Is Nishikori as naturally talented as Agassi?

Hardly. ...and if what you posted held any truth at all, his colossal failure to win even a single major strongly suggests he was the subject of astoundingly inferior coaching, or he lacked any court insight to support his alleged "gifts".



True; I remember the ridiculous hype around Nishikori from many Talk Tennis Warehouse members (along with their offensive "ninja" nickname they tried to sell to no buyers), and how they were all so misguided in their belief he was a majors winner waiting to happen.
Judging by your posts, it’s pretty clear that you’ve never played the game nor do you know much about it. As far as clean ballstriking and taking the ball on the rise is concerned, Kei is one of the best we’ve seen, but the problem was that we had average athletic ability, was not that great of a mover considering his size, didn’t hit on the run all that well, had a fragile body that broke down all the time, and had a weak serve.

But as far as pure ball striking is concerned, very few players who’ve ever played can hit the ball the way he does.
 
What match do people consider was Glassikori at his absolute zenith?

The 2014 Madrid final really sums up the highs and lows of GOATkori in a single event for me.

The guy was toying with Nadal and then right as he secured the crucial break in the second set his body literally started disintegrating step by step until he retired the match barely able to support his own body weight with his back injury.

Very few players from the Big 3 generation have ever shown anything like that type of ability against Rafa in a clay final (admittedly Rafa’s least favourite type of clay conditions) and for me it really sums up what Kei was capable of.


Look at the way he takes the ball early even on clay and has Nada on skates because of how early Nishikori can get to the ball and then hold it on his racket and then wrong foot nadal at kind of like the way Mecir used to do.
 
…I remember the ridiculous hype around Nishikori from many Talk Tennis Warehouse members (along with their offensive "ninja" nickname they tried to sell to no buyers), and how they were all so misguided in their belief he was a majors winner waiting to happen.
giphy.gif
 
Interesting comparison! Nishikori is undoubtedly a top-level player, with exceptional timing and very clean technique, especially on the backhand. But if we're talking about "natural talent," I think Agassi is on another level.


Agassi had an effortless style of play, especially in his return of serve and his ability to take the ball early. It almost seemed like time slowed down for him. Nishikori, on the other hand, is a tireless worker, someone who built his level through incredible dedication, but his talent—though remarkable—is, in my opinion, more "trained" than pure.


That said, Nishikori has done extraordinary things, especially considering all the injuries. But Agassi had that extra spark, that touch of genius you can't teach.


I actually rewatched some of their highlights recently, right before placing a small bet on a current ATP match (got inspired by all this nostalgia ). I’ve been using one of the best betting sites in Asia lately — pretty solid odds and smooth experience overall.


What do you think? Who had the edge in raw talent?
 
Last edited:

Look at the way he takes the ball early even on clay and has Nada on skates because of how early Nishikori can get to the ball and then hold it on his racket and then wrong foot nadal at kind of like the way Mecir used to do.
Phenomenal racquetface awareness and those liquid stroke mechanics. I think the fact that he could take the ball so early and had such skill with ball redirection is a big part of what made his baseline game so devastating.
 
I think that most of the posters got it right on Kei.

As a comp, Agassi is a bridge too far for him, but I would include Nish in a group of undersized players (including Goffin and Dolgopolov) who are/were great to watch. Yes, he was the best of those three, and Dolg was not as good as the other two, but had a singular style. None won majors but were highly skilled ball strikers. I forgot about Diego S, who also didn't win a major but was a terrific player.
 
Nishikori is talented, but he doesn't really standout because of talent.
He stands out because of his 29-8 record in 5-setters, easily the most notable thing about him.
 
I think that most of the posters got it right on Kei.

As a comp, Agassi is a bridge too far for him, but I would include Nish in a group of undersized players (including Goffin and Dolgopolov) who are/were great to watch. Yes, he was the best of those three, and Dolg was not as good as the other two, but had a singular style. None won majors but were highly skilled ball strikers. I forgot about Diego S, who also didn't win a major but was a terrific player.
Even though they are close, agassi is just an inch taller and far bulkier.

