TENNIS PLAYERS (Off-Court Shenanigans)

[JazzNU]

My impression has always been and will likely always be unless Nick himself changes what he says and does, that he does not love tennis, he has said as much. He might like it, but he doesn't love it. He loves basketball. This is not a secret. He shows constantly that he loves basketball. He's just not good enough to play it professionally, even in Australia.

[Deuce]

I think when he says he doesn't love tennis, or doesn't like it, or hates it - I think he is referring to the pro game, and the environment and all the extra elements that come with the pro game that have nothing to do with the actual game (except maybe the umpiring).

As any of us who've played tournaments (at any level) realize, there is a significant difference between playing tennis with a friend at a local court and playing in a tournament match. And the main difference is in the level of pressure. I certainly notice it - even though I only play small local tournaments now, it's still very different than just playing with a friend. I always want to win, but I feel a lot more pressure in a tournament match.
In tournaments at the pro level, with the fans there, and the media reporting on your every move, etc., it's a hell of a lot more pressure than in the tournaments we play. And that can make a huge difference. The difference is so great that one might say it can turn one's natural love of the game into hate.

I'd still like to hear from people who have watched him on a practice court.

.

[Liamvalid]

I hope the “he doesn’t love tennis” camp are correct, and we never see disgrace the court again. To call Djokovic a tool recently, and I’m no Djokovic fan, is the most hypocritical statement to come out of a tennis players mouth ever. As Ponchi said, some people would kill to have his talent, or his opportunities, or even just to be on the court, and he does what he does and laughs in the face of those people. If I was the kind of guy that fake masturbates at work with plastic bottles, maybe I’d look up to him. But when I go to work I act in a professional manner. I have tried to give him the benefit of the doubt over the years but have given up

[ponchi101]

My very first blog in TAT1.0 was about how much I love this sport. About all the little nuances of it, the amazing feeling I get when I hit a clean passing shot, or the occasions in which I slam-dunked a serve & volley point.
I do not like to play matches. The pressure gets to me and I cannot play as freely as when I am just practicing, training. But give me on hour of just free hitting, and it is the best feeling in the world.
I remember the very first time my brother put a racquet in my hand. It was automatic, instantaneous, and, of course, I am a mediocre playing, at best (in the real meaning of the word). It is a feeling that only comes to me when I have my racquet with me or when I am skiing, the sole other sport that gives me this feeling.
So, let's assume that indeed Nick loves the sport, but only when he practices. How many people can actually watch him do that? Get in my Lear Jet, fly to Australia and watch him enjoy the sport? Very few. Instead, what we get is the best player Australia saying out load he does not miss the sport.
Thought experiment: you love your wife/husband. In the privacy of your home, you treat him/her like indeed the love of your life. In public you openly state you don't miss him/her. How would that make him/her feel?
I completely love to watch him play. He is right there with Roger, Marcelo Rios, Johnny Mac and Henri Laconte in the talent department: he is unbelievable. But then he does all the other things and, how difficult it is to be a fan. So I gave up.
And if he does not miss tennis, then retire. Let's see how much tennis misses him.

[Liamvalid]

My very first blog in TAT1.0 was about how much I love this sport. About all the little nuances of it, the amazing feeling I get when I hit a clean passing shot, or the occasions in which I slam-dunked a serve & volley point.
I do not like to play matches. The pressure gets to me and I cannot play as freely as when I am just practicing, training. But give me on hour of just free hitting, and it is the best feeling in the world.
I remember the very first time my brother put a racquet in my hand. It was automatic, instantaneous, and, of course, I am a mediocre playing, at best (in the real meaning of the word). It is a feeling that only comes to me when I have my racquet with me or when I am skiing, the sole other sport that gives me this feeling.
So, let's assume that indeed Nick loves the sport, but only when he practices. How many people can actually watch him do that? Get in my Lear Jet, fly to Australia and watch him enjoy the sport? Very few. Instead, what we get is the best player Australia saying out load he does not miss the sport.
Thought experiment: you love your wife/husband. In the privacy of your home, you treat him/her like indeed the love of your life. In public you openly state you don't miss him/her. How would that make him/her feel?
I completely love to watch him play. He is right there with Roger, Marcelo Rios, Johnny Mac and Henri Laconte in the talent department: he is unbelievable. But then he does all the other things and, how difficult it is to be a fan. So I gave up.
And if he does not miss tennis, then retire. Let's see how much tennis misses him.

I was enamoured with him after the first time I saw him play (beating Nadal at Wimbledon) and was all too happy to make excuses for his behaviour for the first few years. But nowadays I’d rather see someone take his spot in the draw who deserves it on merit and professionalism, even if their tennis isn’t as exciting to watch

[Suliso]

Karolina Pliskova in Melbourne (I assume)

[mmmm8]

I'd like to hear from people who've seen Nick on a practice court. Did it look like he was having a blast, or did he look unhappy and like he didn't want to be there?

