he is a one in a mil talent, and you are a potato with a big mouth who trash talk him...….see the difference? so with no qualification whatsoever, who gave you permission to talk shit about an actual pro? get back to the couch and shut up, potato.
What the hell is talent?
- Thread starter mrzz
- Start date
brokenshoelace
Grand Slam Champion
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 9,380
- Reactions
- 1,334
- Points
- 113
Imagine being so stupid that you think you have to be a chef in order to judge a meal which tastes like shit. You're right, couch potatoes cannot judge professionals. So next time you go to a restaurant and you're not satisfied with the quality of meal, shut up and continue eating shit.
when is stupidity here going to end? first your analogy to chef/customer is silly, now I'll do you a favour why as a customer you are stupid. The said chef, when acclaimed by his peers and professional judges, would have earned his reputation rightfully...….with such esteemed regard you as a customer decides that the quality of his cooking is shit...…..lets say I am another customer there and overhear your complaint, I'll have to tell you that the guy is highly regarded by his peers and other professionals and definitely many customers, for you to write him off like that, you are probably just some cheap jerk who doesn't know what he is talking about. The evidence of high quality is there as provided by his peers and professional judges....so you as some random customer, would rightfully be seen as talking shit.
In fact back in relation to tennis, the evidence in tennis is even more solid given the fact that quality of cooking is judged by people while NK actually has beat the best players in the game to show his talent and quality...…...so yes people who are qualified as having true interaction on the court. It's even more concrete than a chef's peers as NK's wins over top players are recorded not just opinions.
So there you go, when direct and indirect evidence is staring at you, opposite to your precious personal opinion...….tell me why you still think you are in any reasonable position to talk such shit about NK. Oh BTW you are probably still too stupid to understand the correlations and logic behind this all, while still trying to come up with more rubbish argument, so just hush up and get back to your couch.
100% to the point and the best ripost I've seen here. Thanks for giving us this example.
On top of being another idiot, you are also a puss. yeah you just feel how a woman would feel worse than a man about the sexist slur (which has been rebutted enough here). oh I forgot after getting your butt kicked, you backpedalled
brokenshoelace
Grand Slam Champion
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 9,380
- Reactions
- 1,334
- Points
- 113
isabelle
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2013
- Messages
- 4,673
- Reactions
- 634
- Points
- 113
of course, Nalby was hip injured and finally undewent a surgery in 2009...it's easy to beat a guy who can't defend his chances
don't know what would have happened with an healthy Nalby, he was unpredictable and able to do the best or the worst
monfed
Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2018
- Messages
- 2,112
- Reactions
- 506
- Points
- 113
There maybe players like Fed/Nadal/Djok in reality but they take up a different career.
Thanks for the meatheaded statistical reply, as if the scoreline exactly fits your narrative.
Nalbandian served at 55% and hit 5 double faults in that match. He hit a bunch of errors and Djokovic pummeled his second serve. Nalbandian was sluggish overall despite playing some excellent points early in the first set. But he did not get bitch-slapped in rallies of moderate to lengthy duration repeatedly like Djokovic does against Wawrinka. You are comparing apples to oranges.
What we see with Djokovic against Wawrinka is not that Djokovic barely gets a first serve in or hits a bunch of double faults or has lazy second serves manhandled. What we see is that in rallies of moderate length (roughly 6-10 shots) Wawrinka repeatedly and consistently gets the upper hand against Djokovic.
Do you think it would be fair to say that Djokovic's performances against Wawrinka in the two Grand Slam finals as well as the recent one Sunday night were horrible, substandard performances in some regard? Can you point to anything and say "that was not usual Djokovic" or "that was inexcusably poor on Djokovic's part"?
No, you can't, and that's because Wawrinka shows a clear limitation to his playing style and the types of shots that he hits. Nalbandian obviously did not do everything perfectly, but this particular shortcoming is not one that he shared with Djokovic.
guess this is what happens when I cornered your back against the wall, so this senseless shit spitting crap.....you are just shitting your pants. If you just remove yourself, there wouldn't be so much stink here.
brokenshoelace
Grand Slam Champion
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 9,380
- Reactions
- 1,334
- Points
- 113
This is the biggest misconception about how talent works.
It's not like people are born with a very defined degree of talent, and therefore someone can be as talented as Federer at tennis but never pick up a racket. Yes, there's definitely a lot of "natural" talent being involved, but talent is mainly developed. How you develop it, the circumstances in which you do, the time you put in, even as a kid, determines talent.
monfed
Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2018
- Messages
- 2,112
- Reactions
- 506
- Points
- 113
I disagree. Talent is spotted quite early and they tend to race ahead in their field so basically unless they're held down by economical challenges.
