What the hell is talent?

[El Dude]

As for Nadal, there are several "talents/skills" he has that, to me, stand out as better than anyone.

One, his mentality, or indomitable will. He is more strong-minded, more able to come back than anyone I've ever seen. He is, in my opinion, the greatest competitor the sport has ever seen.

Two, his ability to force players beat themselves. Nadal haters don't get this, don't appreciate it, and instead whine endlessly about how player X "beat himself," or "if only X was playing better he would have beaten Rafa" -- as if this has nothing to do with Rafa. There is simply no more frustrating a player to play against than Nadal, with the possible exception of Novak, who is an even better defender. But Nadal's defense is just a half-step behind and coupled with that indomitable will.

Three, his ability to make the perfect shot when he needs it. This is related to the second point above, but I think deserves its own mention. I have never seen a player who is so able to come up with that perfect shot - a DTL forehand, a cross-court two-handed backhand, even a clutch serve - when he needs it.

And none of that touches upon his actual shots, movement, speed, etc. But those are the qualities of his game play that most stand out to me.

 

[Moxie]

Interesting relating sports talent to intelligence assumptions. Surely, there is an "old guard" for both. And a prejudice against the more classic models, even if most of us recognize that not everyone fits them. I think your point of "natural v. learned" is well-taken, esp. once they get to ATP level. I'm not clear how "health" is a skill, though.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I do think the basic bifurcation of natural vs. learned is a useful one, which plays out in a variety of ways in tennis. Truly natural talent is meaningless once we get to the ATP level. It is all skill development, from whatever age someone starts playing (say, 7ish) to their peak (say 25ish). But some players present with a sense of untapped potential, or not fulfilling their talent. Denis Shapovalov comes to mind. He still plays very raw, which is cute and exciting if you're a teenager but starts to become worrisome once you get into your 20s.

One way of thinking about is to differentiate between "talent" and "ability to make use of talent".
May be Nalbys, Shapos and Nicks of the world lack the later and not necessarily the former. However, I admit that some would like to consider "ability to make use of talent" as an aspect of talent rather than a different thing.

Talking of natural vs. learned, don't you think most of Ralph's stuff is learned except perhaps the venomous topspin forehand which is natural for him.

 

[Moxie]

As for Nadal, there are several "talents/skills" he has that, to me, stand out as better than anyone.

One, his mentality, or indomitable will. He is more strong-minded, more able to come back than anyone I've ever seen. He is, in my opinion, the greatest competitor the sport has ever seen.

Two, his ability to force players beat themselves. Nadal haters don't get this, don't appreciate it, and instead whine endlessly about how player X "beat himself," or "if only X was playing better he would have beaten Rafa" -- as if this has nothing to do with Rafa. There is simply no more frustrating a player to play against than Nadal, with the possible exception of Novak, who is an even better defender. But Nadal's defense is just a half-step behind and coupled with that indomitable will.

Three, his ability to make the perfect shot when he needs it. This is related to the second point above, but I think deserves its own mention. I have never seen a player who is so able to come up with that perfect shot - a DTL forehand, a cross-court two-handed backhand, even a clutch serve - when he needs it.

And none of that touches upon his actual shots, movement, speed, etc. But those are the qualities of his game play that most stand out to me.

I appreciate this post, but the bolded above, most especially. This is the most aggravating for thing of all for Nadal fans. That it's not about Nadal.

 

[El Dude]

Interesting relating sports talent to intelligence assumptions. Surely, there is an "old guard" for both. And a prejudice against the more classic models, even if most of us recognize that not everyone fits them. I think your point of "natural v. learned" is well-taken, esp. once they get to ATP level. I'm not clear how "health" is a skill, though.

Well, in this regard it isn't that different than for normal (non-athlete) people. Taking care of your body requires proper choices, exercise, good diet, etc. Of course there are genetic and other factors that are outside of our control, but we all can increase the probability of good health, just as almost everyone can be a healthy weight if they really want it.

 

[Moxie]

Well, in this regard it isn't that different than for normal (non-athlete) people. Taking care of your body requires proper choices, exercise, good diet, etc. Of course there are genetic and other factors that are outside of our control, but we all can increase the probability of good health, just as almost everyone can be a healthy weight if they really want it.

But you said this: '"It has been argued in baseball circles that health is a talent (or skill), and that rather than talking about how injury-prone players have "bad luck," we could instead say that players that avoid injuries have "good health."' You're not just talking about healthy habits, you're talking about injury. As if better habits could help them avoid them. This is my qualm.

 

[El Dude]

But you said this: '"It has been argued in baseball circles that health is a talent (or skill), and that rather than talking about how injury-prone players have "bad luck," we could instead say that players that avoid injuries have "good health."' You're not just talking about healthy habits, you're talking about injury. As if better habits could help them avoid them. This is my qualm.

