Was the final entertaining, did it provide enough variety?

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?

FO 2013 when it got good (I thought Nole was a little flat first and third set) was levels above this Final. Some ridiculous gets, crazy shotmaking, that overhead. But Nole and Rafa at their best, are levels above these two so maybe not a fair comparison. Still, Cilic played very well and it was an alright final, if anti climatic. Not sure about the courts being sped up. But they do seem to miraculously become 90s courts anytime Nadal doesn't win anything. With Cilic I think it's less his power more his accuracy. I don't think he hits in the Berdych, JMDP class, for example.

Obviously the scoreline didn't help. One player played rather poorly by his standards of the tournament. However, no worse in that respect than Djoko/Murray or Fed/Murray AO 2010 & 2011, for example, or Murray/Djoko Wimby 2013.
Better than the AO 2012 for me though both in the style of tennis, especially having contrasting styles, and the length of match.
Why should star power matter? It's the tennis that matters, and as you say, the level was high and thus enjoyable to watch. It was also good to see a new winner of a major.

Any straight sets blow out will be a bit of a disappointment. But classics have been a bit thin on the ground recently in slam finals. Djokovic v Federer at Wimbledon was a classic but when was the last one before that? Arguably way back at AO2012.

I'm glad AO12 between Djokovic and Nadal happened and I enjoyed it at the time but I'm not sure I'd want to watch another final like it. It's just too long to sit through.

My favourite spectacle of recent years was Djokovic v Nadal at USO11. That was 'physical' tennis at it's best. Incredible athleticism and retrieval but combined with fantastic shot making.

The last Wimbledon final was great entertainment too. Djokovic v Federer is that rare thing - a rivalry in which each players A game not only allows, but often causes, the opponent to play their best game too.

Djokovic v Murray usually bring out the worst in each other's game, and Nadal v Federer magnifies one but stunts the other. Djokovic v Nadal can be spectacular but it's actually pretty rare that they both play well in the same match.

kingraf wrote:FO 2013 when it got good (I thought Nole was a little flat first and third set) was levels above this Final. Some ridiculous gets, crazy shotmaking, that overhead. But Nole and Rafa at their best, are levels above these two so maybe not a fair comparison. Still, Cilic played very well and it was an alright final, if anti climatic. Not sure about the courts being sped up. But they do seem to miraculously become 90s courts anytime Nadal doesn't win anything. With Cilic I think it's less his power more his accuracy. I don't think he hits in the Berdych, JMDP class, for example.

You must know a fundamental rule of tennis. When Djokovic or Nadal win a tournament the courts have been slowed down again. When federer wins finally the courts are faster. Hence the advent of the term green clay to describe the grass at wimbeldon. Lets forget the scoreline, and look at the play was it that entertaining? I found it pretty dull, but I am no fan of wham bam tennis. If variety means we get a lot of matches with 30 minute sets and 4 shot rallies is it better for the game?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Obviously the scoreline didn't help. One player played rather poorly by his standards of the tournament. However, no worse in that respect than Djoko/Murray or Fed/Murray AO 2010 & 2011, for example, or Murray/Djoko Wimby 2013.
Better than the AO 2012 for me though both in the style of tennis, especially having contrasting styles, and the length of match.
Why should star power matter? It's the tennis that matters, and as you say, the level was high and thus enjoyable to watch. It was also good to see a new winner of a major.

I do find the reaction to this final by the posters to be interesting. Every final Djoko, Murray, or Nadal win seem to become the worst quality matches ever. This match was a stinker in terms of quality and we didn't hear a lengthy funeral requiem for tennis recited by the posters. Interesting that you would rate this as better than AO 2012 I can't think of many neutrals or commentators or fans in general that would make this match comparable in quality to that match. It seems then that the online 606 crowd loves short point attack tennis. I don't think it would sell, even lets say if Nish put up a fight and made this match go an extra set.

And do we need radical change in tennis if a player like Cilic playing pretty much all out attack tennis can win slams. Or federer for that matter? Does this narrative that fitness and retrieval are killing the game have any legs at all? I think it doesn't that this run by Cilic proves that there is nothing wrong with the courts, balls, or technology that would preclude attack tennis being successful.

