is the evidence already in on Kyrgios

[bjk]

NIck is often touted as a future champion but he doesn't have much to show for it yet. Maybe he's already plateaued.

There’s always hope for improvement, especially for a mercurial 21-year-old in a sport dominated by older men. But the evidence is against him here, as well. Research by falstaff78 suggests that players do not substantially improve their return statistics as they mature. That may seem counterintuitive, since some players clearly do develop their skills. However, as players get better, they go deeper in tournaments and alter their schedules, changing the mix of opponents they face. Two years ago, Kyrgios faced seven top-20 players. This year he played 18. Raonic, who represents an optimistic career trajectory for Kyrgios, faced 26 this season.

Against the top 20–the sorts of Grand Slam opponents a player has to beat to get from the fourth round to the trophy ceremony–Kyrgios has won less than 30% of his career return points. Even Raonic, who has yet to win a Slam himself, has done better, and won 32.6% of return points against top-20 opponents this year.

There’s little doubt that Kyrgios has the serve to win Grand Slams. And once the Big Four retire, I suppose someone will have to win the majors. But even in weak eras, you need to break serve, and at Slams, you typically need to do so many times, and against very high-quality opponents. The evidence we have so far strongly implies that Kyrgios, like Philippoussis before him, will struggle to triumph at a Slam.

http://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2016/11/24/can-nick-kyrgios-win-a-grand-slam/

 

[reaper]

Phillipoussis may have been a little unlucky with the opponent he wound up facing in the 2003 Wimbledon Final. I doubt it will be his return game that will prevent Kyrgios from winning a Grand Slam title at some stage. Attitude and injury/low pain tolerance might prove bigger hurdles.

 

[Tennease]

Yes, his main problem is that he doesn't want to be there.

 

[SinjinCooper]

Yes, his main problem is that he doesn't want to be there.

Nothing in the world easier than quitting a gig you don't want when you've got millions in the bank already to fall back on. If he didn't want to be there, he wouldn't be. It's just important to him that people think he doesn't want to be there, since he feels it excuses any disappointing results. It's a petty trick the lazy have always used when they don't want to put in hard work.

 

[bigserving]

One of the top ten talents in the game today. He has a huge upside. Sky is the limit.

 

[Chanwan]

Many good points with one very important point missing.
Kyrgios has an attitude problem. He hasn't put in the hard work. If he does, that February return month he had this year could possibly become closer to the norm rather than the aberration. And if it does, he's certain to win slams.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

I remember talking to somebody about this.

Nick is cashing out or he has already cashed out, despite the fact he will continue to show up at tournaments. We shall see. Hopefully we are wrong.

 

[tacou]

We all know he as an attitude problem. But 30%?? Wow that's awful

 

[bjk]

If the problem is attitude, how come the bad attitude doesn't show up in his service games? He wins 88.7% of his service games, which is 5th on tour, right behind Fed. Maybe he could improve his serve games to Raonic/Isner levels if he improved his attitude, but that seems unlikely. The problems are limited to his return games, which suggests it's not his attitude, it's his return.

 

[reaper]

If the problem is attitude, how come the bad attitude doesn't show up in his service games? He wins 88.7% of his service games, which is 5th on tour, right behind Fed. Maybe he could improve his serve games to Raonic/Isner levels if he improved his attitude, but that seems unlikely. The problems are limited to his return games, which suggests it's not his attitude, it's his return.

He's naturally a better server than returner....but his attitude means he doesn't work hard enough to strengthen his weakness?

 

[Zoid]

If Kyrgios doesn't win a slam, it won't be because of a lacklustre return. It's not in Djok/Rafa/Murray territory and never will be, but the guy's problem is that this is his game without any effort. No effort in the gym, can't stretch wide and quickly like those three. No effort working on technique - shortening swing more and honing return intangibles. No motivation. How skewed are his stats from blatant tanking?

With his skill set now, a guy like rafa would squeeze out many more breaks simply from his attitude alone.

 

[Tennease]

The attitude is also a big factor here. He would tank a match if a low rank opponent is too good. He won't even bother to serve nor to return. Pat the serve, walk away and also walk away when the opponent just hit a serve.

When he has serious attitude problem, he can have 0% serve winning percentage and 0% return of serve.

In other word, his attitude can turn him into a mighty tank engine.

