Is Nick Kyrgios the most overrated player in world tennis?

Absolutely the most over rated tennis player in history. The facts are clear, he has never made a semi-final major or been in the top ten. On top of that he hasn't made it to the Quarterfinals at event above a 500 level in 3.5 years and he is ranked no where.

He's not really rated by anyone any more, is he? Can't be over rated. Monfils and Tsonga would give him a run for his money.

Indeed.. Particularly when it comes from ex-players who think they can commentate. Brain dead throwaway observations edumercating the masses. Players rarely make genuinely smart commentators, but these days, they get the gig, as they have instant gravitas.

I've played at the top level of amateur comp tennis for 40 years, so I can remember far enough back to when tennis was played at all levels by gentlemen with skill and sportsmanship. Back then, the intrigue in watching the majors unfold was about witnessing the competition between eager, but morally decent players. These days, with a few exceptions, they all seem to be permanently annoyed, sullen-faced, totally indignant to the fans, display rudeness (Serena Williams!!!), can't wait to get off the court, and smash good racquets over and over at the drop of a questionable call. I hate to think what kids who can't afford anything like those expensive racquets must think when they see that?! For the life of me, I can no longer see what anyone finds compelling about watching these abhorrent, rude ATP jerks who are completely allowed to get away with whatever repugnant behaviour they feel like dishing out on whatever whim takes them. You reap what you sow, and if I were world tennis, I'd be worried, and appalled with the abysmal behaviour all of these modern day sooks (the few gems like Barty, Federer and Nadal excepted).

I reckon you are right, plus they both lack the commitment to do the hard yards. Look at Federer - I'm pretty sure I recall Hewitt (or his coach) saying the reason for Hewitt's initial domination of Fed was superior fitness - Hewitt completely believed that if he took Federer to more than 3 sets, he was a moral to win. Unlike these two clowns, Federer clearly committed to taking his fitness to the next level (and maintains it today). Neither Tomic or Kyrios want to make the sacrifices or do the hard work, as they can make very good money doing just as they are.

BA Sports: 'The sports psychologist may say, his attitude; giving away points, shrugging his shoulders, etc., may be a coping mechanism so that when he ultimately doesn’t win, he has convinced himself he doesn’t care, so it doesn’t matter as much.' This is very true and something that most of us did as children whether we were playing sport, Chinese Checkers, Snap or any other competitive game. As well as convincing ourselves that 'not caring' makes losing matter less it also aims (in a very childish way) to minimise the triumph of the winner. In childhood this is normal behaviour which, hopefully, most of us grow out of. I realise that we expect extraordinary behaviour from young athletes emerging from childhood but the mystery remains how so many manage to show maturity (De Minaur, many of our swimmers and athletes etc) and others (Kyrios, Tomic prime examples) persist with childish behaviour. Personality? Environment? Parenting? IQ? I understand that Roger Federer's parents never put up with any nonsense or poor behaviour from young Roger.

Agree. Let's be realistic. Nick is an absolutely country mile away from ever winning a Slam. Not even close. Odds on chance he will never win one.

I have a theory on Kyrgios and Tomic. Both came through the juniors and hit the seniors in very weak age groups. This led them to believe they were much better than they really are. A false economy. They had inflated opinions of their own ability. The best guys in Nick's age bracket are Kyle Edmund and Dominic Thiem. That's it! In Tomic's age group the best blokes are Schwartzman and Cecchinato. Not exactly guns! The younger blokes like Zverev, Coric and Khachanov have already gone past all these blokes. And the older guys in their 30s - we know are much much better as well.

Not prepared to put in the hard work. Petulant when things don't go his way. De Minaur will soon be our main hope in :Grand Slams as he possesses all the characteristics Aussies admire in a sportsmen. Kyrgios will regret the way he approached Tennis however he will only have himself to blame. Has loads of ability but lacking in decorum & manners. Nick Off!

