What the hell is talent?

[mrzz]

"Talent" is a word we often use in this boards, but I am afraid each one uses in his own very peculiar sense. There are two players in particular which people commonly describe as "very talented", and as I completely disagree with the description, I always wondered just what the hell these people are thinking?

I thought about creating this thread long ago, anyway discussions in the football threads ended up being the last drop, as I saw that also there people would have very different notions about "talent".

So, what do you guys think is a good description of a talented tennis player? Please try to avoid names -- we can always insert them later to illustrate -- but for start it would be nice if we could describe what we are looking for.

Just before I finish, one thing: It is obviously hard for us on the outside to distinguish between "talent" and "ability" or "technique", as we don´t know how hard those guys train compared to each other -- out of ignorance I would assume everyone trains and has trained equally hard.

 

[Federberg]

Talent is like pornography, I know it when I see it

 

[El Dude]

Talent is often combined with "raw" or "natural" to imply intrinsic ability, as opposed to a learned skill. I see talent as a necessary but insufficient component in overall ability - a player must also have refined skills and a good mental game.

There are players who have a lot of talent that, for whatever reason, hasn't translated fully to the courts. In young players it is often a lack of refinement and confidence; in older players it might be a flawed mental game.

Then there are players who are more successful on court than more physically talented players because they know how to win.

So maybe we can think of talent on a couple axes: from raw to refined and from physical to psychological.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Federberg]

I think absolutely every one of the players on the tour are talented. These are the best in the world after all, and being one of the best 100 or 200 at something among billions is nothing to be sniffed at. But there are degrees, and as Dude has said above there are different aspects. But in its most simple terms I think what causes us to differentiate between the top echelons and the rest is the ability to express their ability under the most extreme pressure. So it makes it especially difficult to really pin down what talent actually means. You look at Federer and he's able to execute low percentage shots at the most pressured moments that I suspect most of the tour players can actually do in practice. In a sense you can say that the fact that those other players can do the same when they're just messing around means that we're not really talking about talent at all. We're talking about a specific mental attribute that Roger possesses. It may, in reality, just be another component of mental strength or self belief.

As an aside, I recall speaking to a top player, I forget who, who said that Tim Henman in practice sets could beat just about anyone, even the likes of Sampras. But that there's something about a real tour match that flipped the script. We only have to look at Djokovic playing Gulbis. Apparently, Gulbis used to tune him when they played practice sets. It's about application and execution under pressure, and having the mental freedom to fully express your ability under extreme scrutiny. Perhaps we're just guilty of romanticising things with the use of the word "talent", when in reality most of these guys are actually able to do the same stuff but don't under pressure

 

[El Dude]

Yeah, I agree with everything you said, Federberg. I know mrzz didn't want to mention names yet, but Dimitrov is an obvious example of a very talented player who just can't execute, or at least not commensurate with with his abilities. Or Nalbandian.

I think desire is a huge factor as well. From what I've heard, Gulbis isn't in love with tennis in the way that Novak is, and thus is presumably not willing to work as hard. So I would say that the very best players combine immense talent, desire--which determines how hard they're willing to work, and the mentality to win. The gap in talent between Roger and Grigor is there--that is, I think Roger is legitimately more talented--but not as large as their results imply. It may be that Grigor has similar RAW talent, but due to various factors mentioned above, hasn't been able to actualize them as fully as Roger has.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Federberg]

^I can co-sign that

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Talent is a combination of the following things.

1. Skill - How good are your strokes? How consistent are they?
How much variety you have in strokes? How well can you place?
Here I am talking about only situations where the ball is right in your strike zone.
(got to do with hands only).

2. Athleticism - How quickly can you get to the ball? It involves athleticism. But, minor
deficiencies in athleticism can be compensated by greater anticipation ability.
(got to do with legs only).

3. Point Construction - Do you have a game plan? or do you just keep hitting hoping
something good will happen. Do you have good ability to do shot selection? Picking the right
shot from your repertoire at the right moment. (putting the hands and legs together using mind).

4. Analysis - Do you play every opponent and in every surface the same way or can you
quickly size up the strengths and weaknesses of the opponent and adapt your
game accordingly in real time. (same as 3 above, but taking into account the
variations in opponent, surface and conditions (wind etc)).

5. Mental strength - Ability to execute under stress, Ability to maintain concentration in a long match,
keeping your poise when things do not seem to be going your way etc.

Talent does not necessarily refer to innate talent. It could be a mixture of innate and
learned components.

