Last week, I called Nick Kyrgios “talented” here, a statement which spurred a heated debate on his various flaws and… er…merits. It’s not surprising, of course. The mere mention of his name courts controversy. If I reported, “Nick Kyrgios blows his nose, misses trash can with used tissue,” somebody would almost certainly accuse him of missing on purpose and take that as proof positive that he’s the world’s biggest horse’s ass and slyly suggest that Nadal and Federer wouldn’t have missed in a million years. It is, for better or worse, part of the Nick Kyrgios experience.
So what does a Nick debate look like? In a nutshell, it goes something like:
Person 1: “NK is talented.”
Persons 2-6: “Oh yeah? Prove it. What extraordinary thing has he done?? And ‘he beat Rafael Nadal at Wimbledon once’ doesn’t count. Because frankly, there for a while, Nadal would have been better off TRIMMING the lawns rather than playing on them.”
And both sides have a point (especially about Nadal at Wimbledon). From a tennis perspective, how do we measure “talent”? How do we decide who is talented and who isn’t?
In order to answer the question, we first need to know what the word means. The Cambridge English Dictionary defines it as “a special natural ability to do something well.” For our purposes, we can assume that ‘natural’ is the operative word. And yet, it’s not quite that simple. Because somehow, in the rarefied world of elite tennis, we value certain natural abilities over others and place THOSE attributes in the category of talented…and unlike every single other measurement in our sport, it doesn’t necessarily have a direct correlation to the ability to win (which is flat-out weird).
As I attempted to unravel the particulars, I realized that NK, Nadal, and Novak Djokovic are near-perfect case studies for such an exercise. Despite ample evidence that Djokovic and Nadal will go down in history as two of the greatest to ever pick up a racket, the word ‘talented’ is applied to Kyrgios FAR more often than it is to either of them. Apparently, even I’m guilty of it. So what gives??? Why am I inclined to use that word for Kyrgios while I use other superlatives for Rafa and Nole?
It has, I think, to do with the qualities that are most valued in tennis. Aggression, for example, is “rated” higher than good defense. Instinct is more important than acumen (baffling), and most of all natural ability in the form of shot-selection and court sense is FAR more impressive to people than hard work. In short, we want tennis players – athletes who participate in one of the most physically demanding sports in existence – to make it look easy, something Nadal and Djokovic cannot do even on their best day. You watch those guys, and you could be excused for thinking “I’ll bet Nadal even works hard at sleeping”. It’s…what they do.
Kyrgios plays just the sort of aggressive game designed to impress-because he might miss 3 of every 5 shots he goes for, but when he hits one, it kind of takes your breath away. If Djokovic and Nadal are architects, Kyrgios is Jackson Pollock, slapping paint on a canvas: mostly it’s a mess but once in a while, he creates a masterpiece…and we’re enthralled by the prospect. We consider it undeniable evidence of that elusive talent. And the fact that his results run the gamut from good to positively miserable seems only to stoke interest.
“Just imagine” we say, “that Kyrgios put in a third of the work and effort of Nadal or Djokovic. He already beats them! He could…” (fill in the blank). And that’s where our collective powers of prognostication go wildly off the rails. What if we’re calling the wrong thing “talent”??
As I sit here and write, I become increasingly convinced that we place too many limits on that term. If we simplify the word down to its core, we mean “things you can’t be taught to do exceptionally well.” Does that not include intangibles like tenacity, concentration, and an otherworldly work ethic? Or the ability to problem-solve in the middle of a highly charged match that both Nadal and Djokovic do so often? Not usually, but it bloody-well should.
In fact, I’d go so far as to say that it’d be easier to teach Nadal to serve like Kyrgios does than it would be to “teach” Kyrgios to have the mulish insistence on perfection that Nadal has on the practice court. So maybe there isn’t such a thing as “if only Kyrgios would work as hard as Djokovic”. Because maybe you can’t teach that.
Incidentally, I still think Kyrgios is talented with a racket. I just think it’s worth understanding what that means…and what it doesn’t.
[polldaddy poll=10269965]
Luckystar MARCH 23, 2019 AT 3:00 AM
“Regarding Fed making it looked easy, I haven’t seen him looking easy against Rafa, Djoko, Murray or even Delpo, most of the times. It all depends on who his opponent is, even a Ferrer who lost to Fed every time they played, Ferrer made Fed worked hard to win his matches.”
********************
This is something that has conveniently escaped the notice of people who don’t want the facts to get in their way.