Having seen a player once or twice on a practice court doesn't convey how they really feel. Everyone has good days and bad days. I've seen a LOT of Nadal in practice, press conferences, and off court, and there are moments based on which I could have sworn he despises his job, which we know is not true.

I agree we can't always rely on what people say but Kyrgios has said it enough times that we have to at least try to take him at his word.

[Deuce]

Having seen a player once or twice on a practice court doesn't convey how they really feel. Everyone has good days and bad days. I've seen a LOT of Nadal in practice, press conferences, and off court, and there are moments based on which I could have sworn he despises his job, which we know is not true.

I agree we can't always rely on what people say but Kyrgios has said it enough times that we have to at least try to take him at his word.

^Nick is known for having a blast on the practice court, and I think it is a very accurate indication of his true perspective on tennis. On the practice court, he's like a kid in a candy store. If any other player were to behave as Nick does on the practice court, everyone would say that it's incredibly obvious that this person absolutely loves the game of tennis. No question.

As far as taking Nick at his word goes... Again - how many times has he said that he "doesn't care" about tennis, about the fans, about his peers, etc.? He has said that he "doesn't care" dozens upon dozens of times. Yet he's still there. He has more than enough money to live comfortably the rest of his life. Yet he's still on the tour. Actions speak much louder than words. You don't stay in the same place if you don't care or if it's not more of a positive than a negative.

And he still gets upset with umpires, fans, peers, administrators, etc.
One doesn't become upset if one truly doesn't care. His words say that he doesn't care - but his actions repeatedly demonstrate that he does very much care. He cares too much for him to handle. I assess people on their actions, not on their mere words. I can SAY I'm the Pope. It doesn't make me the Pope.
Taking someone as complex as Nick at his word is an exercize in futility, as he constantly contradicts himself. One cannot assess someone like that in as simple a manner as taking him at his word. The situation, and the individual in question, are far, far more complex than that.

It's like the 11 year old kid in the school yard who other kids are teasing and calling him names for whatever reason. And the kid being teased constantly claims that he "doesn't care" about the teasing, and that it doesn't bother him. Then he goes home and cries because of the teasing. Of course he cares - but he wants to show a 'brave front', in the hopes that it will fool people - because he is too insecure to expose his vulnerability in showing the real effects of the teasing.

With Nick, his tantrums are the equivalent of the 11 year old going home and crying. It's an obvious sign that he does very much care. The only difference between him and the 11 year old kid is that Nick's caring is done in public - because he can't help himself. He erupts in the heat of the moment because he cares so much.
Then, after doing that, he feels he must double his efforts to show his indifference - which is nothing more than an emotional self-protection -, and so he'll not run for shots, tank sets or matches, etc. - all of which gives the well calculated message that he "doesn't care", and he'll exclaim publicly that he "doesn't care".

The reason for all of this - the root of his behaviour - is that he's a very insecure individual. As such, he is terrified of failure. The thing he fears most is trying his best and failing. THAT'S the reason he claims so often to 'not care' about tennis - and why he often does not try his best. It's because he does not want people to see him as a failure.
He knows he has enormous natural ability for the game - in terms of natural talent, he's in the same league as the players ponchi mentioned (and I would add Hischam Arazi to that list - that guy could hit any shot from anywhere on the court, but was mentally much weaker than his peers). And so if he fails with that degree of natural talent, everyone would question his talent, his mental strength, etc. And, because he is so insecure, that would devastate him, and he would feel he's a failure. And so he has decided to take control of that - he has created an image for himself as a player who "doesn't care", and, as such, who doesn't try his best. This way, when he loses, the inherent reason he lost the match is not because he's not good enough, but rather, it's because he didn't try his best - because he 'doesn't care'. And in this scenario, no-one can say that he's a failure or that he's not good enough.

The key (to him) is that he is in control of how he is perceived by people. He prefers being viewed as someone who 'doesn't care', because he knows that's not true. He knows how much he cares. But if he tried his best and failed, and then was viewed as a failure, that would hurt him tremendously because he would believe it.

Just like the 11 year old kid in the schoolyard, Nick desperately wants to be liked. And, also like the kid in the schoolyard, Nick is very insecure. And so if he tries his best and fails, and is not liked, he will be devastated - because he will be disliked based on who he really is. But if he says he "doesn't care" and doesn't try his best, and is disliked because of that, it won't really hurt him, because he knows that the persona that the people dislike is a fake persona that he fabricated, and not the genuine Nick.

