They broke up the band...the Fab Four are history

[Luxilon Borg]

I agree about Cilic, definitely not the kind of game I'd bank on being consistent

I don't believe someone with a with a distinct technical flaw can be consistent week in week out. The Cilic forehand breaks down under pressure. A the USO, nobody was able to exploit it. He managed it well, his from another planet serving certainly helped.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

^ I wonder how long Dimitrov is going to stay with Roger Rasheed uzzled
Tsonga and Monfils were also sucked in by Rasheed.
Hewitt wasted valuable years with Rasheed (and never won a slam with him), instead of finding a TENNIS coach to help him play more aggressively.

Rasheed trains you hard and gets you fit.....but the emphasis on fitness doesn't make the player more aggressive/attacking. It is more likely to make them play more defensive and look to outlast their opponents. That is the last thing Dimitrov should be doing. If Dimitrov has any weapons at all, he needs a TENNIS coach that can help him utilize those weapons.

Dimitrov's biggest liability is court positioning and the fact that is strokes are very big...he needs lots of time to produce them. That is why he cannot penetrate his opponents as much as he should given his talent level.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Cilic lost in the 2nd round of the Paris masters to Del Potro last year. Not a hope he loses that early this year imo and in fact, given the previous history of surprise winners there, I'd have to put him well up there as a possible winner if his great form continues. If he won there he'd be up to number 5 in the rankings. I wouldn't rule it out. And of course there are quite a few tournaments left this year. Look for him to climb higher for sure before year end and by doing so the gap widens on Murray quite a bit.

Cilic's game should be well suited for the kind of surface this time of the year is played on, but as far as next year goes, it's a stretch to put him ahead of Murray as far as performances. The one problem for Murray is given his ranking, he'll be having tougher draws now.

But still, the guy has been extremely consistent for the past 6 years now. He's done more than enough for us to stop doubting him so much. Yes, he has been the weakest link of the top 4 (though there's hardly shame in that) but he's been miles ahead of everyone else by contrast.

PS: This reply is not necessarily directed at you but I wanted to quote your post to comment on the Cilic thing.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I agree about Cilic, definitely not the kind of game I'd bank on being consistent

I don't believe someone with a with a distinct technical flaw can be consistent week in week out. The Cilic forehand breaks down under pressure. A the USO, nobody was able to exploit it. He managed it well, his from another planet serving certainly helped.

I agree with this. I think generally, players with forehands as the weaker shot tend to struggle with consistency. Murray might be an exception. However, it's not so much that his forehand is weak (in the sense that it doesn't "break down" per se), but it can be pedestrian and not up to par compared to some other guys on tour. Nevertheless, Murray is good at keeping it consistent and not missing.

Whereas players like Cilic, or in the past, Safin and Nalbandian (or hell, even Davydenko), really struggled because their forehands are inconsistent and they are aggressive, flat-hitting players by nature, who hit with low margin for error, and therefore produce many errors off that wing when they're not feeling the ball well.

It's much easier to protect your backhand if it's your weaker shot (loop it a bit, slice it, run around it, etc...), but if your forehand is a weakness, you're in trouble (part of the reason Gulbis isn't as promising a talent as many had anticipated years back, in addition to his mental issues).

 

[Front242]

Cilic lost in the 2nd round of the Paris masters to Del Potro last year. Not a hope he loses that early this year imo and in fact, given the previous history of surprise winners there, I'd have to put him well up there as a possible winner if his great form continues. If he won there he'd be up to number 5 in the rankings. I wouldn't rule it out. And of course there are quite a few tournaments left this year. Look for him to climb higher for sure before year end and by doing so the gap widens on Murray quite a bit.

Cilic's game should be well suited for the kind of surface this time of the year is played on, but as far as next year goes, it's a stretch to put him ahead of Murray as far as performances. The one problem for Murray is given his ranking, he'll be having tougher draws now.

But still, the guy has been extremely consistent for the past 6 years now. He's done more than enough for us to stop doubting him so much. Yes, he has been the weakest link of the top 4 (though there's hardly shame in that) but he's been miles ahead of everyone else by contrast.

PS: This reply is not necessarily directed at you but I wanted to quote your post to comment on the Cilic thing.

I'm not in any way doubting Murray won't do better next year, simply that others currently above him may also do better than last year thereby keeping them above him and making his progress harder. Most agree Cilic's chances of doing well in the indoor season are pretty high so he'll likely grab a good few more points this year and keep them till this time next year so it certainly makes things harder for Murray in that respect. Not so sure how Nishikori will do the remainder of the year but likewise if he does well he moves higher up too and widens the gap.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I agree about Cilic, definitely not the kind of game I'd bank on being consistent

I don't believe someone with a with a distinct technical flaw can be consistent week in week out. The Cilic forehand breaks down under pressure. A the USO, nobody was able to exploit it. He managed it well, his from another planet serving certainly helped.

