Was the final entertaining, did it provide enough variety?

First topic message reminder :

I found the final to be pretty dull. The level was high, Cilic played incredible attack tennis and Nish produced some highlight reel shots as well. But for me the final was once sided, lacked star power, and lacked the typical titanic struggle that we are used to seeing in these grandslam finals when the big 4 played each other. It was however a change and it was variety compared to what we have seen in the wars between Djoko, Murray, Nadal, and Federer. Short points and a lot of quick strike tennis. So which do you prefer a match like Djokov v. Nadal AO 2012 or FO 2013 or did you like this wham bam thank you maam style of play? If this type of tennis is more prevalent will you or other fans like it more? And now that we have had a big serve attacker win a major playing out right attack tennis does it means that we still need to radically alter the technology or does it mean the courts were sped up. Why can Cilic win a major playing attack tennis and others can't?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:
What if he wins 2nd major in similar fashion and destroys either Nadal or Djok? It's not like Novak would've got close to Cilic in that form we saw. Now everyone will go on about his 4 month ban when all he did was take a regular pill.

I think if he performs like that in a final against Nadal or Djokovic, his stature will increase both because of the second major and because of his opponent. They will also start to talk about a rivalry if he starts consistently getting results against the top players. That's his problem now - it looks like a fluke because he's done it so rarely. But he he starts to do it more often, then a star is born.

It Must Be Love wrote:Once Cilic and nishikori get hyped up by the media, they'll bring in fans, who will love their style of play.

Nishikori is similar to Djokovic, while Cilic is similar to Del Potro

Media hype doesn't get your anywhere - just ask Donald Young. At the end of the day, results are what matters - you get them (in a big way) more than once in a blue moon, and suddenly you're all that and a bag of chips. The theory that the media can create stars in tennis is nonsense.

MMT1 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Once Cilic and nishikori get hyped up by the media, they'll bring in fans, who will love their style of play.

Nishikori is similar to Djokovic, while Cilic is similar to Del Potro

Media hype doesn't get your anywhere - just ask Donald Young. At the end of the day, results are what matters - you get them (in a big way) more than once in a blue moon, and suddenly you're all that and a bag of chips. The theory that the media can create stars in tennis is nonsense.

I see it as process- of course I agree that results come first (and I'm not disagreeing with you on that?), and then if they can do well consistently the media will them up more, and more fans will be brought in.

It Must Be Love wrote:

MMT1 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Once Cilic and nishikori get hyped up by the media, they'll bring in fans, who will love their style of play.

Nishikori is similar to Djokovic, while Cilic is similar to Del Potro

Media hype doesn't get your anywhere - just ask Donald Young. At the end of the day, results are what matters - you get them (in a big way) more than once in a blue moon, and suddenly you're all that and a bag of chips. The theory that the media can create stars in tennis is nonsense.

I see it as process- of course I agree that results come first (and I'm not disagreeing with you on that?), and then if they can do well consistently the media will them up more, and more fans will be brought in.

Monfils gets the commentator hype in every big match he plays, results don't matter to them at all, only appeal and exhibitionists.

It Must Be Love wrote:Once Cilic and nishikori get hyped up by the media, they'll bring in fans, who will love their style of play.

Nishikori is similar to Djokovic, while Cilic is similar to Del Potro

Cilic - Del Potro is a fair comparison but kei and Nole? seriously?

one is short and other is above the average height
one is fast mover and the other is an athletic mover
one has a got a clean jerk service motion while the other got a stressful service motion
one is often injured while the other is a beast in terms of long consistent tours.
one plays a forehand like Federer while the other plays like Andre

yes their backhands down the line are very similar and power in the forehands are very similar and both got aggressive returns.

DV2, of course they are not identical; but there are similarities.
Mainly their mix between attack and defence is similar (although Nishikori marginally looks to be more aggressive Id say), and they mainly both operate from the baseline.
Also Nishikoris forehand is not like Federer's really, I'd disagree with that.

