Is Kyrgios Taking Tennis To New Zenith?

[scoop]

By Scoop Malinowski

Nick Kyrgios, who just decimated the Brisbane field, to win his first ATP title in two years with a straight set final win vs Ryan Harrison, holds a very rare, most impressive distinction in his career.

Kyrgios is the only man in history to beat prime Federer, Nadal and Djokovic the first time he played each. That is an incredible achievement and most likely a feat that will never be matched. Lleyton Hewitt is the only other player to beat Fed, Rafa and Djokovic the first time he tried but Hewitt’s version of the “hat trick” is misleading because neither of the super troika were at their prime best at the time.

This monumentally rare accomplishment is further proof of how extraordinary and devastating Kyrgios is – when he’s playing his best.

With his lethal arsenal of weaponry – the serve, the slap shot forehand, the punishing backhand, the easy hefty power, the uncanny volleying, the creativity in different forms such as the use of the Fed Saber – Kyrgios is a tennis wrecking machine.

At his best, you have to wonder of Kyrgios could beat any player from history? Well, why couldn’t he? He has shown he can beat prime Fed, Rafa and Nadal in his very first opportunities.

Of course, we know Kyrgios when not focused or disinterested could lose to any grinder or journeyman, out on court seven at eleven o’clock in the morning.

But it’s reasonably plausible that Kyrgios, on center court in a showcase night match, could inflict on Laver, Lendl, McEnroe, Agassi, Sampras, Tilden, Connors, the exact same thing he did to Fed, Rafa and Djokovic the first time he played each.

So one has to wonder: Is it possible that this super-talented enigma with the flamboyant game and persona, when operating at his very best, is actually playing the highest level of tennis we have ever witnessed?

Maybe.

Yes, maybe.

 

[El Dude]

Scoop, I love your passion but boy are you the Master of Hyperbole!

Look, I have been outspoken about thinking Kyrgios can be an elite player, and that he is more explosive young player on tour - more so than Zverev. In some ways he reminds me of Stan Wawrinka (not his game, but combination of erratic but occasionally super high form), another player who can beat anyone on a good day.

But let's be honest: Kyrgios beat the 2017 version of Novak. He also beat Olderer. And he beat grass version Rafa. Those were his first three wins against the Trinity. Still very impressive, but you're spinning it slightly.

That said, Kyrgios could be great. I think he'll be great at times and win several Slams. But he is not taking tennis to new heights. IMO.

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

El Dude; Fed is still prime. Off years does not mean he lost his prime. two majors last year proves Fed is still prime. He barely missed no. 1, probably would have got it if he didn't blow that 5-2 third set TB lead to Donskoy or lose to Haas in Halle. Rafa won Wimbledon so to assert Rafa is weak and vulnerable on grass is laughable. Can you measure how much Djokovic in 17 was off his prime. Players can still be in their prime and have off years (Fed). Kyrgios has a level of tennis that is incomparable, extraordinary and kryptonite to even the greatest of tennis superpowers. Kyrgios has only shown us the tip of the iceberg of what he is capable of. I think it's very possible Kyrgios is going to play the highest level of tennis we have ever seen. He won't do it on a consistent basis...but then again, who knows. Kyrgios is impossible to predict.

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Smart move by Harrison. He's in top form and ready to focus on the big one. No need to exert in NZ, he's ready, he got his points in Brisbane and Melbourne is the target. Not New Haven, pardon, New Zealand.

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

This is a big year for Young. The game could pass him by. The teenagers could pass him by. He slipped last year. It will be interesting to see his draws and if he has to face off with some of these teen threats like Tsitsipas, Rublev, Chung, De Minaur and how losses to these players will affect his psyche. The beginning of the end for Gulbis was his losses to young guns Thiem and Kokkinakis.

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

When a former no. 1 talks about being satisfied playing top 30 tennis, you know it's a very very ominous sign. I think Dan has brought out his infamous shovel for Murray's career as an elite player and threat at majors.

 

[Federberg]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

El Dude; Fed is still prime. Off years does not mean he lost his prime. two majors last year proves Fed is still prime. He barely missed no. 1, probably would have got it if he didn't blow that 5-2 third set TB lead to Donskoy or lose to Haas in Halle. Rafa won Wimbledon so to assert Rafa is weak and vulnerable on grass is laughable. Can you measure how much Djokovic in 17 was off his prime. Players can still be in their prime and have off years (Fed). Kyrgios has a level of tennis that is incomparable, extraordinary and kryptonite to even the greatest of tennis superpowers. Kyrgios has only shown us the tip of the iceberg of what he is capable of. I think it's very possible Kyrgios is going to play the highest level of tennis we have ever seen. He won't do it on a consistent basis...but then again, who knows. Kyrgios is impossible to predict.

You're really going with Federer is still in his prime? Quite apart from the age, do you remember how good Roger used to be? Come on man...

You can talk about prime results, but prime in terms of level? Come on man..

 

[britbox]

^Yep, Federer is 10 years from his prime... but he is the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Yes, I think Federer was at his best last year - the year he finally solved Nadal, winning all four matches vs Nadal.

