Cilic vs Federer -- post match analysis

[objectivity]

ok i will keep this very short. just a couple of interesting points which i noticed.

1) Federer's approach shots were horrid. They were either missed, hit short, or sitting up. They were bad -- really bad.

2) Cilic played remarkably well and this is the most important factor, take nothing away from him. But it really was striking how badly Federer dealt with Cilic's SECOND SERVE. He was either doing a Nadal in taking them way behind the baseline -- very shocking to me, or he was missing them altogether. I don't know how many times Federer got caught with second serves coming into the body which wasn't exactly Sampras like in pace. I thought Federer could have -- or maybe SHOULD have -- just stepped out and cranked an inside-out forehand winner. But he simply didn't. I don't quite understand why his aggression was that low in the match.

 

[Bendex]

ok i will keep this very short. just a couple of interesting points which i noticed.

1) Federer's approach shots were horrid. They were either missed, hit short, or sitting up. They were bad -- really bad.

2) Cilic played remarkably well and this is the most important factor, take nothing away from him. But it really was striking how badly Federer dealt with Cilic's SECOND SERVE. He was either doing a Nadal in taking them way behind the baseline -- very shocking to me, or he was missing them altogether. I don't know how many times Federer got caught with second serves coming into the body which wasn't exactly Sampras like in pace. I thought Federer could have -- or maybe SHOULD have -- just stepped out and cranked an inside-out forehand winner. But he simply didn't. I don't quite understand why his aggression was that low in the match.

When you say "aggression was low", I assume you're referring to his weight of shot, and not the traditional meaning of "aggressive" (moving forward, taking the ball early).

I think he is fully committed to being very aggressive, and isn't quite able to play it naturally/subconsciously yet. Or maybe the strategy really isn't viable against top tier opponents in this day and age.

I think his body could afford for him to put the aggressive game in the closet at the back end of tournaments, and return to good old Defend>Neutralize>Attack.

 

[objectivity]

When you say "aggression was low", I assume you're referring to his weight of shot, and not the traditional meaning of "aggressive" (moving forward, taking the ball early).

I think he is fully committed to being very aggressive, and isn't quite able to play it naturally/subconsciously yet. Or maybe the strategy really isn't viable against top tier opponents in this day and age.

I think his body could afford for him to put the aggressive game in the closet at the back end of tournaments, and return to good old Defend>Neutralize>Attack.

no, i meant that he really wasn't his usual aggressive self. for example why was he taking those second serves so far back?

 

[AYone]

He got into a hole too early and, unlike Monfi, Cil wasn't folding during crunch time. Bad time to bring the twins out.

 

[bjsnider]

Cilic's return is the best I've seen in this tournament. That's good enough to win it for him.

 

[newpball]

The analysis is not hard in the case:

In simple terms, Cilic is a hero, he kicks butt!

He is apparently not intimidated by reputation or loses out of "respect" for an old champion.

Finally a player who stood up and who put this ridiculous F revival where it belongs, namely in the losers corner!

Finally something really good for tennis!
An US Open finals with virgin contestants, what a concept.

Marketing must be crying today.

 

[Nostradamus]

The analysis is not hard in the case:

In simple terms, Cilic is a hero, he kicks butt!

He is apparently not intimidated by reputation or loses out of "respect" for an old champion.

Finally a player who stood up and who put this ridiculous F revival where it belongs, namely in the losers corner!

Finally something really good for tennis!
An US Open finals with virgin contestants, what a concept.

Marketing must be crying today.

Marketing bad is bad for tennis. you need to wish for tennis to become more popular not vice versa. we need more players and more money into tennis otherwise it will die out

 

[newpball]

Marketing bad is bad for tennis. you need to wish for tennis to become more popular not vice versa. we need more players and more money into tennis otherwise it will die out

Tennis will become popular by marketing to young folks and their needs not by marketing to middle and late middle aged balding players interested in Rolexes, high end Mercedes cars and private jets.

 

[Nostradamus]

Tennis will become popular by marketing to young folks and their needs not by marketing to middle and late middle aged balding players interested in Rolexes, high end Mercedes cars and private jets.

yea but young people don't care about Cilic or Nishikori. their heros and men they look up to and copy are Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal. Young kids lining up to buy the Heavy Federer racket next month. even though they will suffer with it

 

[SublimeTennis]

ok i will keep this very short. just a couple of interesting points which i noticed.

1) Federer's approach shots were horrid. They were either missed, hit short, or sitting up. They were bad -- really bad.
Thanks, an analysis that agrees with mine but doesn't go far enough. I said Federer wasn't smart and everyone came after me, but not my analysis, because they can't. To your point, you are spot on, Cilic looked unbeatable BECAUSE Federer hit low shots, that was the complete wrong strategy, the reason is that Cilic was in close, the ball bounced right into his hitting zone and he just killed it back. I can't believe I and others could figure that out but not Fed, who traditionally has been very smart in matches, he could have been being stubburn, he does that as well. Fed had no time, ever, he had a monster inside the baseline, and Fed was feeding this monster shots. Frankly I'm surprised Fed did as well as he did with that strategy.

2) Cilic played remarkably well and this is the most important factor, take nothing away from him. But it really was striking how badly Federer dealt with Cilic's SECOND SERVE. He was either doing a Nadal in taking them way behind the baseline -- very shocking to me, or he was missing them altogether. I don't know how many times Federer got caught with second serves coming into the body which wasn't exactly Sampras like in pace. I thought Federer could have -- or maybe SHOULD have -- just stepped out and cranked an inside-out forehand winner. But he simply didn't. I don't quite understand why his aggression was that low in the match.

