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

[the AntiPusher]

Cilic is a much, MUCH more problematic match-up for Nadal than Stan.

Cilic is similar to Tsonga.
And Nadal has won his last 5 outdoor hardcourt matches vs. Tsonga.
We should be careful not to overrate Cilic.
Let us realize that beating Federer is a lot different to beating Djokovic/Nadal.
Even Monfils had matchpoints to beat Federer in the 4th set!
Cilic didn't beat Djokovic/Nadal at this US Open.
So what has he proven?

Nadal has won his last 2 meetings vs Cilic:
2011 Rome: 6-1 6-3
2011 AO: 6-2 6-4 6-3

Cilic's only win was back in 2009 when Nadal lost SIX MATCHES in straight sets after US Open:
Nadal lost to Cilic at Beijing 6-1 6-3
Daydenko at Shanghai 7-6 6-3
Djokovic at Paris 6-2 6-3
and lost all 3 matches at World Tour Finals:
to Djokovic 7-6 6-3
to Davydenko 6-1 7-6
to Soderling 6-4 6-4

OK, to start off: Cilic is NOT similar to Tsonga. He's taller, and has a much, MUCH better backhand. Tsonga's backhand is far more streaky and erratic. This is particularly important against Nadal because that's where the bulk of Rafa's shots are directed. Conversely, Tsonga has a better forehand on average, but what interests me about this version of Cilic (if he can sustain his level) is the fact that he tidied up his forehand.

As far as their H2H goes, well yeah, I expect Nadal to have a winning H2H with everyone (he almost does). I never said Cilic will be beating Nadal regularly. I said it's a problematic match-up. Hell, Djokovic is Nadal's most difficult match-up and yet Rafa leads the H2H.

BS

Rafael USO 2013 vs Cilic USO 2014,.who wins BS?

The way Cilic looked the last 2 matches I'd take him, I'd take him over anything I've seen at the USO since Roger was in his prime except maybe 2011 Djokovic.

Come On Darth.. 2013 USO Djoker would defeat 2014 Cilic.. Rafa can still beat this guy, Cilic had a good 2nd week at the Open and the draw worked out to his favor

 

[the AntiPusher]

^ Nobody accused Cilic of suddenly being a consistently great player. So yeah he struggled vs. Simon and heck he will probably lose before the quarters of AO but that doesn't change the fact he went on a crazy hot streak. It remains to be seen but I'd bet against him suddenly becoming a top player.

And I can turn this back on you and say who did Nadal beat at the USO playing even remotely as well. Let's remember that Djokovic on fast hards is way way different than slow-medium hards, and getting easily beaten by Kei shows that. There is a reason Djokovic has never won it aside from his amazing 2011. And that's the only good player Rafa's faced (if we want to call 2010 Djokovic good) at USO in his 2 wins.

I'm no fan (at least not anymore) of Cilic as I think the scum shouldn't even be allowed to play right now but it was incredible tennis the last 3 rounds.

In a conversation like this, the burden of proof is on the underdog. In other words, asking "who did Nadal beat" is pointless. He's won the tournament twice and reached the final once in the last 3 times he played there. The last time he won it included an entire North American hard court run in which he went undefeated and beat pretty much everyone along the way, from top ranked players to big hitters to promising up and comers. So he really has nothing to prove.

It's much more logical to ask "who did he really beat?" (which I didn't by the way, and I'll explain in a moment) when talking about a guy who suddenly caught fire out of nowhere. To be clear, I'm not accusing Cilic of not beating anyone of note. Berdych and Federer are no joke (especially the latter, obviously). We're talking about 2 top 10 players, in addition to beating Nishikori in the finals (and if a guy made it to the finals, he must have done something right). However, I was comparing Nadal to these guys not in terms of legacy (though Roger's legacy is somewhat impressive, lol), but from a match-up perspective, which is what we're debating here. Of course, nobody accused Cilic of being an all-time great (or even just "great"), but that's irrelevant. We're simply talking about his US Open form, which WAS great, and debating how it would match-up against Nadal's great US Open form from last year.

