Wow, exaggeration much?
It was about 50/50, and even those who thought Raonic was favourite (myself included) never said it was a dead certainty. Christ.
How was I exaggerating? Most people were backing Raonic to win but I backed Nish. It wasn't close to 50/50 he destroyed him in the 3rd set, did you actually watch any of the matches Kei played? He was right in the zone at the final and SF he could have given anybody a run for their money playing like that.
50/50 I was referring to those favouring Nishikori or Raonic.
Yes, you were exaggerating. As I said, it was about 50/50 as to who thought who would win, and not one person were 'certain' it would be Raonic. Personally I thought it would be close but I thought Raonic would have to be favourite because of each players' respective form and Raonic's run to the final. That's not to say I thought he would win.
Well I think Andy would have lost given the way both had been playing, but we can't possibly know that. I also haven't said anything about his raking position, that seems rather irrelevant to anything.
Of course the ranking is relevant. Nishikori has been the 20th (roughly) best player this year. That means 19 players have been better than him. Winning one tournament doesn't suddenly make him Slam matierial. Certainly not the very next Slam. It seems a bit ignorant to just ignore the rankings; they are a great indicator of where a player is at.
Of course he's going to be a very long shot to win a slam, but 1000 to 1 is very long odds. But it turned out I was a bit pre-emptive there at his odds just hadn't been updated yet since they were shortened to 200 to 1 shortly after which is a lot more fitting.
The odds may look great but they could be 100/1 or 1,000,000/1 and he would still have the same chance of winning - next to nil. Forget the bookies, let's look at it realistically - it would mean that all of the big four would have be knocked out, it would mean that Nishikori would also have to get further than Berdych, Tsonga, Ferrer, Del Potro, Isner, Gasquet, Cilic, Monaco, etc.
Anyway I was mainly referring to this line: "if he plays like he did this tourny he could win a slam" when I said "let's not get ahead of ourselves." First of all this is over three sets. Secondly he didn't face a single top player. Even if he played like he did this tournament, in a Slam he would most likely have to play against Murray, Djokovic, Federer or Nadal (possible 2-3 in order to win) who would be near a high level themselves, and let's be honest, they are better than Nishikori. Then you have to factor in fitness and consistency, which based on this season, is clearly lacking.
Yes, I did read the next line, which is quite contradictory I must say. Maybe he will win a Slam one day, but you were implying at the AO or next year. It would be strange to say, "if he plays like he did this tourny" and be referring a couple of years down the line.