Players look unbeatable when others use poor strategy. Nick Krygios looked like the greatest player in history until Robredo employed slice. But what was a bit puzzling is what you are saying here. Fed has traditionally been a big serve killer, Sampras taught him I suppose, Phillipousus, Roddick, Raonic, doesn't matter, he takes your serve away then it's all Fed, but Cilics serves were big, but not big like Roddick or the others, especially second, so I have no answer for that. And yea when he did, he often blocked it back, allowing Cilic to hit it out of the park. Good job OP! Bet you are attacked personally without any real analysis

 

[Praetorian]

Or, if Cilic wasn't in his own personal beast mode, and Federer won, and IF this exact same strategy won him the match; would this thread have ever been created?

It's amazing, how nobody posts threads about strategies that they disagree with, yet won the match? Or better yet, why don't people post what they think a pro needs to win a match, before the match even starts, and then come back around to gloat if proven right, or hide when proven wrong. Maybe be cause more often than naught everyone on this board would have a losing percentage.

 

[SublimeTennis]

Or, if Cilic wasn't in his own personal beast mode, and Federer won, and IF this exact same strategy won him the match; would this thread have ever been created?

It's amazing, how nobody posts threads about strategies that they disagree with, yet won the match? Or better yet, why don't people post what they think a pro needs to win a match, before the match even starts, and then come back around to gloat if proven right, or hide when proven wrong. Maybe be cause more often than naught everyone on this board would have a losing percentage.

I think because some of this stuff is basic strategy. Look at the Robredo match, Krygios looks much more impressive than Cilic did, Robredo was looking like he got hit with a Mack truck, then he started slicing, and Krygios fell for it, then fell apart!

People shouldn't play competitive tennis is they don't know that if you have a big hitter, or anyone for that matter, standing in, you don't give him short balls to his forehand or back to knock out of the part, do people on this forum really not know that or are they so married to Federer personally that any criticism means you are a bad person?

 

[objectivity]

Players look unbeatable when others use poor strategy. Nick Krygios looked like the greatest player in history until Robredo employed slice. But what was a bit puzzling is what you are saying here. Fed has traditionally been a big serve killer, Sampras taught him I suppose, Phillipousus, Roddick, Raonic, doesn't matter, he takes your serve away then it's all Fed, but Cilics serves were big, but not big like Roddick or the others, especially second, so I have no answer for that. And yea when he did, he often blocked it back, allowing Cilic to hit it out of the park. Good job OP! Bet you are attacked personally without any real analysis

and while Cilic served really big on his first serve, his first serve percentage was actually only 50%! so Federer really did not exploit this, did not smack his poor serve percentage. I don't quite understand this.

 

[omok33]

This was flashbacks to Sampras-Safin in 2000 US Open. Everyone thought Sampras was supposed to win handily but Safin came out swinging and Sampras had no answer. Fed looks just like the way Sampras did. "What the heck just happened?"

 

[BrooklynNY]

This was flashbacks to Sampras-Safin in 2000 US Open. Everyone thought Sampras was supposed to win handily but Safin came out swinging and Sampras had no answer. Fed looks just like the way Sampras did. "What the heck just happened?"

This is what I was thinking as well.

The way Cilic slammed down 3 aces in a row to close out the match was just Brutal.

Wonder if Monfils was watching

 

[BreakPoint]

Federer actually played well.

Cilic was just betterer.

 

[tennisaddict]

Tennis will become popular by marketing to young folks and their needs not by marketing to middle and late middle aged balding players interested in Rolexes, high end Mercedes cars and private jets.

It is the middle aged men that is a decision maker in corporates and it is them who have the purse.

The younger ones are at McDonald and Wendy.

 

[Chopin]

The analysis is not hard in the case:

In simple terms, Cilic is a hero, he kicks butt!

He is apparently not intimidated by reputation or loses out of "respect" for an old champion.

Finally a player who stood up and who put this ridiculous F revival where it belongs, namely in the losers corner!

Finally something really good for tennis!
An US Open finals with virgin contestants, what a concept.

Marketing must be crying today.

*A US Open final, not an, my dear boy.

Federer has had a good year. The guy remains a class act and champion, which is why he's #2 in the world.

 

[Michael Lesbowicz]

I am just wondering, if Cilic is so awesome and an invincible post-human tennis warrior, why did it take him until the age of 25 to win his first Grand Slam?
If he is so good, why did he never reach a Grand Slam final before?

 

[BreakPoint]

I am just wondering, if Cilic is so awesome and an invincible post-human tennis warrior, why did it take him until the age of 25 to win his first Grand Slam?
If he is so good, why did he never reach a Grand Slam final before?

I don't know, why don't you ask Murray and Wawrinka?

 

[magnut]

I am just wondering, if Cilic is so awesome and an invincible post-human tennis warrior, why did it take him until the age of 25 to win his first Grand Slam?
If he is so good, why did he never reach a Grand Slam final before?

because he didnt have goran working on his tactical approach to the game. Cilic was trying to play like the guys of his generation. Goran got him playing and believing like a player from the 90s.

not everyone peaks at 18-21 when they first hit the tour. Those guys are freaks. take a look at rafters career sometime. It took a lot of years on the tour for him to develop into the animal he became. 25 is actually pretty early in todays game.

 

[Russeljones]

I am just wondering, if Cilic is so awesome and an invincible post-human tennis warrior, why did it take him until the age of 25 to win his first Grand Slam?
If he is so good, why did he never reach a Grand Slam final before?

Are you always this obtuse or is this a wind-up?