Chances of that go up if he has a good hard-court season. If he shows up out of shape, then it's a waste of a seemingly tough draw. If he shows up in form, he's a handful for anybody. I still think he's got more potential upside than any player born between 1989 and 1996, inclusive (except for Thiem on clay and possibly Dimitrov, but the ship has sailed on Dimitrov fulfilling his potential whereas it hasn't sailed on Kyrgios fulfilling his) and hope he can get his act together.
By the way, I had a few questions for you about your view that when ranking players the criteria should be: 1) Number of Slam titles [or, for lower-ranked players, furthest round reached, right?] 2) In event of a tie in criteria 1, head-to-head record is a tiebreak. My questions are:
1) Did I get your view right? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
2) If I'm right, what happens if the head-to-head is also tied? Are they tied overall, or is there some further criteria 3 in event of a tie in both 1 and 2?
3) What happens if three players are tied but the head to head can't resolve it because player A leads player B, player B leads player C, but player C leads player A? E.g. imagine that Nadal and Djokovic both win two more US Open titles, Nadal remains ahead of Djokovic in their series in the US Open, Djokovic beats Federer once more there and so goes ahead of him in their series, but Federer finally plays Nadal at the US Open and beats him. All three have five titles, but the head to head can't be used as a tiebreak because it has the conclusion that Nadal ranks ahead of Djokovic who ranks ahead of Federer who ranks ahead of Nadal.
Agree about Kyrgios although his problem is felix and Tsitsipas who i feel will prevent him ever winning a Major as they a few years younger and have room to develop.
In answer to your questions my view on ranking players is two fold...one is doing it according to Majors won as thats the most popular way of doing it, but then a much more detailed analysis taking into account YE1, strength of field, Masters 1000s, Olympics, and h2h. I ignore WTF due to comments made by Sampras back in the day which took gloss off Becker win in 1995, back then i was massive Becker fan.
Weeks at no.1 has never bothered me as to me no.1 is about a particular year and who is best that year and much more should be made of YE1...its like a football season winning the league. Then again i think not having equal amount of masters 1000 across surfaces is a travesty and makes YE1 diluted a bit as clearly we need three on grass...3 on hard 3 on clay.
In answer to your other good question its an interesting point. Lets say Nadal and Murray also had 5 wimbledons. Djokovic is 2-1 v Nadal but 0-1 v Murray and Murray is 0-3 v nadal. I think then it has to be looked at performances at other events on same surfaces a tier below. Ill never subscribe to who was runner up the most as players i doubt cherish runner up spots unless they a bautista agut type guy...hard worker but limited.
Hence why i never say Nadal is better on hard than Djokovic...i just say at the USO. I think nadal v djokovic at US Open isnt so much about surface although it does suit nadal there more than AO but about the whole razmatazz. I think nadal loves the wild new york crowd like connors did. Im not sure djokovic does.
So where u say if majors won and h2h is tied what happens next, id look at the tier below to see who has done better at canada and cincinatti as they are part of USO series.
Federer at the USO to me is very confusing. He was unbeatable there but then became so vulnerable which coincides with the emergence of the Nadal Djokovic murray delpo wawrinka era. Its the one event where it seems the game moved on from him. Yet at AO he remained very competitive and won two events in his 30s.
I dont have an issue with people who think runners up spots should be looked at. I just think how i would feel as a pro player. Losing a final would crush me if i wanted to be the best ever as id expect to win everything if that makes sense.
Has that answered your questions at all?
In a nutshell personally i think way too much emphasis is on majors and masters 1000s should be looked at as well but then again federer is at a massive disadvantage as he has not one on grass.
The tennis calendar needs massive reform really.
