The debate has zero to do about betting. The OP said that Stan was hard to root for (not bet on)because he shows no emotion and apparently doesn't try in lesser tournaments. Why do you keep talking about betting him?
I disagree with that statement as I think Stan's style of play is the reason he has major ups and downs. Is like a .250 baseball hitter with 40 HR's and 175 K's. He is capable of going deep every at bat and is capable of striking out versus anyone. Adam Dunn comes to mind...Rob Deer
The OP is just mad because Stan dashed his future bet on Novak.... is nothing more than that.
The debate has zero to do about betting. The OP said that Stan was hard to root for (not bet on)because he shows no emotion and apparently doesn't try in lesser tournaments. Why do you keep talking about betting him?
I disagree with that statement as I think Stan's style of play is the reason he has major ups and downs. Is like a .250 baseball hitter with 40 HR's and 175 K's. He is capable of going deep every at bat and is capable of striking out versus anyone. Adam Dunn comes to mind...Rob Deer
The OP is just mad because Stan dashed his future bet on Novak.... is nothing more than that.
You're comparing best of 3 format to best of 5 format
"Sure his game is boom or bust. Yet it doesn't bust in majors. When he's focused. Berdych plays a similar game. Even Raonic. Yet their game doesn't blow up on them consistently early in minors events. It's all about focus and attention to detail."
You're comparing best of 3 format to best of 5 format
"Sure his game is boom or bust. Yet it doesn't bust in majors. When he's focused. Berdych plays a similar game. Even Raonic. Yet their game doesn't blow up on them consistently early in minors events. It's all about focus and attention to detail."
I didn't say it was because of his style of play that made him vulnerable... you did....
Quote Originally Posted by sparty444:
Do you understand what style of play Stan uses? Stan is a high risk and high reward player. This leave him vulnerable to upsets and bad patches... and also gives him a chance to win majors. Is the equivalent to a HR hitter who strikes out a lot.
Stan is not a great returner like the top tier guys. He is more reliant on his serve and because of his high risk game he can break himself at times.
Am sorry but his upsets are more about his style of game than effort.
Spartty... I don't know what messed up betting school you come from but I root for the team I bet on.
Now he didn't say it in these words but this is the meaning of the thread...
How does everyone feel confident betting on Stan Wawrinka? He has a terrible track record and shows little care in his actions.
Spartty man... right now throughout this thread you've personally attacked everyone who disagrees with your opinion, (including your own as cited above) and you take one tiny thing someone said and make that a case for a pointless argument. Do you not understand the meaning of the words written or do you just read one portion of what was said and make your own meaning?
Just because you're right about rzag's motivation for posting doesn't mean he's wrong about stan's reliability. Man... you need to have you're self checked out... seriously. (That's a concerned suggestion not an attack btw. I've study a fair bit of psychology.)
I didn't say it was because of his style of play that made him vulnerable... you did....
Quote Originally Posted by sparty444:
Do you understand what style of play Stan uses? Stan is a high risk and high reward player. This leave him vulnerable to upsets and bad patches... and also gives him a chance to win majors. Is the equivalent to a HR hitter who strikes out a lot.
Stan is not a great returner like the top tier guys. He is more reliant on his serve and because of his high risk game he can break himself at times.
Am sorry but his upsets are more about his style of game than effort.
Spartty... I don't know what messed up betting school you come from but I root for the team I bet on.
Now he didn't say it in these words but this is the meaning of the thread...
How does everyone feel confident betting on Stan Wawrinka? He has a terrible track record and shows little care in his actions.
Spartty man... right now throughout this thread you've personally attacked everyone who disagrees with your opinion, (including your own as cited above) and you take one tiny thing someone said and make that a case for a pointless argument. Do you not understand the meaning of the words written or do you just read one portion of what was said and make your own meaning?
Just because you're right about rzag's motivation for posting doesn't mean he's wrong about stan's reliability. Man... you need to have you're self checked out... seriously. (That's a concerned suggestion not an attack btw. I've study a fair bit of psychology.)
Yes Wrinks is an enigma. My theory is he is Federers legacy saver. FEDERER tells him who to beat and when. Sounds crazy but think about it.
AO 2014. Had nadal won that he would have had 15 slams and a double career slam. That wouldnt be good for Federer.
Roll forward 18 months. NOVAK is going for his 9th slam and career slam. FED sacrificed himself in the qtrs. To send in GODWRINKA to the final. Feds knows he hasnt got enough left to take Novak now.
But Godwrinka does. Federer knows that if Godwrinka had been left to his own devices since 2005. He would have 20 slams. And Federer far less than 17.