It is a fact that courts have been slowed and that the tour has less variety in the surfaces.

But I also think that the idea that this somehow precludes anyone but 'retrievers' winning has been debunked this year.

Stan gets a new coach, works his backside off and, lo and behold, he makes the breakthrough that eluded him for years. Same with Dimitrov, with Cilic, Nishikori and Raonic.

Federer, now injury free, changes his raquet, adapts his game and he too his a major threat again.

So we have players of different ages and different styles now playing much better without the surfaces being changed.

I've always felt that factor was overstated and I'm certain of it now.

I'm more interested in the successes of these players across the surfaces. Homogenization apparently makes it easier to win multiple slams... The idea never made sense, but will see how Cilic fares next year...

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Obviously the scoreline didn't help. One player played rather poorly by his standards of the tournament. However, no worse in that respect than Djoko/Murray or Fed/Murray AO 2010 & 2011, for example, or Murray/Djoko Wimby 2013.
Better than the AO 2012 for me though both in the style of tennis, especially having contrasting styles, and the length of match.
Why should star power matter? It's the tennis that matters, and as you say, the level was high and thus enjoyable to watch. It was also good to see a new winner of a major.

I do find the reaction to this final by the posters to be interesting. Every final Djoko, Murray, or Nadal win seem to become the worst quality matches ever. This match was a stinker in terms of quality and we didn't hear a lengthy funeral requiem for tennis recited by the posters. Interesting that you would rate this as better than AO 2012 I can't think of many neutrals or commentators or fans in general that would make this match comparable in quality to that match. It seems then that the online 606 crowd loves short point attack tennis. I don't think it would sell, even lets say if Nish put up a fight and made this match go an extra set.

I love it. I mention a Djoko, Fed and Murray win and socal turns it into Djoko, Murray, or Nadal. Classic socal!
By the way, you say "The level was high, Cilic played incredible attack tennis and Nish produced some highlight reel shots as well" and then "This match was a stinker in terms of quality".
What would you like me to do socal - change my views to match neutrals and commentators? Perhaps we should all do that and then we could all like exactly the same type of tennis. (Who are these neutrals by the way? People who weren't bothered by who won - oh yes, that would be me then.)

Just before the USO, players were saying the courts were quicker this year. Good for attacking tennis it would seem, given Cilic's victory.
Edit - I don't think it was a 'radical' change though. No-one wants a 'radical' change - but you knew that already.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Just before the USO, players were saying the courts were quicker this year. Good for attacking tennis it would seem, given Cilic's victory.  

This is true but, as far as I know, they weren't prepared differently. So the change is presumably down to a combination of atmospheric conditions and nuances in the court preparation.

But the finalists weren't players suddenly liberated by faster conditions. They were players who have been on an upward curve all year (Nishi was hammering Nadal on clay before injury struck and Cilic was a couple of points away from knocking Novak out at Wimbledon). And, significantly, they are players with very different physical attributes and styles of play.

Agreed HM, but the great thing about having a bit more* variety is that we would get to see how the likes of Nishi and Cilic adapted (or failed to adapt) to different surfaces over time.

* socal - you can change that to 'radically more' in your reply.

JHM, yes, a little more variety would be good. I think the tour lacks a couple of very quick courts. But, apart from that, I don't think it's far off.

Clay and grass will always be 'different', even if Wimbledon grass is not as low-bouncing as it used to be.

Of the HC Masters, Cincy is pretty quick. Shanghai and Paris are certainly not slow in the way that, say, Miami can be.

If we lost two HC Masters and made one a grass tournament and the other a really quick surface like carpet, that would be pretty much perfect in my opinion.

HM, what will they say, they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal...

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Obviously the scoreline didn't help. One player played rather poorly by his standards of the tournament. However, no worse in that respect than Djoko/Murray or Fed/Murray AO 2010 & 2011, for example, or Murray/Djoko Wimby 2013.
Better than the AO 2012 for me though both in the style of tennis, especially having contrasting styles, and the length of match.
Why should star power matter? It's the tennis that matters, and as you say, the level was high and thus enjoyable to watch. It was also good to see a new winner of a major.

