[BLOG] The Case of Kyrgios: How Good Will the Young Australian Be?

[El Dude]

Another blog, this time on Nick Kyrgios.

And a happy birthday to Nick, who just turned 21 on April 27.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Yes, people are Curgios about him.

 

[Kieran]

The last line in your excellent summary nails the predicament and shows what was faulty (to my mind anyway) in The Missing Link generation of Grigor and others:

"This means that as these players start aging and declining, Kyrgios will be right there to start stealing tournaments from them."

Great players don't wait for anybody to age, or decline: they shove them out of the way. Nick has the attitude to do this, and the game, but he still hasn't got the brain. He's getting there though, he's no JJ. I'm not fully convinced by the theory that suggests that tennis players are peaking later, therefore that's a new trend. I think it's an anomaly, not a trend, and if Nick had the mentality of Federer, or Sampras, he'd already be a sticky in the top 5. Maybe it's down to guidance, or personality, or whatever, but the younger players have to be more impatient and less deferential, and he has that in bucketloads.

The question in the title of your blog is a good one ("Who are His Historical Comparable Players?"), because of course, you've shown that historically speaking, Nick has already missed one bus and he's behind the historical greats in almost everything. I wouldn't worry about that too much, because he can spurt, but it's good that you pointed it out...

 

[Front242]

Actually Nick isn't that far behind the historical greats at all. Federer won his first slam in 2003 at age 22 and just a few months shy of 23 so Nick has plenty of time yet to improve. Whether he will or not remains to be seen but he's not behind schedule at all.

 

[herios]

Nick is behind Roger in development. Slams do not happen overnight, they are built on a foundation.
Before turning 21, Roger had 3 titles under his belt:
a master event in Hamburg and 2 250 wins in Sydney and Milan.
Nick has a 250 in Marseille in comparison.

 

[Front242]

^ Fair enough but that's nothing major besides Hamburg. Disappointing result that Nick lost to Almagro but Almagro is a good clay courter so no real shame in that.

 

[herios]

^ Fair enough but that's nothing major besides Hamburg. Disappointing result that Nick lost to Almagro but Almagro is a good clay courter so no real shame in that.

Nick will have some catch up to do. I am not saying is impossible, but I have doubts will happen.

 

[Front242]

I hope he wins some slams but he seems like a Tsonga/Berdych type player to me. Hope I'm wrong and he surprises me though.

 

[herios]

I hope he wins some slams but he seems like a Tsonga/Berdych type player to me. Hope I'm wrong and he surprises me though.

I have the same Tsonga vibe from him too.

 

[El Dude]

Actually Nick isn't that far behind the historical greats at all. Federer won his first slam in 2003 at age 22 and just a few months shy of 23 so Nick has plenty of time yet to improve. Whether he will or not remains to be seen but he's not behind schedule at all.

You're off by a year. Roger was 21 when he won his first Slam, about a month shy of 22.

And yes, he is behind schedule - as I pointed out in this blog. Although it depends what you mean by "schedule." In this article and my last, I looked at the benchmarks (schedule) that all greats had made. Kyrgios has made 3 of 5 of them so far.

But also, as I said, not only did he miss on by just a couple months (top 100 while still 18) but new precedents can be set.

 

[El Dude]

The last line in your excellent summary nails the predicament and shows what was faulty (to my mind anyway) in The Missing Link generation of Grigor and others:

"This means that as these players start aging and declining, Kyrgios will be right there to start stealing tournaments from them."

Great players don't wait for anybody to age, or decline: they shove them out of the way. Nick has the attitude to do this, and the game, but he still hasn't got the brain. He's getting there though, he's no JJ. I'm not fully convinced by the theory that suggests that tennis players are peaking later, therefore that's a new trend. I think it's an anomaly, not a trend, and if Nick had the mentality of Federer, or Sampras, he'd already be a sticky in the top 5. Maybe it's down to guidance, or personality, or whatever, but the younger players have to be more impatient and less deferential, and he has that in bucketloads.

The question in the title of your blog is a good one ("Who are His Historical Comparable Players?"), because of course, you've shown that historically speaking, Nick has already missed one bus and he's behind the historical greats in almost everything. I wouldn't worry about that too much, because he can spurt, but it's good that you pointed it out...

Yes, this is well said and I agree with all of it. Truly great players push and shove to find their way in. Kyrgios hasn't done that...yet. Thiem isn't doing it. Zverev and Fritz are young enough that we can give them another year or two before we start worrying about them being disappointments.

