No 500's, No Masters, 1 Slam

Cilic will be 26 this month, his career peak was 9 (in the spring of 2010) and he has won 11 titles (4 Zagreb, 2 Chennai, and one each of New Haven, St Petersburg, Queens Club and Delray Beach). He has never won or even been to a final of a 500 level event or a Masters. Prior to his US Open win yesterday the furthest he's been in a slam was the semi final of the AO in 2010. His H2H against Federer was 0-5 (prior to the semi's), against Djokovic 0-10 and against Nadal 1-2 with that win coming in Beijing in 2009.

So this huge win at a relatively old age came from nowhere. All the players who have been pushing so hard, getting big wins over the top three, winning 500's, winning Masters and getting close in slams must be scratching their heads in frustration as next to Cilic's win it amounts to little. Or does it?

No I don't think so. Players strive for tournament wins but the holy grail is a slam win and Cilic has done that and fully merited it was too. Sure others have been banging on the door louder but have not been able to step up to the plate whilst Cilic has though admittedly it has taken some time.

Who are all these players with loads of Masters and 500 level titles then? Not exactly anyone knocking on the door from the youngsters.

Agree it is odd though. Neither of the two youngest slam winners have managed to win a Masters.

Not exactly out of nowhere, he was a former AO semi and has pushed Novak 2 5 sets when he won wimbledon. He's shown glimpses of this and will probably make another SF run soon before getting a guy who reads his serve better, perhaps Cilic can't keep this form up though.

The other contenders need to believe a bit more. Stan and Marin should do that

@HE... are you praising Cilic's achievement? Or something else...

What is the motto of the article?

If at 500 you don't succeed, Try win a grand slam?

Wawrinka won an MS (MC 2014) after a Slam win.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Stan-Wawrinka.aspx?t=tf

Cilic also can, correct, HE?

Cilic has been to 3 500 finals. beijing twice and rotterdam this year.

500's and 1000's are not good for getting in shape, especially for a big server like Cilic/Raonic.

This is interesting.

Top 5 Masters winners

1) Nadal 27
2) Federer 22
3) Djokovic 19
4) Agassi 17
5) Sampras 11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_Masters_1000

Top 5 500 winners

1) Djokovic 9
2) Nadal 7
3) Del Potro 6
4) Federer & Ferrrer 5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_500_series

Top 5 250 winners

1) Cilic 10
2) Isner 9
3) Ferrer 8
4) Almagro, Del Potro, Murray & Tsonga 7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_250_series

wow interesting stats HE, I had no clue Cilic tops the 250 winners list.

Arguably, including top 5 slam winners would have completed the pattern nicely, yet HE did not include those....I wonder why....

invisiblecoolers wrote:wow interesting stats HE, I had no clue Cilic tops the 250 winners list.

That is because he doesn't top the list:
1) Muster 26,
2) Federer/Hewitt 22,
4) Roddick 21,
5) Sampras 20

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_records scroll down 3/4 of the page.

There must be a time frame (since 2009?) on the stats HE posted a link to.

I don't think Guga had won an awful before landing the French for the first time and Stan was not exactly a multi-title winner before taking the AO this year.
Stan's win and that of Cilic are bound to encourage the others. Will we see a rush of players trying to get former GS winners to coach them now? Step forward the likes of Courier (possibly too busy commentating) Rafter, or Safin (wonder what sort of coach he would be?)

Safin's definitely one for Ernie, sirfred.

I wish Agassi would coach Andy

Safin's a MP now. Coaching is beneath him.

kingraf wrote:Safin's a MP now. Coaching is beneath him.

Gosh, that's an interesting fact. He was one of my favourite players - power but with style. I always thought that on his day he could beat anyone. His five-setter with Fed at the 05 AO semi was some match, I recall. He then gave Hewitt a set start in the final and still beat him comfortably. Should really have won more Slams but his head was all over the place.

sirfredperry wrote:

kingraf wrote:Safin's a MP now. Coaching is beneath him.

Gosh, that's an interesting fact. He was one of my favourite players - power but with style. I always thought that on his day he could beat anyone. His five-setter with Fed at the 05 AO semi was some match, I recall. He then gave Hewitt a set start in the final and still beat him comfortably. Should really have won more Slams but his head was all over the place.

Safin had deep skills, but in too few areas, and I don't think he moved well enough to give himself a chance to win more often. Power is overrated.

Born Slippy wrote:Who are all these players with loads of Masters and 500 level titles then? Not exactly anyone knocking on the door from the youngsters.

Agree it is odd though. Neither of the two youngest slam winners have managed to win a Masters.

Did you mean two of the latest slam winners or youngest? Either way you're right, and that's pretty interesting, but I have to point out that if you're going back to Michael Chang and Boris Becker, the masters series (as a series) didn't exist at that time. Becker did win Queens that year, which was highly coveted, but only in the context of what is said about your chances at Wimbledon. You're right about Chang - he hadn't won anything worth winning before he won the French Open (one title in San Francisco over Johan Kriek), but at least he was seeded (which is saying a lot back then, because there were only 16 seeds).

But by far, of the youngest major winners, Mats Wilander takes the cake - he hadn't won a single TOURNAMENT before he won the French Open, and he too was he was 17 at the time. Talk about coming out of nowhere.

Well obviously at 17 like Wilander you are coming out of nowhere but at 26 Cilic has had plenty of time to demonstrate his skills. In fact in tennis terms he is old/middle aged. So winning a slam but being unable to win a Masters or even a 500 looks a little unusual. Either he has somehow increased his level when he should be past his peak physically or he has shown that slams can be easier to win than lower level tournaments or with a little luck and a good draw many top players could sneak a slam.

There is no credit for Ivanisevic in his [Cilic's] corner, or Lendl for making Murray a multi-slammer, or Chang for getting Nishikori to the USO Final beating Djokovic.

MMT1. Once was able to talk to Mats Wilander about that win as a 17-yr-old at the French. He said he had no real idea what he was doing. Each day he had to cancel his flight and rebook himself back into his hotel as he never expected to get that far. Fascinating stuff.

hawkeye wrote:Well obviously at 17 like Wilander you are coming out of nowhere but at 26 Cilic has had plenty of time to demonstrate his skills. In fact in tennis terms he is old/middle aged. So winning a slam but being unable to win a Masters or even a 500 looks a little unusual. Either he has somehow increased his level when he should be past his peak physically or he has shown that slams can be easier to win than lower level tournaments or with a little luck and a good draw many top players could sneak a slam.

25/26 is early peak (25-31 is probably about accurate for tennis players now). Cilic certainly isn't past his peak! He has significantly improved his service action, which makes him far more dangerous. I tend to think he had a golden week and is unlikely to play consistently at that level but we will see in due course.