Is the only purpose of articles now to start an argument?

MMT1 wrote:That's cut to the chase: if a final doesn't have star power, the quality of tennis, or the competitiveness of the match, better be sky high, otherwise it won't be interesting to anyone not in love with tennis. I'm guessing this final was the USTA's worst nightmare: two players that nobody outside of tennis has ever heard of playing a dull match...on a Monday.

Ultimately, no matter what cockamamie scheme they come up with, from red carpets for celebrity spectators to musical acts before the 1st match/last match, or cheerleaders, or coaching...no matter what, the only time tennis gains something extra is when players with the IT factor get the job done over and over again. You can get away with one "who is that?" in the final, but not two. The key is for them to become a "Oh...I know him - I want to see this", kind of guy.

To do that, they've got to win more majors. Funny how all roads lead to Rome.

Yes, that is one issue with variety. The tournaments don't like a lot of variety beyond a certain point. One of the big gripes in the 90s with Wimby and the French open was that the best European clay courts had no chance at wimby where their ranking would or ability would not protect them from a college level player with a huge serving having a big serving day and at Roland Garros Pete Sampras could be knocked out by Juan Pablo Whoistat a one trick pony who trained all year to be ready to ambush someone on the clay. For the tournaments too much variety in terms of results and conditions can actually play havoc with the ratings and popularity of the event.

bogbrush wrote:Is the only purpose of articles now to start an argument?

BB, the purpose of this article is to foster a discussion in no way is it meant to create tension or annoy you or others. So far I think it has been a good and civil thread with people discussing various themes about what is exciting tennis to them and what is potentially good or bad for the game. I am sorry if it doesn't interest you.

MMT1 wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:
What if he wins 2nd major in similar fashion and destroys either Nadal or Djok? It's not like Novak would've got close to Cilic in that form we saw. Now everyone will go on about his 4 month ban when all he did was take a regular pill.

I think if he performs like that in a final against Nadal or Djokovic, his stature will increase both because of the second major and because of  his opponent. They will also start to talk about a rivalry if he starts consistently getting results against the top players.  That's his problem now - it looks like a fluke because he's done it so rarely. But he he starts to do it more often, then a star is born.

Very good post here it is that consistent getting of results and doing amazing things in terms of accomplishment and play that makes a star. So while this final I am sure will not create the buzz or attention of finals featuring established stars it is part of the cycle of the game in where players have to do something to get established. If Cilic and Nishikori kick on and continue to win and reach finals of big events they will increase their draw power. Nishikori in particular could do for tennis in Japan what Novak did for tennis in Serbia.

Best bit was seeing Goran being so nervous at the prospect of Cilic winning, I was almost happier for Goran than Marin!

lydian wrote:Best bit was seeing Goran being so nervous at the prospect of Cilic winning, I was almost happier for Goran than Marin!

What about the first DF on match point - I bet that brought back a few Wimby memories for Goran

Kei does not hit a forehand like Federer (if that's what you were implying). the double bend gives it away

Kei has very flat shots. Interestingly his backhand in particular kind of reminds a bit of Connors.

If I may Socal, you seem to have been spoiling for a fight with this article and eventually got into an argument with yourself almost immediately (see with your first two posts after the OP bringing in comments from the past which weren't raised here).

I don't understand this argument of the final lacking star power which helped contribute to its lack of appeal. There was once a time when Federer, Nadal and Djokovic weren't stars. Everyone has to appear in the first final at some point. No one starts as a star.

Did the final provide enough variety. Well the answer is surely yes? You yourself Socal said it was a wham bam thank you style of play. The US Open is meant to be a fast hard court is it not? And it played like one. Ergo there was variety. If it played like the Australian Open (slow hard court) or French Open then we could start asking if there was a lack of variety.

Why can Cilic win a major playing attacking tennis and others can't? Could it be that he played the better attacking tennis over the course of the two weeks? It is that simple.

I think its great that Cilic won. Congratulations to him.

