Kyrgios's problem: skill, not on-court attitude

[Ricardo]

I disagree with the emphasised part of your evaluation. In the latest incident, Kyrgios has thrown tantrum when he was losing. Against Nadal, he hit Nadal deliberately with the ball when he was losing and he achieved the goal of distracting Nadal (he knows how easy Nadal can be distracted), re-read the very first post of this thread. Against Waw, he issued his historic sexist slur after he lost a point and a celebration by Waw enraged him. I don't know of any instances of Kyrgios throwing tantrums when he's winning. He complains about fan interference only when he is distracted, never when the opponent is distracted.
I don't claim that I know what Kyrgios is thinking. But I see repeated patterns of his behaviour on and off court. If the pattern is repeated enough times, I start forming my opinion about someone's behavioural motivation. Because our behaviour is always motivated, nothing (or rarely anything) happens at random here, especially in case of the highly emotional behaviour such as Kyrgios' tantrums. Your claim that said tantrums are random or that "he behaves the way he wants to behave" here indicates that you disregard our knowledge of human psychology.[/QUOT

Hitting Nadal with a ball is throwing a tantrum? It’s a good tactical move by many greats including Federer and more famously Ivan Lendl, you are really getting into idiot territory. And him insulting Wawrinka about his girl friend is a sexist slur? You are not just stupid, you are also cheap and desperate. It was a retaliatory behaviour which is aimed at insulting Stan, whatever he could come up with in that moment. He is a known advocate for equal prize money so clearly you are clueless. Now if the role is reversed and someone says to Sharapova that a fellow player had sex with her boyfriend, is that sexist or an attempt to insult? This board is so full of cheap PC dickheads no wonder I see idiotic posts all the time, can’t believe I need to point out something so self explanatory

 

[backhandslapper]

AT YOUR OWN PERIL -- you are really getting into idiot territory

^^^^ This should be noted by anyone who ever contemplates having any sort of conversation with the entity named Dickardo.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

^^^^ This should be noted by anyone who ever contemplates having any sort of conversation with the entity named Dickardo.

No worries, and thank you, I noted that. Indeed, I finally put Ricardo on my ignore list. I just wanted to give Ricardo a chance to explain himself, Sadly in vain, because he prefers throwing logical fallacies instead, abusive at hominem attacks being his ultimate argument for everything. Did everybody put him on ignore already? I hope so after this.
However, I still don't distort his avatar name to avoid being rude. I don't need to because, I don't take anything personally and I see Ricardo as a poor little man lost within his fallacious emotions, who is doomed to become an outcast.

 

[Front242]

Sorry to inform you both but Ricardo posts the truth and puts a lot of people in their place and quite rightly so. Blunt and effective like a shovel to the head but that's what many people need here anyway.

 

[backhandslapper]

Sorry to inform you both but Ricardo posts the truth and puts a lot of people in their place and quite rightly so. Blunt and effective like a shovel to the head but that's what many people need here anyway.

What truth? He's an idiot. Lendl got slated for purposely hitting players with the ball even when he didn't have to. By McEnroe, by Noah, by plenty of people, and rightly so, as it's cheap.

So if someone anyone brings it up as another proof that Kyrgios indeed is a cheapshot artist, thus deservedly accused of throwing tantrums for cheapshot reasons, your idiot friend Dickardo not only dismisses it 'because it is not a tantrum'; he also enshrines it as a good tactic, because Lendl (who got slated for doing so) used it too.

When someone brings up Kyrgios telling Stan Kokkinakis banged his girl, what does mentally disabled Dickardo do? Focus on someone labelling it sexist instead of the crux of the argument. Basically, your stupid girlfriend Dickardo is the same kind of crook Kyrgios is -- only off-court.

A straw man artist.

Of course you like him. He's like you. And I'm glad someone compares him to a shovel, because he's equally stupid. We have that saying. 'If you spend more than a half hour talking to a dumbass, it's two dumbasses talking'. Count me out and welcome to my ignore, along with your shovel friend, dear broom.

 

[calitennis127]

You confuse 2 very distinct forms of bad/unacceptable social behaviour (that of Curry - throwing a mouthpiece at an umpire

Quick note: the term "umpire" is not used in basketball circles. It's either "ref" or "referee" (or sometimes "official"). You may want to get that right when talking basketball.

Curry's act was a snap performed in a state of high emotional frustration, motivated as a release of said frustration. Kyrgios tantrums also fall into that category. T-man's acts are pre-determined ploy to divide the nation, motivated (as the coach claims on your video) by racism. These are behaviours so dramatically different that I don't even understand how you can throw them into the same bag.

