Would Kyrgios win a grand slam if he had Lleyton Hewitt's heart?!

[McGradey]

The only thing certain about uncertain outcomes relating to Nick Kyrgios, is that C Hill Tennis will bluster about them with great certainty, in the negative.

 

[CHillTennis]

The only thing certain about uncertain outcomes relating to Nick Kyrgios, is that C Hill Tennis will bluster about them with great certainty, in the negative.

I'm not the only one. The world has caught onto the fact that Nick Kyrgios has been talked up by the media for nearly 10 years now, yet he failed to live up to even a fraction of what they said about him.

I hate reading propaganda and lies. That's why I call it out when I see it.

 

[McGradey]

I'm not the only one. The world has caught onto the fact that Nick Kyrgios has been talked up by the media for nearly 10 years now, yet he failed to live up to even a fraction of what they said about him.

I hate reading propaganda and lies. That's why I call it out when I see it.

"The world" lol
I'm sure the world is glad to have you as its spokesperson on all matters relating to Nick Kyrgios.

 

[vokazu]

not in singles

The title doesn't mention singles or doubles.

 

[CHillTennis]

"The world" lol
I'm sure the world is glad to have you as its spokesperson on all matters relating to Nick Kyrgios.

Somebody's got to set it straight.

 

[one two punch]

He would go deep in slams far more for sure. But winning a slam not sure? Maybe Wimby like Goran after making a couple more finals.

 

[CHillTennis]

Sorry, double post.

 

[tennis3]

Nick is much bigger physically than Hewitt. If he had Hewitt's heart, he would be dead.

 

[RS]

Is Kyrgios Miami 17 SF anywhere near a prime Hewitt?

 

[BauerAlmeida]

again, this sort of framing shows you don’t understand how statistics work

millions upon millions of low probability events occur every day - this is simply a result of the vast plurality of possible outcomes for many situations. Or to put it another way - if many discrete things can happen, ANYTHING that happens is often - in isolation, when compared to everything that didn't happen - low probability. You just don’t notice these 'low probability events' because they are not interesting to a human brain that is hardwired for pattern recognition.

the probability of any specific player playing any other specific player in the draw is very low - but they all have to play someone. First/early round rematches in grand slams are not unheard of, they are certainly unusual but they do occur from time to time. You noticed this one because the first match was notable and interesting; that is all.

To say that because the first match was notable the ensuing events were fixed is not a statistical conclusion - it's faulty reasoning (i.e. post hoc ergo propter hoc)

Of all the matches that could have been repeated the one that happened to be the longest match ever happened to be the one?

And, then the FOLLOWING year AGAIN in the 2nd round.

"Hey, it would be too obvious if they meet again for the 3rd time in a row in the first round, let's make it in the 2nd round this time so it won't raise some eyebrows".

 

[CHillTennis]

again, this sort of framing shows you don’t understand how statistics work

millions upon millions of low probability events occur every day - this is simply a result of the vast plurality of possible outcomes for many situations. Or to put it another way - if many discrete things can happen, ANYTHING that happens is often - in isolation, when compared to everything that didn't happen - low probability. You just don’t notice these 'low probability events' because they are not interesting to a human brain that is hardwired for pattern recognition.

the probability of any specific player playing any other specific player in the draw is very low - but they all have to play someone. First/early round rematches in grand slams are not unheard of, they are certainly unusual but they do occur from time to time. You noticed this one because the first match was notable and interesting; that is all.

To say that because the first match was notable the ensuing events were fixed is not a statistical conclusion - it's faulty reasoning (i.e. post hoc ergo propter hoc)

If .001% chance is enough for you to say "Yeah, this is all on the up and up" then really...I don't know what else to say.

I know what I'm being lied to.

 

[Cashman]

I can understand why people who don’t understand maths are skeptical