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

[Front242]

I'm not saying anyone else didn't make the implications. I was just asking how you were resolving it for yourself, since it's clearly a big issue for you. It's just interesting that you're mostly ready to move on with Cilic, given how much you have enjoyed making implications about other players who were never even done for in doping. So I guess we're moving on from everyone. Good! I hope Cilic is as good as his potential, going forward.

When did I say I was ready to move on? Did I believe the excuse a grown man gave that his mum was the one at fault? No. It's petty beyond belief to blame someone else for a start, let alone his mum! Be a man and accept your fate yourself. He better check his Corn Flakes the next time she pours the milk for him and watch out for banned substances 'cos she clearly isn't very good at it! I said a convicted doping offender will always be tainted forever more, innocent or not. That's just the way it goes in sports. People will always wonder, especially since they pretty much bought the oldest excuse in the book that everyone uses (besides blaming it on his mum ), ie. an over the counter product containing a banned substance. Every athlete who ever got caught always got let off with that excuse so it's no wonder they all continue to use it.

That said, I like his game and do think he'll continue to do better than he has in the past. My point is no one really knows except him if he got some "help" along the way with this new found form and it's most certainly questionable. Btw, just 'cos someone has not been convicted of doping does not mean they aren't or haven't been for years. I think the Armstrong case made that pretty clear. That could apply to anyone at all on tour given the extremely poor testing.

 

[Moxie]

Well, some of that is for the other thread. But you really should keep in mind who you're willing to champion going forward, when you still have little asterisks in your mind about those with no bad tests.

 

[Federberg]

^I don't think Front has ever said he likes Cilic. His observations have been based on the quality of the tennis he has just played. I think we can be honest about a players quality without having to be a fan

 

[Moxie]

^I don't think Front has ever said he likes Cilic. His observations have been based on the quality of the tennis he has just played. I think we can be honest about a players quality without having to be a fan

Absolutely, and I never said he was a fan. I was just comparing the notion that Stan was going to ride a wave after winning the AO, with the notion that Cilic will after the USO. One didn't so much happen and the other remains to be seen. Anyone can be impressed with the tennis that Cilic played during the USO. I'm just wondering if it's a trend, or a blip.

 

[Federberg]

Understood. I've maintained for a while that the nature of the Cilic win is very different to Stan's. Cilic will know he won. Stan was denied that, as Rafa had his troubles and Stan wasn't able to close it out efficiently. Mentally this is a more belief affirming situation for Marin. For me it's simple if Marins stroke production is maintained then he's easily a top 5 player. His success will be dependent on how successful he is on slower surfaces

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Remains to be seen as to where he goes from here but he's definitely likely to be more consistent than Stan imo. This part of the year is the best time of year for Cilic's game and I expect him to move further up the rankings. Barely anything between him and Nishikori now and at the very least I expect him to move up to number 8 and knock Nishikori down to 9 but he may well climb higher. Cilic winning Paris wouldn't surprise me in the slightest given the top guys usually don't win there.

I have to say, the part I bolded does sound a bit like bandwagoning. At least Stan had been building results and steam for a year, (since his 5-set defeat to Djoker at the AO in 2013.) That he has been less consistent since is not what many were predicting at the time. By contrast, Cilic's new form, while impressive, has come out of nearly nowhere. I believe that Ivanisovic has helped him, along with a renewed focus and commitment. And I agree with the rest of your post above, btw. Paris always feels up for grabs and could suit him. But his reaction to the pressures of being a Slam winner remains to be seen, and there's no reason to believe he'll be any more consistent than Stan the Man.

Absolutely on target...excellent summary of my view on Cilic's New York run.

Stan indeed had been building results and was proving a tough win (aside from Nadal) for the top 15, and he was a nightmare for Nole.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

^I don't think Front has ever said he likes Cilic. His observations have been based on the quality of the tennis he has just played. I think we can be honest about a players quality without having to be a fan

Absolutely, and I never said he was a fan. I was just comparing the notion that Stan was going to ride a wave after winning the AO, with the notion that Cilic will after the USO. One didn't so much happen and the other remains to be seen. Anyone can be impressed with the tennis that Cilic played during the USO. I'm just wondering if it's a trend, or a blip.

Although Stan has been underwhelming since the AO, he DID win a Masters among that wreckage.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Understood. I've maintained for a while that the nature of the Cilic win is very different to Stan's. Cilic will know he won. Stan was denied that, as Rafa had his troubles and Stan wasn't able to close it out efficiently. Mentally this is a more belief affirming situation for Marin. For me it's simple if Marins stroke production is maintained then he's easily a top 5 player. His success will be dependent on how successful he is on slower surfaces

The reason I am even willing to consider the notion Cilic can have further big time success compared to Stanimal is that Stan is 29 going on 30 and Cilic is 25 going on 26 and technically entering his physical prime.