Hey genius, go look at the interview. Kerr was the one to use the term "civility" first, not me. So it was him who threw these behaviors "into the same bag." He said that the Warriors conduct themselves with dignity and civility, unlike Trump. Now since we only know of the Warrior players because they play basketball, how is it unfair to judge their character by what they do on the court? And asking someone to not throw a mouthpiece at an official is not exactly setting the bar very high either, especially for a team as self-righteous about their political views as the Warriors have been in recent years.

If I was in this coach's shoes, I would maintain that my player Curry (even if he made a mistake under the stress of a game) has a lot dignity and civility in comparison with t-man, if Curry is not a racist.

Trump's critics and opponents don't have a problem with his behavior so much as his views. They conflate "civility" with having certain opinions. Trump could be the most polished gentleman of the last 500 years in world history and the Democrats would still attack him since he isn't completely on board with their social agenda of unregulated and disorganized immigration along with LGBT glorification. Now if we are simply going by the dictionary definition of "civility," there is nothing inherently uncivil about dissenting from that agenda.

In fact, not too long ago Hillary Clinton herself dissented from it, as an opponent of gay marriage and a proponent of stopping illegal immigration. But I guess the 2005 version of Hillary Clinton was an Alt-Right, neo-Nazi 4Chan poster with roid rage for having such positions.

 

[Ricardo]

No worries, and thank you, I noted that. Indeed, I finally put Ricardo on my ignore list. I just wanted to give Ricardo a chance to explain himself, Sadly in vain, because he prefers throwing logical fallacies instead, abusive at hominem attacks being his ultimate argument for everything. Did everybody put him on ignore already? I hope so after this.
However, I still don't distort his avatar name to avoid being rude. I don't need to because, I don't take anything personally and I see Ricardo as a poor little man lost within his fallacious emotions, who is doomed to become an outcast.

You are just weak, so don’t bother. You know you are wrong saying hitting the opponent with a legit shot is throwing a tantrum and nicks insult at Stan is sexist. Go hide, I have way too much for you. I beat little man like you too easy, ignore list is the only way out for you so you don’t continue to be overwhelmed by you know who.

 

[Ricardo]

^^^^ This should be noted by anyone who ever contemplates having any sort of conversation with the entity named Dickardo.

Yeah this meaningless whinge is how you start conversation with me? Gotta come at me a little better than this, it’s like somebody just shoved a racquet down in your back end then you try to slap it off...back end slapper

 

[Chris Koziarz]

Quick note: the term "umpire" is not used in basketball circles. It's either "ref" or "referee" (or sometimes "official"). You may want to get that right when talking basketball.



Hey genius, go look at the interview. Kerr was the one to use the term "civility" first, not me. So it was him who threw these behaviors "into the same bag." He said that the Warriors conduct themselves with dignity and civility, unlike Trump. Now since we only know of the Warrior players because they play basketball, how is it unfair to judge their character by what they do on the court? And asking someone to not throw a mouthpiece at an official is not exactly setting the bar very high either, especially for a team as self-righteous about their political views as the Warriors have been in recent years.

You have a valid point that "civility" is a broad term and both Curry & Trump did not conduct themselves accordingly. So I concede that the coach is not 100% correct that his players "conduct themselves with dignity and civility". But he still has the right to talk about the world of difference between them and t-man, because there is a world of difference. I don't understand NBA rules as well as you do but I compare Curry's behaviour to that of Nalbandian who hit an umpire in a shin causing injury. And received the same penalty - default. So, the maximum penalty for Curry/Nalbandian behaviour is default and few $k fine/suspension by NBA/ATP. And they accepted the penalty/repented. While the penalty for t-man behaviour (public display of racism) could be several years in prison. So the coach is right that his players (even if guilty of throwing objects at ref) are far more dignified and civil than a racist. He should have just qualified his statement by saying that nobody is perfect but everybody civil enough should distance themselves from a criminal. Note that I'm not judging t-man here (although I could), I'm just explaining why the coach has said what he said according to his opinion, and that we are not dealing with double standard here.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

When someone brings up Kyrgios telling Stan Kokkinakis banged his girl, what does mentally disabled Dickardo do? Focus on someone labelling it sexist instead of the crux of the argument. Basically, your stupid girlfriend Dickardo is the same kind of crook Kyrgios is -- only off-court.