As for as later peaking, this is a theory that I have also questioned. I tend to take a middle-ground, mainly because history shows that tennis age fluctuates over time, depending upon the style of the game. But part of this is due to where the talent is pooled.

But historically speaking, ALL great players take a big step forward by age 21 - everyone of them has been in the top 10 by their 21st birthday (and top 5 by 22). Not Kyrgios. This, I think, is a major benchmark that we need to watch as players like Zverev and Fritz develop.

This is also why I don't think Dominic Thiem will get that much better or become a true great. Actually, one of the biggest differences between the true greats and everyone else is that the former are elite by the time they're Thiem's age, while the "near-greats" and "second tier" players somtetimes take a bit longer, which in turn results in them not climbing as high.

 

[Kieran]

The Big Question is, why are these saplings not fully developed huge oak trees. It isn't because the shadow cast by the Big 3 is so great that no light gets in. It isn't that at all, because there's a maxim that states that great players find a way, and that applies always. In other words, if you're great, you take huge chunks out of other greats, and they take chunks out of you, and everybody gets fed. You can't be hypothetically great (Roddick), or conditionally great (Nalbandian).

"Great" isn't an elusive term, in tennis. It's not just a matter of opinion. We can also measure it in trophies...

 

[the AntiPusher]

I hope he wins some slams but he seems like a Tsonga/Berdych type player to me. Hope I'm wrong and he surprises me though.

I have the same Tsonga vibe from him too.

Nah, I see silly Nicky as a Mark Phillippous type of player. As for JowillieTs I am holding out hope he will win one slam MC aka cough cough

 

[El Dude]

The Big Question is, why are these saplings not fully developed huge oak trees. It isn't because the shadow cast by the Big 3 is so great that no light gets in. It isn't that at all, because there's a maxim that states that great players find a way, and that applies always. In other words, if you're great, you take huge chunks out of other greats, and they take chunks out of you, and everybody gets fed. You can't be hypothetically great (Roddick), or conditionally great (Nalbandian).

"Great" isn't an elusive term, in tennis. It's not just a matter of opinion. We can also measure it in trophies...

That question is only really relative to those players born from 1989-94ish. Once we get to 1995-96, certainly 1997 and later, it is just too soon to say that the saplings haven't developed, or won't develop, into oak trees.

Let's look at how hold old, to the month, the Big Three were when they were the ages of the various young players:

Dominic Thiem (22y, 8m)
Roger Federer - March, 2004: #1 with two Slams
Rafael Nadal - Feb, 2009: #1 with five Slams
Novak Djokovic - January, 2010: Had just finished his third year as #3, a single Slam and a bunch of Masters.

Nick Kyrgios (21y)
Roger Federer - August, 2002: Ranked in the teens, had ranked as high as #8. Just won his first Masters a few months previously.
Rafael Nadal - June, 2007: Ranked #2, just winning his third Slam at Roland Garros.
Novak Djokovic - May, 2008: #3, about to win his fourth Masters.

Borna Coric (19y, 6y)
Roger Federer - February, 2001: Ranked in 20s, just won his first ATP 250.
Rafael Nadal - December, 2005: Ranked #2, finishing his breakout year having won his first Slam and several Masters.
Novak Djokovic - November, 2006: Finishing the year at #16 with two minor titles.

Alex Zverev (19yr)
Roger Federer - August, 2000: Ranked around #40, no titles yet.
Rafael Nadal - June, 2005: In the middle of his breakthrough, having risen from #51 at the beginning of the year to #3. Just won his first Slam, had already won his first two Masters.
Novak Djokovic - May, 2006: Rising quickly, ranked in the #60s but would win his first title and rank in the 20s a couple months later.

Taylor Fritz/Andrey Rublev (18y, 6m)
Roger Federer - February, 2000: Ranked in the #50s or so, about to break into the top 50 the following month.
Rafael Nadal - December, 2004: Finishing his second full season at #51. Won a single title.
Novak Djokovic - November, 2005: Finishing first full year ranked #78, no titles.

OK, as you can see, Novak and Roger were much slower to develop than Rafa and probably represent a better baseline as Rafa hearkened back to the young stars of the 80s like Agassi and Becker. But this does show us that players like Fritz and Rublev, and to some degree Zverev, have plenty of time. Actually, Zverev and Fritz are right on target.

Coric, on the other hand, is starting to fall behind. Not surprising. As is Kyrgios; both Novak and Roger had won at least a Masters.

Thiem is in a whole different category and really shoudn't be considered a possible future great, as I've said before. He's more like a potential future second tier player who might win a Slam or two during a wild west scenario in which the current elite are declining and the next elite haven't fully come into their own.

