big ted
Legend
there were no points or Russian players that year
"I know I can be one of the best in the world and win major tournaments" Nick Kyrgios Is Attempting to Rewrite The History Books
- Thread starter CHillTennis
- Start date
-
- Tags
- chilltennis nick kyrgios
there were no points or Russian players that year
soldat
Semi-Pro
Actually, Kyrgios is and was afraid of trying his best and still losing.
Honza
Professional
Yeah no, not the regular Wimbledon.
It was something between an exibition and a real tournament.
Yep, exactly, that is why he sabotaged himself in Wimbledon final.
Rattler
Hall of Fame
Oh they winners didn’t get their names engraved in the trophies?
They didn’t get paid the same prize money as other contemporary winners?
Saying it wasn’t the Real Wimbledon is simply not true…it may not have had the strongest field, but it was still Wimbledon
So Djokovic has 23 slams, not 24?
Honza
Professional
All I am saying is, prizemoney is one part, the points are an important part as well.
I dont see this Djokovic win like the other Djokovic wins.
CHillTennis
Hall of Fame
Only because of the walk-over against Nadal.
I think he won a few rounds before that as well. And he's beaten Nadal on W before. Bottom line, he was in the final.
CHillTennis
Hall of Fame
Nick was nearly sent packing by low ranked players on numerous occasions, throughout that tournament.
If anything, that is proof as to how weak Nick actually is.
He did have the win against Nadal at Wimbledon in 2014, but he lost to him in 2019.
Nick would have lost again if Nadal had been fit enough to play in that semi-final.
He is the luckiest "grand slam finalist" in the history of the sport.
Man, I'd love to have your magic 8 ball.. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Nadal didn't play because he was injured. That's a fact. We don't know who would have won, because NK could legitly win as he's done before, or lose, or one of them could get injured in that match etc etc .
It's moot because the match didn't happen, but to declare he would have lost regardless is just narrowminded. After all, ND was sure to win last years W final too, right? And this years AO's SF.
And those 'nearly packing' legitimatly turned into his opponents who where actually doing the packing...
He made it to the final by actually winning his matches but it seems that is too bitter a taste for you.
There were several "behavioural issues." Tanking a Davis Cup match was one of them.Whar behavioral issues prevented Nick from representing Australia at 2016 Olympics?
The Australian also revealed he won't be putting his hand up to represent his country at this year's upcoming Paris Olympics, citing the treatment he got from the Australian Olympic Committee in the lead-up to the 2016 Rio Games as a "disgrace," and a key factor in the decision.
"I was No. 13 at the time and had a genuine chance at winning a medal. For them to forbid me from representing my country for behavioral reasons is something that I just can't forget," he said.
CHillTennis
Hall of Fame
There is nothing to suggest that a guy that could barely beat 200th ranked Paul Jubb, could turn right around and defeat the #1 player in the world (who was riding a 19 match grand slam winning streak.)
Better_Call_Raul
Hall of Fame
If he is going to tank a Davis Cup he should have zero expectation of playing in the Olympics. In both cases you are representing your country.
Yet the dunderhead whines about not being selected.
Then why play at all?
Close matches from yesterday don't matter anymore once they are won. That's tennis. Federer had a bunch of 5 sets before wininng AO '17 as just a random example. And sticking with it and pulling out difficult matches is exactly what tennis players need to be able to do 90% of the time, because the days where everything goes well are rare. While you see it apparently as something negative, for an actual tennis player it grows condifence and builds momentum and experience.
Different day, different match, different matchup. There are tons of reasons why Nadal could lose even that match. And there are equally lots of reaons why Kyrgios could win. And vice versa.
But the fact of the matter is, the match wasn't played and NK was in the finals. He was healthy, Nadal was not.
tennis24x7
Hall of Fame
Not even close.
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
I think USO 2022 was his best chance at a major. At Wimbledon, he was never going to beat Djokovic in a final, and he also would have had to beat Nadal in the SF had he not withdrawn.
