest
Federer's just reached a semi final and played his best tennis for 12 months, and you say he's reaching the end of the line? Federer will continue to improve throughout the year, particularly with Edberg involved. I would be surprised if Federer doesn't win a slam this year. Let's not forget he just beat Murray and Tsonga, two very dangerous players. In my view Wawrwinka will win another slam as well. He beat Nadal fair and square last night and Djockovic - so beat 1 and 2, not bad.
In Brief
Guest
Completely wrong. Nadal was fully fit in the first set and lost. In the 3rd set Nadal was playing injured and Wawrinka was put off his game. So you got your facts back to front.
In Brief
Guest
Agree with the gamesmanship comment. Successfullly got Stan engaged in the drama and off the match, Murray tried to do the same against Federer. Totally disagree that Stan can't handle Nadal's forehand to the backhand side. Stan completely dominated the first set, when Nadal was not impaired at all. People need to realise that there is no vulnerabillity or weakness with the one handed backhand. It just so happens that Federer uses his backhand differently - he uses it for variation and relies more on footwork to run around and hit big forehands. So it's not the stroke that hurts Federer it's the way he uses it.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Of course it was gamesmanship. Why do you think Wawrinka went to pieces after being up a break? I never said he faked the injury. He tried using it to throw Wawrinka off. We're supposed to be in awe of him because he took an injury break to get a painkiller injection?