2019 Men's Wimbledon Championships

[Federberg]

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.

hmmm... we keep having these discussions trying to reach a consensus on what talent is. It seems to me that you're describing application. It's not clear to me that talent is simply how well you hit a backhand, forehand, slice etc In fact one could argue that talent is sometimes what makes you competitive despite not having some or most of those elements to any superlative degree. I personally think that Kyrgios is exceptionally talented, his achievements are irrelevant to me. It's all in the eye test for me. When I watch Nick mixing it up on a court, there's an indefinable quality to his play that I don't see for example when I watch Dimitrov or Zverev. There are very few players that have that same quality, but it seems to have something to do with the extra time these great players have at the moment of decision. As with guys like Federer and Murray when they were young, I never doubt Nick's ability to execute shots no matter how outrageous. I find myself shaking my head at his shot selection, but never unlike other young players do I feel that anything is beyond him. This doesn't mean that I believe he'll beat a top player, but I do feel that if he's zoning there's not much anyone can do.

For the record Rafa has sick talent as well. It's silly to downplay his ability, I mean... after 12 RG's, anyone denying it is getting soaked trying to p1ss into the winds of common sense! And that's not even taking into account the guy is playing with the wrong hand. Sometimes when I think about it, I wonder if the guy is even human...

 

[mrzz]

I am. Your point?

That you are a very lucky fan. That was a last second escape.

 

[brokenshoelace]

In fact one could argue that talent is sometimes what makes you competitive despite not having some or most of those elements to any superlative degree.

That's an interesting perspective. It's food for though. But I'd seriously question how it applies to Nick when he's failed to get past the 4th round (and most of the time, the third round) in 16 straight majors. How competitive is he being really?

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

Have you heard John McEnroe analyze tennis? He's one of the best players ever, and yet you would very easily find better tennis analysis in most places on the internet. Just being great at something doesn't automatically mean you're a great analyst or a talent assessor.

Case in point, to shut this predictable, lazy line of thinking: Michael Jordan, the greatest basketball player of all time, is literally the worst team owner in the NBA who's made one of the worst draft picks of all time, and an absolutely awful judge of talent.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

Any of these players ever remotely implied that Kyrgios is more talented than Nadal? No, that's something only an idiot would say.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

This was legitimately amusing to read.

Kyrgios taking a set off of Nadal is proof that he's a top talent according to you, but being embarrassed in 16 majors in a row isn't indicative of anything. Good talk Donald Trump.

 

[herios]

What a strawman... Again, I ask, what about Nick that makes him so talented? Other than the above abomination shit-post filled with logical fallacies, explain to me, concretely, what about Nick's game, specifically, makes him more talented than Nadal. Does he have a better forehand? Backhand? Slice? Volleys? Touch? Return? Point construction? Soooo he's got a better...serve? That's it? So speaking of something needing to add up, how on earth does that add up in your book?

Also, according to your ridiculous logic, explain him failing to get past the 4th round in his last 16 attempts with all that talent.

I usually don't bother arguing with you but this is a new level of stupid.

Well said

 

[herios]

Milos up 2 sets and starts the third by breaking Opelka. Looking really good at the moment.

 

[herios]

Milos through a lot easier than I expected. Opelka unravelled after losing the first set in a TB.
In that TB Milos played perfectly, the lone point made by Opelka was a net cord ROS which led to the ball dying on Milos' side.

 

[Federberg]

That's an interesting perspective. It's food for though. But I'd seriously question how it applies to Nick when he's failed to get past the 4th round (and most of the time, the third round) in 16 straight majors. How competitive is he being really?

sadly talent by itself isn't sufficient for success. It's a pre-requisite for high achievement for sure, but tennis and other sports are littered with players who have had a surfeit of talent, but with very little end product. Their accomplishments are not what make them talented. Anyone with a good eye can see that these individuals have the ability to do great things, it's up to them to make the effort. Some do, some don't. I think it's clear from the reactions of great players, past and present, that Kyrgios belongs to this special group. Whether he achieves is an entirely separate matter...

 

[monfed]

I wish Hurkacz can hurk out fakervic today

 

[brokenshoelace]

sadly talent by itself isn't sufficient for success. It's a pre-requisite for high achievement for sure, but tennis and other sports are littered with players who have had a surfeit of talent, but with very little end product. Their accomplishments are not what make them talented. Anyone with a good eye can see that these individuals have the ability to do great things, it's up to them to make the effort. Some do, some don't. I think it's clear from the reactions of great players, past and present, that Kyrgios belongs to this special group. Whether he achieves is an entirely separate matter...

I agree that talent alone isn't enough, and this definitely justifies why many players underachieve. However, when you fail to get past the 4th round of a major 16 times in a row, and in most of them, don't even make it to that 4th round, how talented are you really? Shouldn't Nick's supposed immense talent carry him past some inferior players at least sometimes?

I disagree with Kyrgios belonging to a special group. We can debate if he's very talented or not, but special? Please.

 

[atttomole]

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.

I didn’t say 18 majors is due to the slowing down of surfaces. Of those 18, more than 60 % were won on a slow surface. The 2 Wimbledon were due to the slowing down of playing conditions. The US Open has slowed down too, and he has 3 slams. The only irony is that he has 1 Australian Open, which was slow until it was sped up in 2017.

 

[Federberg]

I agree that talent alone isn't enough, and this definitely justifies why many players underachieve. However, when you fail to get past the 4th round of a major 16 times in a row, and in most of them, don't even make it to that 4th round, how talented are you really? Shouldn't Nick's supposed immense talent carry him past some inferior players at least sometimes?

