2019 Men's Wimbledon Championships

[kskate2]

When is FAA playing?

I did post the schedule last night, but I understand it can be hard to find when there are 5 pages of useless drivel about Nick's talent cluttering the thread

 

[herios]

Unbelievable volleys from Pella at the end

I had to leave for work, do I did not see this. Very unexpected. This is another player who slowly improves and becomes relevant.
Good for him.

 

[Federberg]

I did post the schedule last night, but I understand it can be hard to find when there are 5 pages of useless drivel about Nick's talent cluttering the thread
View attachment 2441

lol! Spicey!!

 

[Ricardo]

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...

no mental isn't his liability, as he was super tough against the big 3....big fight and he won a fair bit of those. Tennis is about percentage, and it would be more accurate to say he has problem with discipline, that he has to execute like he does against the greats, which he mostly doesn't do. He is wired differently, since he was a kid, was always known to do so. A guy such past results simply shouldn't even bother the big 3, yet he teed up 6 wins. If you watched his matches against them, you'd see a player who really excelled even in rallies where he was supposed to be pretty flawed. Sure some fans can be fooled by his persona, no chance the big 3 would, they are too smart, too good, and too experience for that. For Nick to have success against all of them, he would have to execute high level technically as well, and that's got to be more than a big serve. The three of them present huge challenge, as they each have their different/unique set of skills for anyone to deal with.

What gives you ground to talk down his talent/technique is, he actually by and large, performs at lower technical level against lesser players. It's almost like, you give him someone average then he plays average. It can't be merely explained by his talent/technique, but his character as a player.....which is well known since his junior days. It is also not unique to him, a few players are like that, Stan is an example. In a big match, an otherwise inconsistent Stan becomes solid as rock. Often he is inconsistent because of his flaws, yet he becomes solid when it's required to win against a top player.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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

Nalbandian was exceptionally talented and underachieved. You don't have to convince me of the concept of underachieving. Of course it exists. Is Nick better than his results suggest? Yeah. Is he as good as many think he can be? Personally I truly don't see it.

As far as results and talent meeting, I'm not talking about greats or all time greats. I'm not asking Nick's talent to carry him to a GS...I'm just asking it to carry him to the second week. Seems like some fairly modest standards that his supposedly lofty talent seems unable to meet.

 

[atttomole]

Huuuuurkacz. He gets broken after a brave fight.

 

[Ricardo]

I did post the schedule last night, but I understand it can be hard to find when there are 5 pages of useless drivel about Nick's talent cluttering the thread
View attachment 2441

sure you even liked one of the useless drivel post about Nick's talent, must be a girl thing.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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 want to print this post and hang it on my wall, especially the last paragraph.

People don't seem to at least suspect that perhaps Nick willingly claims he doesn't work that hard because it becomes an excuse for his shortcomings? Easier to say that than to admit he's not good enough. You can sense it with the way he talks about how he admires Nadal for working so hard (he's a smart guy, and he very carefully put emphasis on that). In a way, he's suggesting he can be much better if he worked as hard as those guys. Now, I don't have too much trouble believing Nick isn't the epitome of a hardworking professional, but the idea that he doesn't put in the time at all, to me, is ludicrous.

And yes, I think the notion that Nick can hit any shot is laughable. His backhand up the line is non existent. His backhand cross court is severely inconsistent, that the idea that he can hit it basically boils down to ignoring all the misses and remembering the few scorching winners, which people seem to really fall victim to for some reason.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

Anderson proving how fair and accurate that Wimbledon seeding formula is. After all, it's grass.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

Again, not one argument. Not a single one.

And I haven't "proven" anything. Talent is not black and white at that level. But I have at least attempted to back my argument up. Something you're literally unable to do aside for "the pros said so." So since this is a tennis forum, and not somewhere to float tennis CV's and credibility, I ask you for the sake of conversation, what about Kyrgios do you think makes him such a great talent, and how are the deficiencies in his game not proof of the opposite?

 

[Ricardo]

Nalbandian was exceptionally talented and underachieved. You don't have to convince me of the concept of underachieving. Of course it exists. Is Nick better than his results suggest? Yeah. Is he as good as many think he can be? Personally I truly don't see it.

As far as results and talent meeting, I'm not talking about greats or all time greats. I'm not asking Nick's talent to carry him to a GS...I'm just asking it to carry him to the second week. Seems like some fairly modest standards that his supposedly lofty talent seems unable to meet.

you just don't get it, just pull your head out of your arse and then it will make sense. There is no such standard as making second week, it's simply different concept.....get that through your thick skull, it's not so hard to understand (for people with average IQ anyway).

 

[Federberg]

Anderson proving how fair and accurate that Wimbledon seeding formula is. After all, it's grass.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

Funny thing is change a few swing points their 2014 tie breakers, and we'd be talking about Nick being the guy who gave Nadal a tough fight once, and got a few decent wins over the top guys in non majors, rather than this supposed mercurial talent, and that was a match where he literally produced his best tennis ever.

Nick's career isn't defined by 8-9 matches against the top guys. And to ignore 16 consecutive losses in the 4th round or more often, prior, and blame it on his moodiness/laziness/whatever, would be pretty rich.

 

[kskate2]

sure you even liked one of the useless drivel post about Nick's talent, must be a girl thing.

Not that I have to justify anything to you, but you don't know me.. I was liking what Broken said about MJ being a useless GM. So wrong answer. Try again.

 

[Federberg]

^Is it me or is this the most hostile first week of a slam on the forum in quite some time?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Just to point out that in a thread about Wimbledon, Nadal and Nick Kyrgios, Ricardo managed to talk about small dicks and his disdain for women.

I think it's easy to see understand the projected problem there.

 

[kskate2]

^Is it me or is this the most hostile first week of a slam on the forum in quite some time?

It only seems that way because some people are never happy. Always have something to whine or complain about.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^Is it me or is this the most hostile first week of a slam on the forum in quite some time?

I have some theories as to why:

- Ultimately, eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverything around here boils down to Fedal wars. I don't care what the topic is. In that sense, Wimbledon is always where the debate gets the most heated and the reasons are logical:

A) It's the biggest major in everyone's mind and it's the one both fanbases want their respective player to win the most, no questions asked. Nadal has struggled at this tournament a lot in recent years and he last won it 9 years ago which is way too long (he hasn't won the AO since 2009 but he reaches the final a lot there and always goes deep). So Rafa fans are extra starved for him to win it. Federer fans want their guy to win "his" tournament and of all the majors that Nadal can win, Wimbledon is the one they want him to win the least.

B) The surface debate, which also goes back to Fedal...somehow. Grass is slowed down, Nadal wouldn't have done so well otherwise, Roger this, Nadal that, green clay this, slow hards that...the usual.

C) The 2008 final which is still somehow relevant and the source of heated debate 11 years later.

D) Ricardo has been posting a lot. This one doesn't have to do with Nadal...just small dicks and misogyny.

 

[tented]

I'm sorry but I have to respond to this.

No need to apologize. It’s always great to see you @imjimmy

 

[Horsa]

It only seems that way because some people are never happy. Always have something to whine or complain about.

Are you saying that even if we lived in a Utopian dream some people would still find something to whinge & whine about? I prefer the other type of whiner. Lol. You just have to clean up after them.