I do find the reaction to this final by the posters to be interesting. Every final Djoko, Murray, or Nadal win seem to become the worst quality matches ever. This match was a stinker in terms of quality and we didn't hear a lengthy funeral requiem for tennis recited by the posters. Interesting that you would rate this as better than AO 2012 I can't think of many neutrals or commentators or fans in general that would make this match comparable in quality to that match. It seems then that the online 606 crowd loves short point attack tennis. I don't think it would sell, even lets say if Nish put up a fight and made this match go an extra set.

I love it. I mention a Djoko, Fed and Murray win and socal turns it into Djoko, Murray, or Nadal. Classic socal!
By the way, you say "The level was high, Cilic played incredible attack tennis and Nish produced some highlight reel shots as well" and then "This match was a stinker in terms of quality".
What would you like me to do socal - change my views to match neutrals and commentators? Perhaps we should all do that and then we could all like exactly the same type of tennis. (Who are these neutrals by the way? People who weren't bothered by who won - oh yes, that would be me then.)

Just before the USO, players were saying the courts were quicker this year. Good for attacking tennis it would seem, given Cilic's victory.
Edit - I don't think it was a 'radical' change though. No-one wants a 'radical' change - but you knew that already.

Actually, a lot of people have been talking about changes that when you put the cumulative affect together would equal radical changes. I said there was some good shot making in the final but certaintly it wasn't anything out of the order for two top players. You are of course entitled to your opinion don't expect you to change it to match what neutrals or commentators would say about the issue. My point is that this final being better than AO 2012 is a distinct minority opinion.

Some are entertained by 20 shot rallies and some are entertained by missile 1-2 hits.
Oh, every FO final since 2005 has been dull btw.

HM Murdoch wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Just before the USO, players were saying the courts were quicker this year. Good for attacking tennis it would seem, given Cilic's victory.  

This is true but, as far as I know, they weren't prepared differently. So the change is presumably down to a combination of atmospheric conditions and nuances in the court preparation.

But the finalists weren't players suddenly liberated by faster conditions. They were players who have been on an upward curve all year (Nishi was hammering Nadal on clay before injury struck and Cilic was a couple of points away from knocking Novak out at Wimbledon). And, significantly, they are players with very different physical attributes and styles of play.

Bingo, great post Murdoch leave it to you to make my point better than I could. Different types of players, different styles, both attacking players who had no problem reaching the finals in the socalled dreadfully slow hardcourts of the day. (supposedly). JHM falls into the fallacy again he looks at who won the tournament and assumes the courts must have been faster then. If Novak had won we would be hearing how slow the courts have become and how awful the tennis is. Personally, this final didn't excite me. Even if you excuse the one sided nature I didn't feel the shotmaking or exchanges were more entertaining. The tennis was more attacking but it wasn't more entertaining in anyway that I could fathom. Cilic is not some otherworldly talent, he can win slams playing the way he does with his body type under current conditions and with current technology. He finished quite a large number of points at the net, went continously for outright winners and aces and he was rewarded.

socal1976 wrote: If Novak had won we would be hearing how slow the courts have become

Yes, this is what I think has been demolished this year. There has been a train of thought in some quarters that goes something like this:
- Courts have slowed.
- Novak, Rafa and Andy have won slams.
- Therefore, those players won because courts have been slowed.

This year though, we have seen Wawrinka and Cilic win slams under those same conditions. And they didn't do so by grinding and retrieving. They played basically the same way they have always done, just better.

So it turns out that the courts could have allowed different winners and different styles all along. So maybe there is a more obvious explanation why a handful of players have won so much. How about this as a theory: those players are outstandingly good players.

socal1976 wrote:JHM falls into the fallacy again he looks at who won the tournament and assumes the courts must have been faster then.

No, I specifically said that the reports were from the players before the tournament began. Is it so hard to read what I actually write?

On day 1 or day 2 of the tournament I was posting that the courts were fast, not after the tournament...I see a reversal of the slow tennis and long rallies happening across the tour...that must be statistics that prove it...average match length at the USO this year vs last year (shorter if the surface really is faster), W/UE error across the whole tournament (increases for faster surfaces), serve dominance statistics. Problem is someone needs to average across the whole tournament.