The same applies, although to a lesser degree than, say, weight. But yeah, I do think that every player has the capacity to reduce the probability of injury through lifestyle habits, diet, training routine, etc.

 

[Moxie]

The same applies, although to a lesser degree than, say, weight. But yeah, I do think that every player has the capacity to reduce the probability of injury through lifestyle habits, diet, training routine, etc.

Ok, say we're talking about Kyrgios, who doesn't really train. I get that. But for the ones that keep up good training and habits, and yet get injured? I don't think you can blame that, except on genes and bad luck, right?

 

[mrzz]

As @Moxie , really liked @El Dude 's connection with the intelligence debate, but I disagree with everything you both wrote, specially when you disagreed with each other. And I also disagree with everything you just thought right now. Yeah, and that too. After you, sir.

Seriously, the only worry I get is that if you get a "talent" definition that is so absolutely broad... in the end it means nothing. You need a cut-off somewhere.

 

[Moxie]

One more thing I'll take from the other thread is Mrzz's post, because it was so good, and perhaps he would be too demure to repost it:

"It is a fine post and we agree that it all boils down to what you call "talent". In the end this is a huge word and a lot of things can be described by it. Kyrgios has a very interesting feature which is his unpredictability -- which is a "talent", I concede, and that is the main part of that unknown element of competitiveness you mentioned -- but I disagree he can "execute any shot". If he can... why he doesn't? The problem with the eye test is the selective memory... he attempts a lot of difficult shots all the time, hits hard, goes for the tweener, etc and etc. He misses a lot and connects a few. You simply cannot judge his "talent" by the few he connects... But, one thing is that he chooses very well the timing for some shots... not in a shot selection sense but in a highlights producing sense (and those affect the opponent, as he knows quite well). That is, again, a "talent" of his own.

He is one of a kind, and I agree with that. In the past my notion of "talent" was more narrow -- more technique oriented -- so I was harsher on him. Looking at the complete package, I think he is, well, a different kind of talent. (we had a thread for that and maybe we should revive it).

To try to avoid an impossible definition of talent, I try to break the game in three "dimensions": physical condition, mental strength and talent/technique (those two go hand in hand, even if I understand the difference). Now it is obvious to me that Kyrgios has a very good physical condition: he is tall and strong, and can be pretty quick. His reflexes are extremely good as well. The mental strength is the part I disagree with most: people think that this is his liability, I think it is the exact opposite. The fact I rate him very highly on those two is basically the reason I need to rate him lower on the remaining one -- if he was top notch in all three, he should be much better ranked.

You can always say that the whole problem is that the guy does not practice and/or doesn't care. Again, as I said in other occasions I don't buy that for a second. The kid is clever, he controls the narrative. He built a persona on court and that gives him an edge most of the times. People take my oriented criticism of him as something else... well, it is their problem. For me, the good old "tennis talent", that ability to do whatever you want with a tennis ball in whole lot of different situations, is something that Kyrgios lacks (in the context of a top 100 player, obviously). But he has the "talent" to make it look like this is exactly his forte..."

While I agree with your categories, I don't agree as to how they apply to Nick.

A) Physical condition: While he is big and tall, he's not fit, and doesn't work on his fitness, by his own account.

B) Mental strength: I really not sure how you put this in the plus-column for NK.

C) Talent/technique: This is the 3rd Rail of this discussion, and I'll leave it to everyone else, rather than draw back a bloody stump. I see the talent, and the shortcomings.

Federberg made a good point about talent sometimes leading to complacency. (#dimitrov) And also that Kyrgios might care more than he lets on, and just says he doesn't try, because it's an easy out for when he doesn't come through. Interesting points. It's very chicken/egg with Nick. Or the double-blind. Does he pretend not to care because he really does? Who knows? But one starts to grow weary from wondering. And waiting for him to bring better results.

 

[Moxie]

As @Moxie , really liked @El Dude 's connection with the intelligence debate, but I disagree with everything you both wrote, specially when you disagreed with each other. And I also disagree with everything you just thought right now. Yeah, and that too. After you, sir.

Seriously, the only worry I get is that if you get a "talent" definition that is so absolutely broad... in the end it means nothing. You need a cut-off somewhere.

I'm taking you to the HATE thread! But seriously, yes, I think we went to the too diffuse too quickly. I tried to take it back to your definition in the above.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Talent is when a player like Kyrgios despite not practicing as much as other players and despite having a lot of mental issues can destroy peak Djokovic in all their meetings in straight sets. :spank:

 

[Moxie]

#tiresome #uninteresting

 

[El Dude]

Ok, say we're talking about Kyrgios, who doesn't really train. I get that. But for the ones that keep up good training and habits, and yet get injured? I don't think you can blame that, except on genes and bad luck, right?

