What a period the last three years has been for Stan Wawrinka.
The fluent, artistic right-hander was seemingly destined to become an unfulfilled talent with questionable mental strength.
However, something incredible has happened to – or because of – him over the last three years.
He has gone from a player people treated like a rotund puppy dog – endearing and fun to watch, but of no threat to anyone – to a ruthles, stone-faced perfectionist. Someone who performs when it really matters.
Wawrinka and Andy Murray now have three slams each, with Murray also earning eight runner-up trophies in majors. If tennis were a team sport however, I’d pick Wawrinka to be on my team before the Scot. Firstly, he plays expressive, inspiring tennis. Secondly, rather than capitulate and combust under the lights of the big stage, Stan rises like a furious tide, sweeping up his opponents (no matter how great) along the way.
Wawrinka’s last three years have been a blessing for men’s tennis, a sport that was growing dull. Rather than the pulsating serve-and-volleying of Pete Sampras, or winner-a-minute shot-making of Roger Federer, the likes of Novak Djokovic and Murray have made it seem as if the only way to win slams is to turn the sport into an endurance test with rackets.
While Djokovic and Murray are champions and deserving of multiple slams, they don’t produce the type of tennis that makes you gasp in exhilaration. Both seemingly go through an entire match barely hitting a winner that isn’t a passing shot.
Wawrinka winning has given hope to aspiring players that tennis doesn’t have to be an iron man contest on a court. Stan has proven that aggressive, daring shot-making can surpass the back-of-the-court grinding that has become so prevalent. With Federer not winning a slam for over four years, we needed what Stan has given us since early 2014.
Congratulations Stan, and long live attacking tennis.
clipper
Guest
Agree, Winston, he was pretty boring to watch and apart from Agassi, who went missing for awhile, never had a real rivalry. He was also, as Rafter stated, 'not a bloke you would want to have a beer with'. A lot more exciting now where we've had 3 of the top 5 players ever, but after this we could be heading back to that period.
Winston
Guest
How was Sampras good for the sport? There was lots of talk back when he was at the peak that he was killing the sport because all he did was serve. It was extremely nice to see when guys like Federer and Safin came along and started hitting the ball hard. Strings certainly helped with the extra top spin making it easier to keep the ball in. For people to then complain about too many baseliners? That's just complaining for the sake of complaining. I have no problem with Stan though. I totally agree that he's beautiful to watch. And it's definitely a good thing to see more players contending for titles. But that has nothing to do with any notion that Djokovic, Nadal and Murray are boring because they defend too much. What rubbish! All of them hit exquisite shots! Just ask our Lleyton Hewitt how much he enjoyed all of them whacking him with their backhand down the lines for years and years.
Rohit Asopa
Roar Pro
Thank you Dimitris!
Dimitris Bostandas
Guest
It's his one-hand backhand that is so powerful and penetrating… I'm STANd!! Thank God that it still out there as a shot! There are quite a few youngsters playing like it!! It's magical to watch! A very well written article Mr Asopa! I will follow you from now on!