It is one thing to have talent. What is even more important is to make sure you have as much successful career
as your talent allows. This is often underappreciated, but is a greater predictor of success than talent. This involves
several thing such as the following: Having a good team around you, Following good diet, Having a good combination
of Gym workouts and on court practice, Good scheduling of tournaments to play in, Having good short term and long
term goals, Keeping your basic life simple (no extra curricular activities) so that it allows you to focus on the game.

Classic example of folks who grossly underachieved in comparison to their talent: Nalbandian, Safin etc.

Classic example of folks who maximized their success given their talent level: David Ferrer, Lendl etc.

 

[mrzz]

I see your point(s), @Federberg, but while I agree completely that we are talking about the one in a million guys (so, they are all talented compared to the general average -- but as you noted we are talking about how those guys compare to each other), I do not agree at all that all them can execute the same things. It is very true that the ability to execute perfectly under pressure is a "talent" in itself (#5 from GSM´s list above), but your proposition is way too exaggerated. There are videos of most of the top 100 guys practicing. There are exhibitions. And, finally, there are times during matches that, thinking it is won or lost, you simply don´t give a fck anymore. So, yes, we can assess most guys non-pressure level and there are obvious differences. But of course it is true that those differences can be multiplied (or in some cases divided) by this factor.

GSM´s list above is quite comprehensive, and I would guess that most people are referring to the #1 item, "skill", when they use the word "talent". This is the meaning I had in mind , and I mostly agree with what GSM said, except that I would dispute the "hands only" part. Running forehand/backhand, overhead and serve involve full body coordination and are obviously very important shots.

And, BTW, I just made the names comment/request in an attempt to make people explain what they actually think, and what they look for in this case. Citing names is not that precise as one may think at first, because different people would give different values for the same player´s set of characteristics.

 

[Federberg]

Let's agree to disagree about what top 100 guys can do. There are obviously going to be exceptions, but having personally watched top athletes (not just tennis) in non pressure situations they are able to do some ridiculously skilled things routinely. You'll be amazed how many tricks they've spent time perfecting. Now using someone like Federer in my example might have been too extreme but I stick with my view that most of the shots he pulls off are easily repeatable in non-pressure situations. The difference between a top top player like him and others is that they would never even consider those shots a part of their arsenal, and they haven't trained themselves to use them in match play. I think what makes a player like Federer unique is that he probably hasn't trained to use those shots in matchplay. His ability, and I suspect it's mirrored by other top players is to be able instinctively call on the surplus aspects of their gifts in matchplay. They're probably wired differently. Their intangibles are much closer to the surface...

In my opinion this has less to do with imagination, and more to do with the opposite. These very top guys are uniquely single minded. They are very.."present" if you will. In match play they are less bothered by extraneous factors, and are therefore better equipped to access those hidden talents. Speaking personally I used to play a number of racquet sports (squash and table tennis at a much much higher level than tennis, i.e., county and nationals) and I remember pressure situations where I simply couldn't play shots that were fairly routine in practice. Some of the really good guys who crushed me seemed to have a larger and more varied portfolio of shots that they could easily/ instinctively access. For me I couldn't get out of my own head. That's why I think the way I do about this topic..

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Of course, running forehand etc are important. For the sake of simplicity, I separated the hand stroke skills from the athletic abilitiy of running and getting to the ball. In real tennis, they are not completely separable.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I strongly disagree with the notion that only #5 (the mental aspect) differentiates between professional players. It should be very clear just by watching the players play in the circuit that the variety of strokes one has at one's disposal and the consistency in executing a given stroke varies considerably even among the top 100 players. For example, Novak despite being a top player often botches overhead smashes. Similarly, you can say various things about various players.

Take Brown for example. He has tremendous variety of shots and lot of trick shots. What is his problem? Consistency and shot selection. That is why he is almost always ranked outside 100.

Even when you consider Federer, for a long time Fed did not use drop shot at all in his matches. He had some kind of stigma associated with it (kind of like it shows your weakness that you want to bail out from a rally). Only much later in his career, he learned to appreciate the drop shot and incorporated it as part of his play.

 

[Busted]

Talent is like pornography, I know it when I see it

And like pornography - what is talent is subjective. For instance, I don't believe that talent is the ability to endlessly retrieve every ball hit to you. That's hard work and perseverance - but not talent. No names mentioned.

 

[Moxie]

On the subject of talent, I like Toni Nadal's take. He basically said that he preferred that Rafa base himself on hard work than talent. His notion is that talent can come and go, but hard work keeps you in the match, day in day out. I think this is a reason that Nadal hasn't been credited for his talent as much as his doggedness. (@Busted ) But this is a very good point. He ticks so many of the points GSM's list. And makes a good comparison with some of the ones we call "talented" who have fallen so short. There is no argument that Nadal is not talented, athletic, and has a great tennis IQ. He ticks all of GSM's boxes. So then his x-factor is commitment and competitiveness. (I don't think competitiveness has been mentioned yet, and I do think it's a huge factor.)

