Supremely gifted, but...

[Ricardo]

Brother Nehmeth posed a question on the Buenos Aires thread:

"Why is it that some of the most talented players are so tragically flawed between the ears?"

It's rightly phrased, by the way: they're "tragically flawed." This is relative to real life, but these are guys who make the impossible shots seem abnormally simple, natural beyond measure, but their otherworldly technical gifts are let down by the mental side of things (to put it politely!).

Let's list just a few examples:

Nastase (the GLOAT? Greatest Lunatic of All-Time)
McEnroe (er...the GLOAT?)
Mecir (the Big Cat of immense talent, but mentally not tough)
Nalbandian (Cali can explain)

These are just examples. Players who have far more natural ability than any man can possibly safely handle. In fairness, Mac won seven slams and is properly feted as one of the genuinely greatest players - and champions - of all time.

But what is it about supremely gifted players, that the mind isn't constant enough for them to reap the titles their talent deserves? Is it that they have so many options - shot-wise - that it fuddles their senses? Or does having so great an imaginative range of shot destabilise them emotionally?

Or are there even more "normally gifted" players who are equally unreliable, but their gifts aren't great enough to raise them into view?

Who's your favourite flawed hero?

By the way, Nehmeth was referring to 3F, a classic example of the guy who blazes triumphantly when in flow - but not for long enough... :nono

Dear Lord how can we forget Marcelo Rios!!!!!! Maybe top of the list?

Rios isn't Nalbandian level talent, let alone MceEncroe. He is an interesting character though.

 

[britbox]

Brother Nehmeth posed a question on the Buenos Aires thread:

"Why is it that some of the most talented players are so tragically flawed between the ears?"

It's rightly phrased, by the way: they're "tragically flawed." This is relative to real life, but these are guys who make the impossible shots seem abnormally simple, natural beyond measure, but their otherworldly technical gifts are let down by the mental side of things (to put it politely!).

Let's list just a few examples:

Nastase (the GLOAT? Greatest Lunatic of All-Time)
McEnroe (er...the GLOAT?)
Mecir (the Big Cat of immense talent, but mentally not tough)
Nalbandian (Cali can explain)

These are just examples. Players who have far more natural ability than any man can possibly safely handle. In fairness, Mac won seven slams and is properly feted as one of the genuinely greatest players - and champions - of all time.

But what is it about supremely gifted players, that the mind isn't constant enough for them to reap the titles their talent deserves? Is it that they have so many options - shot-wise - that it fuddles their senses? Or does having so great an imaginative range of shot destabilise them emotionally?

Or are there even more "normally gifted" players who are equally unreliable, but their gifts aren't great enough to raise them into view?

Who's your favourite flawed hero?

By the way, Nehmeth was referring to 3F, a classic example of the guy who blazes triumphantly when in flow - but not for long enough... :nono

Of that list, only McEnroe was "supremely gifted" IMO - his touch and feel were gifts from the gods. I've got to agree with Luxilon and shawnbm - he wasn't mentally weak and played the game as it was meant to be played in his era. His tantrums usually helped his game not hindered.

Goran and Scud weren't supremely talented - at least not in the McEnroe bracket. They were simply good players who underachieved.

Safin is the one for me who had an abundance of talent and despite winning two majors should have been a shoe-in to achieve even more.

Mecir - I liked the "Swede killer" and I never thought he was mentally weak. Injuries ravaged Mecir, not mental weakness. But the fact is, there were better more talented players around in any event.

Nalbandian - Loved watching this guy (although I may have given the wrong impression arguing with Cali). I think the consensus is that he should have won a lot more... but he was below Safin in that bracket.

 

[isabelle]

What about Coria ??

 

[britbox]

By the way, does anybody else agree that underachieving players are also often overrated? They generally seem to get judged on the top 1 or 2% of matches of their career whereas guys that bring it week in week out don't appear to have that luxury.

 

[El Dude]

I'm late to the game here, but nice thread.

I think its hard to include McEnroe because he was so damn good, at least for seven or eight years. Certainly his career record could have been better, especially later on, but he was the best player in tennis for the first half of the 80s, and then took that break and was never the same. Perhaps we could say after 1986 he lost his edge, but it also could be lifestyle - the partying became too much, or maybe it was Tatum O'Neal, or just aging, or a combination of all of the above and more.

