2017 Miami QF - [12] Nick Kyrgios vs [16] Alexander Zverev

Who wins?

  • Total voters
    52
just some of the highlight points.

that lob from zverev at 9 all in the breaker was downright sick ! :eek:

the passing shot tweener from kyrgios was amazing as well ............
 
Meles said:
Zverev's and Kyrgios matches were rather amazing before this and who doesn't like Fognini?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

They were alright at best, and tbh I felt like the crowd wasn't really into it before today. Zverev-Isner was ok, (Wawrinka went down too tamely) but Kyrgios-Karlovic wasn't anything special apart from Karlovic showing mental fortitude to hold his nerve, and hitting a few incredible volleys.
 
Sereger said:
I cant figure out what else Alex has beside the groundstrokes and some rare lob shots
Click to expand...

You've answered your own question. Groundstrokes are 90% of the game today. Plus, he's obviously a decent mover and has a good mental game because he saved a ton of MPs this tournament.

That said, Kyrgios is better than him at least for now, but Kyrgios is also a bit older and there is a huge difference 19 and 21 in most sports, not only tennis. Don't get me wrong, I think Kyrgios will end up the better player mostly because he's got a bigger serve, but right now the difference in age for 2 developing players shouldn't be overlooked.

Right now you can see that Zverev has to exert more effort to hold serve, and Nick does it much easier for the most part. His service games can be Federer like at times if he hits a few good serves.
 
guys - why do you want to change nick? he is an ass sometimes,but so is his game. if he screams, or smiles, or he is yelling at someone i just dont care - tennis with him is never boring. im tired of nadal etc who are like statues with 10 towells at any side.
- I would ****ing baaaaan towells between the points!!!!its so boring and time consuming - im gonna throw up.

tennis gets a refreshment and again, we are not satisfied. i, more than ever think we need more azzzzholes like kyrgios!!!!! federer and nadal are also azzzholes but in an undercover package!!!
tennis needs this more than ever. goran ivanisevic would be the right one. every sport gets so clear and friendly ****in ****,where the **** is MIKE TYSON!? we need mike tyson, and ear rings chocolate keks, not this ****ing clinical boxing by klitzko brothers.
sports fall apart, i would much more love to live in the 70s,80s.
 
Harry_Wild said:
Love watching Nick play in matches. Nick's matches are part talented play, part show biz and part drama! Now that the total package! He even wears basketball shoes after wards. Tennis an entertaining world now! He is the tennis superstar and will be ranked in the top 10 after Miami!
Click to expand...
you got it man. i said the same thing but in a different way :D
 
That was one of my favorite matches ever.
I especially liked when it got tetchy and mean-spirited, transporting me back to the days of Connors and McEnroe! I hate the refs in all sports, they so often ruin things with their incompetence, and tennis is no exception, so it is always good to see players call them out.
But there were also some nice sportsmanship moments in there, like Nick begging Alex not to waste a really stupid challenge and "I want to see that on social media."
And obviously just the general circus atmosphere of tweeners, lobs, bees, rain... this match was the complete package in modern tennis-based entertainment experiences, missing only iguana selfies, which I believe are diurnal animals so just an unfortunate scheduling issue there.

Obviously in terms of play the overall story was Zverev just unable to get traction on Kyrgios' serve.
He fought like a cornered iguana, but it just wasn't enough.

There were some wicked BH-BH rallies, among the best I've ever seen, as both guys can deliver vicious balls off that wing. But it was interesting to see that even though Nick can pull the odd scorching FH winner out, neither of these guys really dominates points with their baseline forehands, they both played fairly pushy on that wing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gn
Wow, what a match.
Zevrev stepped up in the tiebreak and the beginning of the third.
I thought Kyrgios had lost the plot at that point.
Knee seemed to be an issue too ?!
Thought he might throw the towel in even, but he just won the right points to diffuse that, and the knee un-twinged itself.

That late challenge really messed with Zverev's head. But it was close wasn't it.

Hope Nick and Fed are up to it this time around.