I agree with this. I think generally, players with forehands as the weaker shot tend to struggle with consistency. Murray might be an exception. However, it's not so much that his forehand is weak (in the sense that it doesn't "break down" per se), but it can be pedestrian and not up to par compared to some other guys on tour. Nevertheless, Murray is good at keeping it consistent and not missing.

Whereas players like Cilic, in the past Safin and Nalbandian (or hell, even Davydenko), really struggled because their forehands are inconsistent and they are aggressive, flat-hitting players by nature, who hit with low margin for error, and therefore produce many errors off that wing when they're not feeling the ball well.

It's much easier to protect your backhand if it's your weaker shot (loop it a bit, slice it, run around it, etc...), but if your forehand is a weakness, you're in trouble (part of the reason Gulbis isn't as promising a talent as many had anticipated years back, in addition to his mental issues).

Excellent analysis. Spot on.

Cilic has what is commonly referred to as a "slappy" forehand, and he can spray it all over the place.

It was remarkably up to the task during the USO. I only saw one match where he was spraying it and he survived.

 

[Federberg]

^ No I got your point and see what you mean, but I think it says a lot that in a year in which he was just coming off a serious injury, parted ways with a coach that led him to glory, was suffering from post-Wimbledon hangover, was out of sorts mentally and physically, and didn't play well in general at all, he was still able to get to at least the QF in every major.

Yup. That's the talent bit. The desire bit, comes in when you get to the QF/SF. Your ability to win those matches is partly talent (a lot talent), but it's also very mental. In a way the earlier rounds aren't. At that stage you're probably playing a guy who can match you in the talent department, but you have to match the desire, the mental application. And that's where he's really slipped for me. My point about these other guys, particularly Dimi and Kei, they're right up there in the talent department, and boy they're hungry. Cilic, when he's on, may well be the perfect expression of this mature generation. Huge baseline power and consistency, massive serve, great movement, competent defence. He would be a problem for Murray at his best anyway. I really worry that Andy has climbed to the mountain top and a part of him is struggling to figure out what to do next. He's not like Roger or Rafa who are just greedy winners. He's not like Nole who has a massive chip on his shoulder that he's not considered on a par with the other two guys. In the UK, there's a certain complacency about Andy, I don't think anyone really believes he has anything more to prove. That's ok in a way.. but I fear he's bought that. Getting that hunger back may well be his ultimate career challenge

 

[El Dude]

So here's another way to look at it, with regards to Andy. How many Slams will he end his career with? After winning Wimbledon last year he looked like he was heading for 5+, maybe even as many as 7-8 with a peak in his late 20s like his (now former) coach, Ivan Lendl.

Now I'm guessing 2-4 is more likely. Although the thing with Andy is that if he wins another, he has a very good shot at a 4th, even a 5th. So I think it will either be that he's stuck at 2, or he ends up with 4-5.

 

[DarthFed]

I think he is still possibly THE favorite at Wimbledon for the next couple years. He was looking deadly there this year but laid one hell of an egg vs. Dimitrov. Had he won that he'd have had a very good chance to beat Djokovic though the way Roger played in the final Andy wasn't winning that. Next year I think he will have a good shot again.

 

[Kieran]

I think that with Rafa breaking down and Novak in flux, there maybe a vacuum next season which Andy would be the best player to exploit - but only if he gets back his intensity and confidence. Bear in mind, it's not just this season, but since he won Wimbledon he's been pants. His USO defence was as feeble as his Wimbo match with Grigor...

EDIT: Yes, his back, I know, but even taking that into account...

 

[El Dude]

Maybe, but again - he doesn't only have Roger, Novak, and Rafa to contend with; Raonic, Dimitrov, Nishikori, maybe Cilic and even Kyrgios all have a shot at 2015 Wimbledon. Not to mention Wawrinka, Tsonga, and Berdych. The field of contenders has greatly expanded from just a year ago, when it was never in doubt who would end up winning a Slam. Stan and then Marin changed that, as well as upsets by Kyrgios and Grigor.

 

[Federberg]

I actually think Andy's problem is going to be getting to matches against the Big 3. His ranking doesn't help, he's never been efficient getting through anyway. And now it's that much tougher. By the time he gets there he'll be spent. I think as satisfied with his career as he's become, he'll always be up for it against those guys. The problem is there are more people who can get in his way now, and these guys aren't going to lie down for him. It's obviously a similar problem for the other guys, but they're just better at negotiating past the lower orders than he's ever been

 

[El Dude]

I think also we have to consider age seriously. Andy is 27, and has one more Slam to play before he turns 28 in May. Here are the number of Slams 4+Slam winners won at Andy's age or older, with the percentage of their total Slams in parentheses:

Nadal - 1 (7%...so far)
Federer - 3 (18%...so far)
Sampras - 3 (21%)
Courier - 0 (0%)
Agassi - 5 (63%)
Becker - 1 (17%)
Edberg - 0 (0%)
Wilander - 0 (0%)
Lendl - 2 (25%)
McEnroe - 0 (0%)
Borg - NA
Vilas - 0 (0%)
Connors - 3 (38%)
Newcombe - 3 (43%)

Overall the above players won 19% of their Slams after Murray's current age (and that doesn't factor in Borg), with a range of 0 - 63%, Agassi being the huge outlier, but Connors and Newcombe also winning a fair portion of their Slams later on.