If someone thinks Kyrgios is not sexist with his slur at Stan, and conclude that "sexist" is only my label, they forget how Donna Vekic have felt about it. With his slur, Kyrgios meant not to just insult Stan but also to denigrate Vekic. That's the very definition of sexism. Subconscious or not, does not matter. Other forms of discrimination like racism can also be subconscious, sexism is no different.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Congratulations to Rublev! And I liked the quick cold handshake at the net that he offered Nick! :whistle: Rublev obviously doesn’t think too highly of Trashgios Kyrgios tried to act humble in defeat but it doesn’t erase everything he has done I’m glad that Rublev shut him down. He brought him back to earth making him realize that he’s sill a nobody. B-)

 

[Chris Koziarz]

In his post USO exit presser, facing the question "what do you think they [ATP] should do to you": Kyrgios answered, after an initial light joke, with a serious tone:
- I don't know, I'm pretty boring player, I don't bring much to the sport..."

which is a typical response of an egocentric person trying to create a pitiful ambience & gain sympathy around himself. His fans (maybe even some officials) who see this self-deprecating display, will have the sympathy for "poor Nick". People close to him even will say Nick is depressive and need psychologist help here. Nothing new, we've seen it in the past. I think his behaviour (accompanied by depression or not) is a deliberate manipulation of public emotions. Nick knows that his pitiful display is not true (he has many followers and people like watching him) and he is very smart to understand his position from large social perspective. E.g. he could express himself as more empathetic: "If they think I don't bring much to the sport they won't let me play. If I am pretty boring player people won't come to watch". But he chose to say the same in an egocentric display of pitiful emotions that we've seen many times before. Childish (I conclude he will never grow up) and indeed boring to re-watch the same behaviour again.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

Congratulations to Rublev! [...] I’m glad that Rublev shut him down. He brought him back to earth making him realize that he’s sill a nobody. B-)

[my emphasis above]

No, Rublev just proved to be a better tennis player than Kyrgios on that occasion. But despite the loss Kyrgios is still somebody, especially in tennis world: he is number 30 player in the world. He has a playing style that is advantageous against the best players of all times, including against current #1 Novak, against whom he holds 2:0 record, better than anyone in history against Novak! That is amazingly good!

I have criticised Kyrgios alot on this thread, but I've never even dreamed saying such pathetic nonsense as you've said above that Kyrgios be "nobody". You;ve just set the new low for an absurdly incompetent opinion on this forum.

 

[backhandslapper]

Novak, against whom he holds 2:0 record, better than anyone in history against Novak! That is amazingly good!

Well, it does look good on paper, but both wins took place in 2017. Djokovic played his worst tennis in ten years, he was quite possibly at his weakest, and he lost to a couple more guys who had never beaten him before (Istomin and Goffin).

No-one will ever take these wins from Nick, but you can't really base too much on those.

 

[brokenshoelace]

So make that 17 straight slams where he doesn't get past the 4th round (most of the time he doesn't even make the 4th round). So talented...

 

[mrzz]

If someone thinks Kyrgios is not sexist with his slur at Stan, and conclude that "sexist" is only my label, they forget how Donna Vekic have felt about it. With his slur, Kyrgios meant not to just insult Stan but also to denigrate Vekic. That's the very definition of sexism. Subconscious or not, does not matter. Other forms of discrimination like racism can also be subconscious, sexism is no different.

We really disagree about this one, my friend. First, we cannot judge anything based on what we think is the intention of the person who said it, and also based on what we think a third party feels about it. In, fact, it does not even matter if the third party feels offended or not. The only rational thing is to judge objectively what was said. If we put ourselves in a position to define what others meant, we open a giant door for arbitrary judgements and prejudice.

I know that there is some kind of tacit understanding (among some at least) that what was said is sexist, but I really do not agree, or even understand it. It was rude, yes, but it is an actual fact. He said that two people had sexual relations. And that is a fact that neither party disputes. Period. What is sexists about that? You could say that the problem is the term used... well, honestly I oppose any kind of control anyone may try to impose on the way others talk, unless it is explicitly offensive. People do have sexual relations and there are slang terms about that. If some men or some women interpret that as a statement that women are nothing more than sexual objects... it is their problem. It is not what is being said.

P.S. I agree that NK got as low (and childish) as you can get with that one.

 

[Moxie]

We really disagree about this one, my friend. First, we cannot judge anything based on what we think is the intention of the person who said it, and also based on what we think a third party feels about it. In, fact, it does not even matter if the third party feels offended or not. The only rational thing is to judge objectively what was said. If we put ourselves in a position to define what others meant, we open a giant door for arbitrary judgements and prejudice.