 

[cc0509]

NIck is often touted as a future champion but he doesn't have much to show for it yet. Maybe he's already plateaued.

There’s always hope for improvement, especially for a mercurial 21-year-old in a sport dominated by older men. But the evidence is against him here, as well. Research by falstaff78 suggests that players do not substantially improve their return statistics as they mature. That may seem counterintuitive, since some players clearly do develop their skills. However, as players get better, they go deeper in tournaments and alter their schedules, changing the mix of opponents they face. Two years ago, Kyrgios faced seven top-20 players. This year he played 18. Raonic, who represents an optimistic career trajectory for Kyrgios, faced 26 this season.

Against the top 20–the sorts of Grand Slam opponents a player has to beat to get from the fourth round to the trophy ceremony–Kyrgios has won less than 30% of his career return points. Even Raonic, who has yet to win a Slam himself, has done better, and won 32.6% of return points against top-20 opponents this year.

There’s little doubt that Kyrgios has the serve to win Grand Slams. And once the Big Four retire, I suppose someone will have to win the majors. But even in weak eras, you need to break serve, and at Slams, you typically need to do so many times, and against very high-quality opponents. The evidence we have so far strongly implies that Kyrgios, like Philippoussis before him, will struggle to triumph at a Slam.

http://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2016/11/24/can-nick-kyrgios-win-a-grand-slam/

That's your problem right there, relying on that bozo's stats! But over and above that, that statement is plain wrong. Players often do improve their ROS stats. Kyrgios has improved his a bit since he hit the scene and Raonic has surely improved his in the past six months to a year.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

What do you get when you take Milos Raonic and remove his work ethic?

Nick Kyrgios.

 

[Gary Duane]

That's your problem right there, relying on that bozo's stats! But over and above that, that statement is plain wrong. Players often do improve their ROS stats. Kyrgios has improved his a bit since he hit the scene and Raonic has surely improved his in the past six months to a year.

First of all, no need to call him a "bozo", and you probably would not do so if he were around. You're better than that!

Second, if you look at the spirit of what he was getting at, in general he is right. Service stats tend to go up with age, return stats down.

However, we don't know when the ceiling happens. Nadal peaked in 2008, on clay. Djokovic peaked in 2011. Murray peaked also in 2011, at least on HCs, but he's close enough this year to suggest he has lost nothing at almost age 30.

And a guy like Kyrgios with such bad return stats is not likely to improve much. But with his talent combined with terrible work ethics that possibility of a huge improvement exists simply because he is playing so far below his potential.

 

[cc0509]

First of all, no need to call him a "bozo", and you probably would not do so if he were around. You're better than that!

Second, if you look at the spirit of what he was getting at, in general he is right. Service stats tend to go up with age, return stats down.

However, we don't know when the ceiling happens. Nadal peaked in 2008, on clay. Djokovic peaked in 2011. Murray peaked also in 2011, at least on HCs, but he's close enough this year to suggest he has lost nothing at almost age 30.

And a guy like Kyrgios with such bad return stats is not likely to improve much. But with his talent combined with terrible work ethics that possibility of a huge improvement exists simply because he is playing so far below his potential.

Is this the falstaff who posts on this board and who uses stats to get himself to the bathroom properly everyday? The same guy who had a complete meltdown when Federer said something positive publicly about the Indian cricket team? If so, I stand by what I said about him.

As for Kyrgios, as I said he has improved his ROS in the past six months and so has Raonic big time so I'm not buying what you're selling.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

Is this the falstaff who posts on this board and who uses stats to get himself to the bathroom properly everyday? The same guy who had a complete meltdown when Federer said something positive publicly about the Indian cricket team? If so, I stand by what I said about him.

As for Kyrgios, as I said he has improved his ROS in the past six months and so has Raonic big time so I'm not buying what you're selling.

I believe it is that very Falstaff indeed.

I must credit give to Falstaff for at least putting the work in and for that I don my cap. However, the Falstaffs of this world and other reversion to the mean acolytes should be prepared to acknowledge that new paradigms frequently emerge and lay redundant much 'old school' thinking, which worked up until the time it stopped working.

The current Falstaffian paradox is that no one wins majors above the age of 29, yet here is the conundrum in that never before has the top 10 been as old as they currently are. It's just not as black and white as Falstaff would like to pretend it is.

 

[cc0509]

I believe it is that very Falstaff indeed.