 

[herios]

[As for as later peaking, this is a theory that I have also questioned. I tend to take a middle-ground, mainly because history shows that tennis age fluctuates over time, depending upon the style of the game. But part of this is due to where the talent is pooled.

I truly believe an age shift occurred for good. Age fluctuations have never lasted as long as the generations born after 1988 point to.
We know now that the 1989-1993 missed to put a significant stamp.
Look at what is coming after that:
Class Puille 1994 is even weaker than class Nishikori, Raonic or Dimitrov. Lucas is the only player born that year ranked in the top 100, right now 56.
Class Kyrgios-1995 is not better if you take Nick out. Second ranked after Nick is Klye Edmund ranked 89. That is all.
Class Coric-1996. These guys started better, but it feels like a false start. Coric got stuck in the 33-50 range for a year now, Chung is stuck between 50 -100 and sliding backwards and Kokkinakis was taken out by a surgery and vanished from the top 100.
Class 1997 is too early to judge.
Now, if you add all these years together, it is 8 years of potential drought.
All of this will point to the scenario that some of the players who belong to these guys born 1989-1996 will win slams, but only after the current greats run out of steam and they will split those titles, so they will win between 1-4 tops.

 

[El Dude]

Yes, true herios, but I'm a bit more optimistic about the class of 1997 and '98:

1997: Zverev, Fritz, Rublev
1998: Tiafoe, Lee, Kozlov, M Ymer, Mmoh, Tsitsipas

And then you have some very young guys that bear watching, like Denis Shapovalov (b. 1999) and Felix Auger Alliasime (b. 2000).

Of course in a couple years, those 97-98 players could look about as un-exciting as some of the players currently in their early 20s, but for some of them--at least Zverev and Fritz--the signs are very good so far. Those two in particular are on a trajectory that usually leads to at least being top 10 players.

 

[Mile]

I think he will be top 3, but i dont see him as future No.1 He is too tall.

 

[El Dude]

Interesting notion. The statistical fetishist in me felt impelled to look up the heights of every #1 player. It turns out Marat Safin was (is) the tallest so far at 6'4". Kyrgios is also 6'4."

The shortest ATP #1 was Marcelo Rios at 5'9". Everyone else--all 23 other ATP #1s--were between 5'10" (Connors) and 6'3" (Becker, Moya, Kafelnikov, Kuerten).

Of young prospects, Alex Zverev is 6'6" and, at 19, possibly still growing. I wouldn't write him off of being a future #1.

Before the Open Era, heights of #1 players ranged a bit more widely. Stan Smith was considered #1 for a time during the early 70s and he was also 6'4." I couldn't find the height of every player, but most of them and the shortest was Henri Cochet at 5'6." Laver was 5'8" and Rosewall 5'7."

Overall it seems heights have trended slightly upward, with fewer short #1s. But tall men have been #1 going back to the beginning; Bill Tilden and Tony Wilding were both 6'2," which was huge for their time.

 

[Mile]

Interesting notion. The statistical fetishist in me felt impelled to look up the heights of every #1 player. It turns out Marat Safin was (is) the tallest so far at 6'4". Kyrgios is also 6'4."

The shortest ATP #1 was Marcelo Rios at 5'9". Everyone else--all 23 other ATP #1s--were between 5'10" (Connors) and 6'3" (Becker, Moya, Kafelnikov, Kuerten).

Of young prospects, Alex Zverev is 6'6" and, at 19, possibly still growing. I wouldn't write him off of being a future #1.

Before the Open Era, heights of #1 players ranged a bit more widely. Stan Smith was considered #1 for a time during the early 70s and he was also 6'4." I couldn't find the height of every player, but most of them and the shortest was Henri Cochet at 5'6." Laver was 5'8" and Rosewall 5'7."

Overall it seems heights have trended slightly upward, with fewer short #1s. But tall men have been #1 going back to the beginning; Bill Tilden and Tony Wilding were both 6'2," which was huge for their time.

Kyrgi and Zverev, they might hit No.1, but i think more problematic to stay there for some time. Like Safin, he was top just few weeks i think. Now this become huge battleground, many shots, its become gladiator battle, and tall guys cant follow smaller. Body gets injured sooner or latter, they are young now, when they get in "real" years for covering No.1 they might be on "injured" as Delpo.

We see with time. In Kyrgi, Zverev i bet on Thiem.

 

[herios]

Kyrgios had already many injuries when he was a teenager. He has some recurring back problems.
Look at his posture, he is like hunchback from down under.
I don't wish to sound like a Debbie downer, but I think he will be having more problems in the future.