I'm gonna catch the press conferences, should be interesting :)

Young guns with possibly years of battling ahead of them.
 
Watching this match last night, a certain video came to mind. This one.


And what Federer has to say here also applies for Nick Kurious and his whole career. That's why its so frustrating to see people talk about how talented player he is. He probably has ADD or ADHD or something, since he is constantly playing stupid shots just for style points. I don't think he has ever cared about tennis, and that gives him an invincibility on court, that he doesn't care if the ball lands out or in. It's just like Djokovic lost hope, mentally checked out, and his ridiculous shot got lucky and landed in, I can understand why Federer felt cheated. It's a tactic that Kurious uses a lot, except he mentally checks out from the first point of the match. All he is looking for is an opportunity to hit the next tweener that will get a reaction from the crowd. You have to understand how insulating that is from feeling actual nervousness or tension - which helps a lot when it comes to serving.

Kurious is a decent player, but more talented that Zverev - no! I'm sorry but I can't agree with that. There is more to tennis than hitting trick shots. It takes dedication, determination and perserverance to reach the top. If you don't experience lose, and just shrug it off, then you won't improve. That is why Zverev will win over 10 slams, and Kurious win will 1 if he is lucky. I am disheartened to see people giving Kurious a second chance, when he hasn't actually showed a change from his old self. Yes, he hasn't tanked his matches this year, but where it actually counts he switches off and creates his own little games to play. It's sad to see people applauding his antics, or trying to justify it.
 
Zebrev said:
Watching this match last night, a certain video came to mind. This one.


And what Federer has to say here also applies for Nick Kurious and his whole career. That's why its so frustrating to see people talk about how talented player he is. He probably has ADD or ADHD or something, since he is constantly playing stupid shots just for style points. I don't think he has ever cared about tennis, and that gives him an invincibility on court, that he doesn't care if the ball lands out or in. It's just like Djokovic lost hope, mentally checked out, and his ridiculous shot got lucky and landed in, I can understand why Federer felt cheated. It's a tactic that Kurious uses a lot, except he mentally checks out from the first point of the match. All he is looking for is an opportunity to hit the next tweener that will get a reaction from the crowd. You have to understand how insulating that is from feeling actual nervousness or tension - which helps a lot when it comes to serving.

Kurious is a decent player, but more talented that Zverev - no! I'm sorry but I can't agree with that. There is more to tennis than hitting trick shots. It takes dedication, determination and perserverance to reach the top. If you don't experience lose, and just shrug it off, then you won't improve. That is why Zverev will win over 10 slams, and Kurious win will 1 if he is lucky. I am disheartened to see people giving Kurious a second chance, when he hasn't actually showed a change from his old self. Yes, he hasn't tanked his matches this year, but where it actually counts he switches off and creates his own little games to play. It's sad to see people applauding his antics, or trying to justify it.
Click to expand...

The trick shots are extraneous. The serve, backhand, forehand, and speed are where the real talent lie. His backhand is devastating. His serve is huge, and he can do what he wants on his forehand. He's getting to balls that are nearly in the stands. His only issues are mental, which of course is saying a lot, but I've seen flashes when he bears down that he could be frighteningly good.
 
quoting myself from GM
I am still unsure about Kyrgios, but A Zverev is one of the greatest inventions of internet tennis message boards (and also a superb statement of how little some people understand pro tennis). He doesn't have neither the technical skills neither the physical ones to be nearly half as good as some expect (and never will have).
Click to expand...
 
It was really eye opening to me how much more defending Zverev was doing opposed to Nick. I only tuned in after the first set but Zverev was playing well behind the baseline while Krygios was on it. I haven't watched Zverev that much, but does he usually play deep in the court? My other takeaway from watching the second set was there was little chance Zverev could pull it off. He has a few years to catch up, but the talent gap is fairly large between the two at this point.
 
Steve0904 said:
Do you have a better statement then? If you do I suggest you say it.
Click to expand...

