What the hell is talent?

[Federberg]

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.

Ok got you. I always disagreed with Cali about that, but didn't really have the energy to go into the wars about it. I think it's easy to conflate talent and style

 

[El Dude]

It seems like we're running into the problem of different meanings - a rhetorical argument, in other words. I'm all for creative uses of words, but I think when we veer too far from the common understanding of what a word means, we obfuscate discussion and understanding. So I'd like to offer a definition of "talent," although with a slightly different spin: It is a player's maximum potential - how good a player could be, but not necessarily is, on the court. It is a combination of natural ability and learned skills. Or as someone said above, it is how good a player is when horsing around in a practice match - -- all that a player is capable of with a tennis racquet and ball.

But talent is really only part of the picture of a player's overall ability, the other main components being psychology--mental toughness, willingness to work hard, self-discipline, calm under pressure, etc--and health, which includes injuries, fitness, and age. Actually, you could say that psychology is "mental talent."

So you have: talent + psychology + health = ability. Then you adjust for match-up and conditions (court type).

I would think that decline occurs when a player's health becomes harder to maintain, which in turn impacts psychology. Talent (physical skills) is the last to go of the three. Actually, I seem to remember reading somewhere that hand-eye coordination doesn't decline until one's 40s.

 

[mrzz]

@Moxie, I got exactly what TN said -- at least your phrasing of it. What I am saying is that it is really, and I mean really easy to say that when you coach a guy who is very talented and is a hard working type. You are basically saying, "keep working, there are other freaks of nature out there working hard too". Nothing wrong with that, but not exactly rocket science. And Nadal's (or any other top player) success will always be based on talent -- but not only (or even merely) on it.

About Cali's Nalbandian comments... honestly I always thought that Nalbandian is a talent in the same league as the big three, but for a few reasons could not produce the same results (lack of "mental" talent could be one, but I don't wanna discuss that now). "Talent" being this elusive, Platonian entity that very few can completely conjure up when it matters, one could always wonder (but not "prove", as Cali wanted to do) how high his ceiling was.

 

[Moxie]

@Moxie, I got exactly what TN said -- at least your phrasing of it. What I am saying is that it is really, and I mean really easy to say that when you coach a guy who is very talented and is a hard working type. You are basically saying, "keep working, there are other freaks of nature out there working hard too". Nothing wrong with that, but not exactly rocket science. And Nadal's (or any other top player) success will always be based on talent -- but not only (or even merely) on it.

About Cali's Nalbandian comments... honestly I always thought that Nalbandian is a talent in the same league as the big three, but for a few reasons could not produce the same results (lack of "mental" talent could be one, but I don't wanna discuss that now). "Talent" being this elusive, Platonian entity that very few can completely conjure up when it matters, one could always wonder (but not "prove", as Cali wanted to do) how high his ceiling was.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Rafa wasn't already a "hard-working guy" when Toni took him on, which was as a 4-years old, so he was actually trained that way, though I would guess it's also innate in him. According to Toni and his football-player uncle Miguel Angel, he does come by focus and competitiveness naturally. (Which GSM and El Dude have identified as a part of "talent.") You see the quote as a bit of a 'duh.' But I think it's deceptively simple. Surely they burnished the already shiny parts of his game, but they committed to a doggedness that has served Rafa very well, even if it has made some of his detractors see him as slog-over-talent. I suspect it came from a familial preference to keep Rafael from being a prima donna. But look at the results, compared to some of the classic under-achievers (Nalbandian, Safin) and some of the bratty younger ones who can't get traction.

Your description of Cali's notion of "Talent as being this elusive, Platonian entity" is perfect. Cali ever only believed in one aspect of GSM's or El Dude's list, and he was on a quixotic quest to prove Nalbanian's ceiling, however infrequently demonstrated. He actually made me realize how talented Nalbanian was.

To circle around, I'm not committed to that quote by TN as other than illustrative about my point that it's not 'just' talent, and we don't have to debate it. But the question here is defining talent, as that part of the equation.

