PDA

View Full Version : Kevin Kim


Tezuka Kunimitsu
06-02-2006, 03:48 AM
I really like the way this guy is playing. Nice backhand which really impresses me, kind of like federer or blake but more power. I hope he can hold his level of play today. Why has this guy not done any better then his current ranking...?

~Joe

the well
06-02-2006, 04:48 AM
he's better at attacking than defending so he'll prolly lose the point if he doesnt get the 1st big hit.
but he's reallu good to watch when he's playing well

MaxT
06-02-2006, 05:55 AM
More power? Than Fed and Blake? Can it be?

goober
06-02-2006, 06:02 AM
I really like the way this guy is playing. Nice backhand which really impresses me, kind of like federer or blake but more power. I hope he can hold his level of play today. Why has this guy not done any better then his current ranking...?

~Joe

More power Blake or Fed? uh no both those guys hit way harder than Kim. I have seen Kim play in person multiple times.

Kevin Kim has no big weapons which is why at his age (28 next month) he will not break into the top 50. He is like a lot of players at his ranking level- good solid all around game, but nothing that is going to hurt a top player. He will have an occasional big win (over JCF last year for example), but he has never gone further than 3rd round in a slam and he did that only once.

anonymous2364
06-02-2006, 08:01 AM
Kevin Kim.......................

Tchocky
06-02-2006, 10:12 AM
He's got a decent game but he's not consistent enough. I think he plays mostly challengers.

!Tym
06-02-2006, 04:48 PM
He's got a decent game but he's not consistent enough. I think he plays mostly challengers.

Actually, the reason he moved up was that he toned down his game by trying to play percentage tennis. Before he played brain-dead. Spadea was livid at himself after losing to Kim in the finals of a challenger in straight sets saying that "everyone knows he's not that consistent," that he was an idiot for trying to hit with him, instead of just keeping a few balls in play and letting him miss.

As a junior, when he made #1 in the nation, he was more of a shotmaker who tried to hit hard and flat. Then, he went to the Palmer Academy, and really struggled with his confidence and his play dropped. His old coach watched him play during this time and said it was sickening what they did to his game, that he couldn't even recognize him anymore. That he was trying to hit topspin and just loop the ball with no pace just like everyone else, but that that was a mistake because not everyone can hit the ball as hard as Kevin, etc. type talk.

I think what hurt him is that he's not quite gifted enough in terms of timing and hand-eye coordination to get away with a high risk style (his strokes are actually pretty classical and flat) at the highest level, yet he's also not really born to be a Goldstein/Mammit/Alex Kim type who are naturally less risk taking on the court and more consistent and steady mentally. Yet, while those three guys didn't/don't have quite enough power or unreal Clement type speed to make it at the next level, Kevin Kim isn't naturally strong in the areas where they're strong. If you could combine the attributes of both, you'd have a solid top 50 player in my opinion rather than the type that's always on the fringe and yet never really any true threat of ever "breaking through" into the top 50.

Anyway, the bottom-line is that he's done better since trying to become more of a percentage player, but not quite good enough to ever truly be a top 50 player. I think he's capped out to be honest. He's not quite good enough trying to play percentage tennis, and he's not quite good enough trying to play high-risk tennis.

Still, he's of course a better player than 99.9% of the population anyway, so that's nothing to be ashamed about. We have to put things in perspective after all. It's all relative.

Anyway, to me, he's basically like a Paradorn Srichiphan lite. Not quite as explosive/talented, similar body frame, but Srichiphan's just a little taller, etc. Basically, if he were a little taller like Srichiphan? Who knows, maybe that makes the difference. It's not much that makes a difference at this level, heck, Kevin Kim decides to switch rackets on a lark and wala he starts getting on a roll over night which I guess kind of just proves the point of how little difference there is. It's subtle steps that make HUGE differences at this level in my opinion since for the most part when you play a game all your life as all these pros do it's hard to really improve that much or that dramatically. It's micro-management.

AngeloDS
06-02-2006, 08:44 PM
Actually, my college tennis coach and his Japanese doubles partner beat Kevin Kim and his doubles partner in a satelite tournament in doubles not too long ago.

I wish I could see him play up close though. He has a really nice game :).

LN_Dad
06-02-2006, 09:06 PM
His ranking has been climbing. Gotta give him credit for perservering on the tour all these years.

