This entry is now closed for comments.
@224, I've got better things to do today than "debate" with a "know it all" like you! We'll have to agree to disagree on the true meaning of underachieving! I'm sure you'll come up with some patronising reposte to this comment because you're obviously one of those people who always has to have the last word! But I'm afraid I'm not sticking around to see it! You're starting to bore me now!
@ 225 Finally. You recognize that Cilic AT PRESENT is one of the best players in the world. That closes this discussion for me.
It seems your only angst is Cilic being described as one of the best in the world right now. He is ranked 7 in a pool of around 1000 players so certainly does say he is one of the best in the world does it not? I've said Evans won't end up winning a slam which we agree on. We both agree Evans deserves credit for his win. Your disagreement is around a statistical fact - Cilic No 7 in the world.
@222, a player's ranking only confirms his recent form. Cilic's current number seven ranking confirms him as one of the best players in the world in recent months, but that's all it does. He was taken to five sets in the first round before losing to Evans. Evans had just reached the final in Sydney. I think they met at the right time for Evans. Evans was confident, Cilic was struggling a little.
Definition of under achieve is to do less well than expected. People with tennis knowledge (disqualifies you I'm afraid), talking tennis fans and experts such as pundits and ex-pros will tell you the same as I am telling you. Cilic is not as good as those at the top of the sport as they are all-time greats so cannot beat players who are just that much better than him. That is not under-achieving.
@220, underachieving in any sport is failing to win the biggest prizes consistently. In the current era of men's tennis only Djokovic, Federer and Nadal have consistently won the biggest tournaments. Therefore everyone else in the current era has underachieved. That doesn't mean there aren't a lot of other very good players, but they're all underachievers.
Big big difference between an all-time great and one of the best in the world at the moment. All-time great is one whose achievement's across the board stand among the best to have played the sport. A player that is one of the best in the world at present is one who is ranked inside the top ten (maybe stretch that higher as well) as Cilic is.
@218, dear oh dear! I would suggest it's you that should learn to read! I said in post 216 that you said Cilic WASN'T an all time great! My exact words were "you yourself said he's NOT an all time great". We agree that he's not an all time great, yet you talk about him as if he is! Oh, and by the way, I don't need any advice from you on the meaning of underachieving!
You sadly do not understand the strength in depth in tennis. Istomin (100+) proved that today. No slam match is a given and the fact that Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have made so many slam semis in the last decade means invariably the likes of Cilic, Wawrinka, Tsonga and Raonic invariably have to beat players better than they are to reach semis. That IS NOT under-achieving.
@212, consistently failing to go beyond the quarter finals of a Grand Slam is underachieving in my opinion. It's rare for all four of the big four to reach the semi finals of every Grand Slam. If the players you list aren't underachievers then Warwinka - one of the players you list, who's won three Grand Slams - must be an overachiever! Warwinka proves that the others are underachievers.
First up don't use words you have no idea what they mean. See post 211. Second up do you have difficulty reading as well? At no time have I said Cilic is an all-time great merely that he is amongst the best players in the world right now. No 7 in the world says it all. And yes I've given Evans credit as well. Please learn to read.
@211, "I will say again that Cilic is one of the best players in the world at the moment". If that's the case he'd be on a par with your hero Murray, but he's nowhere near Murray's level! He's certainly one of the best of the rest, but he's always been a long way behind the big four, and to a lesser extent, Warwinka.
@209, despite claims by you and others to the contrary I've done nothing but praise Evans for what was a fine and unexpected victory over Cilic. Unlike you and others I haven't blown Cilic's ability out of proportion! You yourself said he's not an all time great, yet you talk about him as if he is! If he isn't an all time great - and he clearly isn't - don't talk about him as if he is!
@ 214Not arguing with the stats was just hoping you hadn't sat and worked that out.Come on Andy!!!
@213Copied and pasted.Facts prove points better than opinions.
@ 212Please tell me you copied and pasted that from somewhere and didn't work that out on your own? It would be very tragic if you did.
@210 mrnoneofyourbusinessDuring the era of the dominant four, the best anyone else can hope for at a Grand Slam is to reach the quarter finals. That's an 80% win ratio if you reach every one.75% Tsonga73% Wawrinka72% Raonic71% Cilic71% Ferrer71% Berdych68% Nishikori67% Gasquet67% Monfils63% Thiem58% GoffinYour opinion doesn't stack up against the numbers...
under achieve means do less well than expected.I don't know of any tennis fans or experts with a modicum of knowledge that would expect Cilic to have done better at a time that Roger Federer (GOAT), Nadal (greatest clay-courter of all-time) and Djokovic (one of best of all-time) have been playing. I will say again Cilic is one of the best player in the world at the moment.
We're having some problems displaying the comments at the moment. Sorry. We're doing our best to fix it.
You must sign in to rate comments