I can do a better one, although I really have no clue about precise probabilities. Generally speaking, once you reach certain level of development on your groundstrokes, they stop stop being so important, especially on fast courts. And When I talk about "certain level" I mean the two more important things that groundstrokes should give a player. Ability of not breaking down on balls of average to low level of difficulty and ability to help a player to maintain his serve. These two things are one in great extensions of a match, especially because most serve breaks happens due to someone's errors.

Obviously, it's not so simple to have groundstrokes that doesn't break down on average-low level of difficulty balls, especially if you want to attack these balls to win games, even more on your own service game where the pressure for not missing is greater.

But if you have enough quality on serve and return, you can do without elite level groundstrokes. You just need to be able to win a couple of these average to low level of difficulty balls on your own serve with a good frequency and to not leak many uf's on your opponent's serve, and your with the help of a fairly efficient serve and a good return, you have good chances to win the vast majority of the matches.
 
BlackSilver said:
I can do a better one, although I really have no clue about precise probabilities. Generally speaking, once you reach certain level of development on your groundstrokes, they stop stop being so important, especially on fast courts. And When I talk about "certain level" I mean the two more important things that groundstrokes should give a player. Ability of not breaking down on balls of average to low level of difficulty and ability to help a player to maintain his serve. These two things are one in great extensions of a match, especially because most serve breaks happens due to someone's errors.

Obviously, it's not so simple to have groundstrokes that doesn't break down on average-low level of difficulty balls, especially if you want to attack these balls to win games, even more on your own service game where the pressure for not missing is greater.

But if you have enough quality on serve and return, you can do without elite level groundstrokes. You just need to be able to win a couple of these average to low level of difficulty balls on your own serve with a good frequency and to not leak many uf's on your opponent's serve, and your with the help of a fairly efficient serve and a good return, you have good chances to win the vast majority of the matches.
Click to expand...

90% was overstating it, I agree, but tbh the first thought in my head when I said that was that due to the homogenization of surfaces, groundstrokes have become perhaps more important than they used to be. As in, yes it's very important to have a good serve, but at today's top level you see Djokovic vs Nadal and Djokovic vs Murray for example where most serves get returned and then it turns into a groundstroke battle.

In Kyrgios's case his serve covers some of the inefficiency in his groundstrokes at least for now, but the return is perhaps more important than ever before so Kyrgios needs to improve there if he is to go to the next level IMO.
 
I mean, 90% was obviously just some subtle hyperbole as to make a point. I mean surely we can see that (lol). No?

Solid point.
 
Steve0904 said:
90% was overstating it, I agree, but tbh the first thought in my head when I said that was that due to the homogenization of surfaces, groundstrokes have become perhaps more important than they used to be. As in, yes it's very important to have a good serve, but at today's top level you see Djokovic vs Nadal and Djokovic vs Murray for example where most serves get returned and then it turns into a groundstroke battle.

In Kyrgios's case his serve covers some of the inefficiency in his groundstrokes at least for now, but the return is perhaps more important than ever before so Kyrgios needs to improve there if he is to go to the next level IMO.
Click to expand...

Djokovic vs Nadal isn't a very good example because Nadal serve is a little too weak.
Let's pick Djokovic vs Murray. Murray's serve isn't returned as much, at least not always. I don't remember if it was in Doha or Masters Cup, but Murray was getting about 30% of free points, against about 10% of Djokovic. You can say that's precisely the point of Djokovic superior ground game enabling him to face or beat Murray, and honestly, you are right. But that's a extreme case in favor of groundtsroke's. Let's look at the opposite side. Nishikori and Davydenko. Both with great groundtsrokes. Definitely better than Murray with his average forehand from my pov. And yet they are far less accomplished players than Murray.

I agree about kyrgios and I doubt his return is gonna improve considerably. His formation years are already over and technical improvements are marginal from there. I have no idea if his great serve, decent but far from amazing groundstrokes, good touch and possibly good net game will be enough to make him number one given his return vulnerabilities and probable inability to win a lot of points on clay season. I guess it will depend a lot on how many of his competitors will be a bad match up for him.

