2019 Men's Wimbledon Championships

[kskate2]

RBA trying to put the smackdown on KK. Up 2 sets

Kandy getting a beatdown too on CC. Down 2 sets

 

[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 slams have got nothing to do with talent.

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?

how shallow does one need to be to ask such question?

 

[brokenshoelace]

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

I don't care if you trust my judgment or not. It's a tennis forum. I give my opinion. I'm not an insecure moron who just blindly follows what the pros are saying because as I proved to you in the J-Mac example, pros can be wrong, full of shit, biased, polite, etc... the same way you and I can be. So yeah, I'll give my opinion, and when I see a dumb argument I'll point it out. You can continue to have a Trump-like meltdown and still fail to offer literally a single argument as to why Kyrgios is very talented beyond "the pros said so." (seriously, not one example about his game to back up your claim).

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

At some point, talent and results have to meet. If you're supposedly supremely talented, then there should be a bare minimum of results that you achieve to at least warrant those claims, before we can blame things on mentality, lack of hard work, etc... Otherwise, how is this nonsense any different to Cali claiming Nalbandian is the most talented player ever and his shortcomings don't disprove that claim?

 

[Ricardo]

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...

yes it has to be pretty subjective. when he played Federer, where every set was hotly contested, I saw someone who was supposedly inconsistent, was able to be rock solid in long rallies, was also able to structure points which he needed under the situation, then ability to finish points when creating opportunity to do so, there were just so many things he did that the average players don't do. what was also clear was that he did it when facing another top talent, namely the big 3 or the likes. Yet it happens so often that against average players, all those things he did against the greats, he simply didn't do. The big 3 are all very different, yet he was able to come up with a game to compete (actually even beat) Federer who is a top offensive player, or Novak who is super at defence, or Nadal who grinds better than anyone. He came up with ways to deal with them differently, even with his technical flaws. then he was able to play brilliant during big points which he needed to win, I don't know how to put it better, but it takes a top talent to do so.

 

[atttomole]

When is FAA playing?

 

[Moxie]

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

 

[mrzz]

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...

It is a fine post and we agree that it all boils down to what you call "talent". In the end this is a huge word and a lot of things can be described by it. Kyrgios has a very interesting feature which is his unpredictability -- which is a "talent", I concede, and that is the main part of that unknown element of competitiveness you mentioned -- but I disagree he can "execute any shot". If he can... why he doesn't? The problem with the eye test is the selective memory... he attempts a lot of difficult shots all the time, hits hard, goes for the tweener, etc and etc. He misses a lot and connects a few. You simply cannot judge his "talent" by the few he connects... But, one thing is that he chooses very well the timing for some shots... not in a shot selection sense but in a highlights producing sense (and those affect the opponent, as he knows quite well). That is, again, a "talent" of his own.

He is one of a kind, and I agree with that. In the past my notion of "talent" was more narrow -- more technique oriented -- so I was harsher on him. Looking at the complete package, I think he is, well, a different kind of talent. (we had a thread for that and maybe we should revive it).

To try to avoid an impossible definition of talent, I try to break the game in three "dimensions": physical condition, mental strength and talent/technique (those two go hand in hand, even if I understand the difference). Now it is obvious to me that Kyrgios has a very good physical condition: he is tall and strong, and can be pretty quick. His reflexes are extremely good as well. The mental strength is the part I disagree with most: people think that this is his liability, I think it is the exact opposite. The fact I rate him very highly on those two is basically the reason I need to rate him lower on the remaining one -- if he was top notch in all three, he should be much better ranked.

You can always say that the whole problem is that the guy does not practice and/or doesn't care. Again, as I said in other occasions I don't buy that for a second. The kid is clever, he controls the narrative. He built a persona on court and that gives him an edge most of the times. People take my oriented criticism of him as something else... well, it is their problem. For me, the good old "tennis talent", that ability to do whatever you want with a tennis ball in whole lot of different situations, is something that Kyrgios lacks (in the context of a top 100 player, obviously). But he has the "talent" to make it look like this is exactly his forte...

 

[Ricardo]

I don't care if you trust my judgment or not. It's a tennis forum. I give my opinion. I'm not an insecure moron who just blindly follows what the pros are saying because as I proved to you in the J-Mac example, pros can be wrong, full of shit, biased, polite, etc... the same way you and I can be. So yeah, I'll give my opinion, and when I see a dumb argument I'll point it out. You can continue to have a Trump-like meltdown and still fail to offer literally a single argument as to why Kyrgios is very talented beyond "the pros said so." (seriously, not one example about his game to back up your claim).

so Rafa, Roger, FAA, JMac are all wrong, but you are so right. So you think your 'argument' is evidence about his talent? oh boy, all it proves is again, you are a self-entitled clown with a big mouth.

