2014 US Open Final: Nishikori vs. Cilic

[Riotbeard]

There is an interesting twist here. Currently there are 3 active players with 1 slam each: Wawrinka, Delpo and Cilic. Just imagine one of them clinches a second one, before Murray wins a third one, I would like to see what would be then the narrative.

I am pretty unimaginative so I will have to see it. Delpo won his lone major in 2009 and at the time I bet you thought he would be winning more, but that hasn't happened 5 years running. Wawrinka hasn't made a semi final of a major since his win. I may be wrong about Cilic, but he doesn't strike me as world beater tournament in and out and with this win, they will just pay more attention to him and he won't surprise players as he probably did here.

Be more imaginative

Delpo will have a second wind in his career. Also Cilic is still younger than any of the other slam holder (same age like Delpo) and he does not strike me as someone to have those form swings like Stan has.
Also, his game is less borderline technically, he has a very improved serve and FH. These unlikely to go away. If the off court distractions which will come along with the territory (media, sponsors, etc) will not play havoc with his mind, he will be very dangerous going forward. He always was a good indoor player, he might do very well the next 2 months.

Sorry we've been saying, writing, and hearing "DelPo will be back" for years! He's done as far as I'm concerned! The way he slaps at the ball has to be terribly debilitating to that wrist; hitting it again and again! Another surgery? How long this time for rehab?

I am marking this post and will bring it back up in due time. I am convinced he is not done.

Thanks for flagging Herios (we have nearly identical fandom except raonic). Booo Fiero. Delpo doesn't need to come back, he has been there quite some time.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Let's all not forget that after the 2003, JC Ferrero's career was a joke. Let's not even talk about Gaudio.
Roddick never won again, although not for lack of trying. Out of the 2003 groups only Fed "backs it up".

Agassi was an old warrior and nothing more was expected.

If you're replying to me, that's why I thought you'd picked a good example of a year. You just misplaced Gaudio, and forgot Roddick. It's not a onene, but a good recent illustration.

Here's another way of looking at it:

Of the last 39 men's singles major titles, 3 were won by other than The Big Four, i.e. by 7 men. Of the 39 previous to that (1995 Wimbledon - 2005 AO, if I counted right,) those titles were won by 17 different men. (Sampras, Becker, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Kuerten, Rafter, Korda, Moya, Agassi, Safin, Ivanisovic, Hewitt, Johansson, Costa, Ferrero, Roddick, Gaudio.)

It seems like the next 39 are much more likely to change hands like the first group, than be dominated by a few, as in the 2nd group, if you ask me.

Sorry to confuse, I corrected my post immediately...2003 was Roddick, Fed, Ferrero, Agassi. Gaudio was of course 2004.

Good point...but to be fair, outside of Gaudio, Costa, and Johanson, the rest were going deep into just about every major and Masters. Guys like Kafelnokov, Goran, and Refter were getting beat by the same 3 or 4 players...Sampras, Agassi, Becker, and then Federer.

 

[Billie]

Not too long ago people were jumping on JJ's bandwagon proclaiming that he was the next big thing.

I bet there are a lot more one-slam winners than 2-slam winners in tennis. It is not easy to repeat.:nono

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Stan there was more of a build up two really tough matches against novak. At the USO semis, he was very close to beating Novak, plus at the Aussie he beat the 3 time defending champion in the quarters. Not a dig a cilic. I am saying how it feels, not a question of earning or deserved. You couldn't have paid me enough beforehand to saying cilic would have won. Just being honest.

To be fair, Cilic beat Bird at Wimby and then gave a good effort against Novak also.
So, it is not coming totally out of the blue, at least in retrospect.

Not at all; very "Del Potro-est!" Very impressive beat down in the SF and Final of a major! He was in the zone with his serve, groundstrokes, and head! "Congrats Marin!" Great showing by Kei!

Actually, even Del Potro did not come out of nowhere. He won Washington DC and
then performed well in the Masters before clinching USO>

That is true, Delpo was a legit top 10 player when he won the USO, so was Wawrinka (he was in the WTF just before the AO). In comparison, Marin's win came really out of nowhere, when was the last time a guy guy raned outside of the top 10 won a slam? Was it Gaudio?