At the USO he was playing great, he beat Medvedev and Alcaraz was not having that great of a run. He was unclucth in that Khachanov match, if not he would have had a very solid chance of winning. No Djokovic, Nadal eliminated, he had the experience of a slam final while his rivals mostly did not.
Or if you believe HIM, since he plead guilty.
At the USO he was playing great, he beat Medvedev and Alcaraz was not having that great of a run. He was unclucth in that Khachanov match, if not he would have had a very solid chance of winning. No Djokovic, Nadal eliminated, he had the experience of a slam final while his rivals mostly did not.
Or if you believe HIM, since he plead guilty.
He plead guilty to common assult (which is the lowest type of assult there is under Australian law). He did not plead guilty any of the other forms:
- assault occasioning bodily harm
- unlawful wounding
- grievous bodily harm
- sexual assault.
In Kyrgios' case it was a push, causing the drunk screaming woman who prevented him to get in his car and remove himself from the sitauation, to fall over.
And the judge, who is the ultimate factfinder and arbiter of truth, took his plea, heard testimony, weighed the evidence and dismissed the charges.
Vincent-C
Legend
That's it.
CHillTennis
Hall of Fame
While it's true that a player's performance varies day by day. You can still tell a lot about how well a player is actually playing, based on their performance in the previous rounds.
Roger Federer was extended to five sets a few times at the 2017 Australian Open. That's absolutely true. But let's look at the players that took him to 5:
Tomas Berdych - Still a force to be reckoned with in 2017.
Kei Nishikori - A very formidable opponent. Top 10 in the world at the time.
Stanislas Wawrinka - A three time grand slam champion. Recent grand slam winner. Top 5 player in the world.
You compare this to Nick Kyrgios, who was barely able to scrape his way past a few guys who were lucky to be in the main draw of a grand slam.
It puts his run at Wimbledon into perspective.
Yes. He did have the win against Tsitsipas in the third round, but Tsitsipas always plays badly at Wimbledon and the US Open.
Vincent-C
Legend
Thanks for this fine comment.He had the opportunity of his lifetime in Wimbledon. Novak was not at his best, losing sets to Kwon, van Rijhtoven, Sinner and Norrie... while Kyrgios was having fun on court, and had a W/O in the SF...
And then Novak trolled the sh1t out of him
He is never coming back to win a slam.
HitMoreBHs
Professional
Sorry, was that noob or knob?
You can tell something, but to summarily dismiss his next match as an automatic or guaranteed loss is just nuts.
But as said many times before, the discussion is moot. One player was healthy for his next match, the other not.
NK has shown that year that when he applies himself, he's a serious contender. Slam final, Doubles slam. Good results.
To bad he had to succomb to injury, but hopefully he can fully recover from his surgeries, although it's going to be very hard.
Vincent-C
Legend
CHillTennis
Hall of Fame
Good results, yes. But not a serious contender to win a grand slam.
Especially, now with the way that Sinner is playing.
Nick would have no chance.
On a side note: I don't think that Nick wants to come back to play again.
I think he will play his final match next year at the Australian Open.
A lot of matches have been lost due to lack of believe to be able to win from the best when faced any of the big 3.
If there is ANYTHING at all that NK can excell in, it is self belief, stemming from experience having beaten the best on quite a few times.
If he comes back healthy from his surgeries. that is a big question, but if he does and he gets into a scond week of a slam, you bet he has a chance.
CHillTennis
Hall of Fame
But that self-belief wasn't enough against Djokovic at Wimbledon.
The problem is that Nick can't beat these guys when they're on their game.
Aestheticsaboveallelse
Legend
"You already know"
Well..someone is going to pay him good money to turn his podcast into a tv show. I don't see that as incentive to return to the court. He's fallen off of the ATP computer in terms of ranking at this point. So yeah...he's effectively retired at this point and I don't see him coming back.
Tension of a first GS final? Lendl needed 4 before he won one. He has beaten these players quite a few times and implying they were not 'on their game' is just a lame excuse. Maybe he only lost because he wasn't on his game? Maybe they didn't find their game because he caused that?