This doesn't help us know the future, but it does give us a sense of how many Slams were won by great players in the latter years of their career. And one thing it does tell us is that if Andy was to win 6+ Slams, he'd be the first in the Open Era to do so while winning two-thirds of his Slams at his current age or older. If he were to win 4 Slams total, so two more, only Agassi would have won more Slams after this point in his career. So historically speaking it is far more likely that he wins 0-1 more.

 

[Front242]

^ Come on, Tim!

 

[herios]

Maybe, but again - he doesn't only have Roger, Novak, and Rafa to contend with; Raonic, Dimitrov, Nishikori, maybe Cilic and even Kyrgios all have a shot at 2015 Wimbledon. Not to mention Wawrinka, Tsonga, and Berdych. The field of contenders has greatly expanded from just a year ago, when it was never in doubt who would end up winning a Slam. Stan and then Marin changed that, as well as upsets by Kyrgios and Grigor.

I think you may have to scale down your enthusiasm about Kyrgios. First he has to play consistent tennis at the ATP tour level. He looked really green in Toronto. I was very disappointed.
I think he will not be a serious threat for 2 more years.
About the vacuum, I would favor Cilic. He has a much more complete game. Andy has that WTA 2 serve, which I think will prevent him to make more in roads.

 

[Bounce It !!]

^ No I got your point and see what you mean, but I think it says a lot that in a year in which he was just coming off a serious injury, parted ways with a coach that led him to glory, was suffering from post-Wimbledon hangover, was out of sorts mentally and physically, and didn't play well in general at all, he was still able to get to at least the QF in every major.

Yup. That's the talent bit. The desire bit, comes in when you get to the QF/SF. Your ability to win those matches is partly talent (a lot talent), but it's also very mental. In a way the earlier rounds aren't. At that stage you're probably playing a guy who can match you in the talent department, but you have to match the desire, the mental application. And that's where he's really slipped for me. My point about these other guys, particularly Dimi and Kei, they're right up there in the talent department, and boy they're hungry. Cilic, when he's on, may well be the perfect expression of this mature generation. Huge baseline power and consistency, massive serve, great movement, competent defence. He would be a problem for Murray at his best anyway. I really worry that Andy has climbed to the mountain top and a part of him is struggling to figure out what to do next. He's not like Roger or Rafa who are just greedy winners. He's not like Nole who has a massive chip on his shoulder that he's not considered on a par with the other two guys. In the UK, there's a certain complacency about Andy, I don't think anyone really believes he has anything more to prove. That's ok in a way.. but I fear he's bought that. Getting that hunger back may well be his ultimate career challenge

"Getting that hunger back may well be his ultimate career challenge" Perhaps that best describes my concern for Andy. Over the past few years he has demonstrated his talents, and has been the 4th best, standing out over the #5 and below with his two slams, multiple slam finals, and multiple MS titles.

The question is then can he find the drive to bring his game back to top 4 quality while the young guns are demonstrating improvement in their games. While Andy made the QF at NY, he did not have the game in his match with an out of form Novak, physically, he was out of it in the 4th set. Not that it really matters, but I just don't see him putting the extra work in to get where he needs to be, and re-light the fire.

 

[Kieran]

That's it, Bounce, getting back the intensity is going to be the hardest part, and I have doubts about his choice of cornerman - er, -woman...

 

[NADAL2005RG]

2014 worked out perfectly for Nadal, because he got to have another break from hardcourts (as he did in 2012) but this time he may win the World Tour Finals too :clap

Even if he exerts energy to win the World Tour Finals, he will benefit from skipping the US hardcourt season, no doubt about it.

I think its a great idea to skip the US hardcourt season every 2nd year, intentional or not :clap

And if he bags the World Tour Finals this year, I say skip that too in future and just focus on Australian Open and French Open (and have a shot at Wimbledon, because there is an extra week gap between Roland Garros and Wimbledon from 2015 onwards).

 

[Kieran]

Sorry, but 2014 was a disaster. :nono

Are you a Federer fan? His back went in the Oz final, so he couldn't compete.

He was lame through most of the clay, and when he looked sharp at Wimbledon, he got beaten.

And he hasn't played since, losing his USO title through forfeit.

Step away from the keyboard!

 

[brokenshoelace]

2014 worked out perfectly for Nadal, because he got to have another break from hardcourts (as he did in 2012) but this time he may win the World Tour Finals too :clap

ABSOLUTELY PERFECT! I mean, who wouldn't love to reach the final of a major only to lose, while getting injured in the process. Who wouldn't love to spend the subsequent 3 months struggling with form and confidence (and back issues), and who wouldn't love losing to yet another no-name at Wimbledon, before proceeding to sit on the sidelines due to injury and be unable to defend every title you won the previous summer (2 masters and a major).

Perfect indeed.