2019 Men's Wimbledon Championships

[Ricardo]

And how is this "champion's quality" working out for him so far? Rosil also played out of his head (and league) to beat Rafa some years back, and where is he? Stakhovsky played above his pay grade to beat Roger early a few years back. Did that make him a world-beater? Sometimes a player steps up and has an amazing day. It happens. It has happened to Nick more times than the rest, and yet, he really has nothing to show for it. He's sort of a repeatable one-hit-wonder, but he does nothing to capitalize on it. Soderling, to his credit, turned a huge upset into a career-changer and got as high as #4, I think. Who else of the ones who've produced the upset (to the big 3) on the big stage can be said to have made anything of it? LMK if you think of someone, but I can't.

First he didn't just do it one match, he's done it multiples times against multiple tennis greats, the same can't be said of other players. A world beater like the big three performs day in and day out, which Nick obviously isn't but he is a big match player... he rised to the occasion. Don't see the need to state the obvious, just seems to be the case with you. Your example of Rosol, what? who else has he beaten?

And pls don't be ridiculous with this 'repeatable one hit wonder' phrase, or we could phrase many GS winners if going down that path.

 

[atttomole]

He's really nothing special.

People need to really stop overrated 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.

Nothing special? Really? Obviously you watch Kyrgios with a bit of bitterness because he has beaten Nadal a few times. First and foremost he has a good serve, and he plays well at the net, making him a very tough opponent on fast surfaces. I think he can still improve on his volleying because he missed a few sitters, especially the one at the beginning of the 3rd set tiebreak.

Nick was able to bring Nadal to the net and pass him. He played drop shots which Nadal struggled to get to. That is variety. Some of the plays at the net looked casual, but they were a thing of beauty. The guy has explosive forehands and I think the slowness of the court hindered him today. His execution was bad today in some situations. I thought he was very flat in the first set, and he gifted the break to Nadal when he tried a drop shot, instead of hitting a forehand. His backhand is nothing special and I think he can still improve it if he puts in the hard yards.

As Darth mentioned his movement was not good and I think it was in part due to physical issues. I think he has to do more work in the gym and on the practice courts.

Kyrgios has easy power and accuracy. Why is it a problem that he can hit winners from anywhere? You are telling us that he red-lined his game to beat Nadal in 2014. I watched that match. Kyrgios's talent was on display in that match. He did not seem to be working hard when he dispatched Nadal. He produced the shots!! Kyrgios has talent but if he can not put the effort, then he will be remembered as just any other player. Titles are a measure of how good a player is, but the kind of talent that Kyrgios possesses is unmistakable if you look at him without bias.

I respect Nadal as a player but I think his talent is not as great as that of other top players in tennis history. He relies more on his persistence than shot making. The nuts and bolts of his game are generally good, and if you add his physicality to that, then he becomes difficult to beat. I admit his game has improved over the years with more aggressive play. He has clearly benefited from the slowing down of surfaces. That is why I think the career grand slam has been cheapened, and comparisons between players on their best surfaces are very difficult to make.

 

[Moxie]

First he didn't just do it one match, he's done it multiples times against multiple tennis greats, the same can't be said of other players. A world beater like the big three performs day in and day out, which Nick obviously isn't but he is a big match player... he rised to the occasion. Don't see the need to state the obvious, just seems to be the case with you. Your example of Rosol, what? who else has he beaten?

And pls don't be ridiculous with this 'repeatable one hit wonder' phrase, or we could phrase many GS winners if going down that path.

I thought that was a clever phrase. Seems to fit him. You seem to miss the point of Rosol, and Stakhavsky, but what ev. If you want to equate Kyrgios with GS winners, I think you should wait until he wins one.

 

[Moxie]

I respect Nadal as a player but I think his talent is not as great as that of other top players in tennis history. He relies more on his persistence than shot making. The nuts and bolts of his game are generally good, and if you add his physicality to that, then he becomes difficult to beat. I admit his game has improved over the years with more aggressive play. He has clearly benefited from the slowing down of surfaces. That is why I think the career grand slam has been cheapened, and comparisons between players on their best surfaces are very difficult to make.

