Tennis Article
Cilic Loses to Djokovic in China Open
- Author: Maree Cartujano
- Sport: Tennis
- Genre: News
- Published: October 12, 2009
Marin Cilic of Croatia just lost the title during the recent China Open to Novak Djokovic. The score was 6-2, 7-6 (4).
Though the rain may have delayed the fight more than an hour, it didn’t dampen the spirit and the gaming strategy of Djokovic. The Serbian proved to be much stronger and more decisive than Celic. Djokovic was able to break the serves of the former during the sixth and eighth, making him the winner during the first set.
The second set became much better for Celic, who eventually was able to com up with a tie break after they were able to break each other’s serves thrice. However, it was obvious that Cilic was finding it hard to keep up with the speed and agility of Djokovic, and the scores’ gaps became much wider: 6-4.
Despite his win, Djokovic decided to down play his victory. He partly attributed his win to the rain delay, since it allowed him to release the tensed nerves and just focus on the play. In the end, it turned out well. He was able to win all four game sets between him and Cilic. He was also able to win the last game by sweeping all sets.
Related news & articles
US Open 2011: Novak Djokovic eases past Nadal to win US Open 2011
Tuesday September 13
It was expected to be a tough, hard-fought final but in the end, the world number one Novak Djokovic did not break into much of a sweat as he beat Rafael Nadal to win the US Open. More
Rafael Nadal Wins US Open and Completes Career Slam
Tuesday September 14
At the U. More
Novak Djokovic overcomes Roger Federer in tough five-setter to enter US Open final
Sunday September 11
It was an exciting match in the end, and befitting of a final, which saw Novak Djokovic prevail over Roger Federer in the US open last four clash at the Flushing Meadows Saturday. More
Nikolay Misses Australian Open
Saturday January 10
Due to a heel injury, Nikolay Davydenko will be unable to compete in the Australian Open this year. More

What's your take? Write a comment (0 comments)