And yes, if multiple pros tell me that someone is good, i'd say he probably is. have you played the guy? hit with him? studied him professionally? any past professional experience? you have none of the above yet you still say your argument has some value. Sorry to tell you, you are nothing but a clown who wish to get smart.

Besides all that, what have you proven about his talent, anyway? just think about it.

 

[Federberg]

At some point, talent and results have to meet. If you're supposedly supremely talented, then there should be a bare minimum of results that you achieve to at least warrant those claims, before we can blame things on mentality, lack of hard work, etc... Otherwise, how is this nonsense any different to Cali claiming Nalbandian is the most talented player ever and his shortcomings don't disprove that claim?

where talent and results meet you get a great or maybe even an all time great. But results don't necessarily need to attach themselves to talent. There are other parts of the mixture like hard work and desire. I never disagreed with Cali's assertion that Nalbandian had talent. To me that was always manifestly obvious. It was always about the extent of the talent and the almost hysterical nature of his arguments

 

[Federberg]

It is a fine post and we agree that it all boils down to what you call "talent". In the end this is a huge word and a lot of things can be described by it. Kyrgios has a very interesting feature which is his unpredictability -- which is a "talent", I concede, and that is the main part of that unknown element of competitiveness you mentioned -- but I disagree he can "execute any shot". If he can... why he doesn't? The problem with the eye test is the selective memory... he attempts a lot of difficult shots all the time, hits hard, goes for the tweener, etc and etc. He misses a lot and connects a few. You simply cannot judge his "talent" by the few he connects... But, one thing is that he chooses very well the timing for some shots... not in a shot selection sense but in a highlights producing sense (and those affect the opponent, as he knows quite well). That is, again, a "talent" of his own.

He is one of a kind, and I agree with that. In the past my notion of "talent" was more narrow -- more technique oriented -- so I was harsher on him. Looking at the complete package, I think he is, well, a different kind of talent. (we had a thread for that and maybe we should revive it).

To try to avoid an impossible definition of talent, I try to break the game in three "dimensions": physical condition, mental strength and talent/technique (those two go hand in hand, even if I understand the difference). Now it is obvious to me that Kyrgios has a very good physical condition: he is tall and strong, and can be pretty quick. His reflexes are extremely good as well. The mental strength is the part I disagree with most: people think that this is his liability, I think it is the exact opposite. The fact I rate him very highly on those two is basically the reason I need to rate him lower on the remaining one -- if he was top notch in all three, he should be much better ranked.

You can always say that the whole problem is that the guy does not practice and/or doesn't care. Again, as I said in other occasions I don't buy that for a second. The kid is clever, he controls the narrative. He built a persona on court and that gives him an edge most of the times. People take my oriented criticism of him as something else... well, it is their problem. For me, the good old "tennis talent", that ability to do whatever you want with a tennis ball in whole lot of different situations, is something that Kyrgios lacks (in the context of a top 100 player, obviously). But he has the "talent" to make it look like this is exactly his forte...

I know we've had this debate about Nick a few times before. You're a good deal more sceptical about his abilities than I am. I understand. I see far more intentionality in his shot making than you do, there's no question about it. It's easy to see why some observers see what he's doing as junk balling, but I think that's very far from the case. There is intelligence and intention, and yes... an understanding behind what Nick does a lot of the time. In fact think I haven't seen that as much since Murray came on the scene.

 

[Moxie]

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.

One hit wonder is from the music business. Your inability to read a metaphor must be a boy thing. No, that's too insulting to guys...it's just you.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Didn't expect that paella is this good

 

[GameSetAndMath]

What a point

 

[atttomole]

Amazing net play by Pella.

 

[Moxie]

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.

You don't say it, and then you do. I can't respond to you better than imjimmy already did in post #847 a couple of pages back. You fall into the category of fan that can't attribute any talent to Rafa, no matter what anyone says. Must all have just been an accident/hard work/slower surfaces/mystery drinks, hm?

 

[Moxie]

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 think that is a good part of what we're discussing, anyway.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Unbelievable volleys from Pella at the end

 

[Moxie]

Pella took out Anderson in straights...looking like a proper grass player, I might add. And I see KK when out to RBA in straights.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Unbelievable volleys from Pella at the end