I must credit give to Falstaff for at least putting the work in for that I don my cap. However, the Falstaffs of this world and other reversion to the mean acolytes should be prepared to acknowledge that new paradigms frequently emerge and lay redundant much 'old school' thinking which worked up until it stopped working.

The current Falstaffian paradox is that no one wins majors above the age of 29, yet here is the conundrum in that never before has the top 10 been as old as they currently are. It's just not as black and white as Falstaff would like to pretend it is.

There's nothing wrong with using stats as they are useful but this guy lives and breathes them to the nth degree. As I said, I don't think he can find the bathroom daily without his stats.

Tennis analysis is about a lot more than stats.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

I really just don't get the relevance of this article. Career return points is the answer to winning slams now? Just weird. You can win a match without ever breaking serve (during a game) 7-6 7-6. Sure it's not ideal but acting like career return points are what will determine slams for Nick seems odd to me.


Yes, 30% is low but Kyrgios struggles against certain top 20 players like Isner. So I'm not shocked that he's unable to break serve against some servebots. I'm sure that the average career return points is brought down by players ranked 10-20. Hell, Nick hasn't even played #2 Djokovic yet he's faced Isner 3 times so I feel that this data isn't ideal in representing his entire career. I'd like to know what the % of return points won would be like if we took out Isner, Karlovic and Raonic.

Anyway, Nick has wins over Stan, Federer, Nadal, Berdych, Raonic and Monfils. So clearly his 'inability' to frequently break serve hasn't held him back in his matches.
Funnily enough, if you take a look at a lot of his top 10 wins, quite a few came in tiebreaks- as in, the match was won 7-6 7-6 not 6-2 or 6-0 with lots of breaks of serve. Of his 10 top 10 wins, five of them had him winning sets in a tiebreaker.

So by the looks of it, he fared quite well in matches where he may not have been able to break serve.

(I know that you can win a set in a tiebreaker and have dropped serve or broken serve through the set but I'm just making a point).

 

[Gary Duane]

Is this the falstaff who posts on this board and who uses stats to get himself to the bathroom properly everyday? The same guy who had a complete meltdown when Federer said something positive publicly about the Indian cricket team? If so, I stand by what I said about him.

OK. You don't like Falstaff. Maybe you have your reasons. Noted.

As for Kyrgios, as I said he has improved his ROS in the past six months and so has Raonic big time so I'm not buying what you're selling.

I'm not selling anything. Murray right now is very close, within less than a %, of returning better than ever and probably is returning at his highest level ever on all surfaces. But I'd wager he can't stay there much longer because of age.

As for Kyrgios, who knows, but he his return went up in 2016, and he is till quite young.

Falstaff's data seemed to be about the first four years. I didn't look at it really closely.

That part I agree with, looking at things very loosely, is that at some point returning hits a peak and that peak seems to happen earlier than serving, This is probably linked to court coverage. I think anyone who says Federer, even in 2015, was covering court as well as he did in his prime is simply wrong, yet I believe we can see that he served as well as ever in 2015,

 

[bjk]

Kyrgios does better on break points (37%) than his return stats would suggest, so when he does have a big point, he does better. To put that 37% in context, that's halfway between Nadal (45%) and Karlovic (30%). That's a point in favor of the people who say that his return stats are depressed by tanking. If he can hold his serve (and he can) there is no reason for a big boy like Nick to exert much energy if he's up a break.

BTW, P-Poo has some words of wisdom.

http://www.sportingnews.com/au/tenn...mark-philippoussis/177d7lgxtnde419dbst1blmkdq

 

[cc0509]

OK. You don't like Falstaff. Maybe you have your reasons. Noted.

I'm not selling anything. Murray right now is very close, within less than a %, of returning better than ever and probably is returning at his highest level ever on all surfaces. But I'd wager he can't stay there much longer because of age.

As for Kyrgios, who knows, but he his return went up in 2016, and he is till quite young.

Falstaff's data seemed to be about the first four years. I didn't look at it really closely.