I know that there is some kind of tacit understanding (among some at least) that what was said is sexist, but I really do not agree, or even understand it. It was rude, yes, but it is an actual fact. He said that two people had sexual relations. And that is a fact that neither party disputes. Period. What is sexists about that? You could say that the problem is the term used... well, honestly I oppose any kind of control anyone may try to impose on the way others talk, unless it is explicitly offensive. People do have sexual relations and there are slang terms about that. If some men or some women interpret that as a statement that women are nothing more than sexual objects... it is their problem. It is not what is being said.

P.S. I agree that NK got as low (and childish) as you can get with that one.

I agree with you on this one, Mrzz. It's not sexist. I actually think it's a bit sexist, subconsciously, to assume that Vecic was more wronged in that comment than Kokkinakis was. No one needs to have their past sex lives used as gamesmanship on a tennis court, especially when neither was present, but to say that Vecic was more wronged is to still have the notion that a woman's reputation is more fragile than a man's. What Nick said was crass in the extreme. But it wasn't sexist, imo.

 

[brokenshoelace]

We really disagree about this one, my friend. First, we cannot judge anything based on what we think is the intention of the person who said it, and also based on what we think a third party feels about it. In, fact, it does not even matter if the third party feels offended or not. The only rational thing is to judge objectively what was said. If we put ourselves in a position to define what others meant, we open a giant door for arbitrary judgements and prejudice.

I know that there is some kind of tacit understanding (among some at least) that what was said is sexist, but I really do not agree, or even understand it. It was rude, yes, but it is an actual fact. He said that two people had sexual relations. And that is a fact that neither party disputes. Period. What is sexists about that? You could say that the problem is the term used... well, honestly I oppose any kind of control anyone may try to impose on the way others talk, unless it is explicitly offensive. People do have sexual relations and there are slang terms about that. If some men or some women interpret that as a statement that women are nothing more than sexual objects... it is their problem. It is not what is being said.

P.S. I agree that NK got as low (and childish) as you can get with that one.

I'm not necessarily agreeing that it was sexist but I don't follow the logic here. So just because something is a fact, it can't be offensive/sexist/racist/etc...?

Context matters, and intentions matter (at least when they're clear). You can taunt a black guy about the history of his people. It's a fact. They were slaves. It doesn't make it any less racist. Obviously this is an extreme example but you know what I mean.

I don't think Kyrgios was willingly thinking he wanted to degrade women, or that particular woman, with his comment. But it's pretty telling as to his mentality (the old slut shaming, or treating women as conquests, etc...). I mean, that was pretty clear. So while I wouldn't be quick to label the comment as sexist, it's definitely insensitive, and not just rude.

 

[Moxie]

I'm not necessarily agreeing that it was sexist but I don't follow the logic here. So just because something is a fact, it can't be offensive/sexist/racist/etc...?

Context matters, and intentions matter (at least when they're clear). You can taunt a black guy about the history of his people. It's a fact. They were slaves. It doesn't make it any less racist. Obviously this is an extreme example but you know what I mean.

I don't think Kyrgios was willingly thinking he wanted to degrade women, or that particular woman, with his comment. But it's pretty telling as to his mentality (the old slut shaming, or treating women as conquests, etc...). I mean, that was pretty clear. So while I wouldn't be quick to label the comment as sexist, it's definitely insensitive, and not just rude.

To see it as "slut-shaming" is by definition sexist, which I know is not your intention. I can see why you might want to say that it could still be called sexist, because it treads across historical grounds of defamation. For sure, it wasn't just rude, it was insensitive in so many ways. Let's face it, Kyrgios crossed so many lines with that comment that we could spend forever parsing them all out. You can make your case for sexism, because he was trying to goad Wawrinka in a traditional male-to-male way that his GF had slept with someone else. (Though he was willfully inaccurate with the time line, one assumes.) So If you want to accuse him of sexism on top of everything else that that comment was full of, you are welcome to it, but I still agree with Mrzz that the notion that it affects Vecic more than Kokkinakis as an offense is also sexist. My default assumption is that Donna Vecic owns her personal romantic history. Did she want to get dragged in by that comment? I'm guessing no. But by the same token, I guessing Kokkinakis didn't, either. He had exactly as much right to be offended as she did.

 

[mrzz]

I'm not necessarily agreeing that it was sexist but I don't follow the logic here. So just because something is a fact, it can't be offensive/sexist/racist/etc...?

It can be used in a racist/sexist/etc way, but the thing itself is not racist/sexist/etc per se. So, yes, context matters. But that is a subjective judgment. There are way too many assumptions from the use of the word "banged" to the conclusion "sexist".