Would also be interesting to see these kinds of stats year to year averaged across the whole tour.

actually I should add I see it as more of only a slight fall back, like we are 10-20% of the way back from the slow peak of about 2008-2011 back to the faster period 90s or 2000s.

HM Murdoch wrote:

socal1976 wrote: If Novak had won we would be hearing how slow the courts have become

Yes, this is what I think has been demolished this year. There has been a train of thought in some quarters that goes something like this:
- Courts have slowed.
- Novak, Rafa and Andy have won slams.
- Therefore, those players won because courts have been slowed.

This year though, we have seen Wawrinka and Cilic win slams under those same conditions. And they didn't do so by grinding and retrieving. They played basically the same way they have always done, just better.

So it turns out that the courts could have allowed different winners and different styles all along. So maybe there is a more obvious explanation why a handful of players have won so much. How about this as a theory: those players are outstandingly good players.

That is the crux of it these players won and won consistently not because or aided by homogenized conditions but because they were better players at executing their style of play then the other attack first players like Tsonga, Berdy, Cilic, Del Po etc. Despite today's conditions if a Sampras type player came to the fore he would win multiple slams (ie see Federer). Maybe the tactics would have to be adjusted but the conditions aren't as drastically different and aren't the reason the same guys have been dominating the game.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:JHM falls into the fallacy again he looks at who won the tournament and assumes the courts must have been faster then.

No, I specifically said that the reports were from the players before the tournament began. Is it so hard to read what I actually write?

Fair enough, but this trend of looking at the winner and determining how fast the courts are playing is not something I noticed at this tournament alone. Hence why I brought up the green clay of wimbeldon analogy.

Henman Bill wrote:actually I should add I see it as more of  only a slight fall back, like we are 10-20% of the way back from the slow peak of about 2008-2011 back to the faster period 90s or 2000s.

See that is my problem the USO has stated that they have done nothing to the courts differently since 2003 but the consensus was that the courts have been continually slowed down each and every year up until lets say this last year.

socal1976 wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:actually I should add I see it as more of  only a slight fall back, like we are 10-20% of the way back from the slow peak of about 2008-2011 back to the faster period 90s or 2000s.

See that is my problem the USO has stated that they have done nothing to the courts differently since 2003 but the consensus was that the courts have been continually slowed down each and every year up until lets say this last year.

Fortunately the consensus is that the courts haven't been continually slowed down each and every year, but that weather conditions have caused the court surface in some years to be a bit quicker/slower than others (because the weather leading up to the Open affects the court preparation).
This 'consensus' you speak of. Is that a consensus among all tennis fans?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:actually I should add I see it as more of  only a slight fall back, like we are 10-20% of the way back from the slow peak of about 2008-2011 back to the faster period 90s or 2000s.

See that is my problem the USO has stated that they have done nothing to the courts differently since 2003 but the consensus was that the courts have been continually slowed down each and every year up until lets say this last year.

Fortunately the consensus is that the courts haven't been continually slowed down each and every year, but that weather conditions have caused the court surface in some years to be a bit quicker/slower than others (because the weather leading up to the Open affects the court preparation).
This 'consensus' you speak of. Is that a consensus among all tennis fans?

Consensus in the media and online fans what I read is the courts keep getting slower.

This is not about the USO 2014 final, but a discussion of court speeds and how it impacts 20+ shots or 2+ shot rallies.

The level of tennis from the Fedalovicurray will drop as they age, gradually or rapidly, and is dependent on the observer's time frame.

SoCal.. you still watched the final, and did not like it. You knew what to expect when Cilic v Nishikori was the scheduled. You had probably seen Cilic's prior 6 matches, yet you are now ranting about the 'quality' of the final being good or bad.

Perhaps you should add a poll to this thread as well. As JM says, he is not a connoisseur of lung-busters either where it is difficult for players to park their ar$e on a chair and the umpire has to get water for the players and risk-taking is zero and errors are the only way to win points.

