Week 32 - ATP 1000 - Coupe Rogers - Montreal, Canada (hard)

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Week 32 - ATP 1000 - Coupe Rogers - Montreal, Canada (hard)

freerider · Futures level

perhaps people on this board are too used to following mr murray at atp level who waltzes through to the latter stages of atp events. I would suggest that mr edmund is a solid atp tour player who has a normal set of results vs. other tour level players.

Jimmy09 · Intermediate Club Player

Kyle is certainly not a challenger player and is running some of the top guys pretty close. I think it all comes down to the mental side. I know this has been a talking point before but showing a bit of a positive emotion or something to get himself going when it gets to crunch time & show his opponent he is up for the fight.

-- Edited by Jimmy09 on Tuesday 8th of August 2017 08:02:23 AM

Oakland2002 · All-time great

Oh dear honestly.... I can't believe anyone is worried about Kyle's performance this year. I know there are some climate change denies out there who try to destabilise rational discussion ... utilising breibart rhetoric in their comments on threads and flagrantly tossing around the C word in casual discussion about Kyle's status even trying to demonise the statistical basis of informed discussion by writing the word cohort out of the Britishtennis.net dictionary.

Kyle was a very good challenger player when he started 2016 ranked 102 at the Australian open, for me his dominance of the challenger circuit was complete as a developmental stage when he took Evo apart in Dallas. Kyle is not a challenger player, by definition he would have to be errrr... playing challengers? He has not played a challenger in the last 12 months, not since May 2016 in Rome which he won loosing only 1 set in the whole tournament. He is unlikely barring injury to ever play challenger tennis again, he was ranked 105 year end 2015 as a challenger player but has risen to 42, maintaining that rank purely playing on the ATP tour.

Should we worry about Kyle's progression over the last 12 months, absolutely not (his career earnings sit at $1.657 million ish). He has as mentioned stepped up a level, and within that level arguably another one in that he is close to being seeded in ATP events. One might worry that he may take a dip as the 2016 US Open was the best GS performance of his career, he will be unseeded and therefore vulnerable to a very competitive first round draw but really it is all about at least 18 month perhaps 2 yearly cycles.

The question of stalling is an interesting one, personally I think it is a non issue and I am sure I am boring a number of the climate change denying fraternity by making the point again but let's reflect again on the fact Kyle is 22 and at least 4 years off his peak and he has progressed a round further in each of the slams he has played this last 12 months compared to the preceeding.

It is also worth looking at who he has lost to and then how he has lost.

Let's reflect on who he has lost to, Ferrer (age 35)#33, Warinka (age 32) #4 twice, Djokovic (age 30) #5 twice, Murray (30) #1, Gasquet (age 31) #29, Querry (29) #20, Simon (32) #39, Monfils (30) #22, Anderson (31) #32, Nadal (31) #3. Realistically, what a fantastic learning experience. To have played them and to continue to do so over the next year or two will set him beautifully, but are any of theses boys going to be around in 3-4 years time?

Then there is Del Potro (28) #31, probably not going to be around much longer.

Then there is the cohort (couldn't resist) above him chronologically ie

Dimitrov (26) #11 3 setter, lost the first set came back but lost the third,
Harrison (25) #44 won the first on a tie break lost next two,
Young (28) #61 lost the first came back to win the second,
Domingues (23) #183 lost the first came back lost third on tiebreak,
Raonic (26) #10, won the first lost next two,
Careno Busta (26) #15 lost in straight sets,
Barton (25) #497 lost two tie breakers.

Barton and Domingues I see as outliers, disappointing but he put a lot of this level of player away in early rounds through the year, Young may also fall into this bracket. Only Careno Busta put him away really cleanly. Coming back after loosing the first I see as positive (which he did with Dimtrov) On this evidence I think there is the potential to develop his game to a level where he will be able to go toe to toe with Dimitrov, Careno Busta and Raonic in the top 10, with an edge over Raonic and Dimitrov on clay.

Then there are the two players who will be long term career rivals Thiem (23) #7 lost in straight sets, and Shapovalov (18) #143 Kyle beat him DC but lost in 3 after loosing a tiebreak coming back to take the second at Queens. Thiem I see as the heavyweight from 2019 onwards but personally from the evidence of this year I feel Kyle remains firmly on track as a top 10 player of the future. We just have to be patient.

-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Tuesday 8th of August 2017 03:07:24 PM

indiana · Tennis legend

freerider wrote:
perhaps people on this board are too used to following mr murray at atp level who waltzes through to the latter stages of atp events. I would suggest that mr edmund is a solid atp tour player who has a normal set of results vs. other tour level players.

Overall results, I would certainly expect a player at the lower end of the top 50 to have an overall losing record against top 50 players though 3-15 this year I'd imagine a bit worse than most similarly ranked players. Not something I have really compared though and would hope something that naturally improves in time as he gets better and moves up the rankings.

For me it is though more that pattern within matches thing again. He surely doesn't fall away so often in three set matches for straight tennis ability or for physical reasons so I do think there is a genuine concern as to why ( and it has come at other stages like early in his pro career and in Davis Cup ).

I have also remarked before re the emotional / walking the walk side that Jimmy09 touches on. The bit of concern there to me though is while a bit more might help, Kyle at 22 is largely now how he is likely to continue and how opponents know him to be. A too marked change might look ingenuine but to my mind hopefully he does in time look to give a bit more to perhaps help raise himself in important moments and also send messages across the net. I think that it has been a coaching failing over his developing years not to have got him to more walk the walk and give out these more positive vibes.

