He was on the list, we should have mentioned him!

THORS HAMMER

The most overrated

You fall asleep when he’s walking

Exactly. I think Wawrinka in Stanimal mode was a bigger threat for Nole on clay and hard than Murray's peak form. Actually Stanimal was the biggest threat for Djokovic on hard, given he had the best results against him at Slams on that surface since 2011, the year Nole started peaking. But, having said that, Stan wasn't as threatening against the other 2 guys. Nadal's lefty drive was the best counter possible against Stan's deadly bh, and Nadal's superior net game also factored in. Roger's more versatile bh, his versatile fh and his superior net game were also a winning combo against Stan. The only reason Djokovic suffered against Stan is because he back then still hadn't developed the fh versatility, the net game and the serve. With his tools he could disarm Fedal, but he couldn't do it with Stan. It was a "Scissors, paper, rock" dynamic. But Murray was a more consistent and stronger player than Wawrinka. He won tons of M1000 and lost many M1000 and Slam finals against B3 and he was always lurking the Top 3/2 spot, Stan barely won 1 M1000 and was #3 for 2 months. I do like Stanimal more than peak Murray, but saying Stan was a better overall player is crazy. Murray would probably be just behind Sampras' Slam tally if he hadn't been stopped so many times by the B3.

@@rodrigoodonsalcedocisneros9266 True. Wawrinka against the Big 3: 3-23 vs Federer 6-21 vs Djokovic 3-19 vs Nadal Murray against the Big 3 11-25 vs Djokovic 7-17 vs Nadal 11-14 vs Federer As great as Stanimal was on occasion, Sir Murray is clearly better. He also leads their h2h 13-9.

definitely an eastern grip

Davydenko had a very special run!

Not good enough

hes one of the only people who beat Rafa on clay pre major injuries, Beat Federer when he was taking his backhand early. IDK!

​@@jaykasaitvThiem was special for sure. He has the second most clay wins against Nadal (4, while Djokovic has 8).

His weakness was always his chip serve return but otherwise i totally agree!

I haven't seen Wawrinka demolishing Federer outside of clay in a relatively important match.

Wawrinka was slowish,with limited defensive abilities.His serve return wasn't that good either.He was far from perfect.

He did have MANY weaknesses. His backhand wasn't as versatile as Roger's and his net game wasn't that great, that's why he wasn't good in grass and why Federer could disarm his bh on hard too. Stan's bh was his biggest asset, the best one handed bh of all time for sure, but Rafa's lefty drive was tailormade to disarm the one-handed bh, so he was very good at disarming Stan, especially on clay. Thiem, despite not having the Stan bh firepower and weight, had a more solid and linear one handed backhand, its mechanics were more similar to the two handed bh at times, that's why he was a harder foe on clay against Nadal. Stan's best B3 matchup was Djokovic, because most of his weaknesses weren't as exposed against Nole's particular playstyle. Stanimal is definitely one of the greatest versions of a tennis player ever seen, but that doesn't make Stan Wawrinka "the greatest player outside the B3", a player is measured not on his peaks and valleys but on his career consistency. Stan excelled at performing at his highest possible level on Slam matches, but outside Slams the dude was VERY underwhelming for many different factors. Players like Nishikori, Tsonga or Ferrer were way more consistent than him. He might have had better peaks than them, but as an overall player without those 3 Slams he would be barely above the average good player. Maybe there's a reason why he couldn't replicate his Slam performances on lesser tournaments, his motivation wasn't right or something akin to that. Maybe his extremely physical style when on Stanimal mode was like a "berserk" mode that he only called at very specific instances. Maybe that mode is physically and mentally unsustainable by default. That's why I think Stan is not a great example of a "What If" player, he pretty much overachieved in big part due to his very specific ability to bring out his inner "berserker". Usually only all-time greats are capable of that, namely guys like the B3, Murray, Sampras, Laver, McEnroe, Borg or Lendl. That's why they were dominating #1s for years, whereas Stan was #3 barely for 2 months. Stan is a very special kind of player, one that can up the ante at very specific times but can't maintain it for 90% of the rest if the year, very similar to historical players like Soderling or Panatta imo.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Thiem is the best player of all time. He can win and has won against the top 4 on every single surface in their primces and in the biggest finals. He's the complete package, he has not a single weakness. Great serve, great forehand, Backhand, great power, great control, great net play, he's freaking fast, he has mental toughness and can easily play 5 setters back to back and win them. If he wasn't injured all the time and had a little more consistency (i.e. more good days then bad days) he would have been invincible

A stat that can never be taken from him now!

He defined "disappointment" as gap between potential and results.

@@JK-vc7ie Oh, I must have missed that. Thanks for catching that

Because he is an AI generated person.

FIGPT