Not really.I think Joe was referring to Federers style of play looking effortless and graceful compared with Nadals somewhat laboured style.
Rafa doesn’t have a laboured style he keeps you on the edge of your seat with his scintillating style . One of the reasons I’m a fan of Rafa’s is because he makes tennis look like something not just anyone can do to professional level whereas Federer’s style just looks like anyone can do it.
Rafa’s style is not laboured. He plays scintillating tennis which is entertaining and it doesn’t look like something just anyone can do whilst Federer’s style is very boring, just like knocking up in the park unless he is pushed.
Nah, don’t agree that it looks effortless, I really don’t see how people can make that up. Fed obviously makes use of his athleticism like others, it’s just that he’s trying to play first strike tennis most of the time, relying heavily on his serve. Once the good returners of serves appeared, he started to have a hard time beating them.
But why is Nadal injured far more often than Fed if it isn’t effortless?
Rafa has his foot issue. Djoko hasn’t suffered much injuries despite his counterpunching tennis, isn’t his style effortless then?
Also, Kyrgios who played so little tennis in comparison, is/was often injured; hows that for effortless tennis?
Dont know, but Federer, Kyrgios and Djoko certainly make it look like they’re working less hard than Nadal
And yet Kyrgios was often injured! That proved that injuries have nothing to do with working hard or putting in effort or not! Delpo hits with easy power and yet he’s often injured.
There are those who are prone to injuries, esp if you’re born with some issues (foot for example) to begin with. A Rafa without foot issue to start with, I doubt he couldn’t sustain his way of playing tennis. Of course with a better serve, it would be even better, like his fellow counterpuncher Djoko.
Fed didn’t look effortless against #46 Albot in Miami yesterday. He had to pull out all the stops to avoid losing in straight sets to a qualifier.
That is what he does in these kind of matches. I watched the whole match. 2nd set- despite donating at least 15 points which even I would have probably return them on court, he still won that set. He kind of wins even when playing ridiculously weak. Fed was ok on his serves, but he just donated so many games when Albot serve. I think big players decrease their level involuntarily when facing players like Albot and increase it when facing Wawrinka, Isner, Raonic etc. I apprecitated Fed’s patience yesterday though. He waited for his moment to break at 5:5 in the 2nd set. Although I was pissed of by his dozens of unforced errors.
Effortless-looking tennis is boring. It’s a simple game, so Rafa’s style makes it entertaining.
Sorry for the repetition. Some of the posts were disappearing into thin air.
Yes, I’m not sure why but wordpress keeps making me “approve” your posts. Since there is nothing the least bit offensive in them, I have no idea why??
I think it’s because I wasn’t logged in.
Typical of the Nadal fans to rise to that comment from a perceived Fedfan.
But the same could be said of McEnroe v Connors or Lendl without taking away from their talent /ability. McEnroe was a genius , though I always wanted him to lose because of his behaviour.
Funny. I always wanted Connors to lose for the same reason. 🙂
I always figured at least 1/2 of Mac’s outbursts were for show. Connors always struck me as an actual git. Borg retired before I started watching tennis, but I’ve seen enough to know I’d have been mocked like Fedal people are today. I’d have been a…what? Borgenroe?
I was there in the McEnroe era and I was a big fan. To be fair to him, his outbursts were mainly because he was frustrated with the seeming incompetence of stuffy umpires who had the last word on calls when it was blatantly obvious to him that the umpire was wrong. McEnroe was a perfectionist and he couldn’t bear the imperfections of the way matches were conducted. Of course, having got the title of superbrat, he more than lived up to it. In those days, all we could watch in the UK was Wimbledon because there was no satellite TV so I didn’t witness his outbursts anywhere else. Cyclops was introduced on the service line which helped a lot. I don’t know why it was discontinued.
McEnroe’s tennis was sublime which more than made up for his bad behaviour. Despite calls to ban him etc. he was a box office draw. Even towards the tail end of his career, Wimbledon was begging him to enter the draw despite denying him membership of the AELTC which was offered to all Wimbledon Champions.
Connors was an obnoxious git as you say but McEnroe was even worse. Borg was the gentleman so I preferred him.
In those days they didn’t have hawkeye so a lot more arguments over line calls .
While I never condoned the behaviour it could be highly entertaining .
Reading the above again, I think Connors outbursts were more calculating and for show than McEnroes.
I certainly would say that Connors used it as a tactic to rattle his opponent more often. I’d forgotten that he did that.