"If you want to call 2010 Djokovic good." Uh, please. Get real. He WAS good. Otherwise, what do you call Nishikori? And again, Nadal's level last year was not exclusive to the US Open. On the way there in Montreal and Cinci, he beat Janowicz, Djokovic, Raonic, Berdych, Dimitrov, Federer and Isner. I'm not saying all of them are great players, but they offer a wide variety of styles and most are pretty damn good. Plus, if you diminish them then that rules out pretty much the entire tour, doesn't it? Because unlike you, I'm not saying Cilic's opponents weren't "good," (of course Nishikori, Federer and Berdych ARE good) I'm saying they're irrelevant to the Nadal match-up.

As far as Cilic struggling with Simon, again, I'm well aware every player is prone to having a hiccup. But, once again, I brought that match-up up to highlight a point, that a player who can move extremely well, cover the court, counter-punch and turn defense into attack can trouble Cilic, even in the kind of form he was in. You add to that someone with offensive prowess, the ability to dictate points, an otherworldly forehand, and a better serve than Simon, not to mention, someone with the experience, mentality, and ability to navigate situations emotionally and tactically like Nadal, and you have an all different proposition.

Now I'll say this, Nadal playing anything less than very good would not cut it against Cilic in the kind of form he was in, but we are talking about Nadal playing the best hard court tennis of his career.

On a sidenote, if they play this fall, I expect Cilic to win.

Amen BS

 

[DarthFed]

Cilic is similar to Tsonga.
And Nadal has won his last 5 outdoor hardcourt matches vs. Tsonga.
We should be careful not to overrate Cilic.
Let us realize that beating Federer is a lot different to beating Djokovic/Nadal.
Even Monfils had matchpoints to beat Federer in the 4th set!
Cilic didn't beat Djokovic/Nadal at this US Open.
So what has he proven?

Nadal has won his last 2 meetings vs Cilic:
2011 Rome: 6-1 6-3
2011 AO: 6-2 6-4 6-3

Cilic's only win was back in 2009 when Nadal lost SIX MATCHES in straight sets after US Open:
Nadal lost to Cilic at Beijing 6-1 6-3
Daydenko at Shanghai 7-6 6-3
Djokovic at Paris 6-2 6-3
and lost all 3 matches at World Tour Finals:
to Djokovic 7-6 6-3
to Davydenko 6-1 7-6
to Soderling 6-4 6-4

OK, to start off: Cilic is NOT similar to Tsonga. He's taller, and has a much, MUCH better backhand. Tsonga's backhand is far more streaky and erratic. This is particularly important against Nadal because that's where the bulk of Rafa's shots are directed. Conversely, Tsonga has a better forehand on average, but what interests me about this version of Cilic (if he can sustain his level) is the fact that he tidied up his forehand.

As far as their H2H goes, well yeah, I expect Nadal to have a winning H2H with everyone (he almost does). I never said Cilic will be beating Nadal regularly. I said it's a problematic match-up. Hell, Djokovic is Nadal's most difficult match-up and yet Rafa leads the H2H.

BS

Rafael USO 2013 vs Cilic USO 2014,.who wins BS?

The way Cilic looked the last 2 matches I'd take him, I'd take him over anything I've seen at the USO since Roger was in his prime except maybe 2011 Djokovic.

Come On Darth.. 2013 USO Djoker would defeat 2014 Cilic.. Rafa can still beat this guy, Cilic had a good 2nd week at the Open and the draw worked out to his favor

2013 Djokovic wasn't playing awe-inspiring stuff. He looked awful in both the semis and the final. Of course matchups dictate a lot but Cilic was playing as though he was possessed the last few rounds. The draw worked out in his favor in the finals but not the QF or SF.

 

[Federberg]

Not going to step in between the two of you on this one, but... Cilic was playing a game we've never seen from him before. It was powerful and all court and his serving is just... new! That said Rafa as we all know is an all time great. It's interesting to me that he beat Roger for the first time ever in the semi. That tells me that we simply can't know what would have happened in a match between Rafa and Cilic. Not because of match up. Cilic is a new beastie. Until we see him play these guys, we're just swinging in the wind

 

[Front242]

Give me Cilic any day over Nadal or Djokovic USO '13. In all my years watching tennis I've never seen a guy 6' 6" move that well in addition to serving like a total beast and hitting the backhand and forehand flawlessly. His once dodgy FH was impeccable. The guy didn't just not miss in one match, he did it in 3 straight. That $h1t was dope, man. :snigger

 

[DarthFed]

Give me Cilic any day over Nadal or Djokovic USO '13. In all my years watching tennis I've never seen a guy 6' 6" move that well in addition to serving like a total beast and hitting the backhand and forehand flawlessly. His once dodgy FH was impeccable. The guy didn't just not miss in one match, he did it in 3 straight. That $h1t was dope, man. :snigger

I see what ya did there :laydownlaughing

I agree for the most part. Like I said earlier in this thread it was almost like 2009 DP except we are talking way better serving and someone who moves better than DP did. It was scary stuff. Maybe Djokovic and/or Rafa would have pulled off a tough one over Marin but they'd have had to struggle and run quite a lot to say the least!