A better serve and powerful groundstrokes alone can make so much difference.
 
Andre, had he been serious about tennis during his early years, would have put up multiple .900 seasons. He was just a whisker shy of .900 in 1995, then ended that peak by using meth. I remember the announcers saying that Agassi was 10 lbs above his peak playing weight during those early years. He was too busy making those “Image is Everything Canon commercials while chasing a lot of women(eat your heart out Safin). There was talk about his dedication to the sport(certainly not dedicated like a post-1984 Lendl, who once biked 37 miles the same day after winning a championship match).


Wait…..I got sidetracked. The OP is crazy here to compare Nishi to Agassi. Nishi had 50 times the amount of talent that Agassi did. To be fair, he had evolution on his side.

Pancho was fantastic. But later on, the human species evolved, which allowed us to get players like McEnroe and Lendl. It evolved more, which allowed Agassi to happen.

And then, it really evolved to produce Nishikori. Now to be fair, Nishikori has since been eclipsed by Casper Ruud.

So although height is usually a good way to measure a guy’s goatness, birthdate is actually a much better metric.

Hence, Ruud>>>Nishikori>>>>>>>Agassi > Mac/Lendl > Pancho.
 
Andre, had he been serious about tennis during his early years, would have put up multiple .900 seasons. He was just a whisker shy of .900 in 1995, then ended that peak by using meth. I remember the announcers saying that Agassi was 10 lbs above his peak playing weight during those early years. He was too busy making those “Image is Everything Canon commercials while chasing a lot of women(eat your heart out Safin). There was talk about his dedication to the sport(certainly not dedicated like a post-1984 Lendl, who once biked 37 miles the same day after winning a championship match).


Wait…..I got sidetracked. The OP is crazy here to compare Nishi to Agassi. Nishi had 50 times the amount of talent that Agassi did. To be fair, he had evolution on his side.

Pancho was fantastic. But later on, the human species evolved, which allowed us to get players like McEnroe and Lendl. It evolved more, which allowed Agassi to happen.

And then, it really evolved to produce Nishikori. Now to be fair, Nishikori has since been eclipsed by Casper Ruud.

So although height is usually a good way to measure a guy’s goatness, birthdate is actually a much better metric.

Hence, Ruud>>>Nishikori>>>>>>>Agassi > Mac/Lendl > Pancho.
Op either is on Mens Tennis forum or copied this thread from there and he trolls every thread. I don't even participate in them but just wanted to set the record straight.

There was a tendency of looking down at the power as a necessary thing for tennis players in the past. Like everyone should be a thin stick ballerina and if you don't have world class touch, you are not talented.

We are changing the conversation now. Big serve, power , speed , they are ALL talent. Not just how pretty the groundstrokes looks at all. Day by day, it's changing. The next gen forehands are so ugly. But inhumanely powerful.
 
Tennis is literally a sport , it's supposed to be played by big strong athletes.. Federer fans did push the aesthetics part a lot for years.

What good is aesthetics if you get pushed around so much.

We need robust athletes like Andre Agassi who controlled center and flat powerful strokes he was incredible even on clay in that era.
 
While some players might have a visually pleasing or "aesthetic" style, true tennis talent is multifaceted and encompasses natural aptitude, dedication, and strategic thinking, not just how they look or move.
Here's a breakdown of why aesthetics don't equate to talent in tennis:

Talent is Multifaceted:
Tennis talent involves a combination of natural abilities, athleticism, quick reflexes, and mental fortitude.

Physical Traits Can Be Deceptive:
While certain physical traits can aid in movement and power, they don't guarantee success at the highest level.

Dedication and Work Ethic are Crucial:
At the highest level, tennis becomes a game of chess with a racket, and success requires immense dedication and relentless training, not just physical attributes.

Strategic Thinking is Key:
A talented tennis player understands how to read the opponent, anticipate their moves, and execute strategies effectively.

"Aesthetics" Can Be Subjective:
What one person finds aesthetically pleasing, another may not, and these subjective preferences don't reflect a player's actual skill or potential.