 

[Moxie]

^I don't think Front has ever said he likes Cilic. His observations have been based on the quality of the tennis he has just played. I think we can be honest about a players quality without having to be a fan

Absolutely, and I never said he was a fan. I was just comparing the notion that Stan was going to ride a wave after winning the AO, with the notion that Cilic will after the USO. One didn't so much happen and the other remains to be seen. Anyone can be impressed with the tennis that Cilic played during the USO. I'm just wondering if it's a trend, or a blip.

Although Stan has been underwhelming since the AO, he DID win a Masters among that wreckage.

Yes, he won Monte Carlo, of course. And Front noted that Roger played crap. I don't think that's so much the case, but I do have to say I was stunned that Roger let that opportunity slip. When a door opens, Roger has always been one to walk through it, and he didn't that day, and given that MC was a trophy he lacked.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

^I don't think Front has ever said he likes Cilic. His observations have been based on the quality of the tennis he has just played. I think we can be honest about a players quality without having to be a fan

Absolutely, and I never said he was a fan. I was just comparing the notion that Stan was going to ride a wave after winning the AO, with the notion that Cilic will after the USO. One didn't so much happen and the other remains to be seen. Anyone can be impressed with the tennis that Cilic played during the USO. I'm just wondering if it's a trend, or a blip.

Although Stan has been underwhelming since the AO, he DID win a Masters among that wreckage.

Yes, he won Monte Carlo, of course. And Front noted that Roger played crap. I don't think that's so much the case, but I do have to say I was stunned that Roger let that opportunity slip. When a door opens, Roger has always been one to walk through it, and he didn't that day, and given that MC was a trophy he lacked.

Agree on all points.

 

[Moxie]

Understood. I've maintained for a while that the nature of the Cilic win is very different to Stan's. Cilic will know he won. Stan was denied that, as Rafa had his troubles and Stan wasn't able to close it out efficiently. Mentally this is a more belief affirming situation for Marin. For me it's simple if Marins stroke production is maintained then he's easily a top 5 player. His success will be dependent on how successful he is on slower surfaces

The reason I am even willing to consider the notion Cilic can have further big time success compared to Stanimal is that Stan is 29 going on 30 and Cilic is 25 going on 26 and technically entering his physical prime.

Good point. There is a lot of up-side to Cilic, and a lot of time in his future. And 25 seems to be the new 21 in tennis.

 

[Federberg]

^I don't think Front has ever said he likes Cilic. His observations have been based on the quality of the tennis he has just played. I think we can be honest about a players quality without having to be a fan

Absolutely, and I never said he was a fan. I was just comparing the notion that Stan was going to ride a wave after winning the AO, with the notion that Cilic will after the USO. One didn't so much happen and the other remains to be seen. Anyone can be impressed with the tennis that Cilic played during the USO. I'm just wondering if it's a trend, or a blip.

Although Stan has been underwhelming since the AO, he DID win a Masters among that wreckage.

Yes, he won Monte Carlo, of course. And Front noted that Roger played crap. I don't think that's so much the case, but I do have to say I was stunned that Roger let that opportunity slip. When a door opens, Roger has always been one to walk through it, and he didn't that day, and given that MC was a trophy he lacked.

Agree on all points.

Seconded. I think Rogers loss was more stamina related than poor play

 

[Front242]

Stamina issues in a best of 3 match? :s

 

[Federberg]

Stamina issues in a best of 3 match? :s

I know! But he just lost steam in the 3rd set. It was really disappointing. Not sure what else to call it but stamina. It surely couldn't have been belief against Stan..

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Also even stamina aside, often players simply don't maintain the same standard from start to finish :idea:

 

[DarthFed]

This thread reminds me a bit of the 2008 Wimbledon final v 2014 Wimbledon final thread, with the Fedfans siding obviously against Rafa. Again.

So if we don't praise Rafa as the greatest, most unbeatable player ever we are siding against him? I don't like Cilic, I don't think the POS should be allowed to play for another year, but still the tennis he played was monstrous. We are talking extremely aggressive play and huge serving and he was barely missing. That would have been tough for anyone to beat.

As for 2008/2014 I think most people though 2008 was the greater match but 2014 had more quality. Certainly all things considered it was a better effort from Roger given he was going on 33 this year and didn't play half as erratic as 2008.

 

[Kieran]

No, the Cilic thing, the way the Fedfans are predictably saying he'd beat the best of Rafa on the basis of three good matches. Remember, Rafa in 2013 took on all-comers across the whole North American hard court swing, and beat them. It was a consistently high level, plus add in his usual stubbornness and will to succeed. I don't know many men in history who could have stayed with Rafa last year, but Cough Drop isn't one of them...

 

[DarthFed]

^ Wouldn't expect you to side against your boy. Cilic isn't some great player but that doesn't mean he wasn't playing awesome tennis at the end of this thing...certainly better than what Rafa faced last year.

 

[Kieran]

^ Wouldn't expect you to side against your boy. Cilic isn't some great player but that doesn't mean he wasn't playing awesome tennis at the end of this thing...certainly better than what Rafa faced last year.

Cilic played great, but I never bet against young Ralph - with good reason...

 

[DarthFed]

I don't bet against him either...in the 1st round of Wimbledon that is