Before Gaudio such a guy who came out of nowhere would be Pete Sampras :laydownlaughing
Remember 2002 USO, he was ranked 17.

 

[Fiero425]

Stan there was more of a build up two really tough matches against novak. At the USO semis, he was very close to beating Novak, plus at the Aussie he beat the 3 time defending champion in the quarters. Not a dig a cilic. I am saying how it feels, not a question of earning or deserved. You couldn't have paid me enough beforehand to saying cilic would have won. Just being honest.

To be fair, Cilic beat Bird at Wimby and then gave a good effort against Novak also.
So, it is not coming totally out of the blue, at least in retrospect.

Not at all; very "Del Potro-est!" Very impressive beat down in the SF and Final of a major! He was in the zone with his serve, groundstrokes, and head! "Congrats Marin!" Great showing by Kei!

Actually, even Del Potro did not come out of nowhere. He won Washington DC and
then performed well in the Masters before clinching USO>

That is true, Delpo was a legit top 10 player when he won the USO, so was Wawrinka (he was in the WTF just before the AO). In comparison, Marin's win came really out of nowhere, when was the last time a guy guy raned outside of the top 10 won a slam? Was it Gaudio?

Becker the most improbably in '85; won Queens, then Wimbledon! Maybe Chang at FO in '89!

 

[Moxie]

Let's all not forget that after the 2003, JC Ferrero's career was a joke. Let's not even talk about Gaudio.
Roddick never won again, although not for lack of trying. Out of the 2003 groups only Fed "backs it up".

Agassi was an old warrior and nothing more was expected.

If you're replying to me, that's why I thought you'd picked a good example of a year. You just misplaced Gaudio, and forgot Roddick. It's not a onene, but a good recent illustration.

Here's another way of looking at it:

Of the last 39 men's singles major titles, 3 were won by other than The Big Four, i.e. by 7 men. Of the 39 previous to that (1995 Wimbledon - 2005 AO, if I counted right,) those titles were won by 17 different men. (Sampras, Becker, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Kuerten, Rafter, Korda, Moya, Agassi, Safin, Ivanisovic, Hewitt, Johansson, Costa, Ferrero, Roddick, Gaudio.)

It seems like the next 39 are much more likely to change hands like the first group, than be dominated by a few, as in the 2nd group, if you ask me.

Sorry to confuse, I corrected my post immediately...2003 was Roddick, Fed, Ferrero, Agassi. Gaudio was of course 2004.

Good point...but to be fair, outside of Gaudio, Costa, and Johanson, the rest were going deep into just about every major and Masters. Guys like Kafelnokov, Goran, and Refter were getting beat by the same 3 or 4 players...Sampras, Agassi, Becker, and then Federer.

I'm not questioning their bona fides, I'm just saying that the Majors were getting parceled out to a lot more than just 3-7 players. This recent era has been dominated hugely by a few. I don't think, personally, that it will be the case when you see the end of the next 39-40 Majors. Nadal, Djokovic and, yes, Murray, will win more Majors, over the next 2-3 years, I think. (Federer may have missed his last best chances, but we'll see.) Some other players will pepper in, increasingly, and then I'm guessing it will be the Wild West again, for a while.

 

[Moxie]

To be fair, Cilic beat Bird at Wimby and then gave a good effort against Novak also.
So, it is not coming totally out of the blue, at least in retrospect.

Not at all; very "Del Potro-est!" Very impressive beat down in the SF and Final of a major! He was in the zone with his serve, groundstrokes, and head! "Congrats Marin!" Great showing by Kei!

Actually, even Del Potro did not come out of nowhere. He won Washington DC and
then performed well in the Masters before clinching USO>

Del Potro came the least out of "nowhere." He was picked to do well, coming up, and he had a really great 2009. He just got derailed. (Interestingly, Cilic was coming up at the same time. Does anyone else remember them being referred to as "The Twin Towers?" It has taken this long for Cilic to realize his potential.