I heard Mac say once that it got to the point where fans would be disappointed and complain if he didn’t have an outburst. Of course, he really WAS foul tempered, so it certainly wasn’t all a show. And when he was mad, he said some positively vicious, horrid things. Yet, I’ve run into him a few times and he’s not really off-putting. Connors IS.
I’ve met most of these guys at one time or another. I can’t claim I’ve ever been starstruck. Except when I saw Borg. 🙂 I didn’t even meet him, he just walked past me at a tournament. haha. I also got a little goofy when I met Guga Kuerten, but I was a kid and not a journo at that time, so I think I should be forgiven.
Guga was (and is) adorable so you’re forgiven. I’m about as far from being a kid as you can get but I might still get a little goofy if I met him. Or Borg, who is a silver fox.
Ive never met them but really like McEnroe over Connors these days.
Interesting piece on Kygrios.
https://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/nick-kyrgios-opens-up-on-why-he-doesnt-respect-his-opponents/news-story/af5f3652a3924f69365c24aecb434df5
Agree that McEnroe is as talented as anyone. Had he trained like Federer, he would have dominated the 80’s, even after introduction of graphite rackets (he played in ’83 and ’84 with one). But he probably trained less than NK; in fact, doubles was his training. It also wouldn’t surprise me one bit if Mac was into drugs in the 80s.
Also agree that Connors is a genuine git. Agassi’s autobiography gives a good sense of it.
Interesting piece on NK:
https://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/nick-kyrgios-opens-up-on-why-he-doesnt-respect-his-opponents/news-story/af5f3652a3924f69365c24aecb434df5
@Joe Smith MARCH 24, 2019 AT 2:06 AM>>>
https://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/nick-kyrgios-opens-up-on-why-he-doesnt-respect-his-opponents/news-story/af5f3652a3924f69365c24aecb434df5
Hearing Kyrgios analyse Federer, Nadal and Djokovic backs up the belief that while it seems like his plan is to entertain first and win tennis matches second, the young gun notices more than we realise.
Kyrgios has openly pinpointed a weak spot in Federer’s game. Source: Getty Images
“They don’t do anything spectacularly well. Obviously, Federer is unbelievably talented and the greatest of all time, but he gets tired in tight situations,” Kyrgios told the Daily Mail. “Djokovic struggles with short balls, he doesn’t like to come forward. The second serve can get a bit shaky.
“Rafa loves to be defensive so you can really push through his forehand and expose how far back he stands. So they do have weaknesses and if you play the right way and execute it right under pressure then they can be beaten.
“You just have to play the right way and for the stars to align. Of course, they are a level above all of us, but they are definitely beatable, I don’t think they are gods to the sport.”
*******************
Kyrgios is missing the point. All players deserve respect from their opponents and more importantly so do the spectators. That’s the point Rafa was making. As for pointing out their weaknesses, as Kyrgios sees it, that’s his opinion. Every day, forums are full of fans’ opinions on the weaknesses of this or that player. Kyrgios doesn’t have the last word on it.
When Kyrgios has been ranked in the top 4 for 16 – 20 years stretch like Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have been he would have earned the right to pontificate on them. Winning 50% against them in 12 meetings just doesn’t cut it. It would be different if he’d won 20 out of 25 meetings against them.
Sigh. Maybe Rafa should have defined respect for Kyrgios before accusing him of lacking it. He seems clueless as to its meaning.
Kyrgios has only faced an aging Fed, a Rafa who has clearly past his peak and prime, and a Djoko who was clearly suffering from injury issues the two times they met; the way he described their weaknesses, as if he knew them so well.
I’ve to say that the big three are still formidable even now, weakness or no weakness. I mean which player doesn’t have weakness? It’s up to their opponents to try and exploit them; the fact that they’re still winning most of their matches tell us that it’s easier said than done. I would even feel that the more they (the big three) meet Kyrgios, the more likely they’re to beat him as it’s they who will figure him out more than the other way round.
Luckystar, I think Rafa has passed his peak fitness for sure as he is more injured now than at any time before but I think he is playing far better tennis now than when he was a serial winner.
Yeah, agree; Rafa is a better player now but no longer at his physical peak.
Talent v effort? I’ll take Ferru!!! Grats to him on his big win in Miami!
I also believe that Djoko’s ‘talent’ is underrated somehow. If Fed is appreciated for his finesse shots, which I love, why the Novak’s ROS don’t count as talent? I mean the ROS rate can be crucial between winning and losing a match. Fed got me annoyed yesterday with his poor returns. I was relieved he finally has woken towards the end.