BreakPoint
06-02-2006, 09:43 PM
Yeah I wish ESPN showed more of Kim's match with Nadal. In the 3 games that they did show, I was very impressed with Kim. He had very big shots that put pressure on Nadal and had Nadal on the defensive. It could have easily been 3-0 Kim in the first set. If the match were on hardcourts, I'd say Kim could have won the match.

superman1
06-02-2006, 10:18 PM
You think Kevin Kim could have beaten Nadal on a hardcourt?? Kim was hitting the ball well, so what? There's a lot more to tennis than that, and that was apparent 10 minutes into the match when the score showed Nadal suddenly charging ahead. It's one thing to stay with Nadal in the rallies, any decent pro can do that, it's another to actually break him and win sets off of him. On the other hand, even if you're a decent pro you have no chance at staying with Federer in the rallies. They both play the game differently, but the end result is always the same.

!Tym
06-02-2006, 10:51 PM
You think Kevin Kim could have beaten Nadal on a hardcourt?? Kim was hitting the ball well, so what? There's a lot more to tennis than that, and that was apparent 10 minutes into the match when the score showed Nadal suddenly charging ahead. It's one thing to stay with Nadal in the rallies, any decent pro can do that, it's another to actually break him and win sets off of him. On the other hand, even if you're a decent pro you have no chance at staying with Federer in the rallies. They both play the game differently, but the end result is always the same.

Very true. Kim has nice looking "classical" strokes, as Dent said, hard and flat. Another friend saw him play Coria to two tie-breaks at Indian Wells, and said he was hitting his forehand big and looked like he had all the tools, that he didn't know what was wrong with him, but that whenever there was an important point, he just didn't come through. To be honest, this is kind of the m.o. on him in my opinion. In the first set against Dent at Wimbledon last year, he beat Dent in like all the stats, and Gilbert goes how do you lose a set when you're winning in all the stats department like that? In the end, he went down in straights predictably.

Against Corretja many years ago when Corretja was a top player, he came from the qualies and got up 5-1 in the first against him, before crumbling. Lost the set 7-5, and the next like 6-1 or something. Against Johannson at the Aussie, he should have had him, Johannson was angry, flustered, and if Kim had applied more pressure, he was very close to crumbling mentally. But instead, Kim got tired physically and mentally just let up and started playing carelessly and wasn't stringing anything together, and then Johansson ran away with it. By the end of the match, Johansson went from looking about to go into the fish tank sour to "peppy" looking. At this level, it tells you something when one player lets another player recover mentally when they look like they're about to go into the fish tank. That's what made a guy like Chang great. If a guy got that foul mood look in a match with Chang or a Muster, you can bet that they would NOT recover mentally. These guys are animals mentally and simply wouldn't allow it. When they sensed that, they had a knack, knew how to close it out. Kevin Kim doesn't have that. Neither does Parador Srichiphan. There's something that are intangibles and that you can't quite quantify. Some players just have a knack and others don't. Santoro has that knack. Chang as a junior high kid was famous in practice to the high school coach whose team he played for, he said that he played so many sets that went to tie-breaks in practice because he was always playing bigger, older guys; but he just had that knack, and he'd always pull it out in a tie-break anyway. That's what I mean. Meanwhile, when Kevin Kim was a junior, he was unusual in that he didn't like to wear the US National Team jacket, once he was selected for the team, he started feeling more pressure, and that's when his game went down, he was said to take the jacket off immediately after he played his match, because he didn't like to stand out like that, never felt comfortable in it.

And that's not even the pros yet, which tells you something. Sricihphan to me is much the same way, only at a higher level. Yet against higher competition, Srichiphan might play a top player and entice you now and then, or look like he's doing well, but in the end he loses or somehow kind of just goes away, or you never really feel like he can go the distance and close it out. Classic examples are the Sanguinetti match at the US Open. Sanguinetti is an old man and doesn't have Srichiphan's "tools," but Srichiphan, you just don't have the faith that when it really comes down to it, he'll be able to close him out. Another example, is Srichiphan vs. Blake from earlier this year at Indian Wells. Srichiphan actually started off that match red hot, and looked like he had Blake on the ropes, but Blake kept on plugging away and chasing everything down, and when it came time to close the set out, Srichiphan started faltering just a little, which allowed Blake to gather his bearings, hang around, and then eventually steal the first from behind...YET, you saw it coming from a MILE AWAY. Then the second set, Sriciphan just goes completely away. And Blake takes the momentum and runs with it never looking back. That's the difference, not necessarily the strokes or the games between the two, which are virtually identical, not to mention their builds. When it really just comes down it, some guys just have that knack and the intangibles and some don't in my opinion. I just don't think that's the kind of thing you can teach either. As Chang proved way back when as a junior high student playing high school kids, as Hewitt proved when he first burst onto the scene pugnacious as ever, you either have this or you don't right from the beginning.

