Is Nick Kyrgios the most overrated player in world tennis?

[luvsports!]

What do you think? Please read
https://www.theroar.com.au/2019/01/16/is-nick-kyrgios-tennis-most-overrated-player/

 

[Vince Evert]

yes.

McEnroe must feel like a goose because prior to the Raonic match Mac in my opinion stupidly over-hyed how great Kyrigos and Raonic serves were, "two of the greatest in history" was his words. WHA-A-A-AAAT !!!! Has he forgotten Players like Sampras, Ivanisevic and Becker.

 

[mrzz]

I like the guy, but yes, he is overrated at record levels.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

He is not overrated, he will peak later in his career like a Wawrinka.

 

[herios]

In the live ranking he is now down to 67.
And he is #4 Auusie, behind De Minaur, Millman, and Ebden.
He's got his work cut out.

 

[herios]

He is not overrated, he will peak later in his career like a Wawrinka.

He will not last that long, he is not as dedicated.

 

[DarthFed]

I don't think he's overrated because who is still really rating him that high? At most I'd say he's a dangerous player that top guys don't want to see in the first few rounds.

 

[herios]

I don't think he's overrated because who is still really rating him that high? At most I'd say he's a dangerous player that top guys don't want to see in the first few rounds.

I heard many times that he is the most talented, so on, so forth, among the up and comers. But of course, when John McEnroe, because he is one of them, says it, we know how many times he is wrong in predicting.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

He's talented but also stupid on court. He does not use his talent to develop solid game plan to maximise his chances of success in GS. In order to win 7 5-setters in a row, you need a good plan and mature thinking and know how to play the percentage tennis. The percentage play is the basis of success. Only on top of that come "hot shots". Kyrgios knows nothing about percentage play, maybe he does not even care. All he cares is to have fun and to show off. His frequent and frankly silly twiners are the best example: a low percentage shot that makes him look OK if successful, but silly if not successful (most of the time). His motivation behind frequent use of this shot is not to gain advantage over the opposition but perhaps to impress girls in the audience. With such attitude, it's no surprise no one wants to coach him. Without listening to anyone, enclosed within his own "have fun" attitude, he's doomed not to succeed in this (frankly any) sport.

If he wanted to win rather than to impress girls, he would think how to better his talent effectively. For example his twiner. Look how Fed used twiner to fire passing winner while turned back chasing a lob. What does Kyrgios do in such situation? Barely (if any) hit the ball high into the air, which becomes sitting duck for a smash. Why doesn't he learn from Fed to use the twiner effectively where it's useful? Because he either does not understand which shot is the most effective in given situation, or refuses to change his attitude when numerous people-be-coaches tried to work to shape his strategy but failed.

 

[El Dude]

I have seen him play at a level unsurpassed by and perhaps greater than any of the young guys - but never more than a match at a time, and usually not even that. Is that overrating him? I don't think so. It would be overrating to expect him to become a great player. That ship has sailed. The best-case scenario is that he has a major psychological transformation and focuses in fully on tennis, and does a Wawrinka. But that seems rather unlikely; but he's talented enough that it could happen. He could also be a Nalbandian - win a few big titles, but no Slams. Or he could do nothing more than he's done so far and be out of tennis in a few more years.

 

[DarthFed]

I heard many times that he is the most talented, so on, so forth, among the up and comers. But of course, when John McEnroe, because he is one of them, says it, we know how many times he is wrong in predicting.

I haven't really heard much of that the past couple years. He started 2017 pretty good but has regressed since then.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I think he has wins against all members of big three and that too in the very first meeting he had with them.

There is some merit to the assumption that he brings it on when there is a big player on the other side of the net, but has hard time being focused and trying to win the matches he is supposed to win.

 

[El Dude]

Kyrgios has beaten each of the Big Four at least once. I'm not sure how many players are included in that list, but my guess would be a dozen or less (I'll do some research in the next day or two, if I get a chance).

He's also 2-0 against Novak Djokovic, only one of two players to have multiple wins against Novak without any losses. The other? Marat Safin.

 

[El Dude]

OK, I just wasted an hour and now need to go to bed.

