Idemo i po seniorsku titulu
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
ATP - Stan Wawrinka
Collapse
X
-
Stan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfzsyKXSs-Y
Here's the most remarkable thing to me about Federer: Seems to me that the more you know about tennis, the more amazed you are by the guy. If you know nothing at all about tennis, he's amazing. If you know a little something about tennis—maybe you have played a few times in your life—he's more amazing. If you know a little more about tennis—maybe you played in high school and once had illusions of becoming a pro—he's even MORE amazing. And if you were a great player—if you are a McEnroe or a Connors or a Jim Courier—then Federer is preposterously amazing
sigpic
Don't argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you...
with experience.
Comment
-
Mislim da mozemo da se slozimo da su ovo Role i Stanojlo zajedno odradili
Stan je dobio Nadala u Rimu i onda se pametno raspao protiv Feda i tako izbegao Djokovica u finalu Fed je bio sasvim svestan Stanojlovih mogucnosti i jos kad ih je zreb spojio, njegovo je bilo da dodje do QF i tu sto manje potrosi Stana, zato mu je i dao bez ikakvih problema onaj poen u TBu
Stan, Role, Norman, Luti - kakav timhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfzsyKXSs-Y
Here's the most remarkable thing to me about Federer: Seems to me that the more you know about tennis, the more amazed you are by the guy. If you know nothing at all about tennis, he's amazing. If you know a little something about tennis—maybe you have played a few times in your life—he's more amazing. If you know a little more about tennis—maybe you played in high school and once had illusions of becoming a pro—he's even MORE amazing. And if you were a great player—if you are a McEnroe or a Connors or a Jim Courier—then Federer is preposterously amazing
sigpic
Don't argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you...
with experience.
Comment
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfzsyKXSs-Y
Here's the most remarkable thing to me about Federer: Seems to me that the more you know about tennis, the more amazed you are by the guy. If you know nothing at all about tennis, he's amazing. If you know a little something about tennis—maybe you have played a few times in your life—he's more amazing. If you know a little more about tennis—maybe you played in high school and once had illusions of becoming a pro—he's even MORE amazing. And if you were a great player—if you are a McEnroe or a Connors or a Jim Courier—then Federer is preposterously amazing
sigpic
Don't argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you...
with experience.
Comment
-
-
Pressure mounting on Stan Wawrinka
These days, it’s tough being Stan Wawrinka.
For the latter part of the 2000s, he had flown under the radar, in the shadow of his Swiss compatriot Roger, cultivating a game that he had hoped would one day propel him to the top. Nearly a decade later, he is beginning to realize the dreams he had once wished for: winning majors and getting closer to the coveted No. 1 ranking. But the success he has now achieved naturally comes at a cost.
The Lausanne, Switzerland, native who tries to live a private life has been cast into the headlines this year, his personal life in controversy, his professional life in celebration. The pressure, the spotlight and the microscope are now on him.
But that’s not to say that he can’t handle it.
Mentally, he has become one of the toughest players on tour, as he’s quick to point out during a tight match. Whenever he wins the big points in the big matches, with a stern face he will point to his mind, as if to prove the notion that tennis is 90 percent mental.
Indeed, that mental toughness stems from a level of confidence that skyrocketed in 2013, when he went toe to toe with Novak Djokovic for five sets at two majors. The first was an instant classic at the Australian Open, where he pushed the world No. 1 to the brink before bowing out, 1-6, 7-5, 6-4, 6-7, 12-10, The second was a similar battle that brought him closer to tasting Grand Slam glory, a 2-6, 7-6, 3-6, 6-3, 6-4 loss to Djokovic in the US Open semifinals.
When he finally broke through at the 2014 Australian Open, he solidified his place among the top of the game, defeating both Djokovic (seeded No. 2) and Rafael Nadal (No. 1) to take the title. And his 2015 Roland Garros title, where he again defeated the top two seeds – this time No. 2 Federer and No. 1 Djokovic – proved that his first major Down Under over an ailing Nadal was neither fluke nor sheer luck.
The main difference between pre- and post-Grand Slam champ Wawrinka, whether coincidence or not, has been his partnership with coach Magnus Norman. The Swiss has long credited the Swede with instilling a sense of calmness and confidence in him, a change even Norman has acknowledged.
“Everyone told me when I started working with Stan that he was a little bit soft and he was not the man for the big occasion,” Norman said. “In the two years we have been together, he has been rock solid in all the big matches.”
Without a doubt, Wawrinka has been a different player the past two years. While he won only four titles in a seven-year span from 2006 to 2013, he has won six titles since the beginning of 2014. The difference, Wawrinka said, is in his consistent level of play.