 

[brokenshoelace]

Give me Cilic any day over Nadal or Djokovic USO '13. In all my years watching tennis I've never seen a guy 6' 6" move that well in addition to serving like a total beast and hitting the backhand and forehand flawlessly. His once dodgy FH was impeccable. The guy didn't just not miss in one match, he did it in 3 straight. That $h1t was dope, man. :snigger

Of course. We'll all take what's convenient to an argument in a hypothetical match-up...Until it happens in real life and Nadal takes said argument away

 

[DarthFed]

Give me Cilic any day over Nadal or Djokovic USO '13. In all my years watching tennis I've never seen a guy 6' 6" move that well in addition to serving like a total beast and hitting the backhand and forehand flawlessly. His once dodgy FH was impeccable. The guy didn't just not miss in one match, he did it in 3 straight. That $h1t was dope, man. :snigger

Of course. We'll all take what's convenient to an argument in a hypothetical match-up...Until it happens in real life and Nadal takes said argument away

It will most likely always be hypothetical as chances are Cilic will never play like that again. Chances are he won't even become a top 4 player. Going way back it is maybe more similar to Krajicek winning Wimbledon after destroying Sampras in the QF's. You knew he was never going to do anything like that again

 

[brokenshoelace]

Give me Cilic any day over Nadal or Djokovic USO '13. In all my years watching tennis I've never seen a guy 6' 6" move that well in addition to serving like a total beast and hitting the backhand and forehand flawlessly. His once dodgy FH was impeccable. The guy didn't just not miss in one match, he did it in 3 straight. That $h1t was dope, man. :snigger

Of course. We'll all take what's convenient to an argument in a hypothetical match-up...Until it happens in real life and Nadal takes said argument away

It will most likely always be hypothetical as chances are Cilic will never play like that again. Chances are he won't even become a top 4 player. Going way back it is maybe more similar to Krajicek winning Wimbledon after destroying Sampras in the QF's. You knew he was never going to do anything like that again

I don't want to be coy for the sake of being coy, but I co-sign the above 100%. We've seen this so often: A player does something impressive (though in Cilic's case, it was REALLY impressive), and people prematurely start labeling him as a threat to the status-quo, and projecting lofty expectations. I could be wrong and Cilic could surprise us, but I think he would have developed into a consistently great player by now if it was ever going to happen.

 

[shawnbm]

Let us not get carried away by Cilic in New York this year. Although it was a performance I shan't forget (one of the best I recall seeing in the semis and finals) a la Safin in 2000, we should wait to see if he proves himself more over the next year--at majors and Masters events, in particular. If picks it up and has runs to mutliple major/Masters event semis and finals--bagging a win here and there--then he will rightfully be viewed as competing with Nole, Rafa and Roger. Until then, we should just wait and see how the Asian swing turns out leading back to London.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Give me Cilic any day over Nadal or Djokovic USO '13. In all my years watching tennis I've never seen a guy 6' 6" move that well in addition to serving like a total beast and hitting the backhand and forehand flawlessly. His once dodgy FH was impeccable. The guy didn't just not miss in one match, he did it in 3 straight. That $h1t was dope, man. :snigger

I think you are getting a little caught up in the moment , is it because he took Roger to the woodshed for thrashing..you may need to really step back and reevaluate things because Fed wasnt playing spectactular. Fed should have been beaten by Gael but he truly CHOKED.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Not going to step in between the two of you on this one, but... Cilic was playing a game we've never seen from him before. It was powerful and all court and his serving is just... new! That said Rafa as we all know is an all time great. It's interesting to me that he beat Roger for the first time ever in the semi. That tells me that we simply can't know what would have happened in a match between Rafa and Cilic. Not because of match up. Cilic is a new beastie. Until we see him play these guys, we're just swinging in the wind

Cilic had 6 more unforced errors than Federer in that semi (23-17).

And Cilic had only 3 less unforced errors than Nishikori in the Final (27-30).