17 players have beaten all of the Big Four. In order of total wins:

20 Del Potro
19 Wawrinka, Berdych
18 Tsonga
14 Roddick, Davydenko
13 Nalbandian
10 Ljubicic
9 Nishikori
8 Gonzalez, Thiem, Cilic
7 Clement
6 Soderling, Ancic, Simon, Kyrgios

But here's something interesting: of those 17 players, Kyrgios has the highest win percentage (albeit in a relatively small number of matches):

35.3% (6-11) Kyrgios
34.2% (13-25) Nalbandian
32.0% (8-17) Thiem
31.8% (7-15) Clement, Ancic
28.2% (20-51) Del Potro
28.0% (14-36) Davydenko
27.6% (8-21) Gonzalez
26.5% (18-50) Tsonga
25.9% (14-40) Roddick
24.4% (10-31) Ljubicic
21.8% (19-68) Wawrinka
20.2% (19-75) Berdych
18.0% (9-41) Nishikori
16.2% (6-31) Soderling
15.4% (8-44) Cilic
12.5% (6-42) Simon

A selection of players who played all four but beat only three of them:
Didn't beat Federer: Ferrer, Verdasco, Dimitrov
Didn't beat Nadal: Safin, Gasquet, Anderson
Didn't beat Djokovic: Monfils, Raonic, Coric
Didn't beat Murray: Hewitt, Ferrero, Goffin

I'm sure there are more, but those are a sampling that I found. Coric is the youngest - he just needs a win over Novak ("just"), and then becomes the youngest to beat all four. Sascha Zverev has only beaten Roger and Novak and probably won't get a chance to player Andy again.

Poor Berdych: played the Big Four a whopping (record?) 94 times. He might go down as the only player in history to play all four a total of 100+ times.

 

[britbox]

Nick's not going to break the glass ceiling until he sorts out his head and attitude. As it stands, he's capable of beating anybody on his best day... but those are few and far between... and he'd need to string a few together in quick succession to win a major. Doubt it personally.

 

[atttomole]

No.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Probably more over-hyped than overrated. Tends to happen a lot when someone gets a huge win at an early stage playing ridiculous tennis. It's nothing new. He's obviously talented, but to me even beyond his well-documented mental issues (in a tennis sense I mean), I think there are a few things lacking in his game. It's not simply a matter of getting his head straight although that obviously would be a good place to start. Still, his weapons are huge and on his day he can be unplayable, but this applies to many players.

 

[Moxie]

Probably more over-hyped than overrated. Tends to happen a lot when someone gets a huge win at an early stage playing ridiculous tennis. It's nothing new. He's obviously talented, but to me even beyond his well-documented mental issues (in a tennis sense I mean), I think there are a few things lacking in his game. It's not simply a matter of getting his head straight although that obviously would be a good place to start. Still, his weapons are huge and on his day he can be unplayable, but this applies to many players.

"Over-hyped" is a good distinction. And, as there's another thread about Tsonga, it makes another interesting comparison, to your point: Tsonga is one that you could say is unplayable on his day, or was. Has had a lot of injuries, as has Nick, and maybe not the best head on the court. Can I go to the old saw of inserting Nalbandian and even Safin here? It all rather highlights that what it takes to make a great champion isn't just some spectacular weapons, flashy wins, and/or what is perceived as "talent."

 

[brokenshoelace]

"Over-hyped" is a good distinction. And, as there's another thread about Tsonga, it makes another interesting comparison, to your point: Tsonga is one that you could say is unplayable on his day, or was. Has had a lot of injuries, as has Nick, and maybe not the best head on the court. Can I go to the old saw of inserting Nalbandian and even Safin here? It all rather highlights that what it takes to make a great champion isn't just some spectacular weapons, flashy wins, and/or what is perceived as "talent."

Safin and Nalbandian both achieved far more than these guys though. I mean Marat is a two time major champion and a world number 1. That's a hall of fame career. I'd simply call him an underachiever because he should have done even more. Ditto for Nalbandian despite not being as decorated as Marat. His talent, like Safin's, was far beyond Tsonga/Kyrgios/etc...and it showed through results. Now yes, what separates Safin/Nalbandian from great champions...that's whole different conversation altogether, as there's so much that goes into it beyond talent.

 

[Moxie]

Safin and Nalbandian both achieved far more than these guys though. I mean Marat is a two time major champion and a world number 1. That's a hall of fame career. I'd simply call him an underachiever because he should have done even more. Ditto for Nalbandian despite not being as decorated as Marat. His talent, like Safin's, was far beyond Tsonga/Kyrgios/etc...and it showed through results. Now yes, what separates Safin/Nalbandian from great champions...that's whole different conversation altogether, as there's so much that goes into it beyond talent.

I did say that I threw them in trepidatiously, but I do think you get my point. It's about what goes into it beyond talent. Tsonga has a Major final and 2 MS 1000 wins. Plus one YEC final showing. I think that puts the difference between him and Nalbandian at one YEC win, of which Jo was just the final away. Not that far different. (Tsonga and Nalbandian both had one appearance in a Major final.) Probably only Safin is far different. I know it's a whole conversation about what makes the difference in a great champion, but I'm saying that these are likely two examples (Tsonga and Kyrgios,) since we're talking about them.