Roger started with a lot of raw talent but wasn't putting it together. Pulling himself together to become TMF isn't just about his "talent." It's had a lot to do with the same commitment, mental sturdiness, and competitiveness, above all.

 

[britbox]

McEnroe
Safin
Federer

... come to mind.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I'll tell you what talent is NOT:

Gael Monfils.

 

[mrzz]

I'll tell you what talent is NOT:

Gael Monfils.

Remember when I wrote not to use names? Here is the perfect exception!!!!

P.S. Nothing against the guy, good to see him on tour, I even root for him now and then.

 

[mrzz]

On the subject of talent, I like Toni Nadal's take. He basically said that he preferred that Rafa base himself on hard work than talent. His notion is that talent can come and go, but hard work keeps you in the match, day in day out. I think this is a reason that Nadal hasn't been credited for his talent as much as his doggedness. (@Busted ) But this is a very good point. He ticks so many of the points GSM's list. And makes a good comparison with some of the ones we call "talented" who have fallen so short. There is no argument that Nadal is not talented, athletic, and has a great tennis IQ. He ticks all of GSM's boxes. So then his x-factor is commitment and competitiveness. (I don't think competitiveness has been mentioned yet, and I do think it's a huge factor.)

Roger started with a lot of raw talent but wasn't putting it together. Pulling himself together to become TMF isn't just about his "talent." It's had a lot to do with the same commitment, mental sturdiness, and competitiveness, above all.

I agree with most of the above, only that it seems that you are countering the notion that talent is the sole most important thing in tennis, which is not the point (and not my opinion, also).

Regarding Toni Nadal's comment, however, it is a bit -- I am lost on words here -- hypocritical, unrealistic (? help me). I mean, his nephew was beating established pro's when he was 15. He was (and is) obviously immensely talented. We could discuss about shot making, some very few guys may be ahead of him, but as you noted above there are dimensions to it and he is at the very top in most of them. I mean, c'mon, go fucking coach a guy with really low talent and just then come back to say something like that.

 

[Federberg]

On the subject of talent, I like Toni Nadal's take. He basically said that he preferred that Rafa base himself on hard work than talent. His notion is that talent can come and go, but hard work keeps you in the match, day in day out. I think this is a reason that Nadal hasn't been credited for his talent as much as his doggedness. (@Busted ) But this is a very good point. He ticks so many of the points GSM's list. And makes a good comparison with some of the ones we call "talented" who have fallen so short. There is no argument that Nadal is not talented, athletic, and has a great tennis IQ. He ticks all of GSM's boxes. So then his x-factor is commitment and competitiveness. (I don't think competitiveness has been mentioned yet, and I do think it's a huge factor.)

Roger started with a lot of raw talent but wasn't putting it together. Pulling himself together to become TMF isn't just about his "talent." It's had a lot to do with the same commitment, mental sturdiness, and competitiveness, above all.

I have to disagree with Uncle Toni Moxie, if he's implying that Rafa doesn't have much talent. Talent, to me, is innate. And for the record I think Rafael Nadal - a right hander who plays the game (better than almost anyone who has ever picked up a racquet) left handed - is insanely, stupendously freakishly talented. I may not enjoy his style, but I would have to be blind or completely nuts to be unable to acknowledge what I see him do. I do agree that talent is not enough. Hard work is essential to achieve success

 

[Nekro]

 

[Moxie]

I have to disagree with Uncle Toni Moxie, if he's implying that Rafa doesn't have much talent. Talent, to me, is innate. And for the record I think Rafael Nadal - a right hander who plays the game (better than almost anyone who has ever picked up a racquet) left handed - is insanely, stupendously freakishly talented. I may not enjoy his style, but I would have to be blind or completely nuts to be unable to acknowledge what I see him do. I do agree that talent is not enough. Hard work is essential to achieve success

No, you and Mrzz misunderstand me, and Uncle T. It's not that I'm countering the importance of talent (that's in response to Mrzz) or Toni is denying that Rafa has loads. It's to say not to just count on that. His notion is that sometimes your shot, say, isn't working as well. Then what you have is your fight, your hard work, etc. It's to say: don't just rest on the gifts and count on them as if they're magic. Does that make sense? I read that back when our old buddy Cali used to insist that Nadal had to "talent" and that Nalbandian was the most naturally talented guy since the Stone Age. Sure, but he didn't back it up with the work. Dimitrov is another one who seems to try to glide on his God-given without giving it a more solid foundation and that approach lets him down.