Oakland2002 wrote:

---

What a great win!

Last year was consolidation as a genuine ATP player ie defending the points he won on the challenger tour playing only 250s or better ie. generally the MD first round is found to pitch you against a player of challenger final standard or better. This run is a great start to building a rank where he is seeded in the GS MD or even better in the 1000s.

Life gets much easier in terms of focusing on finer adjustments once his schedule becomes more predictable because of a better rank and he can let others open up the draw for him.

---

Point of order. Kyle only had counting points from 3 challengers in 2016, early year Maui and Dallas and then Rome in May, contributing a total of 238 of his 1001 end of year points. His other 15 counters were ATP 250s or better. After his previous year on year progression up the rankings last year was a stall essentially because he didn't progress better in a fairly similar range of tournaments, if on average a slight step up. As he said himself he lost too many close matches in these.

Now that's not necessarily any real biggie in the longer term, nor is discussing the issues, a tougher year can happen and does for so many, not everything goes to a predestined plan and you can still be learning good lessons for the future. And now he has clearly started the next year already getting some great tight wins for example with great attitude. There looks already to have been very good focus on working with his coaching team on some problematic areas of the year before, some I'd say ( and have  said ) going back longer. So no need at all for a bit misleading spin.

seagull wrote:

---

Does not seem very fair that Nadal and Federer get all the night-time matches avoiding the heat of the day.

I suppose that they have earned that right though

---

I agree, but it's also tied up with TV ratings. Andy Murray is regularly scheduled to play on Centre Court at Wimbledon so the match starts around 6pm for the TV audience.

JonH wrote

---

As an aside, only 4 of the last 16 from last season are left in the 24 players in the mens draw - Nadal, Federer and Dimitrov are 3 of them, Seppi is the other.

---

Yep it is looking like the predictable change of the guard is on us, that, along with learning to win close games is another factor likely to drive Kyles rank upwards. 

From an article in today's Times by Leon Smith under the heading, "Leon Smith on Edmund's massive improvements":

Serve and return

What are the most important, most frequent things to get better at? Serve and return. Those two areas are what Kyle has improved. You can see the improvements in his serve: the rhythm, timing and momentum. A slight technical adjustment is paying dividends. On the return, he is getting more balls back in play, by sometimes chipping or blocking, not always going for the full swing.

Some interesting stats to illustrate how he has made "giant strides" in Melbourne, too. 

The actual report on the match is headed "Kyle Edmund passes brutal test of body and mind against Nikoloz Basilashvili in 40C heat".

Good stuff re improvements.

To me the one area he was noticeably getting caught on against Basilashvili, and Vandy did point to it earlier in the thread in amongst his other stuff, was shot preparation against a player hitting hard and deep on a reasonable speed hard court. Hence quite a few framed and many going long through not being through the shot. I was initially surprised when I read how far ahead Kyle was in winners. But made sense thinking about it, Kyle hitting many more clean winners, Basilashvili winning many points at his best on repeated power and forcing errors.

Re the forehand I think though he moved better latterly, most noticeably when he crunched a few in that epic second game of the fourth set, which then gave him more time to unwind. But yes a better backhand certainly improves options and is of course just better generally. And the serve has been noticeably consistently better, it was having relatively benign days not too long ago.

Sure really coming along ...

Oakland2002 wrote:

---

indiana wrote:
Oakland2002 wrote:
What a great win!

Last year was consolidation as a genuine ATP player ie defending the points he won on the challenger tour playing only 250s or better ie. generally the MD first round is found to pitch you against a player of challenger final standard or better. This run is a great start to building a rank where he is seeded in the GS MD or even better in the 1000s.

Life gets much easier in terms of focusing on finer adjustments once his schedule becomes more predictable because of a better rank and he can let others open up the draw for him.

INDIANA WROTE:

Point of order. Kyle only had counting points from 3 challengers in 2016, early year Maui and Dallas and then Rome in May, contributing a total of 238 of his 1001 end of year points. His other 15 counters were ATP 250s or better. After his previous year on year progression up the rankings last year was a stall essentially because he didn't progress better in a fairly similar range of tournaments, if on average a slight step up. As he said himself he lost too many close matches in these.

Now that's not necessarily any real biggie in the longer term, nor is discussing the issues, a tougher year can happen and does for so many, not everything goes to a predestined plan and you can still be learning good lessons for the future. And now he has clearly started the next year already getting some great tight wins for example with great attitude. There looks already to have been very good focus on working with his coaching team on some problematic areas of the year before, some I'd say ( and have said ) going back longer. So no need at all for a bit misleading spin.

OAKLAND WROTE:

On a point of order, I think there needs to be more granularity in the data presented. Spinning interpretation of a years performance around counters doesnt allow an open and honest interpretation.

Extrapolating data (which has limitations) from educating adults one can see that generally outstanding performers under estimate their degree of excellence often feeling they have failed when they have not. This fear of failure sets a low threshold at which the individual will work harder. I feel Kyles assessment although helpful in terms of looking for further improvement with a specific long term goal probably doesnt fairly reflect the step up he has made in performance.

Looking at 12 month periods between November breaks and subsequent training blocks.

In 2016 Kyle played the slams and then 3x ATP 1000s (2 through qualifying essentially a warm up challenger with points on offer), 4x ATP 500 (1Q), 6x250s (2Q) and 3 challengers all of which he reached the final, winning 2.

2017: Slams, 8xATP 1000s, 6x500, 9x 250s all direct entry. Those are very different schedules, the later that of a full time ATP tour pro.

What is most illuminating is who he lost to and how. This reflects where he is relative to making the next step up in class.

2016: He lost to Berdych(Straight sets: S), Dzumhur, Wu, Skugor, Pella, Garcia Lopez (S), Paire, Zevrev (S), Isner (S), Murray x2 (1xS), Dolgopov (S), Marinarino (S), Diez, Sugita (S), Troicki (S), Djokovic (S), Wawrinka (S), Ferrer. So generally when he played the better players and indeed some lesser players he got beaten in straight sets (11/20 times)

In contrast in 2017: He lost in straight sets only 8/27 times and then to Cilic, Zverev, Monfils, Del Potro, Thiem, Djokovic, Carreno Busta and Barton.

His other loses were to Sock, Pouille, Donaldson x2, Shapovalov x2, Dzumhur, Joa Sousa, Ferrer, Dimitrov, Harrison, Young, Anderson in 5, Simon, Domingue, Nadal, Querry, Raonic and Wawrinka.

There is a big difference in the quality of the schedules he played in 2016 when compared to 17. When he lost, there were many more closer loses he rarely got despatched in straight sets 2016(55%), 2017(30%) despite loosing to higher ranked players.

The start to 2018 has been entirely consistent with his approach year on year, I dont see in anyway that his development has stalled it is just at this rarified level ranking is a relatively poorer statistical surrogate marker of development than at futures or challenger levels.

---

Can't be arsed to work that one out!