 

[mrzz]

^Well, if he started training him at 4... what can I say, a lot of credit to him. Funnily enough this little discussion ended up in a much larger one (what is innate, what is trained)? Are we this way because society made us like that, or that's simply who we are? Is Nadal like this because he was trained to be so, or that's simply who he is? To deep a question, maybe it is better to come back to what is talent. In fact, I would be happy in discussing just item 1 -- skill -- in GSM's list.

 

[Moxie]

^Well, if he started training him at 4... what can I say, a lot of credit to him. Funnily enough this little discussion ended up in a much larger one (what is innate, what is trained)? Are we this way because society made us like that, or that's simply who we are? Is Nadal like this because he was trained to be so, or that's simply who he is? To deep a question, maybe it is better to come back to what is talent. In fact, I would be happy in discussing just item 1 -- skill -- in GSM's list.

There is always going to be a chicken/egg question as to training, even when you try to extract "talent." But, OK, here is GSM's skill definition:
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).

While "variety" is a nice thing to have, there's no mention of effectiveness. Deadliness. Power. That seems rather a club definition. I don't see why "only where the ball is in your strike zone" needs to be a qualifier, and I would have thought that 'hands at the net' would be part of it. We can start again from here, if this is how you want to define "talent/skill."

 

[Busted]

I'll tell you what talent is NOT:

Gael Monfils.

I'll disagree with that. Monfils is talented. He's squandered it due to lack of discipline and hard work. As Federer said after Wimbledon - talent only gets you so far and yes, he was blessed with a lot of talent, but he worked hard to harness and control it. Monfils is Kyrgios in 8 in years if Kyrgios doesn't get his act together.

 

[Busted]

McEnroe
Safin
Federer

... come to mind.

Interesting that you didn't include Sampras in that group. I've been watching tennis a really long time - and I'd say those 4 guys - McEnroe, Sampras, Safin, Federer - are easily the best raw talent I've seen in the men's game. Such a shame Safin was a headcase...

 

[Moxie]

If you're going to add Sampras, you must add Borg.

 

[Busted]

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.

Don't get me wrong - there's nothing wrong with hard work...but it's NOT talent. Talent is innate not learned. You can teach a dog to sit, beg, roll over, fetch a stick, bark a song while doing a back flip and retrieving a Frisbee - but you've got to teach it to him. It doesn't come naturally.

I wasn't mentioning any names...but since you did...here's a talent I will give Nadal credit for - he's a natural righty and he plays as a lefty. Not a lot of guys could do that. So there ya go...never say that I said Nadal is completely talentless. And truthfully - I'd never say he was talentless - just not as talented as others. "Doggedness" has taken him a long way in his career and he's got 10 French Opens to prove it.

 

[Moxie]

Don't get me wrong - there's nothing wrong with hard work...but it's NOT talent. Talent is innate not learned. You can teach a dog to sit, beg, roll over, fetch a stick, bark a song while doing a back flip and retrieving a Frisbee - but you've got to teach it to him. It doesn't come naturally.

I wasn't mentioning any names...but since you did...here's a talent I will give Nadal credit for - he's a natural righty and he plays as a lefty. Not a lot of guys could do that. So there ya go...never say that I said Nadal is completely talentless. And truthfully - I'd never say he was talentless - just not as talented as others. "Doggedness" has taken him a long way in his career and he's got 10 French Opens to prove it.

You also miss my point about hard work. At least other Fed fans like Mrzz and Federberg acknowledge Nadal's talent. And that he was born with loads of it. If you think "doggedness" got Nadal 10 French Open titles, you are kidding yourself. I was saying that it helps, and it helps not to be too precious about your gifts, when hard work is required. That is what I'm saying some of the also-rans have missed.

If Nadal were all hard work and no elite talent he'd be David Ferrer. You undersell him by acres.

 

[mrzz]

There is always going to be a chicken/egg question as to training, even when you try to extract "talent." But, OK, here is GSM's skill definition:
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).

