THIS IS ONLY THE ROUND OF 16. NOT EVEN THE QUARTER-FINALS.
HA HA HA HA HA HA LMAO ROFL LOL MY ASS OFF.
I adore Marin Cilic now. I have a soft spot for anyone who DARES defeat the Anointed One, Andy Murray, in a Grand Slam - a Grand Slam that Murray is "the favourite to win". Same old story in New York as in Melbourne, London, and to a lesser extent, Paris: Murray goes in hyped up as hell. Murray does well for the first three rounds. Murray loses before the final.
I thought he'd reach the QF and lose to Del Pot, but oh my god, he lost even before that. AND IN STRAIGHT SETS TOO. To Marin Cilic, who almost lost to some random American named Jesse Levine.
All credit to Marin though: he played lights-out tennis. He played out of his mind, out of his skin. He served at 30-something percent in the second set, Murray served at 80-something percent - and Marin won it 6-2. Against Murray, who's supposedly the best returner on the tour. On paper, it's impossible for someone who's putting so little first serves in to win against another guy who's making 80% of his first serves, but in real life, all you need to do is to neutralise the first serve, get it back in play, and dictate the point. Marin basically did just that for the whole match.
And this also proves what I've been saying all along: A near-perfect attacking game will always defeat a solid, perfect defensive game. Murray's modus operandi on 15-40, 4-5 on Cilic's serve - break point, and set point, for Murray - said it all. On his second break point he got himself embroiled in this long rally in which he hit four consecutive backhand slices to Cilic's inside-out forehand. Four consecutive backhand slices, with absolutely no gameplan in sight other than "just put the ball back into the court", inviting Cilic in to rip some WTF forehand winner.
What the hell was Murray thinking, right? But oh my god, his attempt at aggression failed so badly that for once, I understood why he's always pushing the stupid ball around the damn court. He tried to serve and volley early in the second set, when he was down break point - just to push the volley WAY wide, and then getting broken.
I completely laughed my ass off at that. And in so doing, I laugh my ass off at all the fucktards who thought Andy Murray could counter-punch his way to a Grand Slam. Who are they kidding? No one wins Slams by playing defensive tennis. The whole match Murray just sat back and let Cilic dictate play. All Murray did was to push the ball around the court, giving Cilic all these openings to step in and hit a winner.
The uninspired, dull way he plays on break points is really the most telling in terms of the kind of tennis he plays, which is the kind that I quite dislike fervently, to say the least. What the hell kind of rubbish defensive crap is THAT? Who the hell is passive on a BREAK POINT, and hopes to get the break? That is absolutely retarded. To think Murray said he studies Roger's matches - maybe he ought to study the way Roger plays on break points, especially towards the end of a set (beginning of a set Roger usually doesn't break. Because he's weird like that). Pushing the ball around on break point seriously boggles the mind.
Marin meets Del Pot next. =( What a shame. I'm rooting for Del Pot to win - rooting for him to reach the final to lose to Roger. Haha. If Roger weren't taking part in the tournament, I'd want Del Pot to win it actually. His inside-out forehands and crazy forehand returns-of-serve are really...WOW.
But I find it hard to fathom the concept of anyone taking three sets off Roger in New York. It's just not possible - especially not when he's fit, healthy, and full of confidence. If the US Open was the only Slam he won in a year where he suffered from mononucleosis and lack of training due to the mono, and as a consequence, lack of confidence, it says a lot about the possibility of him winning six in a row. In fact, the only possible scenario in which he WOULDN'T win it is if he broke his leg. NO ONE is capable of stopping him - not Djokovic, not even Nadal, not Del Potro. And DEFINITELY not Murray, even before he lost. The only person who can defeat him is...Roger Federer.
Way to go, Murray, for diminishing Roger's achievements when you made that retarded "difference between #1 and #2 is a Slam" comment. It's so easy to win one, right? Which is precisely why you lost in the fourth round.
My puny brain is unable to comprehend the fact of Roger's achievements, the fact that one person, from some random country called Switzerland, is able to climb to the top of the tennis game and dominate for so long. Not only that - he's able to wrestle tennis history from all the greats that came before him and continue to make his case for why he's the greatest of all-time. It's amazing, to me, to witness someone making history like that. And I just can't comprehend how one man is able to do it all.
Utterly amazing. And these young players losing early in Slams only goes to further underscore how difficult it is to do what Roger has done, and has been doing, since 2003, and in the process, makes his achievements even more incredible.
Back to topic though: LOL @ Andy Murray. Yay Marin Cilic! Definitely not the same guy who played Roger in one of the indoors hard-court tournaments towards the end of last year.
Comments in this thread are hilarious.