Relative Talent comparison between top 8

[Fastgrass]

Its relative talent comparison of top 8 ( Based on career)
1) Federer - 100
2) Djokovic - 75
3) Nadal - 65
4) Delpo - 55
5) Wawarinka - 50
6) Gasquet - 44
7) Berdych - 40
8) Murray - 25
What's your score ?

 

[Front242]

I'm thinking you should delete this thread probably if you don't want to be banned. What's the need for uncalled for argument starting threads such as this? Also, I can't see how a 2 slam winner (Murray) is lowest in your list when none of the 3 above him have any slams. Beyond ridiculous. Clearly you don't like him and personally I'm not a mad fan of him either but he's won 2 slams whether or not you like it and you seem to be constantly starting threads with one aim: slagging Murray. Not cool.

 

[Kieran]

Nothing like using science to determine who's talented...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

 

[El Dude]

"Gasquet 44, Murray 25."

Nice satire. You do realize, I hope, that Richie has never won a tournament above an ATP 250 (winning 10 of that level), while Murray has won 2 Slams, 9 Masters, 3 ATP 500s, and 13 ATP 250s. Gasquet has made it past the 4R of a Slam only twice, while Andy has made it to the QF or later 17 times.

I could go on, but the point is that the difference between the two is so vast that the comparison isn't even worth making. Its like comparing Roger Federer with Gilles Simon, or Rafael Nadal with Nicolas Almagro.

But wait a minute, are we talking about level or those annoying distractions from true talent level called results?

It should be:

Nalbandian: One hundred million billion
Everyone else: 100 or less

 

[Fastgrass]

I'm thinking you should delete this thread probably if you don't want to be banned. What's the need for uncalled for argument starting threads such as this? Also, I can't see how a 2 slam winner (Murray) is lowest in your list when none of the 3 above him have any slams. Beyond ridiculous. Clearly you don't like him and personally I'm not a mad fan of him either but he's won 2 slams whether or not you like it and you seem to be constantly starting threads with one aim: slagging Murray. Not cool.

Talent need not to be converted into success .
Safin clearly more talented than nadal

But Nadal won 13 to safins 2 .

Its all about hard work and champions mindset .

But I am talking about natural talent , One may naturally
more talented than Einstein ( 162 IQ) doesn't mean that
Einstein was not talented .

Why are talking about ban?
Are you moderator ?
And if some one banning me for banning me for calling
Murray less talented than Gasquet , I am ready to get banned
no way I am editing this post .
People's are here to express their personal opinions not
Deluded.

 

[Kieran]

fastgrass, you're posting propaganda, not opinion. Nobody minds opinions, but if every thread is titled "Murray is Rubbish", it gets boring.

You wrote: "Its relative talent comparison of top 8 ( Based on career)"

And then you give a bunch of random figures that are not only meaningless, but veer into delusion and idiocy. I don't say this to attack you personally, but your post. I know you probably see yourself as some hilarious funky rebel duffing up the tennis fuddy duddies, but actually, you're just posting nondescript static.

And I know, they say you shouldn't feed the trolls, but I once responded to Mastoor too, so go figger...

 

[Front242]

I'm thinking you should delete this thread probably if you don't want to be banned. What's the need for uncalled for argument starting threads such as this? Also, I can't see how a 2 slam winner (Murray) is lowest in your list when none of the 3 above him have any slams. Beyond ridiculous. Clearly you don't like him and personally I'm not a mad fan of him either but he's won 2 slams whether or not you like it and you seem to be constantly starting threads with one aim: slagging Murray. Not cool.

Talent need not to be converted into success .
Safin clearly more talented than nadal

But Nadal won 13 to safins 2 .

Its all about hard work and champions mindset .

But I am talking about natural talent , One may naturally
more talented than Einstein ( 162 IQ) doesn't mean that
Einstein was not talented .

Why are talking about ban?
Are you moderator ?
And if some one banning me for banning me for calling
Murray less talented than Gasquet , I am ready to get banned
no way I am editing this post .
People's are here to express their personal opinions not
Deluded.

Well I agree Safin was extremely talented and you're at least right that a lot of it boils down to hard work and sadly he wasn't prepared to do that. So yes, hugely talented guy and had the capability to win way more than 2 slams. But the most common trend in all your posts is the anti Murray vibe. He has 2 slams so clearly he's a lot better than you give him credit for. Gasquet has an amazing backhand and is clearly very talented but again, his talent hasn't beaten Nadal since he was 13/14 years old. So in that respect who has harnessed their talents more? Him or Murray? Easy answer. Nalbandian too was a huge talent but he made nothing of it except for a handful of tournaments unfortunately.

 

[Fastgrass]

I'm thinking you should delete this thread probably if you don't want to be banned. What's the need for uncalled for argument starting threads such as this? Also, I can't see how a 2 slam winner (Murray) is lowest in your list when none of the 3 above him have any slams. Beyond ridiculous. Clearly you don't like him and personally I'm not a mad fan of him either but he's won 2 slams whether or not you like it and you seem to be constantly starting threads with one aim: slagging Murray. Not cool.

Talent need not to be converted into success .
Safin clearly more talented than nadal

But Nadal won 13 to safins 2 .

Its all about hard work and champions mindset .

But I am talking about natural talent , One may naturally
more talented than Einstein ( 162 IQ) doesn't mean that
Einstein was not talented .

Why are talking about ban?
Are you moderator ?
And if some one banning me for banning me for calling
Murray less talented than Gasquet , I am ready to get banned
no way I am editing this post .
People's are here to express their personal opinions not
Deluded.