In the USO 2014 finals, out of 161 points played (93 Cilic, 68 Nishikori), 57 (38 Cilic, 19 Nishikori) were won with winners - about 33%.

Do you know how many were in AO 2012?

No LF, I don't but in my opinion that was a far superior match to this one. In terms of competitiveness and quality.

laverfan wrote:This is not about the USO 2014 final, but a discussion of court speeds and how it impacts 20+ shots or 2+ shot rallies.

The level of tennis from the Fedalovicurray will drop as they age, gradually or rapidly, and is dependent on the observer's time frame.

SoCal.. you still watched the final, and did not like it. You knew what to expect when Cilic v Nishikori was the scheduled. You had probably seen Cilic's prior 6 matches, yet you are now ranting about the 'quality' of the final being good or bad.

Perhaps you should add a poll to this thread as well. As JM says, he is not a connoisseur of lung-busters either where it is difficult for players to park their ar$e on a chair and the umpire has to get water for the players and risk-taking is zero and errors are the only way to win points.

In the USO 2014 finals, out of 161 points played (93 Cilic, 68 Nishikori), 57 (38 Cilic, 19 Nishikori) were won with winners - about 33%.

Do you know how many were in AO 2012?

Also, if a shorter rally is won with a winner, you can get a winner every, say, 6 shots, but with longer rallies, even if they are won by a winners, you might only get a winner once every, say, 12 shots.
No doubt there is an optimum length of rally. No-one wants every point to be an ace, but no-one wants every point to be 50 shots. That optimum length is entirely subjective and personal. I might want it to be 6 shots, socal might want it to be 16 shots. If it went too far away from our 'ideal rally length' we'd just stop watching. In my case that was in the AO 2012 and in socal's case maybe it was USO 2014. I don't see why that's a problem. Neither of us are forced to watch a match we don't enjoy. There's lots of other stuff to do instead of watching tennis.

If I had 1 tennis match to watch and never ever see another 1, I would choose to watch Cilic rather than Djokovic as I'm sure most of tennis analysts agree.

socal1976 wrote:No LF, I don't but in my opinion that was a far superior match to this one. In terms of competitiveness and quality.

Competitiveness and Quality is very subjective.

Djokovic (193) and Nadal (176) played 369 points with 101 winners (Djokovic - 57 and Nadal - 44) which is roughly 27%. The UEs were Djokovic (69) and Nadal (71), which is 140 UEs. So more points were won with UEs by the opponent then winners by the attacker.

In the USO 2014, UEs were 57, Cilic (27) and Nishikori (30), the same as winners.

In the AO 2012 case, the differential is 39 points. 39 points is roughly 10 games of Tennis, which is roughly a 6-4 set.

As JHM says, there is a very subjective 'optimum' rally length, which each spectator can tolerate, before visual fatigue sets in.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

laverfan wrote:This is not about the USO 2014 final, but a discussion of court speeds and how it impacts 20+ shots or 2+ shot rallies.

The level of tennis from the Fedalovicurray will drop as they age, gradually or rapidly, and is dependent on the observer's time frame.

SoCal.. you still watched the final, and did not like it. You knew what to expect when Cilic v Nishikori was the scheduled. You had probably seen Cilic's prior 6 matches, yet you are now ranting about the 'quality' of the final being good or bad.

Perhaps you should add a poll to this thread as well. As JM says, he is not a connoisseur of lung-busters either where it is difficult for players to park their ar$e on a chair and the umpire has to get water for the players and risk-taking is zero and errors are the only way to win points.

In the USO 2014 finals, out of 161 points played (93 Cilic, 68 Nishikori), 57 (38 Cilic, 19 Nishikori) were won with winners - about 33%.

Do you know how many were in AO 2012?

Also, if a shorter rally is won with a winner, you can get a winner every, say, 6 shots, but with longer rallies, even if they are won by a winners, you might only get a winner once every, say, 12 shots.
No doubt there is an optimum length of rally. No-one wants every point to be an ace, but no-one wants every point to be 50 shots. That optimum length is entirely subjective and personal. I might want it to be 6 shots, socal might want it to be 16 shots. If it went too far away from our 'ideal rally length' we'd just stop watching. In my case that was in the AO 2012 and in socal's case maybe it was USO 2014. I don't see why that's a problem. Neither of us are forced to watch a match we don't enjoy. There's lots of other stuff to do instead of watching tennis.