On the other hand, its easy to look at Johnny Mac's career and wonder why he didn't win more Slams, especially in that period after Borg retired and before Lendl hit his peak. He "only" won three Slams between 1982 and 85, that's four years and 12 Slams (although he missed three of them).

As for Fognini, its important to point out, I think, that he's been playing the best tennis of his career over the last year or so. I don't know how much better he can get. He seems to be in a class of players like Gasquet and Cilic who have inspired performances, but as britbox pointed out, end up being a bit overrated. Gasquet doesn't have the overall game to be a truly great player and tends to be the type that picks off lesser players but loses to good players. Almagro's another in this category, maybe Simon. I could see Gulbis being here.

But the players that seem to apply to Kieran's question are those that "should have" been better than their records tell. David Nalbandian is the classic example. Tsonga and Monfils. Safin, certainly.

A few people said that mental fortitude IS a form of giftedness, and a skill, and I couldn't agree more. I pointed this out to Cali time and time again but he likes to focus on the prettiness of Nalbandian's shot-making and his highest "level," rather than the total package.

But this is the case in all sports, all vocations, really. In baseball, Mickey Mantle was - in his prime - a better player than Willie Mays. But Mays had the overall better career, partially because the Mick was an alcoholic, but also because Mays had tremendous longevity and actually had his best four-year period from age 31 to 34, when most players are in noticeable decline and was very good until age 40 (Mantle's last great year was probably at age 32, but his last truly great year was at age 29; he retired at 36).

We must remember that athletes are human beings, with all sorts of other things going on in their lives. We don't know what the inner experience of a David Nalbandian is, what is existential concerns and psychological challenges are - and how that impacts his play on the field. We can get a sense of it, but just that - just as symptomatic.

 

[Kieran]

Well, mental gifts are like anything: they're natural, but they're also developed. They don't come fully formed, just as technical gifts don't come fully formed. The geniuses of the sport got to that level by trying things out, learning and matches. They also happen to have inspired touch and timing.

Remember, Rafa is a cussed tough son of a gun cos his uncle gave him a (relatively) Spartan training. Had Rafa been pampered or entitled, he'd not be world #1, regardless of his natural competitive urges.

I'm not seeing it with Tsonga at all, sorry. I never expect guys like him to win slams, and I don't consider him a tennis genius...

 

[El Dude]

I'm not seeing it with Tsonga at all, sorry. I never expect guys like him to win slams, and I don't consider him a tennis genius...

I agree that he's not a "tennis genius," but he's a pretty damn good player and if he had been in the right place at the right time, he could have had a Wawrinka-esque Slam win.

Overall, I think Tsonga has been as big a threat to the top tier players as any other player over the last few years, at least since Soderling's been out. Ferrer's been more consistent but not nearly been as much of a threat as Tsonga; Berdych has had some big matches, but overall hasn't been the threat Tsonga's been.

 

[Kieran]

I'm not seeing it with Tsonga at all, sorry. I never expect guys like him to win slams, and I don't consider him a tennis genius...

I agree that he's not a "tennis genius," but he's a pretty damn good player and if he had been in the right place at the right time, he could have had a Wawrinka-esque Slam win.

Overall, I think Tsonga has been as big a threat to the top tier players as any other player over the last few years, at least since Soderling's been out. Ferrer's been more consistent but not nearly been as much of a threat as Tsonga; Berdych has had some big matches, but overall hasn't been the threat Tsonga's been.

I watched Tsonga play Ferrer in the semis in Paris and I rarely saw a more cowardly effort. The chap was useless.

But the thread is about those guys who literally play "magic" strokes, whose touch is divine and their shot-making makes your arse scrunch forward on the sofa while your eyes are popping. Genius, is the term usually used. But I'm not just looking at that, I'm looking at genius with a dark side, brilliance that overwhelms and undermines its owner. The guys who are great players - but not great champs. In fact, they maybe a little mental.

Going back to Britbox and Mecir, it's true that the Big Cat had injuries, but he also had limited mental toughness when it came to claiming the top titles. He had the game, but not the fortitude or mental stamina. But he was no GLOAT, that's the truth...

 

[britbox]

What about Coria ??

Wrong thread.

 

[britbox]

Going back to Britbox and Mecir, it's true that the Big Cat had injuries, but he also had limited mental toughness when it came to claiming the top titles. He had the game, but not the fortitude or mental stamina. But he was no GLOAT, that's the truth...