Why are people always seeing tennis players as static entities - asif there's no growth, adjustment, form of the day, change of strategies, varying levels of confidence etc etc.
I don't subscribe to those type of black/white-no-room-for-nuance absolutist statements. They are total BS. There is always a chance.
accidental
Hall of Fame
As much as I dislike the guy, the way he was treated by the Aus Olympic team in 2016 was ridiculous.
The team captain or whoever she was wanted to ban him for things he had already been punished for by the ATP, saying he ‘didn’t understand what it is to be an Olympian’ despite never actually having met him or spoken to him
That lady herself (Kitty Chiller) was later found to have engaged in several ethical violations about judging irregularities in gymnastics, by the world gymnastics governing body, and was banned for 2 years.
He was probably at about his best in 2016, that was the year he reached his career high ranking and won 3 titles. He would have been a good chance to actually win a medal
The team captain or whoever she was wanted to ban him for things he had already been punished for by the ATP, saying he ‘didn’t understand what it is to be an Olympian’ despite never actually having met him or spoken to him
That lady herself (Kitty Chiller) was later found to have engaged in several ethical violations about judging irregularities in gymnastics, by the world gymnastics governing body, and was banned for 2 years.
He was probably at about his best in 2016, that was the year he reached his career high ranking and won 3 titles. He would have been a good chance to actually win a medal
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Always a chance, but in his case it is extremely small.
CHillTennis
Hall of Fame
Well...Djokovic was clearly not on his game when they played in 2017 or 2018. I mean it's not a stretch to say that.
The guy was losing to players like Taro Daniel.
Nadal had lost to Dustin Brown in Halle, just two weeks before he lost that match to Nick at Wimbledon 2014.
He also dropped sets in his first three matches at Wimbledon, that year.
The majority of the matches that Nick was able to win against the Big 3 were not important.
He didn't beat them in a grand slam semi or in a masters 1000 final.
The guy is massively overrated.
CHillTennis
Hall of Fame
And getting smaller all of the time.
Rattler
Hall of Fame
Rattler
Hall of Fame
Cedric Pioline, Natasha Zvereva, Malavi Washington, Alberto Berasategui, Henri Leconte, and Mary Jo Fernandez’s heads all turned and drew a sigh of relief with that statement.
CHillTennis
Hall of Fame
Yes. That's probably very true.
All of those players, however, were more accomplished than Nick Kyrgios.
Honza
Professional
What? I mean Berastegui won 14 titles and was nr 7 in the rankings, Leconte had an additional major win to his final and was 5th. Even Washington had a better ranking than Kirgyos.
We dont need to talk about Zvereva because she had better results in singles than Kirgyos, although she is a legend in doubles and won 18 major titles. Fernandez’s worst (best) result at the grand slams is a semi final.
Get your facts together dude.
A
ALCARAZWON
Guest
When I saw this thread title my first thought was 'Why make a thread about this skidmark?'.
He says crap, we don't need to hear...
Yes he had a big serve and hit tweeners (and unsuccessful tweeners), but that's not the recipe for a grand slam champion, as serve-bots don't win slams.
He says crap, we don't need to hear...
Yes he had a big serve and hit tweeners (and unsuccessful tweeners), but that's not the recipe for a grand slam champion, as serve-bots don't win slams.
Rattler
Hall of Fame
“Fernández was the runner-up at the 1990 and 1992 Australian Open, and the 1993 French Open. She also won a bronze medal at the 1992 Summer Olympics. In doubles, she won the 1991 Australian Open with Patty Fendick and the 1996 French Open with Lindsay Davenport, plus two Olympic gold medals.”
From Wikipedia’s Mary Jo Fernandez page
Sit down son
Honza
Professional
Yes thats what i said. They are all way above Kirgyos. Cant believe you compared them, son.
Ummm Im reading what you said. "Fernandez’s worst (best) result at the grand slams is a semi final." I mean thats what you said, and thats not true. So im not drunk yet possibly you are.
Similar threads