Your fannish-ness is showing here, @atttomole. You fail to recognize that there has always been an aggressiveness to Nadal's game. You also pretty much put 18 Majors down to slowing down of surfaces, and his persistence. Sorry, but that's David Ferrer's career. You don't like the way Nadal plays tennis, but you fail to acknowledge how well he plays a brand of it that doesn't appeal to you. He's incredibly talented. As an athlete, and a tennis player. You don't like it, but being unable to acknowledge it is your failing. As to changes of surfaces: these changes have been in place for a really long time. Most of the players that we're talking about have played their whole careers on these types of surfaces. It's a level playing field. You think the career GS has been cheapened? Maybe. But it's not like they've always played Majors on 3 surfaces. Things change.

If you think that Nadal isn't talented, and if you don't think that's how he gets to 18 Majors, I don't know what to say to you.

 

[Moxie]

(little sane pause) Are you aware that Rosol lost on the last round of qualif. to Sugita (Nadal's R1 opponent)?

I am. Your point?

 

[Moxie]

In sum: Today was a very good day for Nadal. He went from a terrible draw to a workable one. Cilic went out. And he got a signature win, which should carry him through the next couple of rounds, at least. Happy 4th, to all of my US friends.

 

[herios]

Yes all these self-appointed experts held in high esteem in the professional circuit, mrzz, herios and BS, what great company to be in, who offer such great tennis insights that real proven tennis greats have failed to provide.

I am sure with your super unique tennis knowledge, Federer, Novak, and Rafa himself would beg for you to be on their team and in return compensate you with millions for your world beating insight, and actually they would ditch their current team in a hurry as they absolutely pale in comparison.

You really made me laugh. You act as you invented this sport.

 

[imjimmy]

I respect Nadal as a player but I think his talent is not as great as that of other top players in tennis history. He relies more on his persistence than shot making. The nuts and bolts of his game are generally good, and if you add his physicality to that, then he becomes difficult to beat. I admit his game has improved over the years with more aggressive play. He has clearly benefited from the slowing down of surfaces. That is why I think the career grand slam has been cheapened, and comparisons between players on their best surfaces are very difficult to make.

I'm sorry but I have to respond to this. When you make statements such as Nadal is NOT as talented as the greatest players in history, you end up disagreeing with almost all of the tennis experts and former greats, plus also showcase your bias (or worse case, ignorance).

Nadal's forehand IS among the best ever in the world - as unanimously declared by the tennis pundits. Recently Jim Courier ( World #1 and 4 times slam winner) said that Nadal's forehand was the SINGLE BEST forehand in tennis history. Why? Not because he can hit the most winners. Because it is the most versatile shot. It is extremely safe and reliable and it has the highest margin. He can place the ball anywhere from the most difficult positions and put his opponent into trouble. Without missing much (or at all) because of the spin and the accuracy. Even when he needs to hit hard, he can place the ball well within the court and over the net with room to spare.

Nadal's backhand is unique. Because he is a natural righty, he can hit unreal passing shots and get an insane amount of power from his right hand. Nadal has been shown to hit passes even when falling back or even when the ball is almost behind him. He can also get very extreme angles on cross court backhand and flatten it out completely. His backhand is every bit as good as the best backhands in the game and subtly different in many respects.

Nadal's overhead and volleys are among the best on tour. His movement, defense, touch and anticipation are also right up there. He is also one of the few players who continuously makes mid match adjustments. So strategically he has excellent tennis acumen. The only weak aspect of his game is maybe his serve return.

What more talent do you need? Just because Nadal is a fighter and has very high intensity - people think that this is ALL there is to his game. His competitiveness is a feature that is built on TOP of his talent. People forget that Nadal is a very good tennis player with a dazzling array of shots - he is not just a good competitor. You don't win 18 slams by just fighting your heart out and not being able to hit the ball well. Actually, Nadal has not been mentally strong in the recent part of his career. His breakpoint stats rival Federer's and he loses a lot in the 5th set.

FInally, the surface slow argument does NOT hold water. The surfaces slowed a LONG time ago. Fed has played a very large part of his career on slower surfaces. So have Djokovic and Nadal. Nadal does NOT benefit from slow surfaces per se. He is more formidable on surfaces that take his spin well and have bounce. That does not ALWAYS mean that such a surface is slow. For instance, Nadal's game is rubbish on WTF which is a slow court.