I know Cilic was going for more winners than his opponent, but still its not like he was perfect.
And Nadal/Djokovic would probably have extracted a lot more unforced errors and pushed him off-balance more - especially Nadal because of the different trajectory :spacecadet:

 

[atttomole]

Give me Cilic any day over Nadal or Djokovic USO '13. In all my years watching tennis I've never seen a guy 6' 6" move that well in addition to serving like a total beast and hitting the backhand and forehand flawlessly. His once dodgy FH was impeccable. The guy didn't just not miss in one match, he did it in 3 straight. That $h1t was dope, man. :snigger

Of course. We'll all take what's convenient to an argument in a hypothetical match-up...Until it happens in real life and Nadal takes said argument away

It will most likely always be hypothetical as chances are Cilic will never play like that again. Chances are he won't even become a top 4 player. Going way back it is maybe more similar to Krajicek winning Wimbledon after destroying Sampras in the QF's. You knew he was never going to do anything like that again

I don't want to be coy for the sake of being coy, but I co-sign the above 100%. We've seen this so often: A player does something impressive (though in Cilic's case, it was REALLY impressive), and people prematurely start labeling him as a threat to the status-quo, and projecting lofty expectations. I could be wrong and Cilic could surprise us, but I think he would have developed into a consistently great player by now if it was ever going to happen.

I generally agree too, but we also have to remember that Cilic now has a new coach who has sharpened his game. It is possible that he could be consistently good from now on.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Give me Cilic any day over Nadal or Djokovic USO '13. In all my years watching tennis I've never seen a guy 6' 6" move that well in addition to serving like a total beast and hitting the backhand and forehand flawlessly. His once dodgy FH was impeccable. The guy didn't just not miss in one match, he did it in 3 straight. That $h1t was dope, man. :snigger

Of course. We'll all take what's convenient to an argument in a hypothetical match-up...Until it happens in real life and Nadal takes said argument away

It will most likely always be hypothetical as chances are Cilic will never play like that again. Chances are he won't even become a top 4 player. Going way back it is maybe more similar to Krajicek winning Wimbledon after destroying Sampras in the QF's. You knew he was never going to do anything like that again

I don't want to be coy for the sake of being coy, but I co-sign the above 100%. We've seen this so often: A player does something impressive (though in Cilic's case, it was REALLY impressive), and people prematurely start labeling him as a threat to the status-quo, and projecting lofty expectations. I could be wrong and Cilic could surprise us, but I think he would have developed into a consistently great player by now if it was ever going to happen.

I generally agree too, but we also have to remember that Cilic now has a new coach who has sharpened his game. It is possible that he could be consistently good from now on.

No.. I like Cilic's game but he was the beneficiary of a weak draw(no fault of his own) . Give this thread a Bump when he can beat Rafa, Djoker, Fed or Murray(at least 3 of the still big 4) in a grand slam. Its the God's honest truth

 

[DarthFed]

Not going to step in between the two of you on this one, but... Cilic was playing a game we've never seen from him before. It was powerful and all court and his serving is just... new! That said Rafa as we all know is an all time great. It's interesting to me that he beat Roger for the first time ever in the semi. That tells me that we simply can't know what would have happened in a match between Rafa and Cilic. Not because of match up. Cilic is a new beastie. Until we see him play these guys, we're just swinging in the wind

Cilic had 6 more unforced errors than Federer in that semi (23-17).

And Cilic had only 3 less unforced errors than Nishikori in the Final (27-30).

I know Cilic was going for more winners than his opponent, but still its not like he was perfect.
And Nadal/Djokovic would probably have extracted a lot more unforced errors and pushed him off-balance more - especially Nadal because of the different trajectory :spacecadet:

If hitting less unforced errors always determined the winner it'd be one boring ass game. None of the 6 sets in the semis or finals were even competitive.

 

[DarthFed]

Of course. We'll all take what's convenient to an argument in a hypothetical match-up...Until it happens in real life and Nadal takes said argument away

It will most likely always be hypothetical as chances are Cilic will never play like that again. Chances are he won't even become a top 4 player. Going way back it is maybe more similar to Krajicek winning Wimbledon after destroying Sampras in the QF's. You knew he was never going to do anything like that again

I don't want to be coy for the sake of being coy, but I co-sign the above 100%. We've seen this so often: A player does something impressive (though in Cilic's case, it was REALLY impressive), and people prematurely start labeling him as a threat to the status-quo, and projecting lofty expectations. I could be wrong and Cilic could surprise us, but I think he would have developed into a consistently great player by now if it was ever going to happen.