That part I agree with, looking at things very loosely, is that at some point returning hits a peak and that peak seems to happen earlier than serving, This is probably linked to court coverage. I think anyone who says Federer, even in 2015, was covering court as well as he did in his prime is simply wrong, yet I believe we can see that he served as well as ever in 2015,

With respect to Falstaff, I don't know him other than what he posts on a tennis forum but what I'm saying about him is he seems to use stats as his sole tennis metric and as we know, in order to be a good tennis analyst a lot more is required than stats. Also, he had a complete meltdown on this forum and on social media when Federer mentioned something positive about the Indian cricket team. I think he even wrote a letter to Federer talking about his disappointment. That's an example of a fanatic going too far. He had a lot of people criticizing him for that whole thing. Didn't you see the thread he started on the matter and how he was criticized by many posters about it? There are a lot of crazies on the internet.

As for his stats with respect to ROS, I didn't look at them closely either but I know that players like Kyrgios and Raonic have vastly improved their ROS stats for example so how reliable is falstaff's info on that?

 

[Gary Duane]

With respect to Falstaff, I don't know him other than what he posts on a tennis forum but what I'm saying about him is he seems to use stats as his sole tennis metric and as we know, in order to be a good tennis analyst a lot more is required than stats.

I don't know Falstaff either, and I know nothing about cricket.

As for his stats with respect to ROS, I didn't look at them closely either but I know that players like Kyrgios and Raonic have vastly improved their ROS stats for example so how reliable is falstaff's info on that?

But let me look at Kyrgios stats:

18% of games won on return for career on HC.
16% in 2015
22% this year.

22% is an improvement, for sure, but I think he could do a lot better with more discipline.

I stand by what I have said for some time though. To be one of the top players you need to win more than 55% of games, and in fact 55% is very low. To get even there he has to be winning 88% of his service games, and right now he is at 89%. He's there, barely, and needs to come up in all stats.

Raonic is currently at 91%, so figure a minimum of 19% of games on return just go START getting to where he needs to be to be dominant. His return is also improving, but I would say he needs to get close to 24% of return games in order to be a serious slam contender. He's a very weak #3 because of this, although he should get a bonus because of how he gets his games - so service dominant.

Murray was never below around 56% of games since 2006.

 

[Red Rick]

Nick Kyrgios' return game is underrated. It's actually better than Raonic's, who's return game improvements have seen a lot of aplause, and Kyrgios stats are probably the most unreliable from his actual ability due to tanking matches and general cruising. Kyrgios cruises a bunch when he's a break up or when he feels he's winning the tiebreak anyway.

 

[Red Rick]

I don't know Falstaff either, and I know nothing about cricket.

But let me look at Kyrgios stats:

18% of games won on return for career on HC.
16% in 2015
22% this year.

22% is an improvement, for sure, but I think he could do a lot better with more discipline.

I stand by what I have said for some time though. To be one of the top players you need to win more than 55% of games, and in fact 55% is very low. To get even there he has to be winning 88% of his service games, and right now he is at 89%. He's there, barely, and needs to come up in all stats.

Raonic is currently at 91%, so figure a minimum of 19% of games on return just go START getting to where he needs to be to be dominant. His return is also improving, but I would say he needs to get close to 24% of return games in order to be a serious slam contender. He's a very weak #3 because of this, although he should get a bonus because of how he gets his games - so service dominant.

Murray was never below around 56% of games since 2006.

Those stats seem 'bout rightish. Raonic reached the Wimbly finals winning just 55% of games I think. Murray was at a ridiculous 65% of games at Wimbly before the finals, and frankly I feel that Murray didn't even play well in the final and could've destroyed Raonic if he did.

 

[ANDYbhGENIUS]

What do you get when you take Milos Raonic and remove his work ethic?

Nick Kyrgios.

That's weird, Raonic has half the raw talent, shot-making and creativity that Kyrgios has.

 

[papertank]

If Kyrgios isn't in the top 10 by the end of next year, I think we need to move on in terms of hyping up a new future slam champion. He's shown promise this year, but he still hasn't really had good results- has he even made the semis of a Masters yet?

 

[WhiskeyEE]

That's weird, Raonic has half the raw talent, shot-making and creativity that Kyrgios has.

Not really. Raonic is 4 years older and 4 years ago he was ranked #13, same as Kyrgios, but in a much, much tougher era. So his results at the same age were far more impressive and that was due to having equal talent and a stronger work ethic.

 

[chjtennis]

Kyrgios is a future no.1, that much I know. He may not stay there long, but he will be no. 1 for more than a few weeks. Probably not as long as Hewitt, but definitely longer than Rafter.