If he retires,can always go play soccer. There are always accepting show ponys. ALA Bolt

No coach to push him at training. No plan. Wants to reduce the numbers of tournaments he plays. I think we have to accept that Kyrgios won't be consistently competing with the Top 10 for the next five years. He will win the odd minor title (2 weeks of 5 setters is too much if you don't train hard) and he will make the main draw of the slams and maybe win a few matches, which will get him his desired pay days. And life will go on. But it can be a longer career these days and by his late 20's he might have matured a bit, both in body and emotionally. He might realise he doesn't have long left and might change his ways.

Are many people rating him that highly anymore? I think a lot of tennis fans, particularly in Australia, have realised he doesn't have the physical and mental abilities to become a top-tier player.

Overrated ??? Probably not . When you compare him and Tomic against some of the highly rated European youngster's ability wise not much difference. Its the mental attitude that the sport owes them something. Tomic needs to take a looooong break from tennis or TA needs to bar him from tournament s in Australia. But in saying that its just not tennis but a lot of young guys playing different sports have this attitude.

He's overrated, but if that's the case how is Monfils still a seeded player? Or Marin Cilic the 6th best player in the world? Heck even Kokinakkis is overrated (what has he done in his career apart from be injured for a year?) and becoming a spoiled brat based on his demands for a WC and the reason he gave for retiring yesterday (he played 3 tough matches in 3 days to qualify).

You will probably find the Bookies list him as an outsider and promote his odds because it is easy money to get from bad punters who pay attention to the media and not results. Like Anna K back in the day - she would always be seen as an outsider because she was ranked and had a high profile, but she literally never won any singles tournament at the WTA level. Ever. Personally i think he is right where I thought he would be. If he had decided to really care and really apply himself he would be a champion, but I think most people believe he is immensially talented with either a poor work ethic or little desire to be a champion which means he will be a middle of the road player and that is what he is. Unfortunatly for Australia that makes you more high profile given the state of the game in Australia for the last decade. When it was Monfils (high talent ,poor work ethic) in France, there was Simon, Tsonga and Gasguet, so it was less of an issue for them (and being France, it didn't make much news in Australia). So to me that makes him appropriately rated.

Kyrios has attitude issues, meaning he doesn't put the training in that is really needed to be consistently among the top players. The result is he becomes more like a Gael Monfils type, athletic and entertaining, but rarely around when tournaments reach the pointy end. However, looking at his ranking, that's as much to do with a constant spate of injuries as anything. It's possible that comes back to the training issue, if he put in the training it might strengthen his body and help reduce injuries, but can't guarantee that. But also, can't judge all that much off the Raonic match last night. In reality, I don't think Nick played that bad. In that form, there's probably only 3 guys who'd seriously have a shot of beating Raonic. And they are all guys who are incredibly good at returning, which isn't Nick's strong point! Time after time he kept nailing the lines with his serve, and then on the occasions Nick managed to get a really good return back, more often than not he came up with a great shot to then win the point anyway. In some ways it's a case of just hoping Raonic's serve goes off the boil at some point and gives him a shot, but it just never did.

On one hand you could say he's got his priorities right, acknowledging that it's just sport, it's not life and death, and losing a tennis match isn't the end of the world. On the other hand you could say that he will never live up to his potential until he decides that he hates losing enough to be driven to put in massive amounts of work in training to get his game to the heights he could achieve. He's got enough talent to be a mediocre top-100 player and make a living out of tennis with the odd flashes of brilliance without really trying that hard. But he's never going to have any sort of consistency in pushing his ranking high, regularly making the second week of slams, and winning big tournaments without putting in massive amounts of training work both on his body and skills. As McEnroe said last night, it's hard to tell if he gets injured because he doesn't train or he doesn't train because he gets injured, but likely he needs to put in the physical work that will both strengthen his body against injuries and also improve his movement around the court.

Or, as Public Enemy much more famously said- "don't believe the hype".

Your last paragraph was something discussed in our household last night. The sports psychologist may say, his attitude; giving away points, shrugging his shoulders, etc., may be a coping mechanism so that when he ultimately doesn't win, he has convinced himself he doesn't care, so it doesn't matter as much. Problem is, unless it hurts to lose, you can't possibly want to win bad enough to train harder and battle harder than everyone else.