It is a question of which style is more favored by the majority of the fans. Some people like to eat chocolate other people eat roaches or ants. One can argue and say taste is subjective that is true, but the question is which type of tennis is preferred by the majority of sports/tennis fans across the spectrum. Variety is all good, I don't doubt that we need it and that it is part of tennis. But at the same time there is the question of how far are we off the ideal mix that will grow the game and attract more fans. To me we aren't very far off the mix in general. Slight tinkering around the edges at best.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:If I had 1 tennis match to watch and never ever see another 1, I would choose to watch Cilic rather than Djokovic as I'm sure most of tennis analysts agree.

That is because of all the good weed you get and refuse to share with the rest of us.

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:No LF, I don't but in my opinion that was a far superior match to this one. In terms of competitiveness and quality.

Competitiveness and Quality is very subjective.

Djokovic (193) and Nadal (176) played 369 points with 101 winners (Djokovic - 57 and Nadal - 44) which is roughly 27%. The UEs were Djokovic (69) and Nadal (71), which is 140 UEs. So more points were won with UEs by the opponent then winners by the attacker.

In the USO 2014, UEs were 57, Cilic (27) and Nishikori (30), the same as winners.

In the AO 2012 case, the differential is 39 points. 39 points is roughly 10 games of Tennis, which is roughly a 6-4 set.

As JHM says, there is a very subjective 'optimum' rally length, which each spectator can tolerate, before visual fatigue sets in.

See my response to JHM, which optimum is the optimum that will provide for healthy interest and growth of the game and keep most people happy most of the time.

It really depends what a long rally is composed of.

If it's long because the players are producing incredible defence or manoeuvring an opponent round the court to set up an opportunity, then I'm happy to watch it.

If it's passive, wait-for-an-arror stuff, then I can't be bothered with it. Matches between Simon and Monfils can be almost unwatchable. Novak, Andy and Rafa aren't guilt-free on this this either.

socal1976 wrote:

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:No LF, I don't but in my opinion that was a far superior match to this one. In terms of competitiveness and quality.

Competitiveness and Quality is very subjective.

Djokovic (193) and Nadal (176) played 369 points with 101 winners (Djokovic - 57 and Nadal - 44) which is roughly 27%. The UEs were Djokovic (69) and Nadal (71), which is 140 UEs. So more points were won with UEs by the opponent then winners by the attacker.

In the USO 2014, UEs were 57, Cilic (27) and Nishikori (30), the same as winners.

In the AO 2012 case, the differential is 39 points. 39 points is roughly 10 games of Tennis, which is roughly a 6-4 set.

As JHM says, there is a very subjective 'optimum' rally length, which each spectator can tolerate, before visual fatigue sets in.

See my response to JHM, which optimum is the optimum that will provide for healthy interest and growth of the game and keep most people happy most of the time.

If most people want 50 shot rallies, then perhaps that would considered the optimum, but I'd probably stop watching (which is just an observation not a complaint).
However given that the AO speeded up the surface this year I suspect they also didn't want a repeat of the AO2012 final.

JuliusHMarx wrote:However given that the AO speeded up the surface this year I suspect they also didn't want a repeat of the AO2012 final.

Is this 'official'?

i.e. did they deliberately set the court up quicker or was it just playing a bit quicker this year because of conditions?

I liked AO12 as a one off. It was insane to watch, and left me in suspension more than this Final. But maybe not as a regular occurrence.

HM Murdoch wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:However given that the AO speeded up the surface this year I suspect they also didn't want a repeat of the AO2012 final.

Is this 'official'?

i.e. did they deliberately set the court up quicker or was it just playing a bit quicker this year because of conditions?

