Aus Open: sf 2

It's not done and dusted yet folks.  There is an unplayable Cilic somewhere out there, it's just that he frequently folds when the pressure increases. But what if that doesn't happen? Every player transcends himself once in a while..

However, i'd say 70/30 to fed

Ok but the point still stands. He had a 97" racquet from aus '14, so it wasn't smaller. He was just not at one with it.

luvsports! wrote:Ok but the point still stands. He had a 97" racquet from aus '14, so it wasn't smaller. He was just not at one with it.

So your point stands as much as AoD's.

Tenez wrote:

luvsports! wrote:Ok but the point still stands. He had a 97" racquet from aus '14, so it wasn't smaller. He was just not at one with it.

So your point stands as much as AoD's.

This is being pedantic, bit who cares as I am off sick from work, but no it isn't.

He said he had a smaller racket. I said he didn't. I was right, he was wrong. 

I win, you lose, na na na na na etc and so on and so forth.

I coudl say you are the one being pedantic by by pointing out AoD mistake while overlooking his point.

You take it as a win/lose debate...I can't care less.

I am saying I was being pedantic Tenez...

Anywho, as you were.

Ok I thought Fed got a bigger racquet in 2015 but I didn't check it before posting. I'm still right that Cilic was playing 10 times better than normal in 2014 USO. Unquestionably right about that 

Unquestionably! Not sure Tenez will agree

luvsports! wrote:I am saying I was being pedantic Tenez...

Anywho, as you were.

Apologies! My French!

luvsports! wrote:Unquestionably! Not sure Tenez will agree

he played fantastic that semi ...but one is never sure how much one is allowed to look good by the other not playing as well.

Dimi and Nadal for instance make their opponents look better than they are.

Agreed.

The USO semi is repeatedly held up as the evidence that Cilic can blow Federer away. I’ve even seen it backed up by the Wimbledon quarter final 5 setter.

I’m not saying Cilic can’t beat Federer but these comparisons are specious. At the USO he was coming off a killer with Monfils and his game was in an inferior position. The Wimbledon instance is even more absurd as he went on to lose to Raonic with an obvious chronic kneee injury.

Cilic has chances but they’re not best illustrated by references to these matches.

Yes - we will not see a replay of the 2014 SF, because we will not get a replay of the surrounding circumstances.  Nonetheless, it will surely be a part of the background to both players' approaches to the match.  They know that his power and ability can be overwhelming.

I think Cilic's power and ability to mix it up a bit makes him a hugely dangerous opponent.  Unlike the majority of players vs. Federer the match could be on his racquet, although not in most of the likely scenarios.  He has a tendency to need more than one chance to finish off a big opponent - that is one of the reasons why he is very much the underdog.

I must give credit to Cilic for having made another slam final!

It's painful to say considering that he was a set and a break down v Nadal, then managed to lose a TB in spite of dominating an already injured nadal.

But as mentioned, if there is one player Cilic has nothing to lose against, it's Federer....so that is the only danger....plus maybe Federer injuring himself trying to get to balls he should let by. But hopefully he is wiser than nadal.

On that last point at least you should have no fear. I’d be surprised if there isn’t 15 points of IQ between them.

You are worse than me.

I’m serious. No really intelligent person could commit to such a dreadfully limited range of shots for so long. And that’s without the ridiculous time consuming routine. Everything about the guy screams “thick”.

If anything the gap might be much bigger.

I don't think one can assume that he's thick, particularly when he doesn't speak our language.  I think this article prior to his USO win sums up the enigma that is Cilic quite nicely.  Apart from a bit of a dip in 2015, his results have steadily improved since then, but he is still more inconsistent than he ought to be, perhaps best shown by his masters performances.  I don't think that Bob Brett would have stuck with a thicko for as long as he did.  Anyway, worth a read:  http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/01/who-marin-cilic/50187/

bogbrush wrote:I’m serious. No really intelligent person could commit to such a dreadfully limited range of shots for so long. And that’s without the ridiculous time consuming routine. Everything about the guy screams “thick”.

If anything the gap might be much bigger.

If it could allow me to win Wimby and other slams...I'd be that stubborn person. If fact, I'd rather play like Nadal than having to run 5 miles a week.

I wasn’t saying Cilic, barry. It was Nadal.

Tenez, I would be unable to adopt such a constrained way. A clever person has to let their ability have full rein, I certainly couldn’t work way inside my range. It would drive me crazy.

Even in business I act quite idiosyncratically and I don’t build business relationships though any shmoozing at all, I never do anything like that. I win trust and respect by being the best and am quite happy to attain my aims without making the slightest effort to suck up to customers. Respectable and friendly of course, but always based on performance. Long term that’s far stronger as it happens.

I think it is clear that the way you play says a lot about you. Either nadal is a bit simple like his game, or very obedient (to Toni) and that says also about his personality too.

While you see someone not very complex, I see someone full of fears, in particular the fear of making mistakes or taking risk. Had nadal not been a tennis player, he could have been a bank clerk.

barrystar wrote:I don't think one can assume that he's thick, particularly when he doesn't speak our language. 