He was good, no doubt. I always felt he lacked a little power and there were 6 or 7 players ahead of him in the talent department. Injuries took their toll, but in reality I think it would have been tough for him to win a major in any event. He'd make my shortlist of one of the best players never to win a major.... but invariably they are on that list because they weren't good enough, one way or another.

 

[calitennis127]

Brother Nehmeth posed a question on the Buenos Aires thread:

"Why is it that some of the most talented players are so tragically flawed between the ears?"

It's rightly phrased, by the way: they're "tragically flawed." This is relative to real life, but these are guys who make the impossible shots seem abnormally simple, natural beyond measure, but their otherworldly technical gifts are let down by the mental side of things (to put it politely!).

Let's list just a few examples:

Nastase (the GLOAT? Greatest Lunatic of All-Time)
McEnroe (er...the GLOAT?)
Mecir (the Big Cat of immense talent, but mentally not tough)
Nalbandian (Cali can explain)

These are just examples. Players who have far more natural ability than any man can possibly safely handle. In fairness, Mac won seven slams and is properly feted as one of the genuinely greatest players - and champions - of all time.

But what is it about supremely gifted players, that the mind isn't constant enough for them to reap the titles their talent deserves? Is it that they have so many options - shot-wise - that it fuddles their senses? Or does having so great an imaginative range of shot destabilise them emotionally?

In Nalbandian's case, his mindset was too naturally quixotic for his own good. Everything in his natural instincts called for idealistic perfection, and his skills and talent allowed him to meet that standard routinely (on a point-to-point basis). This, naturally, was a two-sided quality that very often worked against him and in favor of his opponents, because it caused his wheels to spin while his opponents felt an onrush of confidence with a feeling like "wow, I really may have a chance to beat this guy; something's wrong over there".

The incident with Cilic at Queen's was case and point, as far as evidence of this mindset. The reason that he lost his mind in that moment is he was so frustrated with Cilic breaking back after he had earned a break, and it was the way that those particular points played out which irked him to no end. I can't recall them specifically, but I remember understanding very clearly at the time what was at work there.

Overall, though, Nalbandian's mindset set him apart from the rest, in terms of what he could do at his peak, but it also caused lows that other top players typically do not experience. No one could reach higher than Nalbandian, but no one also failed to meet his own intuitive standard more than Nalbandian.

 

[Fiero425]

Brother Nehmeth posed a question on the Buenos Aires thread:

"Why is it that some of the most talented players are so tragically flawed between the ears?"

It's rightly phrased, by the way: they're "tragically flawed." This is relative to real life, but these are guys who make the impossible shots seem abnormally simple, natural beyond measure, but their otherworldly technical gifts are let down by the mental side of things (to put it politely!).

Let's list just a few examples:

Nastase (the GLOAT? Greatest Lunatic of All-Time)
McEnroe (er...the GLOAT?)
Mecir (the Big Cat of immense talent, but mentally not tough)
Nalbandian (Cali can explain)

These are just examples. Players who have far more natural ability than any man can possibly safely handle. In fairness, Mac won seven slams and is properly feted as one of the genuinely greatest players - and champions - of all time.

But what is it about supremely gifted players, that the mind isn't constant enough for them to reap the titles their talent deserves? Is it that they have so many options - shot-wise - that it fuddles their senses? Or does having so great an imaginative range of shot destabilise them emotionally?

In Nalbandian's case, his mindset was too naturally quixotic for his own good. Everything in his natural instincts called for idealistic perfection, and his skills and talent allowed him to meet that standard routinely (on a point-to-point basis). This, naturally, was a two-sided quality that very often worked against him and in favor of his opponents, because it caused his wheels to spin while his opponents felt an onrush of confidence with a feeling like "wow, I really may have a chance to beat this guy; something's wrong over there".

The incident with Cilic at Queen's was case and point, as far as evidence of this mindset. The reason that he lost his mind in that moment is he was so frustrated with Cilic breaking back after he had earned a break, and it was the way that those particular points played out which irked him to no end. I can't recall them specifically, but I remember understanding very clearly at the time what was at work there.

Overall, though, Nalbandian's mindset set him apart from the rest, in terms of what he could do at his peak, but it also caused lows that other top players typically do not experience. No one could reach higher than Nalbandian, but no one also failed to meet his own intuitive standard more than Nalbandian.