If we truly had the fast surfaces of the 90s, we would have more slams by big hitters and big servers. Perhaps even Kygrios. Since these guys can just take the racket out of your hand on faster surfaces. Also, In case you didn't notice, one of the most underrated aspect of Fed's game is his movement and defense. So Fed is also a beneficiary of the surfaces slowing down because he can exploit the lack of movement of the big hitters. On a truly fast surface (of the 90s), there would be nothing you could do against a zoning server and someone who hits at 100 mph+ from both wings.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Nothing special? Really? Obviously you watch Kyrgios with a bit of bitterness because he has beaten Nadal a few times. First and foremost he has a good serve, and he plays well at the net, making him a very tough opponent on fast surfaces. I think he can still improve on his volleying because he missed a few sitters, especially the one at the beginning of the 3rd set tiebreak.

1- Please don't start with assumptions. I don't like Nick because he's a dick, and that doesn't affect my opinion about players. Nobody has beaten Nadal more than Djokovic and I've been saying he's more talented than Nadal since like 2008. I don't have the emotional maturity of a 12 year old so I can separate between objective assessment and my dislike of a player.

2- Nick's net game is above average at best.

Nick was able to bring Nadal to the net and pass him. He played drop shots which Nadal struggled to get to.

Yes, congratulations on being a professional tennis player who can hit drop shots.

The guy has explosive forehands and I think the slowness of the court hindered him today. His execution was bad today in some situations. I thought he was very flat in the first set, and he gifted the break to Nadal when he tried a drop shot, instead of hitting a forehand. His backhand is nothing special and I think he can still improve it if he puts in the hard yards.

His FOREHAND is nothing special, his backhand is bad. Big difference. Again, you're highlighting my point. You're getting your breath taken away by the few huge forehand winners and ignoring all the mediocre wristy, loopy, spinny rally forehands that don't penetrate the court or put the opponent under any pressure. That's Nick's biggest weakness. And in today's game that is one HUGE weakness that prevents him from controlling points.

Kyrgios has easy power and accuracy. Why is it a problem that he can hit winners from anywhere? You are telling us that he red-lined his game to beat Nadal in 2014. I watched that match. Kyrgios's talent was on display in that match. He did not seem to be working hard when he dispatched Nadal. He produced the shots!! Kyrgios has talent but if he can not put the effort, then he will be remembered as just any other player. Titles are a measure of how good a player is, but the kind of talent that Kyrgios possesses is unmistakable if you look at him without bias.

1- Nick has power. He does not have EASY power and that is what many don't seem to get. Berdych has easy power, at his best. He can hit big forehands even as a rally shot. Del Potro has easy power. He can crush forehands from any position. Kyrgios needs very specific circumstances to be able to hit his forehand big otherwise he'd do it more often. Did you not notice how Nadal kept hitting his backhand to Nick's forehand in rallies to minimal consequences?

2- Are you seriously suggesting Nick didn't red line his game in 2014 vs. Nadal? Have you seen him play as well since?

3- Must be nice to be Nick. The guy can't get past the 4th round in literally 16 straight majors and yet he's this huge talent based on a few matches against the top players. If he's so talented why aren't his results better? Even if he doesn't put in the work (a convenient excuse to every shortcoming) shouldn't his talent alone carry him past the 1st and 2nd rounds? Yet look at my post above and see how many 1st and second round exits he's had.

I respect Nadal as a player but I think his talent is not as great as that of other top players in tennis history.

This is too silly to respond to. The guy has one of the top 2 forehands in tennis history. Literally. He's got one of the best backhands on tour. He's a pretty good volleyer, has a great touch, some of the best shot selection ever (the best), one of the highest tennis IQ's ever, makes fewer unforced errors than just about anyone no matter how aggressively he's playing (luckily you guys don't think placing the ball over the net and between the lines is a talent), etc... But Nick is a great talent because he hits a few tweeners.

Good talk.

 

[monfed]

What a sad little shit dull is. Gave a deathstare to thug for getting whacked in the chest.

 

[brokenshoelace]

if you pull your head out of your arse you'd see I have explained enough, that a simpleton would get it by now. All these real players, they don't go into, oh the serve this, the fh that, bla bla bla, but they give you overall picture of what they think. You are a low level wannabe, so you get into these superficial shallow bs and you think you know what others don't. Ill say again, though, he fails to get past average players because he is mentally deficient, no way its coincidence that he mostly put up admirable performance against the best players yet played mediocre against average players, who in turn get run over by the best players.