 

[Racqueteer]

If Kyrgios isn't in the top 10 by the end of next year, I think we need to move on in terms of hyping up a new future slam champion. He's shown promise this year, but he still hasn't really had good results- has he even made the semis of a Masters yet?

Yes, once. He made the semis of Miami this year, losing to Nishikori.

 

[WillisAU]

If Kyrgios isn't in the top 10 by the end of next year, I think we need to move on in terms of hyping up a new future slam champion. He's shown promise this year, but he still hasn't really had good results- has he even made the semis of a Masters yet?

Yes, Miami 2016, he beat Raonic in the QFs, lost to Nishikori in semis. Also won the Tokyo ATP 500

 

[SprinkServe]

Not really. Raonic is 4 years older and 4 years ago he was ranked #13, same as Kyrgios, but in a much, much tougher era.

I'm genuinely curious as to how this forum defines 'era'. It seems to be used rather haphazardly.

Why was a mere four years ago a different era?

 

[WhiskeyEE]

I'm genuinely curious as to how this forum defines 'era'. It seems to be used rather haphazardly.

Why was a mere four years ago a different era?

Because the field was different. Peak of the big 4 and before the entire top 100 past their primes with no one to replace them but generation useless.You s-s-stupid or something?

 

[Deleted member 716271]

can't stand him and doubt he'll ever win a slam

 

[ANDYbhGENIUS]

Because the field was different. Peak of the big 4 and before the entire top 100 past their primes with no one to replace them but generation useless.You s-s-stupid or something?

You forgot Karlovic and Magic Steve Johnson, but still no need to lose your manners like that, calling a wise man stupid.

 

[arvind13]

I wanted to bump this thread. Since this thread was created has kyrgios' return of serve improved?

 

[falstaff78]

Since this thread was created has kyrgios' return of serve improved?

No.

2017 was worse than the same period in 2016. And that too against significantly worse opponents

Kyrgios, % return points won

Jan-March 2016: 38.9%
(18 matches, ave. opp. 36, median opp. 33)

Jan-March 2017: 35.4%
(18 matches, ave. opp. 51, median opp. 44)

 

[cc0509]

I wanted to bump this thread. Since this thread was created has kyrgios' return of serve improved?

What about all the other areas where Kyrgios' game has improved? Why are some of these nerdy stats posters focusing on only % return points won? What about looking at all serving stats where Kyrgios has improved greatly from 2016 to 2017(look at his second serve % where he's improved greatly) or break point conversions where I believe he's improved as well not to mention his mental maturity which seems to also be improving in big time matches. Maybe in addition to using stats we could use the eye test to help judge Kyrgios' improvements? Wouldn't that be a novel idea instead of having to use one or two stats for a narrow-minded and often incorrect view when judging tennis players. SMH.

 

[bjk]

Kyrgios got to the Miami semis last year and this year he got to . . . the Miami semis, where he lost to a 35 year old. Verdict still out on whether we're seeing a new Kyrgios.

 

[arvind13]

well that's s a deceptive way of putting it: "a 35 year old" . he lost to nishikori in straight sets at last year's semis. this year's semis he lost to federer in three tie break sets, where he had two serves in tiebreaker which would have given him the match.

 

[arvind13]

What about all the other areas where Kyrgios' game has improved? Why are some of these nerdy stats posters focusing on only % return points won? What about looking at all serving stats where Kyrgios has improved greatly from 2016 to 2017(look at his second serve % where he's improved greatly) or break point conversions where I believe he's improved as well not to mention his mental maturity which seems to also be improving in big time matches. Maybe in addition to using stats we could use the eye test to help judge Kyrgios' improvements? Wouldn't that be a novel idea instead of having to use one or two stats for a narrow-minded and often incorrect view when judging tennis players. SMH.

ya i just wanted to know in terms of his stroke mechanics and reading the ball, has his return improved? because return of serve points won don't give us that information, because so much of that depends on how the guy on other side of the net is playing and kyrgios groundstrokes too.

 

[VexlanderPrime]

Nothing in the world easier than quitting a gig you don't want when you've got millions in the bank already to fall back on. If he didn't want to be there, he wouldn't be. It's just important to him that people think he doesn't want to be there, since he feels it excuses any disappointing results. It's a petty trick the lazy have always used when they don't want to put in hard work.

This may turn out to be the post that sums up NK's career.

 

[ruerooo]

NIck is often touted as a future champion but he doesn't have much to show for it yet. Maybe he's already plateaued.