Nalbandian was something else; from the heights of defeating Federer at the Masters final in '05 to the depths of gifting that Queen's match to Cilic! Safin; the overall best who rarely put it all together! He had power and touch, could make the best of players look bad, and had the most talent I'd seen since Ilie Nastase! Both placed the ball exactly where they wanted and could bedevil the best of their era; Ilie with Connors, Safin over Sampras at the USO and Federer at AO finals respectively!

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I believe in the nurture side of things. I do not believe in "gifted" players. It diminishes their hard work. As if someone just gave them a racket and said go win your slams. Roger was a cussing, racket breaking punk that could not get to a slam quarter for 4 years. Rest is history. If you look at all the top players that are deemed "gifted" I bet you anything that they are the ones that have practised more and harder than everyone else. In fact, studies have been done about this which I have read in the book Sports Gene, that proves it. In a music school in Austria , they have looked at the top players that were thought to be very "Talented" and in each case, the "talented " instrumentalist turned out to have practised almost 3 times more than the average.

Of course , if you think practising long and hard is a talent in itself, that's a different argument.
Sorry for not giving an answer to the initial question, because as you can tell, I have a problem with the premise. Had I not, Rios would be my choice .

 

[Kieran]

The thing is, Murat, not every gift is one learned. Some players just have an innate gift for timing, an unbelievable eye for the almost impossible and a flair for the incredible. These things aren't thought - they're gifts the person has. They nurture them too, but some players just have the most incredible natural talent too...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

The thing is, Murat, not every gift is one learned. Some players just have an innate gift for timing, an unbelievable eye for the almost impossible and a flair for the incredible. These things aren't thought - they're gifts the person has. They nurture them too, but some players just have the most incredible natural talent too...

I used to believe that too, until I have read way too many studies and books always proving otherwise. I am not denying there might be something initially, but that something is so tiny and when it is not nurtured with hard work, it amounts to nothing at the end. All the those "gifted" players that we mention here , there is a reason they never won anything meaningful. People say they "underachieved" . I do not believe that term either, honestly. For me, everyone achieves exactly what they deserve to achieve, unless we are talking a career ending injury or something that drastic.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Kieran, there is an amazing study of baseball players. They did the hand-eye coordination test to see how they differed from average folk. Surprisingly, they did not differ in any meaningful amount. But they differed in one important way from the average folk: They recognized patterns way better than normal people. A hitter , having seen pitches from different players a million times, develops a pattern recognition that helps him hit those 100mph fast balls, or weird dipping curve balls. But here is another thing...when they met Jennie Finch, an amazing soft ball pitcher, who is a girl and throws 65mph, even Barry Bonds could not hit her! Why? Because he did not recognize the pattern of the underhand swing at all...He has seen a normal pitch from guys a million times and took a million practice swings at them, but he could not hit a soft ball, pitched by a girl (no offense, because she is an amazing player, but you see my point). If Barry Bonds was born with an amzing gift, he would have hit that soft ball pitch , no problem. He could not. Because it was countless hours of practice and being able to recognize patterns because of it that made him an amazing hitter (and maybe some juice), nothing he was born with. His hand eye coordination is not any better than yours.

 

[britbox]

^ I don't know mate... Dustin Hoffman counting those tooth picks in the "Rain Man" didn't look like the result of heavy training.

 

[Kieran]

Hey Murat!

I disagree with the study! I coached tennis for 8 years and there were nippers who took a swing first day and got it, and others who held the class up. I saw kids whizz through the line, could imitate what they saw - and much much more, without even being taught. They were natural at sports. Their eye was good, as the saying goes...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Hey Murat!

I disagree with the study! I coached tennis for 8 years and there were nippers who took a swing first day and got it, and others who held the class up. I saw kids whizz through the line, could imitate what they saw - and much much more, without even being taught. They were natural at sports. Their eye was good, as the saying goes...

Ok, I never disagree with the initial bit that might be there as I said before, but which kid out of those ones with the "gift" will become someone?

 

[Kieran]

Hey Murat!

I disagree with the study! I coached tennis for 8 years and there were nippers who took a swing first day and got it, and others who held the class up. I saw kids whizz through the line, could imitate what they saw - and much much more, without even being taught. They were natural at sports. Their eye was good, as the saying goes...

Ok, I never disagree with the initial bit that might be there as I said before, but which kid out of those ones with the "gift" will become someone?

Well, that's the billion dollar question, isn't it? Kids who grow to become professional sports stars are special anyway. The geniuses - for want of a better term - are something probably none of us will understand - but they do things which can't be taught...