Ah yes, that overall picture that means 16 straight slams without getting past the 4th round. What talent!

Also newslfash, the serve, forehand, backhand, net game, slice, touch, movement, etc... ARE the fucking overall picture. And if Nadal does like, 9 out of 10 things better, then how the fuck is the other guy more talented overall?

 

[brokenshoelace]

First he didn't just do it one match, he's done it multiples times against multiple tennis greats, the same can't be said of other players.

Nishikori, Cilic, Davydenko, Berdych, Tsonga, Fernando Gonzalez, Isner, Goffin, Feliciano Lopez...

These are just random players off the top of my head who have each beaten all of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, many of whom at majors too. None of these guys are nearly as mythical as Kyrgios despite being significantly more accomplished.

 

[Ricardo]

1- Please don't start with assumptions. I don't like Nick because he's a dick, and that doesn't affect my opinion about players. Nobody has beaten Nadal more than Djokovic and I've been saying he's more talented than Nadal since like 2008. I don't have the emotional maturity of a 12 year old so I can separate between objective assessment and my dislike of a player.

2- Nick's net game is above average at best.



Yes, congratulations on being a professional tennis player who can hit drop shots.



His FOREHAND is nothing special, his backhand is bad. Big difference. Again, you're highlighting my point. You're getting your breath taken away by the few huge forehand winners and ignoring all the mediocre wristy, loopy, spinny rally forehands that don't penetrate the court or put the opponent under any pressure. That's Nick's biggest weakness. And in today's game that is one HUGE weakness that prevents him from controlling points.




1- Nick has power. He does not have EASY power and that is what many don't seem to get. Berdych has easy power, at his best. He can hit big forehands even as a rally shot. Del Potro has easy power. He can crush forehands from any position. Kyrgios needs very specific circumstances to be able to hit his forehand big otherwise he'd do it more often. Did you not notice how Nadal kept hitting his backhand to Nick's forehand in rallies to minimal consequences?

2- Are you seriously suggesting Nick didn't red line his game in 2014 vs. Nadal? Have you seen him play as well since?

3- Must be nice to be Nick. The guy can't get past the 4th round in literally 16 straight majors and yet he's this huge talent based on a few matches against the top players. If he's so talented why aren't his results better? Even if he doesn't put in the work (a convenient excuse to every shortcoming) shouldn't his talent alone carry him past the 1st and 2nd rounds? Yet look at my post above and see how many 1st and second round exits he's had.



This is too silly to respond to. The guy has one of the top 2 forehands in tennis history. Literally. He's got one of the best backhands on tour. He's a pretty good volleyer, has a great touch, some of the best shot selection ever (the best), one of the highest tennis IQ's ever, makes fewer unforced errors than just about anyone no matter how aggressively he's playing (luckily you guys don't think placing the ball over the net and between the lines is a talent), etc... But Nick is a great talent because he hits a few tweeners.

Good talk.

First you are a dick, a small one at it who thinks he knows something. Nadal after the match specifically said Nick is a top talent, enough to win Grand Slams, but you obviously talk opposite and it's easy to see you are nothing but a couch fan who thinks your opinion is to be respected.

All your points above show us one thing, you lack the most basic knowledge of professional tennis. Where do I start? there isn't one single point above where I can see is remotely precise on how it really is. In fact you are lesser person than 12 yo who usually don't talk so self-entitled without any qualification.

So the match was dead even until 3rd and 4th set, where the winner was decided by a couple points here and there in two tiebreaks. Here is someone who has won 18 slams playing well, has top fh, great bh, super high tennis IQ, super consistent, against someone who has nothing of note, big serve with a nothing special fh, bad bh and average volley, who also doesn't train hard, who went out to the bar late the night before as his preparation, didn't even move well with much energy on the day, yet the match was decided by two breakers. What should have happened was the Nadal should've steamrolled the brat, but he couldn't, everyone knows he would've loved to...….it was a grudge match. Yet, you are here telling us he is not a top talent.

You know what, just shut up. If you didn't talk shit, i wouldn't know that you know shit with clear blind bias.

 

[Ricardo]

Nishikori, Cilic, Davydenko, Berdych, Tsonga, Fernando Gonzalez, Isner, Goffin, Feliciano Lopez...