Well I agree Safin was extremely talented and you're at least right that a lot of it boils down to hard work and sadly he wasn't prepared to do that. So yes, hugely talented guy and had the capability to win way more than 2 slams. But the most common trend in all your posts is the anti Murray vibe. He has 2 slams so clearly he's a lot better than you give him credit for. Gasquet has an amazing backhand and is clearly very talented but again, his talent hasn't beaten Nadal since he was 13/14 years old. So in that respect who has harnessed their talents more? Him or Murray? Easy answer. Nalbandian too was a huge talent but he made nothing of it except for a handful of tournaments unfortunately.

If Murray is more talented because of two slam then
Nadal is more talented than Becker , McEnroe , Bourg , Lendl
Agassi , Connors .

You are confused about talented ( Naturally ) and successful
Player .

Gasquet is more naturally talented doesn't mean that he is
better player than Murray .
Its Murray's Hard work that gave him 2 slams , And he deserve respect for that .
But this not about most hard working player but about
talented player , And gasquet is leading there.

 

[britbox]

Read the above comments and my PM fastgrass.

 

[brokenshoelace]

1) Berdych 171.2
2) Wawrinka 99.042
3) Federer 99.041
4) tie between DJokovic and Nadal: 51
5) Del Potro 15
6) Ferrer -3
7) This thread ?

 

[Riotbeard]

Its relative talent comparison of top 8 ( Based on career)
1) Federer - 100
2) Djokovic - 75
3) Nadal - 65
4) Delpo - 55
5) Wawarinka - 50
6) Gasquet - 44
7) Berdych - 40
8) Murray - 25
What's your score ?

If it is talent "Based on career" as you say, in what world would you compare Murray's career to Gasquet's and say Richie is more talented. Even as a Djokovic fan, Nadal should be number 2 "based on career", Murray should be number 4 and Delpo 5, "based on career" of course.

 

[huntingyou]

People often confuse talent with aesthetics but like the saying goes "beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder" and in this case, the beholder can't amount even a decent opinion. If we look at talent as the ability to hit a tennis ball from all parts of the court; then Federer would rank supreme closely followed by Nadal. Hard to pick between Novak and Murray but those four are clearly the most talented players on tour.

Ridiculous are those who give a definitive answer on hardwork like if they had a clue on how much effort player A put in into developing his tennis game. The more talented you are, the more hardwork will pay off since the soil would be the most fertile to extract the goods.

Make no mistake about it, the greatest players that ever play the game are among the most talented that ever play the game.....logical and a mathemathical reality. Look no further outside the likes of Pete, Borg, Federer, Rafa, JMac, Agassi, Novak and company to find the most talented ball strikers.

Sure, it's a good discussion to discuss who was more talented between Lendl and Jmac; one had a greater career while the other seem to be a genius........but ultimately, we are talking chump change and at the end only the beholder will speak about his/her "beauty" which bears no truth but an opinion base on perception.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Talent need not to be converted into success .

Its all about hard work and champions mindset .

But I am talking about natural talent.

I do agree with your first statement above that talent need not be converted into success
and achieving success involves several other elements such as hard work and champions mindset
as you mentioned.

However, you seem to think of talent as something that is in-born and god given.
You seem to feel that the talent level is fixed and does not change over time.
I tend to disagree. One can increase one's talent level with more practice, observation
and honing of the game. One can decrease one's talent level simply by not using
one's talent effectively.

This a classic "Nature vs. Nurture" debate. This debate applies to any field and
not just tennis or sports and there is a huge amount of literature on it.

I believe that with proper nurturing, natural talent could be magnified considerably and
with improper neglect, natural talent can wither away.

 

[El Dude]

I find the distinction between "talent" and "hard work" or "mindset" to be artificial. What if we switch things around a bit and look at hard work and mindset as types or aspects of talent? Then we can separate "talent" in various components and say that the greatest players are those who best maximize their total talent package.

We can probably find someone who is better at any one thing Roger Federer has done well. But the total package of Roger Federer has made him one of the greatest players in the history of the game.

 

[Fastgrass]

1) Berdych 171.2
2) Wawrinka 99.042
3) Federer 99.041
4) tie between DJokovic and Nadal: 51
5) Del Potro 15
6) Ferrer -3
7) This thread ?

circus monkeys have more IQ than you.

 

[brokenshoelace]

1) Berdych 171.2
2) Wawrinka 99.042
3) Federer 99.041
4) tie between DJokovic and Nadal: 51
5) Del Potro 15
6) Ferrer -3
7) This thread ?

circus monkeys have more IQ than you.

Good. Were you hired?

 

[Front242]

1) Berdych 171.2
2) Wawrinka 99.042
3) Federer 99.041
4) tie between DJokovic and Nadal: 51
5) Del Potro 15
6) Ferrer -3
7) This thread ?

circus monkeys have more IQ than you.

Good. Were you hired?

:laydownlaughing

 

[Ricardo]

1) Berdych 171.2
2) Wawrinka 99.042
3) Federer 99.041
4) tie between DJokovic and Nadal: 51
5) Del Potro 15
6) Ferrer -3
7) This thread ?

circus monkeys have more IQ than you.

Good. Were you hired?

hired or fired?

 

[Tennis Miller]

1) Berdych 171.2
2) Wawrinka 99.042
3) Federer 99.041
4) tie between DJokovic and Nadal: 51
5) Del Potro 15
6) Ferrer -3
7) This thread ?

Great post. But Delpo is clearly 15.7654786, not "15". What's the matter? Don't you know how to do scientific analysis? At least round up, man!

Cheers

TM