I'm not sure there was official statement either way. Again, one has to take the opinions of the players and draw conclusions.
E.g. http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/01/players-debate-aussie-open-court-speed-many-say-its-faster/50213/#.VBBccNBwbIU

Just wonder if Cilic will kick on now or whether this will be one of those slams when a guy played just great, won the tournament but never quite scaled those heights again.
Sometimes in a Slam some unfancied guy just gets on a roll. It doesn't happen very often but you can certainly include Cash at Wimbledon in 1987 and Krajicek at Wimbledon in 1996 in that category. One beat Lendl, the other Sampras, but that was the best they ever did.
What ever happens I do hope that Cilic, if it comes to that, is not dubbed a "one-slam wonder". It's a pretty awful expression. I'm sure players are only too happy to win a slam.

It was the sort of match that gets put on an outside court at a 500 event. I didn't watch it because the match up didn't appeal to me and I haven't read anything since to make me feel like I missed anything. Nishikori and Cilic are both solid pro's and can play at a high level and I'm sure they hit lots of solid backhands, forehands, serves and volleys and they may be great human beings but as personalities they are as dull as dishwater. They can only sparkle in reflected light or in the eyes of nationalistic fans.

The talk that they are now the future of tennis is hilarious. Both players have been around for years and are middle or old middle aged in tennis terms.

Although in a strange sort of way this final may have been the best thing for the competition at the top of the game. With neither Federer or Djokovic winning there is still the chance for a three way fight for the year end number 1

You probably made the right decision HE. I doubt you would have enjoyed it.

Do you know what is dull as dishwater oh repetitive hawkeye? All the clay finals we have bare witness to

hawkeye wrote:
Although in a strange sort of way this final may have been the best thing for the competition at the top of the game. With neither Federer or Djokovic winning there is still the chance for a three way fight for the year end number 1

Nope its not a three way fight, if Rafa is fit he is the year end no.1 so it has always been 1 man race at the top, on the other side it has been a 2 way race for no.2 and no.3 [Djoko/Federer] and the rest including Federer competed for no.3 to last.

ATPworldtour already addressed the media about the major software glitch they have in their site which shows Rafa as No.3 in the Race and No.2 in the Ranking and they are taking every step to sort it out as soon as possible.

Cilic hits the big time. Entertaining enough for everyone?

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2014/09/37/US-Open-Cilic-Letterman.aspx

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.

hawkeye wrote:It was the sort of match that gets put on an outside court at a 500 event. I didn't watch it because the match up didn't appeal to me and I haven't read anything since to make me feel like I missed anything. Nishikori and Cilic are both solid pro's and can play at a high level and I'm sure they hit lots of solid backhands, forehands, serves and volleys and they may be great human beings but as personalities they are as dull as dishwater. They can only sparkle in reflected light or in the eyes of nationalistic fans.

The talk that they are now the future of tennis is hilarious. Both players have been around for years and are middle or old middle aged in tennis terms.

Although in a strange sort of way this final may have been the best thing for the competition at the top of the game. With neither Federer or Djokovic winning there is still the chance for a three way fight for the year end number 1

Of the two of them, despite failing to be competitive in this final, I think Nishikori is more likely to win more majors in the future. There's a reason why he matches up well against Cilic, and he's become increasingly competitive against the top players. He is extremely talented, very resourceful and still has a lot of room for improvement both technically and tactically. I think Cilic is at the high end of his capacity, and that it isn't sustainable.

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.

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

Hawkeye wrote:Nishikori and Cilic are both solid pro's and can play at a high level and I'm sure they hit lots of solid backhands, forehands, serves and volleys and they may be great human beings but as personalities they are as dull as dishwater. They can only sparkle in reflected light or in the eyes of nationalistic fans.

My opinion in terms of how much I personally enjoy them may be different to the average tennis fan.
Obviously I've been a big Nadal fan for so long, and he has a very unique style, so it will be hard for myself to hype up another player or playing style. Out of Nishikori and Cilic I much prefer's Nishikori's game- he's so skilful from the back of the court and tends to draw players into longer rallies which he seeks to dominate.
Cilic has a monster game, massive serve and powerful groundstrokes; and when he's on the form he was in it's very difficult to do anything- but his game doesn't appeal to me personally.

In terms of personality- you say dull as a dishwasher- well people who dislike Nadal and Federer could probably say the same about them. Both appear to be very polite but don't say much which is too controversial.