Joined
·
80 Posts
I never understood why people brand Kyrgios as this perfect player, with talent comparable to Federer's. I will assume that talent in this context refers to how much better one could be if he applied himself the way the hard workers of the tour apply themselves. So talent means potential for greatness, right???
Ok, with that out of the way, let's begin our analysis. He is listed as 193cm and 85 kg. So, a relatively tall guy with a light/medium build. Almost ideal for tennis. He should have great but not exceptional movement and a great but not a booming serve right? What we see on court however, is a guy who moves like he got hit by a car before the match. Low top speed, not very explosive when changing directions, quite below average even among guys his height. We have, for example, Zverev and Medvedev who are quite a bit taller than him, yet they move like gazelles compared to Nick. Monfils is the same height as Kyrgios. They are not even in the same universe movement wise. One could argue that with commitment and a good coach, his movement can be fixed. I would tend to agree, but you won't make a 2005 Nadal or Monfils out of him, which is my point.
Ok, maybe movement is not his forte. Let's take a look at his shotmaking. His groundstrokes are odd, a spinny forehand and quite a flat backhand. In neutral rallies, he has a very hard time. He needs to hit the ball as hard as humanly possible to hit winners. Never do we see controlled aggression from him. This can't work, even on grass, because those erros become costly late in the set. You need to have a sustainable game. Ok, maybe his shot selection just isn't there. His dropshots and net game are decent, and we could say he has good feel, but ultimately these elements won't make or break a player, as evidenced by Djokovic and Zverev.
Finally, we get to arguably the most important aspect of a tennis player's game, his head. Mental strength, balls, behaviour when pressured, whatever you want to call it. With the sheer amount of times Kyrgios has had an outburst on court, it's safe to say he isn't a mental giant by any means. If we look closer, he doesn't tend to choke away big leads, he is steady when playing well, but is too easily distracted and is too prone to getting angry than any guy who has ever won a slam. Already, this would suggest that he isn't on that level. And if all that I said earlier wasn't enough, he is 25, which means he has already wasted 2 or 3 years of his prime.
A player who has nothing to fall back on but his serve is still somehow the darling of this forum, people who claim they love tennis, I mean what the hell guys and gals???? Nothing but a glorified servebot who claims he hates tennis because of his fragile ego.
If someone thinks they can convince me otherwise, go for it. Send videos or type it out. I am not attacking anyone, I just want to know what the general consensus is.
Ok, with that out of the way, let's begin our analysis. He is listed as 193cm and 85 kg. So, a relatively tall guy with a light/medium build. Almost ideal for tennis. He should have great but not exceptional movement and a great but not a booming serve right? What we see on court however, is a guy who moves like he got hit by a car before the match. Low top speed, not very explosive when changing directions, quite below average even among guys his height. We have, for example, Zverev and Medvedev who are quite a bit taller than him, yet they move like gazelles compared to Nick. Monfils is the same height as Kyrgios. They are not even in the same universe movement wise. One could argue that with commitment and a good coach, his movement can be fixed. I would tend to agree, but you won't make a 2005 Nadal or Monfils out of him, which is my point.
Ok, maybe movement is not his forte. Let's take a look at his shotmaking. His groundstrokes are odd, a spinny forehand and quite a flat backhand. In neutral rallies, he has a very hard time. He needs to hit the ball as hard as humanly possible to hit winners. Never do we see controlled aggression from him. This can't work, even on grass, because those erros become costly late in the set. You need to have a sustainable game. Ok, maybe his shot selection just isn't there. His dropshots and net game are decent, and we could say he has good feel, but ultimately these elements won't make or break a player, as evidenced by Djokovic and Zverev.
Finally, we get to arguably the most important aspect of a tennis player's game, his head. Mental strength, balls, behaviour when pressured, whatever you want to call it. With the sheer amount of times Kyrgios has had an outburst on court, it's safe to say he isn't a mental giant by any means. If we look closer, he doesn't tend to choke away big leads, he is steady when playing well, but is too easily distracted and is too prone to getting angry than any guy who has ever won a slam. Already, this would suggest that he isn't on that level. And if all that I said earlier wasn't enough, he is 25, which means he has already wasted 2 or 3 years of his prime.
A player who has nothing to fall back on but his serve is still somehow the darling of this forum, people who claim they love tennis, I mean what the hell guys and gals???? Nothing but a glorified servebot who claims he hates tennis because of his fragile ego.
If someone thinks they can convince me otherwise, go for it. Send videos or type it out. I am not attacking anyone, I just want to know what the general consensus is.