I should state Socal that I do find you a very interesting poster and more often than not enjoy reading your comments. Don't always agree with them. But do enjoy them as usually your analysis is top drawer.

JohnyJeep wrote:There was once a time when Federer, Nadal and Djokovic weren't stars. Everyone has to appear in the first final at some point. No one starts as a star.

This is a good point, you put it better than I did.

Why can Cilic win a major playing attacking tennis and others can't? Could it be that he played the better attacking tennis over the course of the two weeks? It is that simple.

I don't think Socal was talking about this tournament in isolation- it's clear during the 2 weeks he played the best tennis and deserved to win.
The more interesting question is how Cilic bucked the trend of zonal baseliners winning slams, and how he made it looks quite so easy.

Johnyjeep wrote:If I may Socal, you seem to have been spoiling for a fight with this article and eventually got into an argument with yourself almost immediately (see with your first two posts after the OP bringing in comments from the past which weren't raised here).

I don't understand this argument of the final lacking star power which helped contribute to its lack of appeal. There was once a time when Federer, Nadal and Djokovic weren't stars. Everyone has to appear in the first final at some point. No one starts as a star.

Did the final provide enough variety. Well the answer is surely yes? You yourself Socal said it was a wham bam thank you style of play. The US Open is meant to be a fast hard court is it not? And it played like one.  Ergo there was variety. If it played like the Australian Open (slow hard court) or French Open then we could start asking if there was a lack of variety.

Why can Cilic win a major playing attacking tennis and others can't? Could it be that he played the better attacking tennis over the course of the two weeks? It is that simple.

I think its great that Cilic won. Congratulations to him.

Spoiling for  a fight how? Because I voice an opinion that maybe others don't agree with. Your last couple of lines I agree with the fact is that people have claimed over and over again that attack tennis is not rewarded and that conditions preclude or make it too difficult to win. That to win now you have to simply be super fit and retrieve all day. Well Cilic who is at best a very good professional, not the second coming of Pete Sampras was able to blow away his last three opponents all top 10 players with out and out attack play.

Johnyjeep wrote:I should state Socal that I do find you a very interesting poster and more often than not enjoy reading your comments. Don't always agree with them. But do enjoy them as usually your analysis is top drawer.

Thank you JJ, I feel the same way about you. But I don't feel that I was spoiling for a fight more like wanting a discussion. Also I want to see how this Cilic win, a player ranked 10-20 for most of his career playing out and out attack tennis jives with the supposed need to speed everything up. Also was this the kind of tennis we want to be fostering in the first place?

Maybe we just have had a generation of attack minded players that are just not good enough, should they be rewarded with changes in the game to favor their games. And if we do that will the majority fans like it?

Depends on how you are defining variety. Are Nishikori's or Cilic's styles of play defining in the mens game? Not really. Sure it was 2 different players in the final of a GS, bar Cilic's destruction of Federer, there wasn't many performances in this tournament that screamed out quality. Both players earned their right to be there in the final as they were the better players over the fortnight.

It was a shame that there were empty seats for the final. I guess the issue with recent first Slam winners is that they don't have a freshness about them. Murray was 25. Stan was 29. Cilic 25 (I think) and it's not like they are someone new to the tour. The likes of your Federer's/Nadal's/Djokovic's. They were between 18 and 21 when they won their first Slam and they had a certain freshness about them and style in which they done it. Roddick/Hewitt/Safin/Del Potro. Again young Slam winners and had some freshness about them. When you take into account that Stan/Murray/Cilic were being beaten by Federer/Nadal/Djokovic or other players it sort of makes their late success in the Slams a bit of a meh to it. Not dimishing their achievements, just that it's not had the impact of something new about it.

This could be where we find ourselves in the next few years on the tour with players enjoying success in the latter stages of their careers. We won't so much marvel over the exhuberance of youth which is a shame. I always though of tennis as a young man's game for success and it looks like we might marvel at the age of future Slam winners.

I find that depressing that youth in tennis is subjugated by this. I miss that freshness vibe and feel that is something tennis needs again.

