PDA

View Full Version : Marin Cilic


joebicko
02-25-2009, 11:02 PM
Anyone thinks Cilic could be a top five player within a year?

saram
02-25-2009, 11:04 PM
nope--one or two years.... lacks consistency.

Gen
02-25-2009, 11:34 PM
I am more optimistic. Since the fifth in the top 5 is Davydenko who is declining rapidly, any good player with talent and determination can overtake this spot. Why not Marin Cilic?

saram
02-25-2009, 11:46 PM
I am more optimistic. Since the fifth in the top 5 is Davydenko who is declining rapidly, any good player with talent and determination can overtake this spot. Why not Marin Cilic?

Because #5 in the world means utter consistency--and he has not shown that yet. Does he have the talent: hell yeah! Just not consistent enough yet.

And how can you say Davydenko is declining rapidly? That is utter nonsense!

saram
02-25-2009, 11:47 PM
Roddick has talent and determination--enough said?

Gen
02-25-2009, 11:52 PM
Roddick has talent and determination--enough said?

No he doesn't. Neither talent, nor determination. I mean big scale.

saram
02-25-2009, 11:53 PM
No he doesn't. Neither talent, nor determination. I mean big scale.

Big scale? What is Roddick's ranking and what is Cilic's?

Gen
02-25-2009, 11:54 PM
[And how can you say Davydenko is declining rapidly? That is utter nonsense![/QUOTE]

Before blaming me for talking nonsence, look at his results this year, and then go to Russian Internet. It's been profusely discussed there.

saram
02-25-2009, 11:54 PM
Roddick:6
Cilic:19

Just in case you're curious...

Gen
02-25-2009, 11:55 PM
Big scale? What is Roddick's ranking and what is Cilic's?

How many years is Roddick older than Cilic? Maybe age and ranking can be proportional?

saram
02-25-2009, 11:55 PM
Davydenko: #5

saram
02-25-2009, 11:56 PM
Gen,

We can debate all night. Rankings are rankings. Potential is nothing--look at Donald Young.

Gen
02-25-2009, 11:59 PM
Vow! I do hope that you are not comparing Cilic to Donald Young. Good night. It's mid-morning in my part of the world.

saram
02-26-2009, 12:00 AM
Not comparing them--Cilic is much better. I said originally give him a year or two and he'll be top five. I have never said that about DY.

zagor
02-26-2009, 12:09 AM
There was another thread about him recently.I don't see him reaching top 5 this year but I expect him to reach top 10 by the end of 2009,we'll see if I'm right(he's 14-1 this season so far If I'm not mistaken).

No he doesn't. Neither talent, nor determination. I mean big scale.

It's debatable about talent,I consider serving 220+ bombs and getting 60-70%of them in as talent,other people don't.I also personally have a hard time saying that any player who ever got to top 10(let alone top 5)doesn't have talent,that just sounds a bit ridiculous to me.

As for Roddick's determination,it's hardly questionable.I consider him to be one of the better competitors around.He also leads the tour in BPs saved if I'm not mistaken,sure that's partly due to his serve but mental toughness is a factor as well.

saram
02-26-2009, 12:12 AM
^^ I will agree. I'm not a fan of Roddick--but I'll take him on my team in a scrap any day. He's a fighter and competitor and I sure appreciate seeing that in tennis. Even when he is getting thumped by the Fed--Andy fights for every point and never quits. Don't know if I have ever seen him give up or tank a match.

He's a tough bloke.

Gen
02-26-2009, 12:17 AM
There was another thread about him recently.I don't see him reaching top 5 this year but I expect him to reach top 10 by the end of 2009,we'll see if I'm right(he's 14-1 this season so far If I'm not mistaken).



It's debatable about talent,I consider serving 220+ bombs and getting 60-70%of them in as talent,other people don't.I also personally have a hard time saying that any player who ever got to top 10(let alone top 5)doesn't have talent,that just sounds a bit ridiculous to me.

As for Roddick's determination,it's hardly questionable.I consider him to be one of the better competitors around.He also leads the tour in BPs saved if I'm not mistaken,sure that's partly due to his serve but mental toughness is a factor as well.

I may be wrong speaking about Roddick all the time. I don't like big servers. To me they spoil the game. Saying this I don't mean big-serving Federer, or Murray (who is not formally qualified as a big server, still his serve looks very convincing since USO-2008), Gulbis or Cilic whose serve isn't awesome yet, but quite good. Because all these guys have much more than their serves. Roddick used to have a serve and a forehand, nowadays his forehand doesn't look very inspiring.

About the second item in bold: that's why I said "big scale".

saram
02-26-2009, 12:20 AM
^^Roddick won the USO and was #1 in the world--how can that not be "big scale"?

And now you mentioned Gulbis: ranked 42.

How can you say these guys have more talent than Roddick or Davydenko? They both have more points to defend and yet remain a constant above Cilic and Gulbis.

Come on now, find a better argument...:)

Gen
02-26-2009, 12:27 AM
^^Roddick won the USO and was #1 in the world--how can that not be "big scale"?

My big scale includes, but not limited to, Laver, Emerson, Gonzales (Pancho), Connors, MacEnroe, Borg, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten (on clay), Federer, Nadal. 1-2 slam wonders like Safin, Ferrero, Roddick and Hewitt are off this list. Actually they are what I call "low competition field" in 2000-2005.

saram
02-26-2009, 12:32 AM
My big scale includes, but not limited to, Laver, Emerson, Gonzales (Pancho), Connors, MacEnroe, Borg, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten (on clay), Federer, Nadal. 1-2 slam wonders like Safin, Ferrero, Roddick and Hewitt are off this list. Actually they are what I call "low competition field" in 2000-2005.

Dang, you have a big scale. I like your standards.