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

[tossip]

he is disgusting with his hunched back...just a ballbasher...Dominic Thiem is more refined and has more talent.Nick is a no class and will never be as successful as the likes of Rafa or Roger because he is not liked by anybody..

 

[El Dude]

LOL at "never be as successful as the likes of Rafa or Roger." Who has been? Very few players.

But yeah, Nick is not very likeable. But he is hardly lacking in talent. He's got a great attacking game. He probably won't be an all-time great, but he's going to be a very dangerous player for the next decade or so.

 

[Front242]

he is disgusting with his hunched back...just a ballbasher...Dominic Thiem is more refined and has more talent.Nick is a no class and will never be as successful as the likes of Rafa or Roger because he is not liked by anybody..

Biggest hunchback on tour is Gasquet. His head is way too big for his body as well. I like Kyrgios and many out there do but don't think his lack of success has anything to do with not being liked by many. He's just inconsistent and his shot selection at key moments is crap. Many players unfortunately have that issue when the nerves kick in.

 

[Sundaymorningguy]

The problem with him along with many up and comers is knowing when you need to move forward and add and lose members to and from your team to transition into a challenger and elite player. When you start making noise, it is time to really start assessing your team and the right moves to getting to the next level. Many on both the ATP and WTA are not doing this, and it costs them valuable time in which they could be making adjustments and contending for big titles sooner rather than much later.

 

[nehmeth]

... yeah, Nick is not very likeable. But he is hardly lacking in talent. He's got a great attacking game. He probably won't be an all-time great, but he's going to be a very dangerous player for the next decade or so.

While I don't like the attitude, he will always hold a special place in my :heart: for the way he verbally slammed Wawrinka. With good coach, some work on focus, fitness, and especially footwork, he's got tons of potential.

 

[golds girl]

To be honest, I usually don't read the blog posts on the site. This was my first one.
I found it to be well-written, well-researched and insightful.
Thanks El Dude, I'll be reading more.:clap

 

[tossip]

he is disgusting with his hunched back...just a ballbasher...Dominic Thiem is more refined and has more talent.Nick is a no class and will never be as successful as the likes of Rafa or Roger because he is not liked by anybody..

Biggest hunchback on tour is Gasquet. His head is way too big for his body as well. I like Kyrgios and many out there do but don't think his lack of success has anything to do with not being liked by many. He's just inconsistent and his shot selection at key moments is crap. Many players unfortunately have that issue when the nerves kick in.

:snicker...dont say that about Rishar..he has every shot in the book with his allegedly cocaine snorting self...

 

[herios]

El Dude, what is your opinion about today's Nick K. results against Gasquet?

 

[Sundaymorningguy]

I am really disappointed in the fact that it seemed he couldn't adjust this match. I didn't expect a straight set dismissal especially given RG's recent results.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I thought Nick K will win this match. I did not see the match and so I don't know as to the level of play exhibited.

 

[El Dude]

I didn't see it, herios, but he really should be beating the Gasquets of the world at this point. I'm not too concerned, though. He's beaten top 10 players five times in this year alone. Here's his record against top 10 players this year:

Rafa 0-1
Raonic 1-0 (2-0 overall, but once when Milos was #12)
Nishikori 0-2
Wawrinka 1-1
Berdych 2-1
Gasquet 1-1

Overall: 5-6 (or 6-6)

 

[herios]

I didn't see it, herios, but he really should be beating the Gasquets of the world at this point. I'm not too concerned, though. He's beaten top 10 players five times in this year alone. Here's his record against top 10 players this year:

Rafa 0-1
Raonic 1-0 (2-0 overall, but once when Milos was #12)
Nishikori 0-2
Wawrinka 1-1
Berdych 2-1
Gasquet 1-1

Overall: 5-6 (or 6-6)

Nick has beaten Gasquet before on other surfaces, but on clay, there seems to be a total domination by Richard, who in 3 meetings never lost a set to Nick.
That just tells me that Kyrgios still has to get better on clay, at the moment, not good enough.

 

[19USC66]

... yeah, Nick is not very likeable. But he is hardly lacking in talent. He's got a great attacking game. He probably won't be an all-time great, but he's going to be a very dangerous player for the next decade or so.

While I don't like the attitude, he will always hold a special place in my :heart: for the way he verbally slammed Wawrinka. With good coach, some work on focus, fitness, and especially footwork, he's got tons of potential.

nehmeth,
Sent you PM.

 

[El Dude]

Nick may never be great on clay. I think Roger, Rafa, and Novak have set an unrealistic standard for young players to try to aspire to: they are, or have been, good everywhere, and shown consistency unparalleled in Open Era history. Part of this is court homogeneity, as we can see similar consistency in a lesser "near-great" like Andy Murray, but a lot of it has to do with just how great those three have been.

My point being, if we're using the Holy Trinity as the benchmark, we're going to be disappointed for years to come. We may not see another player on their level for decades.

