Wasted potential

[stroke]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DM41irRte6q/?igsh=MzcyeXl4czY1OWQw

Just a discussion starter. I have long thought that Fabio, Nick, and Bernard were the highest level of wasted potential. Fabio of course had a long career, so he is a bit of a different situation than Nick and Bernard, but he still qualifies in my eyes.

[don_budge]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DM41i...cyeXl4czY1OWQw

Just a discussion starter. I have long thought that Fabio, Nick, and Bernard were the highest level of wasted potential. Fabio of course had a long career, so he is a bit of a different situation than Nick and Bernard, but he still qualifies in my eyes.

Hands down...Nick "The Jerk" Kyrgios. Greatest waste of space of all time. Nobody can compare the amount of waste to this character. All of his matches against Roger Federer were brilliant. Federer was the only player who could inspire Kygios to give one hundred percent. Bernard is a case of a real bad case of dysfunction more than wasted potential. The other three don't compare to the GOAT of wasted potential.

[stroke]

Certainly Nadal had Nick's attention and effort 100%.

https://youtu.be/_XN0F0OcvzM?si=tQai-VPCBR4qIsP1

[neilchok]

I think Nick was somewhat talented, but I don't think he was as good as people think. I think it is a little overblown that he didn't try at all. To be fit enough to play a 5 setter at the pace ATP pros play at, there is no way you could survive that without a high level of fitness. He had an amazing serve, above average forehand but not as good as other players, good agility, not the greatest volleys, and I would say below average backhand.

[neilchok]

In my opinion the biggest waste of talent was Andre Agassi. II think the coaching he got was terrible when he was younger, and if he had gotten good coaching he would be way better. He basically just used the souped up ball machine his father made. He went to nick's academy and I don't think that place really helped him that much. If he had gone to Lansdorp or other good coaches he would have done significantly better. I think for Maria she got significantly better playing with Lansdorp, and if she stayed at IMG not sure how well she would have turned out.

If he got the coaching Pete Sampras got, I think he would have been much better at volleys and fitness. And maybe a little bit better on the serve.

[doctorhl]

I think Dustin Brown is in the top 10. His ability was way above his brain.

[don_budge]

I think Nick was somewhat talented, but I don't think he was as good as people think. I think it is a little overblown that he didn't try at all. To be fit enough to play a 5 setter at the pace ATP pros play at, there is no way you could survive that without a high level of fitness. He had an amazing serve, above average forehand but not as good as other players, good agility, not the greatest volleys, and I would say below average backhand.

Nick is an exceptionally talented athlete. He also imagines himself to be a pretty good basketball player. I did see a video of him playing and it appeared to me that he had a lot of talent in that game as well. It was his attitude that crippled him. I have never seen such a terrible attitude in the sport of tennis in my life. He was always looking for an excuse to bail in a match. As I wrote in an earlier post you only have to watch his matches against Federer to appreciate how talented he was. His backhand was no liability in those matches. The video of Nadal and Kyrgios is very telling. It does display some ability to play the game but it showcases his miserable attitude. One might say in McEnroe speak...his attitude is the pits of the world.

[don_budge]

Nick Kyrgios...the definition of Wasted Potential

This is the "Mr. Brightside" of Nick "The Jerk" Kyrgios. When he played Roger he was a different animal. He just turned into a different being entirely. I guess only Roger could command the respect that was necessary for Kyrgios to pay attention for the entire match. A real shame. In a way I like Kyrgios. I don't mind when an individual basically tells the rest of the bunch to jump in a lake. The Rebel. The Hostile Underdog. But you have to back it up with performance. John McEnroe did this all the time. He backed up his antics and histrionics. Nick was just looking for an excuse to toss in the towel most of the time. He couldn't be bothered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hAaAu731lA

[don_budge]

Nick Kyrgios...the definition of Wasted Potential

This is the "Mr. Brightside" of Nick "The Jerk" Kyrgios. When he played Roger he was a different animal. He just turned into a different being entirely. I guess only Roger could command the respect that was necessary for Kyrgios to pay attention for the entire match. A real shame. In a way I like Kyrgios. I don't mind when an individual basically tells the rest of the bunch to jump in a lake. The Rebel. The Hostile Underdog. But you have to back it up with performance. John McEnroe did this all the time. He backed up his antics and histrionics. Nick was just looking for an excuse to toss in the towel most of the time. He couldn't be bothered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hAaAu731lA

At or near the end of 2017 I started this thread calling it "Match of the Year". I had a couple of interesting things to say in the couple of posts that I wrote. I don't believe that Roger would have won this match had he not have switched racquets. His backhand and the rest of the game was ultra enhanced after the switch. But Kyrgios was so good in the match. His talent on full display. He was still like a bomb ready to go off but somehow composed himself throughout and held it together...until it was time to shake hands. Sheer Kyrgios. He spoiled a great moment. He was the definition of wasted potential.

https://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin/forum/tennisplayer/67460-2017-the-match-of-the-year

[don_budge]

Roger Federer...speaking of Wasted Potential

Speaking of wasted potential...consider this match. The final of the 2017 Australian Open final...Roger versus his nemisis Rafael Nadal. Roger has recently switched to a new and bigger racquet. From 90 square inches to 98 square inches. Fully ten percent or thereabouts. But the difference in Roger is night and day. He goes toe to toe with Nadal and just outlasts and out punches him from bell to bell. A scintillating match that is decided by a matter of mere millimeters. Nadal questions and appeals Roger's winner on match point. I studied Federer for seven years at this point in his career. I wrote about every single match he played and watched damn near every single point. Roger being the only player who could be watched from the beginning of a tournament to the very end. When he played every match was worth watching. No matter who he was playing...Kyrgios to Nadal.