So he had to gain control of his mind. Hence why Wrinks looks vacant and cold like a terminator
Yes Wrinks is an enigma. My theory is he is Federers legacy saver. FEDERER tells him who to beat and when. Sounds crazy but think about it.
AO 2014. Had nadal won that he would have had 15 slams and a double career slam. That wouldnt be good for Federer.
Roll forward 18 months. NOVAK is going for his 9th slam and career slam. FED sacrificed himself in the qtrs. To send in GODWRINKA to the final. Feds knows he hasnt got enough left to take Novak now.
But Godwrinka does. Federer knows that if Godwrinka had been left to his own devices since 2005. He would have 20 slams. And Federer far less than 17.
So he had to gain control of his mind. Hence why Wrinks looks vacant and cold like a terminator
Wawrinka is unreliable in a reliable way. Therefore potentially a very good prospect to be for and bet against in the right circumstances. You will never make any money backing they guy who holds a level all year round. You make money on guys who seem inconsistent but that you have worked out so they are predictable to you.
Basically we should be happy that Wawrinka is quite predictable and profit from this.
Betting is not like buying stock (you would buy Djokovic), it is much more like day trading (swapping positions on Wawrinka).
Wawrinka is unreliable in a reliable way. Therefore potentially a very good prospect to be for and bet against in the right circumstances. You will never make any money backing they guy who holds a level all year round. You make money on guys who seem inconsistent but that you have worked out so they are predictable to you.
Basically we should be happy that Wawrinka is quite predictable and profit from this.
Betting is not like buying stock (you would buy Djokovic), it is much more like day trading (swapping positions on Wawrinka).
Wawrinka is unreliable in a reliable way. Therefore potentially a very good prospect to be for and bet against in the right circumstances. You will never make any money backing they guy who holds a level all year round. You make money on guys who seem inconsistent but that you have worked out so they are predictable to you.
Basically we should be happy that Wawrinka is quite predictable and profit from this.
Betting is not like buying stock (you would buy Djokovic), it is much more like day trading (swapping positions on Wawrinka).
This is not useful for anyone now, but I explain in this youtube video that I made before the French Open final.
Wawrinka is unreliable in a reliable way. Therefore potentially a very good prospect to be for and bet against in the right circumstances. You will never make any money backing they guy who holds a level all year round. You make money on guys who seem inconsistent but that you have worked out so they are predictable to you.
Basically we should be happy that Wawrinka is quite predictable and profit from this.
Betting is not like buying stock (you would buy Djokovic), it is much more like day trading (swapping positions on Wawrinka).
This is not useful for anyone now, but I explain in this youtube video that I made before the French Open final.
EXACTLY WRINKA is a betting goldmine now because of he inconsistency. His line will drop now he has won another slam against world number 1. So in masters i will oppose him if when he makes the quarters.
Its also worth opposing him at Wimbledon. He might make the semis but NOT THE FINAL.
EXACTLY WRINKA is a betting goldmine now because of he inconsistency. His line will drop now he has won another slam against world number 1. So in masters i will oppose him if when he makes the quarters.
Its also worth opposing him at Wimbledon. He might make the semis but NOT THE FINAL.
Tsonga should have beaten him in the semis. He was more in control of that match than he realized. If he stepped it up a bit. I think he would have stole it from him. Its all match ups. If wrinka had been in djokovics draw. And djok in his. I doubt he would have made the final. Murray would have beaten. Him. That match with djokovic took more out of Novak than people realize.
Tsonga should have beaten him in the semis. He was more in control of that match than he realized. If he stepped it up a bit. I think he would have stole it from him. Its all match ups. If wrinka had been in djokovics draw. And djok in his. I doubt he would have made the final. Murray would have beaten. Him. That match with djokovic took more out of Novak than people realize.
The Top Ten Players right now:DjokerFedMurrayWawaBerdychNishRaonicFerrerNadalTsongaThey have an accumulated total of 8 losses to players outside the top 50. Wawa owns 3 of those losses. The point there is, it's a rare anomaly for someone in the top 10 to lose to someone outside the top 50. Nadal's loss to Berrer was his first match back, Ferrer lost to Andujar who beat 4 top 30 players in that tourny, Murray had his hicup against Coric and Tsonga was still on his comeback when he lost his match. But what's the deal with Wawa? It's human to lose, but a top ten player just doesn't do it against lower grade players except on very rare occasions. No one doubts he was in control in the final. He played to win. Right from the get go. Djoker in my opinion was lucky to win that first set. But how does the guy that obliterated djoker from the back court get spilled by all those 3rd teir players? I think that's the real point rzag is making, how do you back him? He doesn't play like a champ. He did at Roland Garros, but out side the majors do you bet on Guido Pella and Blaz Rola?