Focus on Skill Development:
Instead of prioritizing aesthetics, coaches and players should focus on developing fundamental skills, improving technique, and building a strong game plan.

Example:
A player might have a visually impressive serve, but if their footwork is poor or their mental game is weak, they won't be a top player.
 
Eg. This Shelton guy is not very talented. He is great mover for his height and his serve is impressively fast.

But the precision lacks on every stroke. I bet there will be many who 10 years from now will make threads about how wasted his talent is and how he would be multi slam winner if he just improved his precision. Or something.


They are already doing this for Bublik who is very bad mover. Our Indian Nagal beat the guy in Melbourne and Sumit plays without a first serve.
It is what it is. Even without injuries , Agassi is a bridge too far for kei.
 
Tennis is literally a sport , it's supposed to be played by big strong athletes.. Federer fans did push the aesthetics part a lot for years.

What good is aesthetics if you get pushed around so much.

We need robust athletes like Andre Agassi who controlled center and flat powerful strokes he was incredible even on clay in that era.
Aesthetics arguments existed way before Federer started playing or before 2015 when many started watching tennis.
While some players might have a visually pleasing or "aesthetic" style, true tennis talent is multifaceted and encompasses natural aptitude, dedication, and strategic thinking, not just how they look or move.
Here's a breakdown of why aesthetics don't equate to talent in tennis:

Talent is Multifaceted:
Tennis talent involves a combination of natural abilities, athleticism, quick reflexes, and mental fortitude.

Physical Traits Can Be Deceptive:
While certain physical traits can aid in movement and power, they don't guarantee success at the highest level.

Dedication and Work Ethic are Crucial:
At the highest level, tennis becomes a game of chess with a racket, and success requires immense dedication and relentless training, not just physical attributes.

Strategic Thinking is Key:
A talented tennis player understands how to read the opponent, anticipate their moves, and execute strategies effectively.

"Aesthetics" Can Be Subjective:
What one person finds aesthetically pleasing, another may not, and these subjective preferences don't reflect a player's actual skill or potential.

Focus on Skill Development:
Instead of prioritizing aesthetics, coaches and players should focus on developing fundamental skills, improving technique, and building a strong game plan.

Example:
A player might have a visually impressive serve, but if their footwork is poor or their mental game is weak, they won't be a top player.
Thanks, ChatGPT.
 
Aesthetics arguments existed way before Federer started playing or before 2015 when many started watching tennis.

Thanks, ChatGPT.
Yes so what. We didn't start watching tennis in 2015.


@Pheasant this is what I am talking about. Every single post was a dig about how talented fed was compared to rafole and all they have is athleticism.

Uh uh. Tennis is sport. Athletes rule.
 
Hardly. ...and if what you posted held any truth at all, his colossal failure to win even a single major strongly suggests he was the subject of astoundingly inferior coaching, or he lacked any court insight to support his alleged "gifts".



True; I remember the ridiculous hype around Nishikori from many Talk Tennis Warehouse members (along with their offensive "ninja" nickname they tried to sell to no buyers), and how they were all so misguided in their belief he was a majors winner waiting to happen.
Yup, kei nishikori just like so many others was and is simply a completely falsely alleged "all-time great" who was completely futilely propagandized by the completely corrupt tennis media which continues to completely falsely assert and completely falsely propagandize that players who will never ever become true all-time greats are somehow "all-time greats".
 
If he could serve he would be insane. As a baseline/return talent he’s incredible among the best ever but his serve was not only not good it was terrible.
Return yes. Baseline as others said , he is not great in corners dude. Defense is big part of baseline. He tries too hard , makes some winners but even more UE.
 
Pleasantly surprised to see some praise for Kei's game in this thread. I loved/love his style of play and always thought he was at least bit underrated talent wise.
In the big picture the guy had an insane elite pro career but I'm still sort of disappointed that he couldn't be more consistently a threat to the big 4/win at least a few 1000s.