Wasted potential? For years up this point in his career I was questioning his reasoning for sticking with his inferior equipment. He was, in effect, handicapping himself. How may more Slams would he have won? What would his head to head have been with Nadal had he switched seven years ealier? What about his head to head against Djokovic? We'll never know. But he was definitely a different animal altogether in this match. The backhand being the most obvious difference but that a bit misleading. He was better in ever category of his game. But against Nadal the Nadal game plan was to bully Federer on the backhand until he capitulated. No capitulating here in this match. He is taking the Nadal serve early on the backhand and driving it back deep at times. His crosscourt backhand completely retooled as now it is a weapon...even cross court into the Nadal strength.

As a coach you are always looking at the player and trying to determine where there is room for improvement. Where there is potential. This five set win in a Grand Slam final spoke volumes regarding the Roger Federer game and even his career. Somehow the equipment should have been standardized...all things being equal. As it is...there is no comparison across eras.

[don_budge]

Realized Potential meets Wasted Potential...Once again

Once again there is a meeting between the two polar opposites...Roger "The Living Proof" Federer and Nick "The Jerk" Kyrgios". Roger proving little old don_budge correct in a couple of different ways. Let's talk about the racquet. Once again we see Roger with the "new" equipment making full use of all of the real estate. This was such a close match. No doubt it was decided ultimately in mere millimeters. Without a doubt he made every bit of use of the extra eight square inches in his new 98 square inch model over his retired 90 square inch model. Too late. He should have done it years earlier in his career. Here he is well past his prime facing the best that tennis can offer and all things being equal, including the equipment, he reigns supreme.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsbXKa4sajk

In my tennis coaching paradigm I always highlighted the fact that Roger is "The Living Proof". He brought all of the best of classic tennis to the show. The one hand backhand. You won't see anyone in the game handle volleys the way he did even in this match. His net game basically had been mothballed for years. The smaller racquet inhibited his chances and ability to play the net ever so subtly. Only the discerning eye. The coaches eye.

I don't thing that we will see anything approaching this level of tennis. Sure...the two droids will be hitting the usual howitzers off of the baseline with the occasional trip to the net to do a little clean up. Bj?rn Borg came out on Swedish television insinuating a bit about drug use in the sport...past and present. Was Robin S?derling a possible suspect? Jannik Sinner has been suspended for months and many thought it was too short. Alcarez??? If anyone ever looked as if he was hopped up on something...he'd be it. His whole demeanor suggests that something isn't right. It's possible they are all using. Staying one step ahead of the testing. WADA. A half step slow?

Yeah...Roger and that new equipment. Just imagine how many wins he might have had against Djokovic, Nadal and Murray if he had switched earlier. He already gave away some crucial years in age to his closest rivals. It made no sense to further handicap himself further. No fault of his own of course. The sport of tennis is guilty here. Those that run the game ruined the game. It got away from them. If they had asked the players I wonder how things might have gone. Anyways...it is what it is. Roger went down fighting. Slicing and dicing. Right to the bitter end. Like this match. It comes down to a tie-break. Match point against. No worry. The Living Proof...

[don_budge]

Maximizing Potential...Roger Federer vs. Rafael Nadal

As a tennis coach one of the main objectives is to understand not only what a player is doing but just as importantly knowing what he is capable of doing. Early on I realized that Roger Federer was not playing up to his full potential against his main rivals. Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray. Murray, being the lesser of the three, was 11-14 against Roger for the career. Roger winning the last five after the equipment change. Was Roger playing up to his full potential during those years before he finally changed racquets? Obviously not based solely on equipment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM7Gzhout_g

Here he is against Rafael Nadal after beating Nick Kyrgios in the semifinals at Miami. He absolutely bullies Nadal. He played true to his potential. No longer was he playing solely defense...now he has turned the tables and gets the quick drop on Nadal more often than not. These are ethical issues here. The players have vested interest and cannot be held responsible. The have only to play to the rules...the current rules. It's like bathroom breaks and medical time-outs. They are there to be taken advantage of...just like the equipment. Roger is "The Living Proof" in the bridge that divides Classic Era tennis and the Modern game. Here in this match he demonstrates that for years the game has not be responsibly governed as the rules allowed for players to be at a disadvantage. I truly believe that this is the real reason Bjorn Borg quit. The disparity and what was looming in the future burned him out and he wasn't going to fight City Hall...being the good Swede that he was. The Great Swede.

Roger...maximizing potential. What would his H2H have been against his major rivals if he had been playing with equal real estate all those years? I was just wondering.