Nishikori's peak delayed due to missing 1 and a half year in 2009-10?

FreeBird

Legend
There has been a lot of talk regarding comparison of Nishikori, Dimitrov and Raonic. But what people forget is that Nishikori won his first title at the age of 18 beating guys like Blake and Querrey. Defeated Ferrer at USO 08. But then due to elbow injury, lost 1.5 years. Starting from the scratch, he reached AO 12 QF only to be halted again by injury. So, though, he is elder than Raotrov, the mileage is almost same.

He is one of the rare tennis prodigies but is as unlucky as Delpo.

He is 25 already but when all is said and done, he will be among the elites (assuming no more injuries) imo.
 
Last edited:
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
There has been a lot of talk regarding comparison of Nishikori, Dimitrov and Raonic. But what people forget is that Nishikori won his first title at the age of 18 beating guys like Blake and Querrey. Defeated Ferrer at USO 08. But then due to elbow injury, lost 1.5 years. Starting from the scratch, he reached AO 12 QF only to be halted again by injury. So, though, he is elder than Raotrov, the mileage is almost same.

He is one of the rare tennis prodigies but is as unlucky as Delpo.

So though, he is 25, when all is said and done, he will be among the elites (assuming no more injuries).
So what, Murray level as a minimum?
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Naah, Murray will win 5 GSs at least and could have won more if he wasn't unlucky to face Big 3.
True, but I mean.. do you think Kei will win at least 2 Majors.. reach plenty of Slam finals and win about 30 titles? Or rather, what would he have to achieve to make him "elite"?

I agree that Kei is a very young 25...
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
Good round-up, FreeBird. I agree that Nishikori probably has more left in the tank, so to speak, than what his age would suggest. He should win a slam or two if he stays healthy, and he definitely is a special talent.

You say Murray will win at least 5 slams though? What makes you think so? Big three to decline, and Murray to finally dominate some? (I agree he will win at least one more slam though).
 

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
Naah, Murray will win 5 GSs at least and could have won more if he wasn't unlucky to face Big 3.
You don't win 5 GS titles having technically flawed forehand and WTA level second serve. Era or quality of opposition is just an excuse.

I can add being headcase to that list too.
 

FreeBird

Legend
True, but I mean.. do you think Kei will win at least 2 Majors.. reach plenty of Slam finals and win about 30 titles? Or rather, what would he have to achieve to make him "elite"?

I agree that Kei is a very young 25...
Oh you were talking about current Murray level.. :lol:
GS is the only thing that could place him among the elites. The Masters 1000 ship has already sailed (and we have players like Djok who GOAT at Masters). He can win 30 titles but that would put him under elites. GSs, Davis Cup (with Nishioka, they can win one) and WTF could help his cause.

I don't see Nishikori winning W. USO and RG are his best bet.
 

FreeBird

Legend
Good round-up, FreeBird. I agree that Nishikori probably has more left in the tank, so to speak, than what his age would suggest. He should win a slam or two if he stays healthy, and he definitely is a special talent.

You say Murray will win at least 5 slams though? What makes you think so? Big three to decline, and Murray to finally dominate some? (I agree he will win at least one more slam though).
He has Djok's number on grass. W14 QF was bit of a shock. Has one more windy USO left. ;) Will take an AO. Too good not to win it.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
You don't win 5 GS titles having technically flawed forehand and WTA level second serve. Era or quality of opposition is just an excuse.

I can add being headcase to that list too.
Lol...but they're both evidently good enough to win 2? :)
 
Last edited:

citybert

Hall of Fame
Yeah def agree its all about mileage. Agassi also didnt play for abt a yr and that helped him into his 30s
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Okay, so are you denying that his forehand and serve aren't good enough to win 5 Slams? He just needs the right coach? :wink:
You really dislike Mauresmo coaching Andy right now, huh?

I'm interested to see who will win more from now until the end of their careers out of Murray and Federer.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
I'll start to be more convinced when Andy starts winning big titles with her as coach. Until then, I will remain sceptical!
At least Murray gave Kyrgios a tennis lesson under Mauresmo. I'm still very grateful to Andy Murray for all his help there.

***

FreeBird reckons that Murray will win a clay 1000 this year.

I don't see it, but do see Nishikori winning a clay 1000 this year.


Well, let's see just how generous Nadal will be...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FreeBird

Legend
At least Murray gave Kyrgios a tennis lesson under Mauresmo. I'm still very grateful to Andy Murray for all his help there.

***

FreeBird reckons that Murray win win a clay 1000 this year.

I don't see it, but do see Nishikori winning a clay 1000 this year.


Well, let's see just how generous Nadal will be...
You remember everything. Don't you? Murray 2015 Madrid champion.

As for Nishikori, there have been some positive signs fitness-wise (this year) but I am still skeptical about grinding a clay masters. It will be interesting to see how Nishikori schedules his tourneys now that he is No.4.

P.S. Admit it, Omnipotence (a.k.a GameSetMatchFed) > Nathaniel Near
 
Last edited:

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
Lol...but they're both evidently good enough to win 2? :)
I never doubted but there is huge (quality) difference between 2 time GS champion and 5 time GS champion. Being Murray Fanboi, you must be aware of the fact that winning GS title is extremely difficult task.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
I've said this before, Nishikori is an Andy Murray or Lleyton Hewitt level player.. His record against Ferrer speaks for itself.
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
I never doubted but there is huge (quality) difference between 2 time GS champion and 5 time GS champion. Being Murray Fanboi, you must be aware of the fact that winning GS title is extremely difficult task.
I don't think that boundary has been particularly big in the case of Murray, nor do I necessarily think it will be in the near future. He might not win more slams at all, but that will mostly depend on circumstances and small margins. With luck and, okay, a bit of tweaking on that WTA-serve, he could very well be a 5-slam-champion. It's not like he is in a completely different category.

Well, that is at least my take on it.

I've said this before, Nishikori is an Andy Murray or Lleyton Hewitt level player.. His record against Ferrer speaks for itself.
Reading a player's level from their H2H with Ferrer is a bit simplistic, no?

I agree with your conclusion still though.
 
Last edited:

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
No credit to Murray after all? It's quite debatable how much significant Lendl's contribution was in his GS wins. There are other factors too which I can put ahead or equal of Lendl's contribution.

Those who doubt Mauresmo as coach should read this-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/andymurray/11442632/Andy-Murray-insists-Amelie-Mauresmo-does-not-talk-over-me.-She-listens-to-everything-I-say.html
Murray has to win a major under Mauresmo for us to believe it was not Lendl alone.
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
Murray has to win a major under Mauresmo for us to believe it was not Lendl alone.
Lendl alone? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Lendl alone won those slams for Murray? :lol:

I see what you're getting at, but come on, give the poor chap some credit:twisted:
 

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
Murray has to win a major under Mauresmo for us to believe it was not Lendl alone.
Lendl didn't step in the court with racket making it easy for Murray. It was Murray who won USO and Wimbledon after all so give him deserved credit.

If Lendl has made significant technical improvements in Murray's game, then there is no reason to believe Murray forgot how to implement all strategies/game plans as soon as Lendl left or Mauresmo arrived. If he fails to fulfill increased expectations which were results of his so called improvements under Lendl, then part of the blame goes to Lendl too.
 
Last edited:

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Don't get me wrong. Murray is a fantastic player. He needed help getting past the finish line. Lendl helped him with that.

Once Lendl is gone, I am seeing the same struggles again. Have seen this way too many times.

I am not discounting Murray , but now have to see him win to believe in him.
 
Top