What has that got to do with the price of lemons?  His game style and tactics were close to stupid - And unlike BB I am talking about Dung.

barrystar wrote:I don't think one can assume that he's thick, particularly when he doesn't speak our language.  I think this article prior to his USO win sums up the enigma that is Cilic quite nicely.  Apart from a bit of a dip in 2015, his results have steadily improved since then, but he is still more inconsistent than he ought to be, perhaps best shown by his masters performances.  I don't think that Bob Brett would have stuck with a thicko for as long as he did.  Anyway, worth a read:  http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/01/who-marin-cilic/50187/

That’s the thing, Barry!
It is ont “our” language, it’s the world’s language, and the fact than Nadal hasn’t picked up much of it all these years does say to me he is not the brightest spark.

Compare him to Federer or Djokovic!

p.s.
I do like listening to him speak English, he is quite entertaining esp with the eyebrows all over the place etc,

bogbrush wrote:I wasn’t saying Cilic, barry. It was Nadal.

Ah - I had not picked that up.  Hmm - I'm not so sure about that.  Maybe excessively focused...?

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I’m serious. No really intelligent person could commit to such a dreadfully limited range of shots for so long. And that’s without the ridiculous time consuming routine. Everything about the guy screams “thick”.

If anything the gap might be much bigger.

If it could allow me to win Wimby and other slams...I'd be that stubborn person. If fact, I'd rather play like Nadal than having to run 5 miles a week.

I bet you wouldn’t!

If playing with Nadals style makes you dumb- I must be very low IQ.

DECIMA wrote:If playing with Nadals style makes you dumb- I must be very low IQ.

Plus lack of talent.

He has done very well with his game- one of the most successful players in history. The aim of playing isn’t to please everyone, it’s to win.
Unfortunately being in an anti Nadal echo chamber has led to some delusional thinking.

noleisthebest wrote:

DECIMA wrote:If playing with Nadals style makes you dumb- I must be very low IQ.

Plus lack of talent.

And do you think that?

DECIMA wrote:He has done very well with his game- one of the most successful players in history. The aim of playing isn’t to please everyone, it’s to win.
Unfortunately being in an anti Nadal echo chamber has led to some delusional thinking.

For pros, I agree with you 100%.

They all play to win. But also with all they have.

Nobody plays cowardly, dull, percentage defensive tennis because they like it, more because they can’t win any other way, which is fair enough. Not everyone is born woth Federer’s talent...and the pros know it anyway.


What I find really strange is to find people behave like that even on a club level...
so there we are talking huge egos.

You beat them, they think the world of you. It’s quite funny.
The worst is when amateurs cheat on line calls.

So translate that little cheating onto the pro scene, rule bending etc....that is what frustrates me a lot.

The preferrential treatment of players.

So all in all, it’s very difficult to like Nadal’s world.

I am amazed how many like him.

Oh I can see why people like Nadal, it's not difficult at all, on Court he's the ying to Federer's yang, he isn't just defensive and cowardly, I that's a gross misrepresentation of his game - he doesn't just bunt balls back, he hits extraordinary explosive passing shots, sometimes on amazing angles, he has soft hands on the occasions he does go up to the net, and he's got an 'in your face' never-say-die attitude (coupled with a different 'look') which lots of people love in their sportsmen.

He also is usually very balanced at accepting victory and defeat - all these guys are beasts inside, and it's fair enough that they occasionally let the mask slip.  

Finally, his presence on the scene has improved Federer enormously and turned Federer's career trajectory into a fascinating story of ups and downs, times of success and huge frustration, keeping those of us who like Federer on the edge of our seats we would not otherwise have been over the last 12 years - I'm sure that when Federer looks back he'll agree that Nadal's position on the scene has enriched his own career saga immeasurably.  His battle with Djokovic has also been fascinating, if not beautiful to watch to me.  

I don't like him as a tennis player, I think he pushes the envelope too far on Court and I have always preferred players who come up to the net more, not just to finish points, but I think it's a bit odd to be blind to why others do.

Daniel wrote:

barrystar wrote:I don't think one can assume that he's thick, particularly when he doesn't speak our language. 

What has that got to do with the price of lemons?  His game style and tactics were close to stupid - And unlike BB I am talking about Dung.

I don't think they were stupid. They were from Toni based on his experience of the 80s. Toni was smart enough to realise that the Wilander/Bruguera  game which was obliterated in the 90s even on clay due to bigger frame and big hitters could come back thanks to the new synthetic strings. I don;t think he could have envisaged such a success from Nadal but he knew he was going to provide a physical challenge to all.

What's smart is that Nadal has not got the 10th of Fed's talent, not even half of Djoko yet he has caused Fed most trouble and has the slam number over Djoko. It's very smart indeed..but could not be done without making sure he had those steroids arms. (just an expression of course )

gallery play wrote:It's not done and dusted yet folks.  There is an unplayable Cilic somewhere out there, it's just that he frequently folds when the pressure increases. But what if that doesn't happen? Every player transcends himself once in a while..