I disagree with Kyrgios belonging to a special group. We can debate if he's very talented or not, but special? Please.

I honestly don't believe that's how talent works. Talent can be the enemy of achievement. Sometimes the more you have, the less willing you are to apply yourself. Being able to maximise what you have is an altogether different quality. That's due to character and upbringing. It's quite clear that Nick has deficiencies. For my part I think he's scared of failure, but that's just a guess. One would have to spend some time with him to truly understand his pathology, but how deep his runs have been in slams have got nothing to do with talent.

 

[Ricardo]

Have you heard John McEnroe analyze tennis? He's one of the best players ever, and yet you would very easily find better tennis analysis in most places on the internet. Just being great at something doesn't automatically mean you're a great analyst or a talent assessor.

Case in point, to shut this predictable, lazy line of thinking: Michael Jordan, the greatest basketball player of all time, is literally the worst team owner in the NBA who's made one of the worst draft picks of all time, and an absolutely awful judge of talent.

If I don't take JMac's word, I am supposed to take yours? you are a strawman, if not JMac, what about Rafa himself? he is also blind? or Fed, or FAA? are they all to be dismissed?

If all of them don't know how to judge talent, you think you know? I mean, seriously as a couch potato..you think I should trust your judgement

 

[Ricardo]

Any of these players ever remotely implied that Kyrgios is more talented than Nadal? No, that's something only an idiot would say.

nobody has concluded that he is more talented than Rafa. What I proposed was that, for someone who is way less experienced, way less accomplished, has worse fh, bh, volley, movement, mental and pretty much everything, he is pretty even with Rafa….….something has to give, and only his exceptional talent is the explanation. I mean half a dozen wins against the big 3? how many players have done that? one match can be a fluke, but so many times? with such inferior game as you said, yet his talent isn't exceptional according to you.

Rafa played him 7 times and said he is a top talent, and he despises the guy. Sorry I just cant take posters like you seriously. Again the distinguished company of your likes, mrzz, herios and yourself, with such incredible eye for spotting talent, surely you'd be offered some big role by the big 3.....

 

[DarthFed]

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 hs 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.

Good post for the most part but I can't help but laugh at the notion that Roger benefitted from slowing surfaces. It is a pretty narrow way of thinking because pretty much everything about his game is suited to fast courts. I also think that no matter what the surfaces were like now you'd have the vast majority of the tour as baseliners because of string technology making it tough to live at net even at the few remaining fast events on tour. BS was arguing that it helped him a lot against big servers/hitters. I find that to be debatable but even if that's the case then we have to admit it clearly hurts him against Nadal, Djoker, Murray and probably quite a few other good baseliners. So in essence it's like getting a 1% raise in a time of 10% inflation. I think Roger would prefer to have the edge vs the capable baseliners rather than one-dimensional trees.

I think it's arguable that Roger may have benefitted from homogeneity of the courts on a week-to-week basis since it makes for less adjustments tournament to tournament. Note that that relates more to the "other tournaments". Majors are different since they are prepping more for those events, and are best of 5. If the majors didn't slow down he'd have won more, particularly Wimbledon. Saying he's benefitted from slower and higher bouncing grass just pisses in the face of common sense. Roger is a dismal 16-7 since 2008 in the QF, SF and final, and that of course is when the conditions get even slower and higher. Yeah I know the competition is tougher those rounds too but we are talking the grass court GOAT barely winning 2 of 3 in later rounds of Wimbledon.

Kind of reminds me back in the day when Huntingyou would tell me Roger was as good on clay as he was on hardcourts

 

[britbox]

Funny thing is that change a few swing points in both of the breakers... and the talking points here today would probably be related to what a mercurial talent Kyrgios is, and how Rafa sucks on grass.

Talent is subjective and only part of the package, but I still think Nadal would have been feeling more comfortable before the match if Nishikori was on the other side of the net rather than Nick.

 

[Ricardo]

I honestly don't believe that's how talent works. Talent can be the enemy of achievement. Sometimes the more you have, the less willing you are to apply yourself. Being able to maximise what you have is an altogether different quality. That's due to character and upbringing. It's quite clear that Nick has deficiencies. For my part I think he's scared of failure, but that's just a guess. One would have to spend some time with him to truly understand his pathology, but how deep his runs have been in slam have got nothing to do with talent.

these idiots base their argument on accomplishment, or some silly analysis of fh and bh. Shallowness is a disease around here. If one doesn't even know that talent isn't measurable in such absolute terms, he shouldn't even talk about it.

Since Nick was a kid he was always seen as special talent, but always had problem with discipline. he said it himself that he plays the way he wants to play, not how he is instructed to. He also lost a lot of matches in juniors to players who were lesser talent. Also he was very known to up his gear when playing someone really good, and I say this because I know someone who played the same junior group. what bemuses me is how they all feel qualified to hand out verdict with their bs analysis, and dismiss people who've actually played him.

 

[Ricardo]

Funny thing is that change a few swing points in both of the breakers... and the talking points here today would probably be related to what a mercurial talent Kyrgios is, and how Rafa sucks on grass.

Talent is subjective and only part of the package, but I still think Nadal would have been feeling more comfortable before the match if Nishikori was on the other side of the net rather than Nick.

I laugh when they say the guy has no special talent as he lost to many average players in early rounds, or that his fh, bh isn't as good. Anyone with any idea about the game knows talent can't be analysed in such absolute manner. just how do you reason with these simpletons? you can't, but can certainly ridicule these clowns.