These are just random players off the top of my head who have each beaten all of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, many of whom at majors too. None of these guys are nearly as mythical as Kyrgios despite being significantly more accomplished.

as many times as Nick has? get the fuck out here. In fact Nick is MIA half the time in a much shorter career, someone's talent is not defined by something you can measure by mere analysis. It is most probably by someone with real insight who can spot when they see one (yes pretty judgemental), and when so many greats see Nick as top talent, then I'd say they know something you don't.

In fact they don't even like him. I am sure they don't enjoy praising the brat, who is a jerk at times and an idiot some other times according to most people. They only said what they said because they've studied him or played him.

You, on the other hand, talk as if you have some special insight that even the greats don't know. Perhaps you are the delusional one? all evidences say so.

 

[Ricardo]

Ah yes, that overall picture that means 16 straight slams without getting past the 4th round. What talent!

Also newslfash, the serve, forehand, backhand, net game, slice, touch, movement, etc... ARE the fucking overall picture. And if Nadal does like, 9 out of 10 things better, then how the fuck is the other guy more talented overall?

when someone starts determining talent by strictly looking at slam results, he is nothing but simpleton. Also get this into your thick skull, talent isn't defined by how you merely compare fh, bh, serve etc. Fact is when someone tells me that's how you measure talent, I can say for a fact that he knows nothing.

Now stop being self-entitled and self-righteous, just think about why Rafa himself, Novak, Roger, Mac, FAA etc etc all said what they said, in different words or forms about Kyrgios. They absolutely don't feel obliged to say such things or owe Nick a favour, unless they genuine believe so, based on their judgement.

 

[Ricardo]

You really me laugh. You act as you invented this sport.

so that's your response? forgot to take meds? how does this even correlate to the post? but of course you are in such company I should've expected the unexpected.

 

[Ricardo]

I thought that was a clever phrase. Seems to fit him. You seem to miss the point of Rosol, and Stakhavsky, but what ev. If you want to equate Kyrgios with GS winners, I think you should wait until he wins one.

first one hit wonder refers to a slam winner in tennis, and no one who's won two is ever called a repeatable one hit wonder. You logic just falls apart again, must be a girl thing.

 

[Ricardo]

Nishikori, Cilic, Davydenko, Berdych, Tsonga, Fernando Gonzalez, Isner, Goffin, Feliciano Lopez...

These are just random players off the top of my head who have each beaten all of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, many of whom at majors too. None of these guys are nearly as mythical as Kyrgios despite being significantly more accomplished.

I didn't hear from the greats saying in consensus how the above were top talent, back in the day. Your point is? Accomplishment is a separate concept to talent, it's used to determine greatness. If you don't mind, pls go study some fundamental before sharing your precious opinion.

 

[Ricardo]

one question, why is this board so full of tennis nobodies who think they know more than real pros? not just average pros even, but the greatest ones in history. Is it because these pros actually know nothing despite playing tennis all their life, winning countless GS or what? what makes the couch potatoes here feel so entitled to refute the pro's opinion based on (actually I am trying to figure out what qualies they actually have) their precious experience? I know the current society is pretty culturally degraded but still pretty hard to explain such phenomenon. It wasn't like this in the past.

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

FInally, the surface slow argument does NOT hold water. The surfaces slowed a LONG time ago. Fed has played a very large part of his career on slower surfaces. So have Djokovic and Nadal. Nadal does NOT benefit from slow surfaces per se. He is more formidable on surfaces that take his spin well and have bounce. That does not ALWAYS mean that such a surface is slow. For instance, Nadal's game is rubbish on WTF which is a slow court.

If we truly had the fast surfaces of the 90s, we would have more slams by big hitters and big servers. Perhaps even Kygrios. Since these guys can just take the racket out of your hand on faster surfaces. Also, In case you didn't notice, one of the most underrated aspect of Fed's game is his movement and defense. So Fed is also a beneficiary of the surfaces slowing down because he can exploit the lack of movement of the big hitters. On a truly fast surface (of the 90s), there would be nothing you could do against a zoning server and someone who hits at 100 mph+ from both wings.

Federer hasn't benefitted from slowing of surfaces. LOL. He was primarily a fast-court player in the early part of his career.

He had to adjust his game to slow surfaces significantly altering his natural game and instincts.

It(slowing down of surfaces) has undoubtedly negatively affected his career