LK, could it be simply that the age of people in their prime has been moved up, so the new 'young' is actually older than we thought it was.

Nah.

I think it is a watershed window now for players to do well. The likes of Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Murray are now more prone to defeats due to their partial decline. There's not enough youth pushing through. The current conds don't lend themselves to young players and their talents or to other talented players out on the tour. It's a shame and I do wish the ATP/ITF would address this. Not asking for a massive shift in conditions. Just that surfaces play to their natural ability and are not adjusted just to suit one type of arbitary tennis.

lk wrote:The current conds don't lend themselves to young players and their talents or to other talented players out on the tour.

I would call for more variety; however I must note this: if Cilic can be so destructive with his all out attacking play on the slow-ish hard courts of US, surely he'd be even more unstoppable in this form on faster courts ?
Maybe Lydian's complaint about technology rather than surfaces also comes into the picture.

Anyway haven't spoken to you for a while LK, hope all is good

It Must Be Love wrote:

lk wrote:The current conds don't lend themselves to young players and their talents or to other talented players out on the tour.

I would call for more variety; however I must note this: if Cilic can be so destructive with his all out attacking play on the slow-ish hard courts of US, surely he'd be even more unstoppable in this form on faster courts ?
Maybe Lydian's complaint about technology rather than surfaces also comes into the picture.

Anyway haven't spoken to you for a while LK, hope all is good

Not entirely. Faster conds open themselves to other players who don't just hit harder, but more accurately too. Yes you could blame technology, but it depends how far you can go with it. Kevlar strings certainly an important change in the game in recent time, but racquet head sizes, bigger balls are far from new and the margin for error is certainly much smaller than yesteryear. Certainly variation opens the field up and we need new players to carry the sport once the current crop of stars in the game fade away.

The game really lacks players who's game is really defined by their characters. There's far too much professionalism in the game and I feel it saps the players of some of their personality.

I don't buy this current conditions thing anymore than I bought that the new super athletes were destroying the game. If Wawrinka and Cilic can find a slam, I think there's more to it then just "conditions are so and so". Similarly if Kei Nishikori of all people can best Djokovic having had back to back five setters (and a cyst removed inhibiting his practise) then maybe tennis fitness isn't this inconquerable mountain I've been told it is. As for the technology argument, well I'm against being a Luddite for the sake of it, but more importantly, these kids are plying with the latest and greatest, while Rafa is playing with a racquet older than Moses, and Federer had one older than Adam, and at 32 was STILL making slam semis and top eight. Just my piece...

kingraf wrote:I don't buy this current conditions thing anymore than I bought that the new super athletes were destroying the game. If Wawrinka and Cilic can find a slam, I think there's more to it then just "conditions are so and so". Similarly if Kei Nishikori of all people can best Djokovic having had back to back five setters (and a cyst removed inhibiting his practise) then maybe tennis fitness isn't this inconquerable mountain I've been told it is. As for the technology argument, well I'm against being a Luddite for the sake of it, but more importantly, these kids are plying with the latest and greatest, while Rafa is playing with a racquet older than Moses, and Federer had one older than Adam, and at 32 was STILL making slam semis and top eight. Just my piece...

Fully, agree here KR. The fitness mountain is simply not all its cracked up to be. Yes it is a bigger part of the game then lets say 20 years ago but it is not such an extreme level of fitness like a triathlete or a marathon runner and the shotmaking is not being sacrificed on the alter of ever fitter athletes. The fact is that in his last three matches Cilic probably didn't burn much energy at all.

The technology part of the argument is also over played. Most pros don't play with a racquet larger than 100sq in or lighter than 11 ounces, yes in the market for bigger and lighter frames at the club levels where 60 year olds need a little more juice on their shots but you won't find a pro man or woman who plays with one of those flamethrower racquets because they need the control and the control of the racquet face more than they need the easy pace. They have pace in their shots if anything they want the feel and control to lessen the natural pace of their shots and let the swing do the work.