After his big breakthrough in 2014 a lot of people probably expected him to end up with a larger trophy cabinet than what it ended up being. I wish he could have won that Madrid 2014 final... And the USO (although he got blown off the court).
 
Pleasantly surprised to see some praise for Kei's game in this thread. I loved/love his style of play and always thought he was at least bit underrated talent wise.
In the big picture the guy had an insane elite pro career but I'm still sort of disappointed that he couldn't be more consistently a threat to the big 4/win at least a few 1000s.

After his big breakthrough in 2014 a lot of people probably expected him to end up with a larger trophy cabinet than what it ended up being. I wish he could have won that Madrid 2014 final... And the USO (although he got blown off the court).
He is worthy of winning masters 1000 for sure.
 
Judging by your posts, it’s pretty clear that you’ve never played the game nor do you know much about it.

Your feeble comedy routine died before you took the stage. Unlike you--probably started watching tennis around 2008, I've played and followed longer than you have been alive, little one, and all this asskissing / glorification of Nishikori as being as or more talented than Agassi, or how perfect parts of his form were, never brought him any career high AKA the majors. All of this little cult produces is one excuse after another.

But as far as pure ball striking is concerned, very few players who’ve ever played can hit the ball the way he does.

^ I will leave this one for others.
 
Your feeble comedy routine died before you took the stage. Unlike you--probably started watching tennis around 2008, I've played and followed longer than you have been alive, little one, and all this asskissing / glorification of Nishikori as being as or more talented than Agassi, or how perfect parts of his form were, never brought him any career high AKA the majors. All of this little cult produces is one excuse after another.



^ I will leave this one for others.

Absolutely clueless as always lol. Then again, hiw should I expect someone who has never held a racket in his hand to understand about ball striking.
 
Absolutely clueless as always lol. Then again, hiw should I expect someone who has never held a racket in his hand to understand about ball striking.
Nishikori ball striking is no way greater than agassi. You do not need to be professional player to comment on simple things.
Agassi was far more better player.
Injured or not injured nishikori was never in agassi league.
And how do you know that someone has played tennis or not.
 
I think that most of the posters got it right on Kei.

As a comp, Agassi is a bridge too far for him, but I would include Nish in a group of undersized players (including Goffin and Dolgopolov) who are/were great to watch. Yes, he was the best of those three, and Dolg was not as good as the other two, but had a singular style. None won majors but were highly skilled ball strikers. I forgot about Diego S, who also didn't win a major but was a terrific player.
Watching court level Goffin practice videos really shows in stark relief how great his baseline stroke mechanics are.

Goffin also shared Kei’s bad luck with injury. Absolutely horrible the injury he got at RG falling on the court mats, which were obscured under the clay in the same colour and very hard to see when moving at lightning speed behind the baseline.
 
Judging by your posts, it’s pretty clear that you’ve never played the game nor do you know much about it. As far as clean ballstriking and taking the ball on the rise is concerned, Kei is one of the best we’ve seen, but the problem was that we had average athletic ability, was not that great of a mover considering his size, didn’t hit on the run all that well, had a fragile body that broke down all the time, and had a weak serve.

But as far as pure ball striking is concerned, very few players who’ve ever played can hit the ball the way he does.
To be fair, I don't think Nishikori was any worse at athletic ability and hitting on the run compared to Agassi. Agassi's serve is definitely better. But I don't think Kei's clean ball striking can be compared to Agassi's. To call Agassi a clean ball striker doesn't do his strokes justice. He hit clean and earlier than anyone I've ever seen. To be honest, I didn't appreciate how early Agassi hit until I saw him at the US Open from the nosebleeds, playing against Robby Ginepri. Looked like Agassi was playing ping pong while Ginepri played tennis. Nishikori hits fairly early as well but from what I can tell, he doesn't do it nearly as often as Agassi and when he does, it comes off as redlining. Agassi suffocated opponents with a constant barrage of shots because they always came back so fast.
 
Absolutely clueless as always lol. Then again, hiw should I expect someone who has never held a racket in his hand to understand about ball striking.