There's no hiding it, that knack...that knack for whack, err, "rap." Look at Spadea he's not afraidaya, I actually think Kim's a more fluid and natural player, but Spadea's had a MUCH better career simply because he has that knack, those intangibles, in my opinion. I.e. You may think he's a dufus and makes a fool of himself trying to pick up chicks rapping, and asking people on the streets of Beverly Hills to "battle rap" him, but what you should take away from that is that he just puts it out there, he's got the intangibles, that internal self-confidence that makes him a much better tennis player than he'd be without that "attribute" of his personality. In a way, he's fooling himself into thinking he's a great rapper, self-dillusiona; but in a way that's a GOOD thing, a VERY good thing, in a tennis match.


Anyway, back to the point, it's true. Kim would have almost zero chance against Nadal on hard courts, only difference would be the score would probably be closer. Yet, when it really comes down to it, even players ranked way higher than Kim fall to the same fate against Nadal and Federer. Win a few games, play a great point here or there, but to actually win the GAME, let alone the match, is tough.

I remember one poster saying that his friend practiced with Agassi once or something, and taht winning points wasn't *that* hard, but to actually win games was almost virtually impossible. It's so small the difference, yet that little extra you need to turn the tides is MONUMENTAL in terms of the development required to make up that difference in my opinion. Subtle yet monumental difference.

BreakPoint
06-02-2006, 11:02 PM
Another example, is Srichiphan vs. Blake from earlier this year at Indian Wells. Srichiphan actually started off that match red hot, and looked like he had Blake on the ropes, but Blake kept on plugging away and chasing everything down, and when it came time to close the set out, Srichiphan started faltering just a little, which allowed Blake to gather his bearings, hang around, and then eventually steal the first from behind...YET, you saw it coming from a MILE AWAY. Then the second set, Sriciphan just goes completely away. And Blake takes the momentum and runs with it never looking back. That's the difference, not necessarily the strokes or the games between the two, which are virtually identical, not to mention their builds. When it really just comes down it, some guys just have that knack and the intangibles and some don't in my opinion.o make up that difference in my opinion. Subtle yet monumental difference.

Srichaphan never played Blake at this year's Indian Wells. Srichaphan lost to Federer in the semis and then Federer beat Blake in the final. What you described above sounds more like what happened to Blake against Federer in the final.

ericsson
06-03-2006, 02:11 AM
as i suspected kim played with his good old holy grale the tour 10 gen.1 mid plus.
you can see clearly the full bumperguard and he played with the 16*19 string pattern. definately not a dnx 10.;)

http://i6.tinypic.com/11j5iqf.jpg

HyperHorse
06-03-2006, 02:44 AM
!Tym....
thanks for the history lesson.. and the effort gone into that long post... but instead of rambling on forever you could have just said...
some guys have determination, guts, the ability to perform under pressure, and some dont.
that "knack/intangibles" u are talking about is generally referred
as the ability to compete.. the X factor.. whatever..
i like to call it the ANIMAL FACTOR........

maybe Kim dont have cause he didnt eat a big juicy steak 3hrs before the match. :-P

LN_Dad
06-03-2006, 09:47 AM
!Tym....
thanks for the history lesson.. and the effort gone into that long post... but instead of rambling on forever you could have just said...
some guys have determination, guts, the ability to perform under pressure, and some dont.
that "knack/intangibles" u are talking about is generally referred
as the ability to compete.. the X factor.. whatever..
i like to call it the ANIMAL FACTOR........

maybe Kim dont have cause he didnt eat a big juicy steak 3hrs before the match. :-P
Yeah, his post looks like a Phd thesis. We get the point already.