 

[El Dude]

@scoop, it depends what you mean by "prime." I tend to differentiate "prime" and "peak." Peak is a shorter phase when a player consistently reaches their best form. For Federer that was 2004-07. Prime is more the long plateau of their career that includes peaks and values. For Fed it could be 2003 to present.

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

El Dude, I think Fed played some of the best if not the best tennis of his life in 2017.

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Brett Steven was a solid player with some big results in the 90s. Michael Venus won the French Open doubles last year with Harrison. So yes, New Zealand has produced several notable players.

 

[Front242]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

El Dude, I think Fed played some of the best if not the best tennis of his life in 2017.

Yeah he played some great sets but his level was downright poor at times too and wouldn't have dipped so dramatically in his prime.

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Fed has to preserve his energy and pick his spots because his fuel tank does not get as good mileage as it did in his mid 20s. It's about playing his best but also preserving the engine for as many years as possible. Delicate balance.

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

By the way, I told you DeMinaur was going to beat Verdasco

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

Kyrgios is a fancy player, power forehands, big serve, tweeners an all..

I remember I was afraid when he was bludgeoning the ball against Federer at Laver Cup, one intimidating sight. Federer really had to dig deep into his back of tricks to win points. That night, at one point, I felt Kyrgios was taking the match.

I watched the Fast Four exhibition. Kyrgios was okay, and great in phases. Once again, he came up with charisma and game.

It remains to be seen where he gets to, if he really can build a slam-winning game finally. Now that he is a bit more serious about his work, can he finally arrive at the slam scene?

What about Shapovalov? Do you have a piece on him, Scoop?

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Shivashish; Kyrgios was at his best last year in both narrow losses to Fed in Miami and Laver Cup. But it appears that Kyrgios has raised his game and his mental mindset to a higher level this year. For some reason I believe Nick will beat Fed if they play in Melbourne. However Nick looks in this short set exo doesn't really matter, we saw how sharp he looked in Brisbane. He's ready to do what so many of us expect him to do. Conquer the draw in a major. Shapovalov is a player that we will be discussing for years and years to come. I have not seen him play yet this year but that will change soon and whatever observations there are about Shapovalov will be shared here so stay tuned. Welcome to the site Shivashish.

 

[Moxie]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

El Dude; Fed is still prime. Off years does not mean he lost his prime. two majors last year proves Fed is still prime. He barely missed no. 1, probably would have got it if he didn't blow that 5-2 third set TB lead to Donskoy or lose to Haas in Halle. Rafa won Wimbledon so to assert Rafa is weak and vulnerable on grass is laughable. Can you measure how much Djokovic in 17 was off his prime. Players can still be in their prime and have off years (Fed). Kyrgios has a level of tennis that is incomparable, extraordinary and kryptonite to even the greatest of tennis superpowers. Kyrgios has only shown us the tip of the iceberg of what he is capable of. I think it's very possible Kyrgios is going to play the highest level of tennis we have ever seen. He won't do it on a consistent basis...but then again, who knows. Kyrgios is impossible to predict.

Scoop, do you seriously believe that a player's "prime" can extend across some 14 years? We all agree that Federer is an extraordinary player, but is he still in his "prime?" The blush of youth is long gone. Even his fantastic run without injury issues is gone. He still has great tennis in him, and he tries to manage his schedule and his body. Maybe it's just semantic, but I don't see how you can compare this to his real salad years. As to Kyrgios, I like him a lot and respect his talent, but "incomparable," "kryptonite," "highest we've ever seen?" I agree with El Dude that you are the king of hyperbole. I'll give you this, though, you have no fear of the bold prediction.

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Enough with this nonsense about trying to measure a player's prime. Ok, do you want to measure primes? Go ahead and go out and measure Serena's prime.

 

[El Dude]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Enough with this nonsense about trying to measure a player's prime. Ok, do you want to measure primes? Go ahead and go out and measure Serena's prime.

This is a good point and something I’ve struggled with when trying to define prime, peak, etc. Ultimately they are artificial constructs, but at the same time they are frequently used terms, so we’re left needing some idea of what we mean by them.

One thing that I came to at some point is that the difference between prime and peak depends upon how frequently a player can access their A game. During a player’s peak, it is with great frequency. During non-peak but still prime, it is still possible but not as frequently, for whatever reason, be it injury, confidence, actual physical decline, etc. But a player can still find their A game during their prime...once they can’t, except maybe once a blue moon, their prime is over.

So in that sense, Roger is still in his prime (although dipped out in 2013), but not peak, imo. 2017 was very close to peak, and really on the cusp, but I just don’t think he had the consistency across all surfaces and almost every tournament that he had in 2004-07. But that doesn’t mean he couldn’t play at a similar level. Early last year he was as good as ever, but he didn’t sustain it.

Compare Lleyton Hewitt. We haven’t seen his best game in over a decade, and thus his prime was relatively short - maybe 2000 to 2006, which a smaller peak in 2001-02.

Part of Roger’s greatness is how long he’s been able to maintain his prime. I don’t think we should undervalue that, and how rare it is. If he entered his prime in 2003, and it has lasted through 2017 at least, that’s 14-15+ years. Who else has maintained a prime for 15+ years? Connors and Agassi kind of, but not as consistently or as close to their peak as Roger. I think we have to go back to Ken Rosewall to see someone comparable.