I think you are mixing things up. Yes, Delpo and Cilic were coming up together and until this USO win his best result was his 2009 Beijing title for Marin, he also made the SF at the AO after that, then he fell and went into they grey zone.
But they were not called the "twin towers" , those were Isner and Querrey.

I can't prove it, but before Isner and Querrey, I remember the Twin Towers as Delpo and Cilic, who did come to prominence together, as I remember it. In any case, I'm sure it was an easily used cliche.

 

[Federberg]

I'm not questioning their bona fides, I'm just saying that the Majors were getting parceled out to a lot more than just 3-7 players. This recent era has been dominated hugely by a few. I don't think, personally, that it will be the case when you see the end of the next 39-40 Majors. Nadal, Djokovic and, yes, Murray, will win more Majors, over the next 2-3 years, I think. (Federer may have missed his last best chances, but we'll see.) Some other players will pepper in, increasingly, and then I'm guessing it will be the Wild West again, for a while.

I don't understand the logic here. Even if I buy into Federer having only one more year of top level tennis. To suggest Murray has a greater chance of winning a slam in 2015 than Federer seems strange to me. This is a guy (Murray) who some people are doubting will even make the WTF this year, but he's got a better chance of putting himself in position to win? I'm not ready to buy that... As long as Federer keeps getting into semis he's capable of winning another 2 matches. And the odds of one of his chief rivals getting blown off the court before they get there is rising

 

[Kieran]

Well, Cilic didn't make the WTF last year, and he won a major this year.

Well done to Marin Cilic! :clap

I didn't see it, but his serve seemed to have been rock solid. It's been a great year for the majors, apparently the first time since 1998 that all four men and womens titles have been won by different players. 1998 was the last year of Pete's utter dominance, and after this, the game slid into transition. In the men's, we see the Big 3 looking less focussed (Novak), less healthy (Rafa) and older (Roger). We maybe heading into a similar era of change, but still we can expect the big guns to gain their fair share of wins, like Pete did, after 1998...

 

[isabelle]

Well done Marin, nobody expected him to win at the beginning of USO but he did it

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Let's all not forget that after the 2003, JC Ferrero's career was a joke. Let's not even talk about Gaudio.
Roddick never won again, although not for lack of trying. Out of the 2003 groups only Fed "backs it up".

Agassi was an old warrior and nothing more was expected.

If you're replying to me, that's why I thought you'd picked a good example of a year. You just misplaced Gaudio, and forgot Roddick. It's not a onene, but a good recent illustration.

Here's another way of looking at it:

Of the last 39 men's singles major titles, 3 were won by other than The Big Four, i.e. by 7 men. Of the 39 previous to that (1995 Wimbledon - 2005 AO, if I counted right,) those titles were won by 17 different men. (Sampras, Becker, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Kuerten, Rafter, Korda, Moya, Agassi, Safin, Ivanisovic, Hewitt, Johansson, Costa, Ferrero, Roddick, Gaudio.)

It seems like the next 39 are much more likely to change hands like the first group, than be dominated by a few, as in the 2nd group, if you ask me.

Sorry to confuse, I corrected my post immediately...2003 was Roddick, Fed, Ferrero, Agassi. Gaudio was of course 2004.

Good point...but to be fair, outside of Gaudio, Costa, and Johanson, the rest were going deep into just about every major and Masters. Guys like Kafelnokov, Goran, and Refter were getting beat by the same 3 or 4 players...Sampras, Agassi, Becker, and then Federer.

I'm not questioning their bona fides, I'm just saying that the Majors were getting parceled out to a lot more than just 3-7 players. This recent era has been dominated hugely by a few. I don't think, personally, that it will be the case when you see the end of the next 39-40 Majors. Nadal, Djokovic and, yes, Murray, will win more Majors, over the next 2-3 years, I think. (Federer may have missed his last best chances, but we'll see.) Some other players will pepper in, increasingly, and then I'm guessing it will be the Wild West again, for a while.

Another X factor we may be overlooking, is that besides some of the established contenders/pretenders that have been shut out by the big four...Jerzey Boy, Grigor, The Dog, Nish, Berd, Isner, Tsonga etc breaking through...we may be shocked by an out of nowhere Becker or Chang type...where the stars align.

