What makes a breakthrough?

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
42,564
Reactions
13,766
Points
113
Cilic was definitely out of nowhere. He had made 1 major semi I believe (2010 AO) and wasn't really heard from at big events after that. By USO 2014 he was not seen as much of a contender at all.

DP was certainly seen as a contender at USO 2009 as he came in playing pretty well but I'd say his breakouts before that had been moderate, making RG semis and Montreal finals that year.
As I said above, it's depends on how you define "breakthrough," and I tend to lean towards when we became aware of them. Both were on the radar for a fair amount of time. They came up at around the same time. Remember when we referred to them as the "twin towers?" But Cilic stagnated more. However, they did both break through to a different level when they won a Major, and each did it by beating Roger, if you guys want to add that to the list. Then again, they haven't really done much to back it up. Del Potro has been terribly unfortunate with injuries, of course, but he's only been in one other Major final since. And while Cilic has been in 2 others since, he's still really inconsistent.
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
42,564
Reactions
13,766
Points
113
They feel that we gush over Federer, without giving credit to Nadal for his own achievements and great talent. :)
That's mostly only annoying when Nadal is directly not credited for a win over Roger, or when posters look for reasons for his success other than his talent and dedication. The really puke-inducing gushing tends to come from some of the commentators, TBH. Sometimes you can hear them drool. At first, I was a bit irritated by GSM's rather fannish post, but it made me think, so I made lemonade. It gets to the point of a big win over an elite player as a "breakthrough" signpost.