This is a great point. I can't stand Wawrinka as someone to back. He is not a professional in the manner that other top players are. It depends if he feels like showing up and caring.
The Top Ten Players right now:DjokerFedMurrayWawaBerdychNishRaonicFerrerNadalTsongaThey have an accumulated total of 8 losses to players outside the top 50. Wawa owns 3 of those losses. The point there is, it's a rare anomaly for someone in the top 10 to lose to someone outside the top 50. Nadal's loss to Berrer was his first match back, Ferrer lost to Andujar who beat 4 top 30 players in that tourny, Murray had his hicup against Coric and Tsonga was still on his comeback when he lost his match. But what's the deal with Wawa? It's human to lose, but a top ten player just doesn't do it against lower grade players except on very rare occasions. No one doubts he was in control in the final. He played to win. Right from the get go. Djoker in my opinion was lucky to win that first set. But how does the guy that obliterated djoker from the back court get spilled by all those 3rd teir players? I think that's the real point rzag is making, how do you back him? He doesn't play like a champ. He did at Roland Garros, but out side the majors do you bet on Guido Pella and Blaz Rola?
This is a great point. I can't stand Wawrinka as someone to back. He is not a professional in the manner that other top players are. It depends if he feels like showing up and caring.
Not to get preachy, but....Wawrinka is unreliable in a reliable way. Therefore potentially a very good prospect to be for and bet against in the right circumstances. You will never make any money backing they guy who holds a level all year round. You make money on guys who seem inconsistent but that you have worked out so they are predictable to you. Basically we should be happy that Wawrinka is quite predictable and profit from this.Betting is not like buying stock (you would buy Djokovic), it is much more like day trading (swapping positions on Wawrinka).
Good point here too. But I personally like to bet on more predictable players in terms of achieving victory, not fading players to lose.
Not to get preachy, but....Wawrinka is unreliable in a reliable way. Therefore potentially a very good prospect to be for and bet against in the right circumstances. You will never make any money backing they guy who holds a level all year round. You make money on guys who seem inconsistent but that you have worked out so they are predictable to you. Basically we should be happy that Wawrinka is quite predictable and profit from this.Betting is not like buying stock (you would buy Djokovic), it is much more like day trading (swapping positions on Wawrinka).
Good point here too. But I personally like to bet on more predictable players in terms of achieving victory, not fading players to lose.
Glad to see other people see the same things I see. As has been stated - Wawa is not a true professional the way the other top guys are unless the stakes are high enough to suit his personal interests. I doubt we will see anything different now that he knows he can dog his way thru minors events and just flip the switch for the majors. To be frank, I think he already felt this way anyway since he's already won a major previously. Winning another is just going to justify to him that the way he conducts business is the right way for himself.
Glad to see other people see the same things I see. As has been stated - Wawa is not a true professional the way the other top guys are unless the stakes are high enough to suit his personal interests. I doubt we will see anything different now that he knows he can dog his way thru minors events and just flip the switch for the majors. To be frank, I think he already felt this way anyway since he's already won a major previously. Winning another is just going to justify to him that the way he conducts business is the right way for himself.
Why bring his personal life (ex) wife reference? You would probably feel the same venom for 9 of the Top 10, when we go down that road. I am sure Stan has laid down for one reason or another, but so have the rest of them.
Why bring his personal life (ex) wife reference? You would probably feel the same venom for 9 of the Top 10, when we go down that road. I am sure Stan has laid down for one reason or another, but so have the rest of them.
EXACTLY WRINKA is a betting goldmine now becaus e of he inconsistency. His line will drop now he has won another slam against world number 1. So in masters i will oppose him if when he makes the quarters.Its also worth opposing him at Wimbledon. He might make the semis but NOT THE FINAL.
Wawa only made one qtr final at wimby ever so you're not going out on a limb there. And why wouldn't u wait for the draw to come out before making these predictions lol
EXACTLY WRINKA is a betting goldmine now becaus e of he inconsistency. His line will drop now he has won another slam against world number 1. So in masters i will oppose him if when he makes the quarters.Its also worth opposing him at Wimbledon. He might make the semis but NOT THE FINAL.
Wawa only made one qtr final at wimby ever so you're not going out on a limb there. And why wouldn't u wait for the draw to come out before making these predictions lol
Wawa came to play. It's a major. Hes just not comfortable on grass with the low bounce. He has less time to set up in rallies on the surface. Once he played a good player he was gonna have problems and Gasquet isnt even in the top 20 but he's good on grass.
Wawa came to play. It's a major. Hes just not comfortable on grass with the low bounce. He has less time to set up in rallies on the surface. Once he played a good player he was gonna have problems and Gasquet isnt even in the top 20 but he's good on grass.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.