EddietheEagle · County player

Top 50 players at 22 aren't challenger players by definition.

The way I saw it, he just played rubbish at crucial stages yesterday for some reason, particularly during the last set: lots of missed first serves; sprayed groundstrokes well wide, left and right; remained back and got himself penned behind the baseline in not producing enough decent length; showed a marked reluctance to come in; sluggish, flatfooted at times; reactive and content to let Ferrer back in the play. Some points he played pretty well but clearly not enough of them. I thought overall he looked a bit resigned and unbothered. A lack of intensity.

There's a ton of things he has to practice in point play before he starts moving ahead again, more so because opponents know what they're dealing with now. The price of progress, I'm afraid.

Vandenburg · Futures level

Agree with many previous points, and would like to add:

We need to stop making out kyle to something he is not. Yes he has this monster forehand, but his ranking is accurate, he is a top 50 player at best. At the moment he is not top 20 potential or anywhere near it. That is not to say he will never get there, but at the moment it is a while off.

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

Vandenburg wrote:
Agree with many previous points, and would like to add:

We need to stop making out kyle to something he is not. Yes he has this monster forehand, but his ranking is accurate, he is a top 50 player at best. At the moment he is not top 20 potential or anywhere near it. That is not to say he will never get there, but at the moment it is a while off.

Despite being one of Kyle's biggest fans, I can't disagree with anything you've said. His ranking right now is an accurate reflection of where his game is at. The exciting thing for me is not that Kyle has broken into the Top 50 at just 22, it's the fact that he has done it despite there being so many areas of his game on which he can still improve. That is why I believe the potential to go Top 10 is definitely there. Whether or not that potential is ever fulfilled, only time will tell, but the one thing I am fully confident of, is that if Kyle doesn't get there, it won't be for the want of trying on his part.

Oakland2002 · All-time great

Vandy I disagree around your use of the word potential, I agree he is not a top 20 player at the moment (he's 41) but 19 of the top 30 players are at least 28, all of the top 5 are at least 30. Kyle is presently the 4th highest ranked player under 23 (and one arguably the best one, Nick the Greek is nuts!).

Kyles progression has been with a consistent gradient and he has gone passed a number of his arguably more talented peers a reflection of his attitude towards self development and self improvement. Does he have the potential to be a top 20 player of course he does. 20 of the top 30 players in the world will decline over the next 4 years and his game barring injury will improve and there are very few players in that 5 year vacuum between 22-27 likely to steel a march. It is not going to happen this year or next but he is definitely one of only s few players in the box seats to become a top 20 player.

Priesty · Challenger level

The guys Kyle has been losing the tight 3-setters too have all had considerably more experience in such situations at that level. Hopefully Hilts will be looking at what needs to change and that in time it'll turn around.

Oakland2002 · All-time great

14 losses to players 28 or older (only one of whom outside the top 40 at 61). Outside that only two bad losses based on rankings differential all season (not including Dennis the orbital exenterator) one a three setter where he came back after loosing the first, the other two tie break sets, so no sign of caving there.

It's all entirely consistent with a great year in terms of progress, it's just he has moved to such a level of increased intensity that the outcomes that indicate continued progress become more subtle as Priesty and the data suggests taking mature players to three sets is a positive outcome.

-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Wednesday 9th of August 2017 07:25:28 AM

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

I agree, Oakie, the problem is in Vandenburg's use of the word 'potential'. See:
"At the moment he is not top 20 potential or anywhere near it. That is not to say he will never get there, but at the moment it is a while off."
I agree with him completely in that Kyle is not going to break into the top 20 now, or in the next 6 months, say. But that's not what most people mean by 'potential'. 'Potential' means next 5 years, say if you're the LTA. Or, possibly, in your whole career, in layman's speak. And 'potential' doesn't mean a definite or a certainty - just that you've got a good chance/likelihood.
So, for me, Kyle is most certainly top-20 potential; the potential is now and I see it actually happening in a few years time.

Vandenburg · Futures level

Coup Droit wrote:
I agree, Oakie, the problem is in Vandenburg's use of the word 'potential'. See:
"At the moment he is not top 20 potential or anywhere near it. That is not to say he will never get there, but at the moment it is a while off."
I agree with him completely in that Kyle is not going to break into the top 20 now, or in the next 6 months, say. But that's not what most people mean by 'potential'. 'Potential' means next 5 years, say if you're the LTA. Or, possibly, in your whole career, in layman's speak. And 'potential' doesn't mean a definite or a certainty - just that you've got a good chance/likelihood.
So, for me, Kyle is most certainly top-20 potential; the potential is now and I see it actually happening in a few years time.

Think of it like this, pretend Kyle is at University.

At the moment he is on course for a 2.2 degree as his marks are average. If I was his university tutor I would predict a 2.2, but at the same time, his final semester marks could exceed expectation and he could achieve a 2.1. This also would not surprise me.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Yes, but think of it like this:

If you've just got 10 good GCSEs, your tutor would say you've got the potential to go to a top university. You obviously can't go there yet. You're two years too early. And you may mess up your A levels and go backwards and never get there. But you're on course for going to a top university. That's Kyle.

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

L16: (ALT!) Gaël Monfils & Benoît Paire (FRA/FRA) UNR (0+421) vs (3) Jamie Murray & Bruno Soares (BRA) CR 11 (5+6)