There’s always hope for improvement, especially for a mercurial 21-year-old in a sport dominated by older men. But the evidence is against him here, as well. Research by falstaff78 suggests that players do not substantially improve their return statistics as they mature. That may seem counterintuitive, since some players clearly do develop their skills. However, as players get better, they go deeper in tournaments and alter their schedules, changing the mix of opponents they face. Two years ago, Kyrgios faced seven top-20 players. This year he played 18. Raonic, who represents an optimistic career trajectory for Kyrgios, faced 26 this season.

Against the top 20–the sorts of Grand Slam opponents a player has to beat to get from the fourth round to the trophy ceremony–Kyrgios has won less than 30% of his career return points. Even Raonic, who has yet to win a Slam himself, has done better, and won 32.6% of return points against top-20 opponents this year.

There’s little doubt that Kyrgios has the serve to win Grand Slams. And once the Big Four retire, I suppose someone will have to win the majors. But even in weak eras, you need to break serve, and at Slams, you typically need to do so many times, and against very high-quality opponents. The evidence we have so far strongly implies that Kyrgios, like Philippoussis before him, will struggle to triumph at a Slam.

http://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2016/11/24/can-nick-kyrgios-win-a-grand-slam/

yeah yeah

 

[Fedinkum]

Everything is hunky-dori until the next time Nic open his mouth or tank a match.

 

[Steve0904]

About the Davis Cup, I've seen many a player that didn't want to disappoint while playing for their country, particularly if the tie is in that player's home country. Not saying he hasn't improved his attitude slightly since say, last year, but I think the aforementioned point is an important one. DC brings out the best in a lot of players and it doesn't always translate to success while you're playing for yourself and not for your country.

 

[Tshooter]

...And once the Big Four retire, I suppose someone will have to win the majors....

You suppose ? That's quite a concession. You think there's a decent chance they'll shut down the tour instead ?

Is the evidence in on 21 year old Nick. Was the evidence in on Stan at 27 ?

 

[slice bh compliment]

You suppose ? That's quite a concession. You think there's a decent chance they'll shut down the tour instead ?

Is the evidence in on 21 year old Nick. Was the evidence in on Stan at 27 ?

Excellent point. I think of Stanley prepping for a midday match with raclette and drinking until 1am.

What do you get when you take Milos Raonic and remove his work ethic?

Nick Kyrgios.

Hahah! Truth.
Well, lucky for Niko, he can move a bit better than Milos, and his backhand looks to have some decent feel.

 

[El Diablo]

NIck is often touted as a future champion but he doesn't have much to show for it yet. Maybe he's already plateaued

I don't think Wawrinka had much to show for it at the same age either

 

[HuusHould]

Against the top 20–the sorts of Grand Slam opponents a player has to beat to get from the fourth round to the trophy ceremony–Kyrgios has won less than 30% of his career return points. Even Raonic, who has yet to win a Slam himself, has done better, and won 32.6% of return points against top-20 opponents this year.

The numbers are the numbers I guess, but anyone who saw the latter part of his third set tie-break against Isner in Davis Cup would realise he has the potential to become a very good returner. From 5-4 to Isner in the buster, he got 2 first serves in and Kyrgios nailed them within a foot of the baseline and won both points. When you end up at the net after returning Isner's first serve you know you're doing something right!

Phillipoussis may have been a little unlucky with the opponent he wound up facing in the 2003 Wimbledon Final. I doubt it will be his return game that will prevent Kyrgios from winning a Grand Slam title at some stage. Attitude and injury/low pain tolerance might prove bigger hurdles.

I agree that if he gets the mindset right and stays injury free, that'll go a long way toward him being successful at the majors. The person most likely to stand in his way is himself! I mean at this stage you've got he and Zverev in his age bracket, then Raonic and Dimitrov a bit older, Nishikori has had his number thus far, Wawrinka still has a few more years of threatening. Del Potro is a bit of an unknown quantity at the moment. But you'd have to think the big 4 will be winning majors for no more than the next 5 years, (surely Federer wont be winning into his 40s haha) at which point Kyrgios will be 26/27. You never know who's going to emerge in that timeframe, so he'd be advised to win asap!

 

[HuusHould]

NIck is often touted as a future champion but he doesn't have much to show for it yet.

If he did, he'd be touted a champion!