Tommy Haas (and players born in the 70s)

[Kieran]

Kieran, this is just getting weird. Not sure why you are tripping about this supposed idea of Kyrgios in one match. The guy has played very well in a bunch of matches, including beating Novak twice. Not sure why it is such a weird idea to project him doing very well at Wimbledon, even being a darkhorse candidate to win it.

Oh brother, trust me, weird is not the proper word for it.

It's got nothing to do with Nick, and how well he's doing (which is reasonably well, but not lighting the sky up, let's be honest). It's to do with my old mucker Front and his definition of "current form", which when I asked him to explain it, he said:

"Besides Donskoy no one has beaten Federer all year. Kyrgios got within 2 points of victory in Miami and they played 3 tiebreaks. Djokovic is in 23rd place in the race to London. Kyrgios is number 15 and has had a better year so far. With his current form and much more devastating serve on grass, he's clearly one of the top prospects at Wimbledon."

It's hard to project Nick as "one of the top prospects for Wimbledon" based upon his results and form so far this year. He's won nothing, reached no finals. Tsonga has beaten him, he flopped in Oz. Sam Querry beat him. Yeah, he's beaten Djoker twice, but that's like projecting Fog to win RG in 2015 based upon his results against Rafa that year. It's waaay to early to be bigging Nick up for Wimbo. As things stand now, Nick has no current form! Nick hasn't played in over a month. It's lazy, bandwagon talk and it's funny to see. We all do it at times, but it just amused me to read the silly "logic" behind it ("No one has challenged the best player this year (Federer) more than Kyrgios", etc)...

 

[Haelfix]

Tommy was badly affected by injuries, that much is obvious, but the guy was never gonna win big either, let's be clear on that one. A good description of him would be "a sheep in wolves clothing." Straw balls. But an entertaining player at times, no doubt about it.

Great OP Dude, btw...

Don't really agree. In 2000, he was considered a Dimitrov level talent with the talent to win a slam and with the right draw it was just a matter of time. There were no Federer or Sampras level players to prevent his ascendance yet, and along with Roddick, Hewitt and Safin many thought he'd be right at the top for a very long time.

The injuries really did kill him.. he was quite an athlete in his younger days, and it robbed him of some power and consistency, which he never quite regained.

 

[El Dude]

Kieran, this is just getting weird. Not sure why you are tripping about this supposed idea of Kyrgios in one match. The guy has played very well in a bunch of matches, including beating Novak twice. Not sure why it is such a weird idea to project him doing very well at Wimbledon, even being a darkhorse candidate to win it.

Oh brother, trust me, weird is not the proper word for it.

It's got nothing to do with Nick, and how well he's doing (which is reasonably well, but not lighting the sky up, let's be honest). It's to do with my old mucker Front and his definition of "current form", which when I asked him to explain it, he said:

"Besides Donskoy no one has beaten Federer all year. Kyrgios got within 2 points of victory in Miami and they played 3 tiebreaks. Djokovic is in 23rd place in the race to London. Kyrgios is number 15 and has had a better year so far. With his current form and much more devastating serve on grass, he's clearly one of the top prospects at Wimbledon."

It's hard to project Nick as "one of the top prospects for Wimbledon" based upon his results and form so far this year. He's won nothing, reached no finals. Tsonga has beaten him, he flopped in Oz. Sam Querry beat him. Yeah, he's beaten Djoker twice, but that's like projecting Fog to win RG in 2015 based upon his results against Rafa that year. It's waaay to early to be bigging Nick up for Wimbo. As things stand now, Nick has no current form! Nick hasn't played in over a month. It's lazy, bandwagon talk and it's funny to see. We all do it at times, but it just amused me to read the silly "logic" behind it ("No one has challenged the best player this year (Federer) more than Kyrgios", etc)...

I thought I replied to this, but my post must have gotten lost in limbo.

Anyhow, it sounds like this is more of a Kieran-Front thing, than a Kyrgios thing. But as for Kyrgios, I agree that he has big questions--at leaset until he wins big--but on the other hand, I don't think it is crazy to consider him a very dangerous darkhorse for Wimbledon. I mean, right now, who do you think has a better chance of winning Wimbledon? Roger certainly, probably Andy, maybe Novak and maaaybe Rafa, if you're really optimistic or Carol. But other than that...Cilic? Kei? Milos? I suppose Milos is another possibility, but I think Kyrgios is a more dangerous player and I'd rather put money on him than Gentle Milos.

And I don't think the Fog comparison is very apt. Fog beat Rafa when Fog was in his prime and Rafa was struggling. Nick is still rising, and is a more talented player than Fog. Novak is also struggling, but aside from the two loses to Kyrgios, he's actually only lost two other times this year, to Istomin and Goffin -- so 14-2 to players other than Kyrgios, which is an 88%. Of course he did lose twice to Kyrgios, so that 88% becomes 14-4, or 78%...but still not horrible, sort of like a typical Andy Murray year.