^Just the kind of kindergarten blather I would expect from someone who never watched tennis before the 21st century, played a single match or watched great players in person.

Nishikori ball striking is no way greater than agassi. You do not need to be professional player to comment on simple things.

He does not know, but the simplistic tone of his posts indicates hes only followed tennis for a few years and has no awareness of or ever watched truly great players, hence his muddled support of the laughable Nishikori's-form-is-all-time-anything. No one who followed tennis would ever say such an absurd thing.


Agassi was far more better player.

True.

Injured or not injured nishikori was never in agassi league.

That was clear from the start, but those who spewed that idiotic "ninja" crap about Nishikori (yeah...) were more interested in building up a player to be someone he lacked the skills to be.


And how do you know that someone has played tennis or not.

He does not, so he has to pull BS out of his rear ad fling it (back to his own face) to deflect from his lack of tennis knowledge--evident with his posts about Nishikori in this thread.
 
While the title is a troll Nishikori is being way overhyped here. Forget Agassi, Davydenko and Nalbandian were both far better ballstrikers than Nishikori mostly because Nishikori's footwork was never really that good despite having good speed and timing (and Nalbandian was just flat out more talented). Watch him play and see how often he's off balance (same with Dimitrov). He's also underpowered compared to those guys. He has some nice parts of his game but overall a pretty mediocre talent for a top 5 player who looked "ok" due to a weak era (although certain luminaries were calling out his ineptitude at the time as well) and now is looked back on fondly (even by myself) due to an even weaker era. In a real era he's maybe in the 8-15 range with no chance against the top guys, basically a complete afterthought.

Nishikori had perhaps a bit more feel than Davydenko and had more footspeed than Nalbandian but his serve was probably even worse than either guy so as an overall player he's nor particularly close to those guys (who I would call below average for top 3 players, but pretty good 4-6 range guys who can certainly pose problems to top guys depending on the day). A truly great ballstriker who controls the middle doesn't get taken to the woodshed by Nadal like Nishikori did for the most part. Still good enough to dust prime Djokovic at a major apparently. Obviously Davydenko destroyed Nadal on HC and Nalbandian was giving him the business on several occasions even after 2007 as a part time tennis player full time Krispy Kreme franchise owner. Nadal never beat him properly all the way until 2013 on clay.
 
Last edited:
While the title is a troll Nishikori is being way overhyped here. Forget Agassi, Davydenko and Nalbandian were both far better ballstrikers than Nishikori mostly because Nishikori's footwork was never really that good despite having good speed and timing (and Nalbandian was just flat out more talented). Watch him play and see how often he's off balance (same with Dimitrov). He's also underpowered compared to those guys. He has some nice parts of his game but overall a pretty mediocre talent for a top 5 player who looked "ok" due to a weak era (although certain luminaries were calling out his ineptitude at the time as well) and now is looked back on fondly (even by myself) due to an even weaker era. In a real era he's maybe in the 8-15 range with no chance against the top guys, basically a complete afterthought.

Nishikori had perhaps a bit more feel than Davydenko and had more footspeed than Nalbandian but his serve was probably even worse than either guy so as an overall player he's nor particularly close to those guys (who I would call below average for top 3 players, but pretty good 4-6 range guys who can certainly pose problems to top guys depending on the day). A truly great ballstriker who controls the middle doesn't get taken to the woodshed by Nadal like Nishikori did for the most part. Still good enough to dust prime Djokovic at a major apparently. Obviously Davydenko destroyed Nadal on HC and Nalbandian was giving him the business on several occasions even after 2007 as a part time tennis player full time Krispy Kreme franchise owner. Nadal never beat him properly all the way until 2013 on clay.
Nadal beat Nalbandian in straight sets in New York.
:D
 
yeah he had to run around like a rabbit to edge out a 250 pound Nalbandian in 2 of the 3. Epic stuff.
He beat him in straight sets and that's what really matters.
Besides, you give a lot of credit to Nalbandian's victories against Nadal in the worst conditions for the Spaniard's game.
:D
 
Back
Top