While "variety" is a nice thing to have, there's no mention of effectiveness. Deadliness. Power. That seems rather a club definition. I don't see why "only where the ball is in your strike zone" needs to be a qualifier, and I would have thought that 'hands at the net' would be part of it. We can start again from here, if this is how you want to define "talent/skill."

I guess that by "how good" he meant effectiveness/deadliness/power -- at least that's how I read it. I already disagreed with "strike zone" part, and GSM acknowledged that, explaining that he made the distinction more in an "organizing" sense. I see the point, but part of the job in tennis is to be able to hit well on the run and we cannot separate this.

In a tennis match you face a lot of different situations (I mean, during a point), and if you have skill/talent, you are able to turn those situations around and win the point, be it in one shot or in (many) more. If you only put the ball back in play -- well, for this you don't need a lot of "talent", true, but sometimes in a match this is a winning formula. What we must pay attention is if the player is able to do it only, or if he is smart enough to know when to do it. It took a me few years to understand this point, but I guess finally did. (but when I play, fuck off, I try to fire a winner in every shot, I might lose a lot of matches I could win, but I have loads of fun).

 

[Federberg]

Interesting that you didn't include Sampras in that group. I've been watching tennis a really long time - and I'd say those 4 guys - McEnroe, Sampras, Safin, Federer - are easily the best raw talent I've seen in the men's game. Such a shame Safin was a headcase...

I would include Rios and Mecir

 

[atttomole]

If Rios and Mecir make the cut, then I would add Santoro.

 

[Federberg]

If Rios and Mecir make the cut, then I would add Santoro.

Ugh.. have to disagree. Santoro was unusual, but he's not in the same class, not even in the same school as those guys

 

[atttomole]

Santoro had beautiful shots, but he never had a whiff of consistency, and he ended up being just a showman.

 

[Federberg]

Santoro had beautiful shots, but he never had a whiff of consistency, and he ended up being just a showman.

yup. To me that's a style vs talent thing. Mecir and Rios were able to produce at a much higher level, they're different beasts to Santoro imho. Mecir's career was plagued by injuries and let's be honest, Rios would probably be a slam winner if slam wins were revoked for juicing, and I'm not even pointing out that he was actually a #1

 

[Puppet Master]

What is the only way to finish a point on your terms? Hit an error or hit a winner instantly, right?
If you hit an error, that's either bad execution or a very low percentage shot.
If you hit a winner, the point is yours.

So we look at the player who consistently has the best winner to UE ratios:
Novak Djokovic. Notable mention: one set against Simon in Paris 2015. He had something like 0 winners or 1 winner, and god knows how many UE.

Kidding, I was talking about Roger if anyone got confused.


Kidding around again. Tennis is not just blasting winners. If it was, Djokovic would be in the wrong line of work. Everything meaningful regarding talent, you guys said it already here.
I would just like to branch out.
Talent alone, in every aspect of life, does not get you anywhere at all, if you won't apply it, or can't apply it. Use it or lose it in a sense.
And let's not forget this. We take Milos Raonic for example. I have often seen him being accused of being talentless on tennis forums. Armchair experts just eat him up.
Here's the thing though. He has earned in his life, more than most of us will, dare I say all of us, will earn in a lifetime. He has/had a beautiful model girlfriend (obviously not money related ), is travelling the world doing what he loves. While someone like Agassi, who was perceived as way more talented, and I believe that's an understatement, went through depression, at times hated the sport, did drugs and god knows what else happened behind the scenes. It's a dumb example, but you get what I tried to convey. It's not as clear cut as some make it seem. There are more factors linked to success than just talent and work ethic. Not everything is in our hands.
Sorry for the rant. I feel like I rushed it, but I am out of tennis forum time for today...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Sorry for the rant. I feel like I rushed it, but I am out of tennis forum time for today...

We are glad that you have allocated quota of time.

 

[Federberg]

obviously not money related

Wouldn't be so sure!