How much they achieve with that talent comes down to multiple factors like luck, dedication etc. But a dedicated less talented player ends up like Ferrer. They can't punch above their weight.
brokenshoelace
Grand Slam Champion
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 9,380
- Reactions
- 1,334
- Points
- 113
Talent IS spotted early. Not everyone is born equal. But how you develop the talent turns it into Federer-talent. I don't think people are just born with Federer-talent, including Federer.
monfed
Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2018
- Messages
- 2,112
- Reactions
- 506
- Points
- 113
There's no such thing as "developing" talent. It doesn't become higher or lower with age/"practice". It's always there, just a question of discovering it and trusting yourself that it will make you a living. The talented ones who fail are those who either can't spot their talent or they're too afraid to utilize it seeing the competition around them and not being sure if they can make a living off of it.
No, Federer is born with "Federer-talent". It's just that he was born in a rich country with accepting parents who let him do whatever he wanted growing up. Fed is also the rare combination of what happens when talent and hardwork meet. You get the greatest player ever.
My word, talent does become greater or lesser....you ever heard someone saying a player is more talented than he was? Clear bs is stupider than ever...
And he questions about others comprehension, while telling us that talent is ‘developed’ bhahahaha
Develop my arse.... talent can be either spotted or not, one may have a chance to apply or not, but develop? Shut the fuk up
Double Bagel
Masters Champion
I also disagree somewhat with this assumption you are making about Tennis talent. Sure you have to pick up a racket and practice a lot to perfect the game, but if you look back many players in this game come from family members who were professional tennis players or another professional athlete. I think there has something to do with the gene pool you are born into as well as just picking up a racket.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 6,184
- Reactions
- 3,024
- Points
- 113
@brokenshoelace, I think people are talking about slightly different things here. One thing is "natural" abilities, other is the result of those abilities being polished and developed over time (which is what we see and what I believe you are making reference to).
People seem to be believe that they are able to identify that "original" talent in everyone. Well, maybe they are, sometimes you really get that impression, but I take that with a grain of salt anyway. But that there is something "inherent" to each player, there is no doubt about that (and, yes, I know that this is implied on your posts).
One example: ask a neuro-psychologist how professional athletes (football players, for example) in general fare in their tests (which are done with pen and paper). Usually they are very good at the ones which require quick answers and/or some degree of coordination/space orientation. They never trained for that. This is (one example of) "natural talent". Again, the question is: what you do with those talents?
Another complicating factor is that "tennis talent" is the result of a lot of different, individual talents. To be good at the net, you need quick reflexes and a soft touch (and technique, as well). Kyrgios -- to go back to the one of the "case studies" here -- has tremendous reflexes, an ok touch and an ok technique (which should come from training). So depending on how you look at it you can say that he is "oh, so fantastically talented" or just a "decent/good" volleyer.
People seem to be believe that they are able to identify that "original" talent in everyone. Well, maybe they are, sometimes you really get that impression, but I take that with a grain of salt anyway. But that there is something "inherent" to each player, there is no doubt about that (and, yes, I know that this is implied on your posts).
One example: ask a neuro-psychologist how professional athletes (football players, for example) in general fare in their tests (which are done with pen and paper). Usually they are very good at the ones which require quick answers and/or some degree of coordination/space orientation. They never trained for that. This is (one example of) "natural talent". Again, the question is: what you do with those talents?
Another complicating factor is that "tennis talent" is the result of a lot of different, individual talents. To be good at the net, you need quick reflexes and a soft touch (and technique, as well). Kyrgios -- to go back to the one of the "case studies" here -- has tremendous reflexes, an ok touch and an ok technique (which should come from training). So depending on how you look at it you can say that he is "oh, so fantastically talented" or just a "decent/good" volleyer.
brokenshoelace
Grand Slam Champion
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 9,380
- Reactions
- 1,334
- Points
- 113
Exactly. Except what he's referring to is people who supposedly have Federer like talent but never pick a tennis racket. If you're born into a family similar to the one you describe, chances are you'll pick up a racket.
monfed
Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2018
- Messages
- 2,112
- Reactions
- 506
- Points
- 113
Why are we talking about physicality when it comes to talent? Even if you want to call it talent, it doesn't belong to tennis. Take that shit to athletics.
Safin, Rios, Nalbandian, Federer, Kyrgios are all talented TENNIS players. Nobody cares how fast they can run or how hard they can hit the ball. The end.
/thread /forum
Safin, Rios, Nalbandian, Federer, Kyrgios are all talented TENNIS players. Nobody cares how fast they can run or how hard they can hit the ball. The end.
/thread /forum
