Yes, but that's no higher than fourth on the list of reasons why he has no shot to win. Talent, focus, and stamina being his three primary shortcomings relative to the real contenders.Isnt he injuried atm?
I agree with the rest of the post, but not that. Talent is the only reason Kyrgios is spoken of. Its been the only thing that anyone could hold on to so far.Yes, but that's no higher than fourth on the list of reasons why he has no shot to win. Talent, focus, and stamina being his three primary shortcomings relative to; the real contenders.
I agree with the rest of the post, but not that. Talent is the only reason Kyrgios is spoken of. Its been the only thing that anyone could hold on to so far.
Kyrgios has beaten top players and lost/tanked to nobodies. That's why people say he has talent, just lacks motivationAnd its a horrible thing to hold on to
Everyone in the top 500 has "talent" whatever that means
Hitting a couple goofy shots for winners and ignoring all the goofy shots that missed is like claiming you are a winner at the casino the one time you made 50 bucks on slots after spending 500 bucks
Kyrgios has beaten top players and lost/tanked to nobodies. That's why people say he has talent, just lacks motivation
All anyone has to do is watch his matches vs Federer. He pushed Fed to the limit. Matches could have went either way. Can't compare him to players down in the hundreds. Its not even close.And its a horrible thing to hold on to
Everyone in the top 500 has "talent" whatever that means
Hitting a couple goofy shots for winners and ignoring all the goofy shots that missed is like claiming you are a winner at the casino the one time you made 50 bucks on slots after spending 500 bucks
Yep...it's a nice catchphrase. But if you can see all the shots he can pull off, all of the skills he has, like his raw power/pace, powerful serves, decent movement, knack for good feel/touch/drop shots/slices/lobs, and most importantly, the shots he does for fun like tweeners and faking shots, etc., you can't deny the "talent" he has. Sure, every player can do what he does, or attempt to, but they can't seem to do it as fluidly, nonchalantly, as often, as Kyrgios does.I mean what exactly is this "talent"
And how exactly is he the most "talented" always
Thats not a measure of anything at all really. Its a nice catchphrase though
You could also look it up, too...I mean what exactly is this "talent"
And how exactly is he the most "talented" always
Thats not a measure of anything at all really. Its a nice catchphrase though
All anyone has to do is watch his matches vs Federer. He pushed Fed to the limit. Matches could have went either way. Can't compare him to players down in the hundreds. Its not even close.
Oh the Donskoy bit . Upsets happen from time to time. Nadal has had a few at Wimbledon that come to mind.Donskoy is more talented in 2017 than Kyrgios
Considering he won
Oh the Donskoy bit . Upsets happen from time to time. Nadal has had a few at Wimbledon that come to mind.
Just take a look at his record vs the Big 3. He's capable of big things more so than any of the players ranked in the hundreds. Common sense really.So losing = more talent than winning these days
Im just trying to keep up with all the talent that is out there floating around
Did I mention talent
I mean what exactly is this "talent"
And how exactly is he the most "talented" always
Thats not a measure of anything at all really. Its a nice catchphrase though
What is a measure then? If you can't recognize that he has talent, I'm not sure how to help you.
I mean what exactly is this "talent"
And how exactly is he the most "talented" always
Thats not a measure of anything at all really. Its a nice catchphrase though
Don't even try. This topic has been beaten to death here. I think some people's hatred of Nick blinds them to the reality of his talent and if a tennis fan can't see his talent, that's their loss. If someone can't see in 5 minutes that Nick has about 50 times the talent of someone like Raonic, then their knowledge of tennis is quite limited.What is a measure then? If you can't recognize that he has talent, I'm not sure how to help you.
Wins and losses
You know. The entire basis of the sport.
Does Jack Sock have as much talent? Im sure you would say no. He does have a masters 1000 title and a WTF semi and thats what matters
Don't even try. This topic has been beaten to death here. I think some people's hatred of Nick blinds them to the reality of his talent and if a tennis fan can't see his talent, that's their loss. If someone can't see in 5 minutes that Nick has about 50 times the talent of someone like Raonic, then their knowledge of tennis is quite limited.
Talent does not mean Nick will ever win any big title in his life. Leconte and Mecir were both insanely talented but never broke through to win a slam. When you have Annacone, Henman, Rafter, Becker and Wilander all saying that Kyrgios is the second most talented player (after Fed) of the last 20 years, that speaks volumes. Those guys know more than any of us will ever know about tennis. But Nick haters won't acknowledge those voices of reason and just point out his lack of results.
The Nick haters get their knickers in a twist when anyone dares point out his outrageous talent and inevitably (and correctly) respond, "yeah, well, check back when he wins a slam." Again: massive talent does not always translate into results on court
He’s a modern day pantomime villain, just a bit more dull and predictable.
Ok of all the things you've said bs or not this one had me crackingBut he has talent
All the talents
No one can withdraw like him
This guy think he has guts betting 40k on Kyrgios?
I just put $50 on Tomas Berdych.
Game, set, match. Point, Scott. Game over. End of game
Chances of Nick winning are very high.
Nadal, Murray and Djokovic are injured, and Fed is too old
lol..reminds me of a drama series I liked as a kid in the mid 1980s called 'big deal' ..
Shocked again Fed was at 3.25 lmaoPunter makes ridiculous punt
Why the **** is this news.
Fed at 3.25 is free money longterm (longterm being the infinite run ofcourse)