“I would say that now when I play my top game, when I'm really feeling the best on the court, I know I can keep it all the match,” Wawrinka said. “If I take French Open final, I was playing the best tennis I could play. I knew that I will keep that level all the match. So that's maybe where I improve the most.”
As he has made this way through the US Open draw this year, Wawrinka hasn’t quite made it to that top level yet. Each of his first four rounds have come against players ranked between No. 58 to No. 107, and each have been tight matches that saw him play a total of five tiebreak sets. The final three rounds will bring about an increased pressure to deliver.
But the road ahead could potentially cross paths with the No. 1 and 2 seeds, setting the scene for more Grand Slam glory. As he has proved before, that is when “Stanimal” comes alive and rises to the occasion.
Comment
-
1.
Rafa je jucer, mjereno ovogodisnjim standardima, igrao dobro. Svejedno, citavo vrijeme mi je djelovao u podredjenoj ulozi. Djelovalo mi je da se Vavrinka pita. Kad bi Stan napadao, Nadal bi imao male sanse da se odbrani. Kad bi Nadal napadao, djelovalo mi je da Vavrinka ima sansi u poenu. Znam, Rafa nije onaj stari iako je napredovao u zadnjih mjesec dana. Podloga odgovara obojici, ali vise Vavrinki. Svejedno, osjecaj je bio da je Vavrinka glavni. Pa odlucih da malo pogledam statistiku.
2.
Protiv prvih 10:
Code:pob por % Karijera 42 75 35.9% Do 2013. 18 55 24.7% 2013-15 24 20 54.5% 2014-15 15 8 65.2%
Protiv velike cetvorke:
Code:pob por % Karijera 16 57 21.9% Do 2013. 7 40 14.9% 2013-15 9 17 34.6% 2014-15 7 8 46.7%
Zakljucno sa 2012. pobjede su dolazile kao glavni uspjesi karijere. Vecina njih protiv Marija. U zadnje dvije godine je ravnopravan a nijednom nije igrao protiv Marija.
Protiv sebi ravnih (Berdih, Conga, Ferer i Cilic):
Code:pob por % Karijera 30 17 63.8% Do 2013. 14 14 50.0% 2013-15 16 3 84.2% 2014-15 10 0 100.0%
U sve tri statistike imamo znatno poboljsanje u zadnje dvije godine u odnosu na 2013. A 2013. je znatno bolja od onoga prije.
3.
Do Magnusa Normana, Stan je bio dobar igrac koji kada zabljesne moze da ugrozi svakog. Od Normana, Stan je clan petorke koji cesce podnbaci nego ostali. I ocigledno je da jos uvijek napreduje.Last edited by NI; 07-11-15, 12:17.
Comment
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfzsyKXSs-Y
Here's the most remarkable thing to me about Federer: Seems to me that the more you know about tennis, the more amazed you are by the guy. If you know nothing at all about tennis, he's amazing. If you know a little something about tennis—maybe you have played a few times in your life—he's more amazing. If you know a little more about tennis—maybe you played in high school and once had illusions of becoming a pro—he's even MORE amazing. And if you were a great player—if you are a McEnroe or a Connors or a Jim Courier—then Federer is preposterously amazing
sigpic
Don't argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you...
with experience.
Comment
-
Jedan od najzasluznijih za uspeh Stanimala, Paganini on je doveo Roleta na vrh, on je zasluzan sto je Stanojlo napravio iskorak i postao Stanimal
Der Schleifer im Hintergrundhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfzsyKXSs-Y
Here's the most remarkable thing to me about Federer: Seems to me that the more you know about tennis, the more amazed you are by the guy. If you know nothing at all about tennis, he's amazing. If you know a little something about tennis—maybe you have played a few times in your life—he's more amazing. If you know a little more about tennis—maybe you played in high school and once had illusions of becoming a pro—he's even MORE amazing. And if you were a great player—if you are a McEnroe or a Connors or a Jim Courier—then Federer is preposterously amazing
sigpic
Don't argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you...
with experience.
Comment
-
Staminal sportista godine u Svajcarskoj
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfzsyKXSs-Y
Here's the most remarkable thing to me about Federer: Seems to me that the more you know about tennis, the more amazed you are by the guy. If you know nothing at all about tennis, he's amazing. If you know a little something about tennis—maybe you have played a few times in your life—he's more amazing. If you know a little more about tennis—maybe you played in high school and once had illusions of becoming a pro—he's even MORE amazing. And if you were a great player—if you are a McEnroe or a Connors or a Jim Courier—then Federer is preposterously amazing
sigpic
Don't argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you...
with experience.
Comment
Comment