Who knows..Coric, Zverev (where was he this Open btw?) etc...At this point I am expecting anything.

 

[herios]

Who knows..Coric, Zverev (where was he this Open btw?) etc...At this point I am expecting anything.

Zverev was at the USO, you might have not noticed. He lost in the qualification R2 to Ilhan.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Who knows..Coric, Zverev (where was he this Open btw?) etc...At this point I am expecting anything.

Zverev was at the USO, you might have not noticed. He lost in the qualification R2 to Ilhan.

ah, thanks for that.

 

[Front242]

For gods sake, has Mary Crazillo's voice gotten even deeper????

Horrible alright. I called her David Carrillo during the live chat :snigger

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

also it was marion cilic's 300th win of his career.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

For gods sake, has Mary Crazillo's voice gotten even deeper????

Horrible alright. I called her David Carrillo during the live chat :snigger

No you didn't! Have bit more respect for Mr. Carillo!:lolz:

 

[Fiero425]

For gods sake, has Mary Crazillo's voice gotten even deeper????

Horrible alright. I called her David Carrillo during the live chat :snigger

No you didn't! Have bit more respect for Mr. Carillo!:lolz:

...and her kids! :angel: - "Bea Arthur" as Maude ("No this is not Mr. Findley; Mr. Findley has a much higher voice") :angel:

 

[Moxie]

I'm not questioning their bona fides, I'm just saying that the Majors were getting parceled out to a lot more than just 3-7 players. This recent era has been dominated hugely by a few. I don't think, personally, that it will be the case when you see the end of the next 39-40 Majors. Nadal, Djokovic and, yes, Murray, will win more Majors, over the next 2-3 years, I think. (Federer may have missed his last best chances, but we'll see.) Some other players will pepper in, increasingly, and then I'm guessing it will be the Wild West again, for a while.

I don't understand the logic here. Even if I buy into Federer having only one more year of top level tennis. To suggest Murray has a greater chance of winning a slam in 2015 than Federer seems strange to me. This is a guy (Murray) who some people are doubting will even make the WTF this year, but he's got a better chance of putting himself in position to win? I'm not ready to buy that... As long as Federer keeps getting into semis he's capable of winning another 2 matches. And the odds of one of his chief rivals getting blown off the court before they get there is rising

You can disagree with my estimation of how things might go, but my logic isn't faulty. I'm weighing that players who are more at peak/plateau have a greater chance, and while Murray is a question mark as to getting back to his best level, he's only 27. And in the last 12 months he's had back surgery and a coaching change. If you say that Fed's chief rivals have a greater chance of getting beaten before they get to Roger going forward, then so does he, before he gets to those "chief rivals," if the competition from the youngsters and heretofore also-rans is getting stiffer.

It's been the Federer fans as much as anyone complaining about his loss of form, etc., and also saying that he could win another Major or 2, but with 'help,' (i.e., a couple of the big 4 going out early, and a felicitous draw. This was becoming "conventional wisdom.") Well, he got that help in the last 2, but didn't capitalize. This is essentially my point: he didn't used to miss opportunities when they presented themselves. This year, you could add the Monte Carlo final. (I was kind of shocked he lost that one.) It is my opinion that Nadal, Djokovic and, yes, Murray, have a couple of more years to add Slams. That is age-based, and then past-form based. All I said about Roger was that I wondered if he'd missed his last best chances. I also said, "We shall see." It's an opinion. You don't have to agree, but the logic is there.

 

[TsarMatt]

It's funny.

We all know those threads and discussions when people ask 'out of all the players who have yet to win a slam, who is most likely?' - seldom did I ever see Cilic mentioned. It was always Tsonga, Berdych, Wawrinka (prior to AO '14), etc. I mean, if anybody would've told me that Cilic was going to be a Grand Slam champion in 2014, I would have seriously doubted it. He just seemed like one of those players who would always lag around the top 20 and that's pretty much it.

Tennis is a remarkably unpredictable sport, and it's great to see and be apart of this. Usually it's always the Big 4 taking the majors, but things are changing and it's fun.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I have to be honest...i woke up today and asked my self if Marin Cilic really won the US Open. I'm in a daze.