Don't get me wrong - I don't like his behaviour. But, perhaps because of my history in working with troubled people, rather than merely look at the surface of Nick's behaviour and condemn it, I delve deeper and attempt to understand the reasons for his behaviour. He is not a simple man - he's very complicated. And rather troubled.

One cannot have a meaningful perspective about a complex enigma like Kyrgios without entering into a degree of psychological analysis - because he is always full of what seem to be contradictions. But it's all a well-planned design with him - one which is a rather desperate attempt to protect himself from emotional injury.

[ti-amie]

It was Sloane Stephens behavior on a practice court that turned me against her. She was on the court next to Serena, Patrick and Oracene. She came out, side eyed the Williams team, all of whom were ignoring her because they were working on something, hit a ball or two, and left. She wasn't there half an hour.

Practice court behavior can tell you a lot about a player.

[JazzNU]

Or it can tell you very little.

[ponchi101]

And this is not the one time he has said or done something detrimental to tennis.
Insulting Donna Vecic on a totally unprovoked occasion.
Tanking games and sets.
Some points he has played against some players in which he is either insulting the other player, disrespecting the sport, or both.
What Liam said above: Nick calling Novak a tool really takes some chutzpah.
Calling Roland Garros "a joke" (really? The premier clay tournament in the world is a joke?)
He is the new Marcelo Rios. A preternatural talent, being wasted, and offering more downside to tennis than upside.

[Deuce]

And this is not the one time he has said or done something detrimental to tennis.
Insulting Donna Vecic on a totally unprovoked occasion.
Tanking games and sets.
Some points he has played against some players in which he is either insulting the other player, disrespecting the sport, or both.
What Liam said above: Nick calling Novak a tool really takes some chutzpah.
Calling Roland Garros "a joke" (really? The premier clay tournament in the world is a joke?)
He is the new Marcelo Rios. A preternatural talent, being wasted, and offering more downside to tennis than upside.

While I agree that he is most certainly wasting his very natural tennis talent (he is definitely his own worst enemy), I disagree that he is more negative for the game than positive solely on the grounds that tennis - like any sport - needs villains. I believe that you'll agree that tennis was never more exciting than in the '70s and '80s, when Nastase, Connors, McEnroe, etc. were at their peak. The playing styles were also more contrasting back then - and that aids my point: A serve-and-volleyer vs. a baseline player is interesting because of the contrast in styles. It's more interesting and enjoyable than watching two players of the same playing style play each other. Similarly, a contrast in personalities also makes the sport more interesting than if all the players have essentially the same likable personality.

Again, this is not condoning - or even excusing - Kyrgios's behaviour... several things that he's said and done are rather despicable (though still not on the level of Nastase, for example). But that behaviour makes it interesting, as it creates contrasts in personality between him and others. When he drills a Nadal with a ball in the chest, and then says he did it deliberately, and would do it at every opportunity, it makes every subsequent match between the two players more interesting - because there is not only the 'war' of the shot against shot, but also the 'war' of the personality against personality.

All that said, Nick does seem to get along quite well with several of his fellow pro players. So he must have some positive personality qualities, as well.

[ponchi101]

I hope that we did not get misconstrued about the quality of his game. The strokes are incredible, we can all agree.
But remember, as you are bringing the old Baddies, how stupid it was to get McEnroe angry? That used to mean 6-0, Mac. Nastase would start toying with you (unless you were Borg), playing tennis of unbelievable level. Getting Connors angry meant that it became personal, and to the death.
Remember Connors losing to Borg at Wimbledon 1981, after leading two sets to love? The story is that he spent the night walking London, in the rain, because he was so furious.
That is the difference. All those bad guys? Never tanked. Never insulted "the sport" (their behavior could be seen as an insult, but the line is clear). Even a guy that was as gifted but was also a head case gave you a clearer hint. Laconte, after a few bad matches, was asked if he needed to stop playing for a while. Deadly serious, he said: "Yes, I have to. I need to put the racquet down for three, maybe even four days".
Hate them? Sure, you were allowed to. Doubt their commitment and love for the sport? Foolish.

[Deuce]

All that you write is true.
But does it really matter what the villain does, as long as he or she is a villain, and adds that contrast? I feel that contrast is good for the game, no matter what the nature or origin of the contrast. This is true of any sport, be it an individual or a team sport. It's the classic human attraction to 'good vs. evil' - and that makes every match/game more compelling.

[ponchi101]

We are changing subjects.
I don't mind if he is going to be the villain.
But if he is going to be The Joker, then I want him to really want to kill Batman, or make a fool of him (Batman). I don't want him to sort or, kind of, maybe be interested in killing Batman.
And, we will not get the great morality plays of the 70's and 80's if he (Kyrgios) does not reach the semis of the slam because, you know, he really did not feel like playing during that winnable 1st rounder against Cristian Garin.