I generally agree too, but we also have to remember that Cilic now has a new coach who has sharpened his game. It is possible that he could be consistently good from now on.

No.. I like Cilic's game but he was the beneficiary of a weak draw(no fault of his own) . Give this thread a Bump when he can beat Rafa, Djoker, Fed or Murray(at least 3 of the still big 4) in a grand slam. Its the God's honest truth

None of them have ever beaten 3 top players in a row to win a slam. Berdych came in looking good and Cilic had never beaten Roger before that semifinal. Also, to be frank, Djokovic is annually overrated on fast hards. He's 1-8 in Cincy and U.S. Open finals. I don't think he'd have taken Cilic especially since he got beaten easily by Kei.

 

[atttomole]

Of course. We'll all take what's convenient to an argument in a hypothetical match-up...Until it happens in real life and Nadal takes said argument away

It will most likely always be hypothetical as chances are Cilic will never play like that again. Chances are he won't even become a top 4 player. Going way back it is maybe more similar to Krajicek winning Wimbledon after destroying Sampras in the QF's. You knew he was never going to do anything like that again

I don't want to be coy for the sake of being coy, but I co-sign the above 100%. We've seen this so often: A player does something impressive (though in Cilic's case, it was REALLY impressive), and people prematurely start labeling him as a threat to the status-quo, and projecting lofty expectations. I could be wrong and Cilic could surprise us, but I think he would have developed into a consistently great player by now if it was ever going to happen.

I generally agree too, but we also have to remember that Cilic now has a new coach who has sharpened his game. It is possible that he could be consistently good from now on.

No.. I like Cilic's game but he was the beneficiary of a weak draw(no fault of his own) . Give this thread a Bump when he can beat Rafa, Djoker, Fed or Murray(at least 3 of the still big 4) in a grand slam. Its the God's honest truth

That is not likely to happen since the big 4 are likely to be partitioned on opposite sides of the draw, and anything can happen in a draw. The same old argument applies; Djokovic could not reach the final to meet Cilic, and Murray lost to Djokovic. I am also on the side of caution when it comes to Cilic.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Berdych and Federer back-to-back do not constitute a weak draw. What on earth is that? I mean if that's a weak draw then how come everyone and their mother picked Federer to beat Cilic? Cilic was the underdog in that match. How can a match in which a player is heavily expected to lose be "weak" for him?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Also, to be frank, Djokovic is annually overrated on fast hards. He's 1-8 in Cincy and U.S. Open finals.

I think the fact that he's actually reached a combined 9 finals over there says a lot about how good he is on that surface. Add to that his record in Canada and you'd end up with someone who's pretty damn good on fast hards.

 

[Front242]

Of course. We'll all take what's convenient to an argument in a hypothetical match-up...Until it happens in real life and Nadal takes said argument away

It will most likely always be hypothetical as chances are Cilic will never play like that again. Chances are he won't even become a top 4 player. Going way back it is maybe more similar to Krajicek winning Wimbledon after destroying Sampras in the QF's. You knew he was never going to do anything like that again

I don't want to be coy for the sake of being coy, but I co-sign the above 100%. We've seen this so often: A player does something impressive (though in Cilic's case, it was REALLY impressive), and people prematurely start labeling him as a threat to the status-quo, and projecting lofty expectations. I could be wrong and Cilic could surprise us, but I think he would have developed into a consistently great player by now if it was ever going to happen.

I generally agree too, but we also have to remember that Cilic now has a new coach who has sharpened his game. It is possible that he could be consistently good from now on.

No.. I like Cilic's game but he was the beneficiary of a weak draw(no fault of his own) . Give this thread a Bump when he can beat Rafa, Djoker, Fed or Murray(at least 3 of the still big 4) in a grand slam. Its the God's honest truth

Are you for real about the weak draw? That's absolute nonsense. That was most definitely NOT a weak draw. Nishikori was the guy who knocked out the guy expected to win the whole thing so therefore he had to be playing pretty damn well, which he invariably was. Cilic man handled Berdych, Federer (the 2nd favourite to win the whole thing) and the guy who beat Djokovic. He made them all look weak the way he played but that was not an easy draw.