I mean, 90% was obviously just some subtle hyperbole as to make a point. I mean surely we can see that (lol). No?
Click to expand...

Apparently I didn't note it, my bad.
 
BlackSilver said:
Djokovic vs Nadal isn't a very good example because Nadal serve is a little too weak.
Let's pick Djokovic vs Murray. Murray's serve isn't returned as much, at least not always. I don't remember if it was in Doha or Masters Cup, but Murray was getting about 30% of free points, against about 10% of Djokovic. You can say that's precisely the point of Djokovic superior ground game enabling him to face or beat Murray, and honestly, you are right. But that's a extreme case in favor of groundtsroke's. Let's look at the opposite side. Nishikori and Davydenko. Both with great groundtsrokes. Definitely better than Murray with his average forehand from my pov. And yet they are far less accomplished players than Murray.

I agree about kyrgios and I doubt his return is gonna improve considerably. His formation years are already over and technical improvements are marginal from there. I have no idea if his great serve, decent but far from amazing groundstrokes, good touch and possibly good net game will be enough to make him number one given his return vulnerabilities and probable inability to win a lot of points on clay season. I guess it will depend a lot on how many of his competitors will be a bad match up for him.



Apparently I didn't note it, my bad.
Click to expand...

But that's my point. Having a weak serve just increases the importance of groundstrokes. Do you remember what Nadal was like in 2005 for example when he just spun in his serve on clay (and it wasn't very good on other surfaces either)? He won on the consistency of his groundstrokes. Of course a lot of that was freakish speed and stamina as well (and I'm not saying Zverev will end up anywhere near Nadal in career achievements), but he also hardly made any errors when he got to the ball. Nadal in 2005 was the same age that Zverev is now. Granted they are completely different players and Zverev's serve is better than Nadal's was in 2005, but the fact that Zverev has solid, consistent groundstrokes at this point is very important, even if he doesn't have the speed or stamina of young Nadal.

Don't agree that Nishikori or Davydenko have better groundstrokes than Murray, but I kind of see your point. It is possible that if Davy or Nishi had a better serve they could be right up to Andy's level of accomplishment. Or if either was better mentally and had better stamina the same might be true so there is more to it than groundstrokes, yes, but I do think Andy's are, let's say slightly better than both on a consistent, day to day basis.



90% was a bit of hyperbole, yes, but I understand why you missed it. It's hard to notice on the internet sometimes. :) A better statement is probably that solid groundstrokes are the foundation of your game. That was always the case obviously, but it's more true now than ever, IMO.
 
Last edited:
BeatlesFan said:
And Stan admitted he was "exhausted" and basically tanked those sets, so Zverev's best sets were against a guy who wasn't interested in winning.

I think Nick is winning this entire thing and he'll beat Z-man in straight sets. Nick is focused and scary good this week. He'll beat Federer and Nadal (or whoever else ends up in the final). He's officially arrived as a true force in the men's game. The opposition should feel happy clay is coming and Nick will disappear until grass season.
Click to expand...
Jesus christ!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
  • Poll Poll
2017 Miami SF - [4] Roger Federer vs [12] Nick Kyrgios
51 52 53
Replies
3K
Views
143K
D.Nalby12
D
D
  • Poll Poll
2018 Miami QF: (4) Alexander Zverev vs (29) Borna Coric
3 4 5
Replies
208
Views
15K
NuBas
NuBas
tennis_pro
  • Poll Poll
Indian Wells 2017 QF: [9]Roger Federer vs [15]Nick Kyrgios
4 5 6
Replies
254
Views
18K
Subway Tennis
Subway Tennis
D
  • Poll Poll
2023 Roland Garros QF: [22] Alexander Zverev vs Tomas Martin Etcheverry
6 7 8
Replies
367
Views
14K
Beulah Jesus
Beulah Jesus
S
Check out new preview Nikoloz Basilashvili vs Alexander Zverev!
2
Replies
57
Views
4K
Kozzy
K
Back
Top