However, i'd say 70/30 to fed

Agree with this.  Both with 70/30 and with the assessment that the unplayable Cilic may be lurking somewhere.  I can already tell I will be nervous Sunday morning.  Before the Wimbledon final it did not really even occur to me that Fed could lose, but somehow I am far more worried now.  Maybe because #20 is on the line, and there may not be many (any?) more chances for Fed.  Fed is looking good, and he does not often lose when looking good, but still, I have jitters.

barrystar wrote:Oh I can see why people like Nadal, it's not difficult at all, on Court he's the ying to Federer's yang, he isn't just defensive and cowardly, I that's a gross misrepresentation of his game - he doesn't just bunt balls back, he hits extraordinary explosive passing shots, sometimes on amazing angles, he has soft hands on the occasions he does go up to the net, and he's got an 'in your face' never-say-die attitude (coupled with a different 'look') which lots of people love in their sportsmen.

He also is usually very balanced at accepting victory and defeat - all these guys are beasts inside, and it's fair enough that they occasionally let the mask slip.  

Finally, his presence on the scene has improved Federer enormously and turned Federer's career trajectory into a fascinating story of ups and downs, times of success and huge frustration, keeping those of us who like Federer on the edge of our seats we would not otherwise have been over the last 12 years - I'm sure that when Federer looks back he'll agree that Nadal's position on the scene has enriched his own career saga immeasurably.  His battle with Djokovic has also been fascinating, if not beautiful to watch to me.  

I don't like him as a tennis player, I think he pushes the envelope too far on Court and I have always preferred players who come up to the net more, not just to finish points, but I think it's a bit odd to be blind to why others do.

Can you explain that bit, please.
Is that black and white, good and evil, light and darkness?
I am not familiar with Buddism.
(I know vaguely what ying and yang are, but not much)

gallery play wrote:It's not done and dusted yet folks.  There is an unplayable Cilic somewhere out there, it's just that he frequently folds when the pressure increases. But what if that doesn't happen? Every player transcends himself once in a while..

However, i'd say 70/30 to fed

The unplayable Cilic is hard to find frankly. 70/30 means one in 3 "Cilic" is unplayable. More like 1 out of 10 to me. Fed getting a physical issue is more likely than Cilic finding some composure.  

I'd say Fed 85/15.

Tenez wrote:

gallery play wrote:It's not done and dusted yet folks.  There is an unplayable Cilic somewhere out there, it's just that he frequently folds when the pressure increases. But what if that doesn't happen? Every player transcends himself once in a while..

However, i'd say 70/30 to fed

The unplayable Cilic is hard to find frankly. 70/30 means one in 3 "Cilic" is unplayable. More like 1 out of 10 to me. Fed getting a physical issue is more likely than Cilic finding some composure.  

I'd say Fed 85/15.

I think too Federer will win. He's the better player and in good form, so there shouldn't be too much to worry about. But if you go back to last years Wimbledon final, i bet Cilic made you nervous the first 4 games. You could see how dangerous a player he can be.

Of course I will be nervous...Have always been...even when he was playing Roddick!

Tenez wrote:Of course I will be nervous...Have always been...even when he was playing Roddick!

Wow, that's weak!

gallery play wrote:

Tenez wrote:Of course I will be nervous...Have always been...even when he was playing Roddick!

Wow, that's weak!

It wasn't in that wimb final he should have won.  I was nervous as fuck.  I think every Fed fan was.  But in hindsight, I wish Roddick had won it.  Just that once.

Daniel wrote:

gallery play wrote:

Tenez wrote:Of course I will be nervous...Have always been...even when he was playing Roddick!

Wow, that's weak!

It wasn't in that wimb final he should have won.  I was nervous as fuck.  I think every Fed fan was.  But in hindsight, I wish Roddick had won it.  Just that once.

I am really glad he didn’t!

Really that was the only final Fed won when he “shouldn’t” have.

Against that he blew finals in US, Australia, Wimbledon. Arguably even a French.

Edit: he might have squeaked through W’07.

Are we talking about the W09 final or the 05 final? Cause the 09 final.....to me Fed deserved it more. It was a very windy day and Rod was very lucky in those first sets. Fed had everything to lose and was trying to contain Roddick and gusty wind. He managed to contain both...

If anything the only slam Roddick won was stolen from Nalby who would have won it anywhere else than in the loud USO! That year (03) Nalby had dismissed of Federer and balls for 2 sets to 1 or to love.....but the biggest crowd unleashed its fury and Nalby melted down.

Wim 09 has Roddick's finest day and I totally felt for him. Should've won it.

He wasn't lucky in those first sets at all.  He was only broken once in the match at the very end.  It was Federer who got lucky.  Massively.

You drop serve only once in a match that goes 16-14 in the 5th and you still lose, you’re unfortunate.

That backhand high volley.... he’ll take it to the grave.

Yup.  That was the miss that cost him big - but look at the tiebreak again... Federer pulled off an absolute miracle shot before it that denied Roddick too.  Even Fed would make that shot only one in ten times.  Probably less.