 

[herios]

Nick may never be great on clay. I think Roger, Rafa, and Novak have set an unrealistic standard for young players to try to aspire to: they are, or have been, good everywhere, and shown consistency unparalleled in Open Era history. Part of this is court homogeneity, as we can see similar consistency in a lesser "near-great" like Andy Murray, but a lot of it has to do with just how great those three have been.

My point being, if we're using the Holy Trinity as the benchmark, we're going to be disappointed for years to come. We may not see another player on their level for decades.

I completely agree with you here. None of the current active players on tour, which are known already will probably come anywhere close to that standard of 10+ slams, etc.
Although Zverev is the lone right on track to do something similar, I am just conservative due to his height. I cannot imagine such a tall player dominating the tour.

 

[El Dude]

Yeah, it is unlikely. My prediction is that we'll see several multi-Slam winners in an era not unlike the late 90s-early 00s, although with a few guys winning 2-5ish Slams. I don't see another inner-circle (10+ Slam) great on the horizon, which I consider being all players age 18 or older. Who knows, maybe someone like Denis Shapovalov or Felix Auger Alliasime will be that one, but it is WAY too soon to even tell if these two will be top 50 players.

But my broader point is that we've been spoiled with the Holy Trinity. We have NEVER seen a threesome like these guys, at least not peaking around the same time - at least going back to the early 60s when Rosewall was in his prime, Laver was starting to peak, and Gonzales was still very good, and of course Hoad had moments of absolute brilliance. Connors-Borg-McEnroe isn't far off, and then you have Lendl-Wilander-Edberg-Becker, or Agassi-Sampras-Courier, but none of these groupings compare to Federer-Nadal-Djokovic, imo.

 

[Sundaymorningguy]

Nick may never be great on clay. I think Roger, Rafa, and Novak have set an unrealistic standard for young players to try to aspire to: they are, or have been, good everywhere, and shown consistency unparalleled in Open Era history. Part of this is court homogeneity, as we can see similar consistency in a lesser "near-great" like Andy Murray, but a lot of it has to do with just how great those three have been.

My point being, if we're using the Holy Trinity as the benchmark, we're going to be disappointed for years to come. We may not see another player on their level for decades.

I completely agree with you here. None of the current active players on tour, which are known already will probably come anywhere close to that standard of 10+ slams, etc.
Although Zverev is the lone right on track to do something similar, I am just conservative due to his height. I cannot imagine such a tall player dominating the tour.

I imagine injuries would be the thing he has to worry about especially with his height and if he becomes consistent enough to go far in tournaments in the future.

 

[mrzz]

Back to the Gasquet Kyrgios match: Gasquet is slowly improving these last two years. He played an excellent match and deserved to win. He is currently simply better than Kyrgios (hence the better ranking).

Having said that, even if I am with the ones who do not like Kyrgios, he really is different from the rest of the pack, and has a lot of talent. What remains to be seen, in my opinion, is how much of this "uniqueness" is due to the high level of abandon with which he plays. Much of his shine could vanish if he starts to look more "serious". On the other hand, I could rant against him as much as I wanted, but his record against quality players shown above speaks a lot.

I´ll root against him, anyway.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Nick may never be great on clay. I think Roger, Rafa, and Novak have set an unrealistic standard for young players to try to aspire to: they are, or have been, good everywhere, and shown consistency unparalleled in Open Era history. Part of this is court homogeneity, as we can see similar consistency in a lesser "near-great" like Andy Murray, but a lot of it has to do with just how great those three have been.

Come on, Andy did not even win a single clay title till 2014. Only last year he learnt to perform in dirt (even though he might have learnt to play in dirt in Spain). I would not call that "similar" consistency.

 

[El Dude]

Back to the Gasquet Kyrgios match: Gasquet is slowly improving these last two years. He played an excellent match and deserved to win. He is currently simply better than Kyrgios (hence the better ranking).

Better? I don't think so. More consistent? Yes, I agree - hence the better ranking. But I think Kyrgios is a more talented, and thus "better," player.

Having said that, even if I am with the ones who do not like Kyrgios, he really is different from the rest of the pack, and has a lot of talent. What remains to be seen, in my opinion, is how much of this "uniqueness" is due to the high level of abandon with which he plays. Much of his shine could vanish if he starts to look more "serious". On the other hand, I could rant against him as much as I wanted, but his record against quality players shown above speaks a lot.

I´ll root against him, anyway.

This is an interesting point and question, and one I don't think we'll know the answer to for another year or so. He just entered the top 20, so we need to see if he can take the next step up: the top 10, and then be consistent about it.

Come on, Andy did not even win a single clay title till 2014. Only last year he learnt to perform in dirt (even though he might have learnt to play in dirt in Spain). I would not call that "similar" consistency.

From 2011 to the present Andy has only not made a Slam QF or later once, and that was 4R - not counting the one Slam he missed. That is remarkable consistency, more consistent than almost every great of the Open Era before Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic - and even more consistent than Nadal in many ways.

Andy's problem is that while he's been very consistent, he can't dial it up to the same level as the Holy Trinity, at least not very often. But his consistency is remarkable. I do think this has a lot to do with court homogeneity.