The guy is talented. What s point!!
He's really nothing special.
People need to really stop overrating flashiness and start grasping what actually constitutes a good tennis player. Sorry if this sounds condescending but I'll rant anyway:
Kyrgios' rally shots are mediocre. He has ZERO ability to construct points properly. This is modern tennis. it's not shotmaking, it's not ability to finish points. Of course these are important, but not nearly important as the ability to actually take control of a point, place the ball where you want to, construct a point, move an opponent around, etc... then the winner or the forced error will come naturally.
Kyrgios has a great, hard to read serve, and flashes of brilliance. His main strategy to hit winners is to actually be unpredictable and fire them out of nowhere, rather than properly construct a point and put himself in a position to finish the point. At least Thiem can do that on clay, where he often finds himself in a great position to run around his backhand and hit his inside out forehand. How often can Nick do that?
His rally forehand is wristy and spinny, and really struggles to penetrate the court with it. His backhand is too flat and inconsistent, and he has zero ability to change direction and go up the line. So, I honestly ask, what does Nick do really well, and how is it any different to so many pros once you move past his personality and the flashes of brilliance? A very good serve and what? The occasional inside out forehand? OK, what else?
Yes, Nick can be better if he puts in more work and change his attitude, but maybe there's a reason he relies on gimmicks so much? Maybe he's just...not good enough? At one point, these "lazy" players relish their laziness to justify their failures. Nick himself mentioned in the press conference how he doesn't work hard enough. Of course he'd be better if he did, but he's not good enough to be anything special, sorry. He likes to argue and blame umpires, opponents (though Nadal definitely was annoying with how slow he was on Nick's own serve) and get mad at everything else for a reason...
Here are Nick Kyrgios’ last 16 slam results: R3 R4 R1 R3 R3 R4 R3 R2 R2 R1 R1 R4 R3 R3 R1 R2
That is HORRENDOUSLY bad. And no amount of laziness or lack of hard work justifies results this poor. Who the hell is this guy losing to so early? Certainly not players of Nadal's caliber every time. So if he's so talented, shouldn't he beat these tomato cans he's facing early? People really get blinded by certain biases when it comes to assessing talent. Hate to break it to everyone, but Nishikori is a significantly more talented player. His groundstrokes are better off both wings, he actually can set up points, take the ball early, etc... We need to stop equating talent with occasional shotmaking and aesthetically pleasing winners.
The other thing is, with these supposed underachievers, their underachieving becomes their biggest crutch and biggest reputation-booster, ironically enough. Because they struggle to put together good performances consistently, the few times they're able to do it stand out so much that everyone goes into "well, we know what he's CAPABLE of" mode. Except, how capable are you really if you can do it literally a handful of times in your entire career? Nick didn't play well vs. Nadal in 2014. He played out of his mind. He redlined his game. Every good tennis player is capable of having those days, and when they do, they'll be unplayable. And how many times has Nick come close to replicating that? So how capable is he, really? And at what point do we accept that what he's capable of is at best, "good" tennis, and on most days, mediocre?
Also, people need to understand what constitutes a bad match-up for Nadal. The only aspect of Nick's game that is a bad match-up for Nadal on grass is his serve. His return is meh, his ground game isn't dominant enough, he makes too many errors, etc... Yes it was a competitive match, don't get me wrong. Largely due to Nick's serve and overall good play. But it was just as competitive when Nick played the best match of his career 5 years ago, and that tells you everything really.
So yeah, color me shocked that Nick played well and didn't win. It's almost like the 18 time Grand Slam champion has a say in the outcome of the match too.
So yeah, tennis is actually a simple game most of the time. When there's a big gap between two players, if the better player plays well, he typically wins.