Eugene, the official stats don’t put Djoko at the top for ROS.
How Rafael Nadal Became The King Of Returns
https://www.atptour.com/en/news/nadal-infosys-returns-march-2017
Eugene, you might want to check this:
https://www.atptour.com/en/stats/1st-serve-return-points-won
Too many people have opinions about who is the best at this that and the other but most of the time the official statistics doesn’t back them up.
Thanks nadline. I have no problem to attribute those skills to Rafa. Simply, Djoko became ‘famous’ on this forum for his Ros as well. I definitely am not as informed as you when it comes to tennis stats.
People just bandy these accolades around based on their hunch not on reality. I hear commentators hoot time and time again that Djokovic is the best at ROS in the history of the game. It’s simply not the case. The same goes for the widely marketed opinion that Federer is the greatest player to ever pick up a racquet.
Exactly Eugene. People concentrate so much on the serve, ie how well a player could serve and think that a player like Kyrgios who could serve so well means that he’s so talented; but they forget that ROS is also an important part of the game. I mean who doesn’t possess a great serve these days among the young gen players? However, I haven’t seen a young player having a great ROS! If everyone can serve reasonably well, then having a great ROS will set one apart from the rest who couldn’t return well in comparison.
I watched players like Kyrgios, Tsitsipas, Shapo, Khachanov for examples, none of them has a great ROS, not even at the level of Simon, don’t even need to compare to Ferrer, or the trio of Djoko, Rafa, Murray. What sets Djoko apart from the other big four players is that he has an incredibly great ROS, that the other three guys couldn’t gain any advantage over him with their serves.
As I’ve mentioned before, having a great ROS requires lots of talent too; so Djoko is really very talented for having such great return abilities. I even think that he’s the most talented among the big four, with the least weaknesses, except that he doesn’t come with deft touches and has to learn and acquire those touches by putting in lots of efforts and getting a coach to help him achieve that.
Luckystar, according to the ATP, Rafa is the best active player at ROS.
https://www.atptour.com/en/news/nadal-infosys-returns-march-2017
https://www.atptour.com/en/stats/1st-serve-return-points-won
Nadal’s statistics are, in some ways, a bit misleading thanks to his unprecedented success on clay. I’m not saying he doesn’t have a great ROS, because he does, but the reason his stats are better than Djokovic’s is because when he plays on clay, he wins on clay. Pretty much without exception. The surface naturally favors the returner for reasons that you all already know. He plays (and wins) more matches than anyone else on the surface that is the worst for servers.
With that being said, he is a great returner even off the dirt…just not as great as Djokovic IMO.
It makes me laugh when people exempt clay from everybody else’s stats because Rafa dominates the surface. It’s not as if Rafa plays against himself on clay. Why not do the same for Federer and Djokovic on their best surface grass and H/C respectively? It’s so unfair to Rafa.
I think Rafa has better returns on clay whilst Djoko is better on the HCs.
H2H
H2H against Isner, Karlovic & Raonic
Federer 29-6
Rafa 19-2
Djokovic 19-4
Not a lot of difference against the Giants.
Cheryl Murray MARCH 24, 2019 AT 1:48 PM
“With that being said, he is a great returner even off the dirt…just not as great as Djokovic IMO.”
Cheryl your opinion doesn’t matter at the end of the day, it’s the stats that count.
There are far more hard court tournaments than clay so Djokovic has far more opportunities to top the table on ROS but he doesn’t on his best surface.
Please everybody guys, just stick to the facts and leave your opinions to one side.
You cannot disagree with the official statistics.
Generally, I would agree that it’s more beneficial to stick with the facts. But the purpose of a blog is to offer a separate forum in which opinion is welcome, and therefore a respectful debate on differing opinions is completely appropriate.
You say Nadal’s return statistics are the best. I’m not suggesting that his statistics aren’t the best. What I’m saying is that I think those particular statistics offer a better commentary on the fact that he’s so much better on clay than other other player is on any other surface. Probably better than any player in the history of the sport has ever been on any surface.
It’s certainly not an insult.
Cheryl, we don’t have the proof that Nadal’s ROS stats are boosted by his dominance on clay and as h/c forms about 75% of the tour it’s not logically that dominance on clay alone could be the reason why Rafa is shown to be the best active player at ROS. We can’t disagree about who has won the most slams or who has the most weeks at #1. It’s the same thing.