It isn't either/or but more a matter of degree...that is, a tweak in the increase or decrease of probability. In other words, while a player can't fully control whether they get injured or not, but they can reduce the probability of getting injured. I don't know to what degree, but it is significant enough that I think you can say that staying healthy involves skill.

There's no way to put numbers do it, but let's say a player has a 20% chance of getting a signficant injury in a given year. If they take care of themselves, train and eat well, get proper sleep and hydration, maybe this goes down to 10-15%. If they don't, go out carousing and wenching, drink coffee and soda and no water, then maybe they increase it to 30% or more.

And of course some players may have greater proclivity to certain types of injuries that has nothing to do with their training etc. There's style of play, and also genetic and upbringing factors. If we take someone like del Potro, perhaps the most unfortunate elite player of the last decade or more, there are probably numerous factors that play a part in his frequency of injury. Maybe it is how he hits the ball, maybe how his parents fed him, maybe his genetics, maybe body structure, maybe how he moves, maybe he is chronically de-hydrated or has sleep issues, maybe it is a mind-over-matter thing, maybe karma...probably some combination of many factors.

But my point is, while there are a lot of factors that are out of his control--even most of it, especially at his age--he does have some say in the matter. It isn't a matter of "blame" - that is a word that has moralistic connotations that I don't find particularly useful.

 

[Michael;Kiwi]

I believe that talent is how highly ranked a player would be in a world where everyone got exactly the same amount of practice time and coaching talent. If say Federer and Nadal had never picked up a tennis racket and then you came along and gave each of them 100 hours of coaching in exactly the same way. Each got 20 hours on the forehand, 20 on the backhand, 20 on the serve, etc. After that they could play matches. It is impossible to perfectly measure talent since this is obviously not the case. However, we can try and make guesses. If a player doesn't seem to put in much practice like Kyrgious, but still beats some of the greatest players ever, they are probably pretty talented.

 

[Front242]

Over here guys sometimes use the word talent to describe hot chicks Some serious talent last night

 

[Moxie]

It isn't either/or but more a matter of degree...that is, a tweak in the increase or decrease of probability. In other words, while a player can't fully control whether they get injured or not, but they can reduce the probability of getting injured. I don't know to what degree, but it is significant enough that I think you can say that staying healthy involves skill.

There's no way to put numbers do it, but let's say a player has a 20% chance of getting a signficant injury in a given year. If they take care of themselves, train and eat well, get proper sleep and hydration, maybe this goes down to 10-15%. If they don't, go out carousing and wenching, drink coffee and soda and no water, then maybe they increase it to 30% or more.

And of course some players may have greater proclivity to certain types of injuries that has nothing to do with their training etc. There's style of play, and also genetic and upbringing factors. If we take someone like del Potro, perhaps the most unfortunate elite player of the last decade or more, there are probably numerous factors that play a part in his frequency of injury. Maybe it is how he hits the ball, maybe how his parents fed him, maybe his genetics, maybe body structure, maybe how he moves, maybe he is chronically de-hydrated or has sleep issues, maybe it is a mind-over-matter thing, maybe karma...probably some combination of many factors.

But my point is, while there are a lot of factors that are out of his control--even most of it, especially at his age--he does have some say in the matter. It isn't a matter of "blame" - that is a word that has moralistic connotations that I don't find particularly useful.

Here I think you are a bit guilty of diffusing the talent argument, as Mrzz said. What you're talking about is more to the question of regimen, discipline and wise/poor choices. I really don't think "health" falls into any of the categories that define "talent."

 

[DarthFed]

Over here guys sometimes use the word talent to describe hot chicks Some serious talent last night

Oh that's the same over here too. Especially when we get a certain age we talk about seeing some good young talent at gyms/bars/festivals I always say part of what is great at a gym is that the girls always stay the same age!

 

[Moxie]

Oh that's the same over here too. Especially when we get a certain age we talk about seeing some good young talent at gyms/bars/festivals I always say part of what is great at a gym is that the girls always stay the same age!

Don't worry. We talk about men the same way. Additionally, though, we laugh at how much old schlubby guys think they're in with a shot at hot women. Thanks for keeping up the quality of the thread, Neanderthals.

 

[brokenshoelace]

One way of thinking about is to differentiate between "talent" and "ability to make use of talent".
May be Nalbys, Shapos and Nicks of the world lack the later and not necessarily the former. However, I admit that some would like to consider "ability to make use of talent" as an aspect of talent rather than a different thing.

Talking of natural vs. learned, don't you think most of Ralph's stuff is learned except perhaps the venomous topspin forehand which is natural for him.

Everything about tennis is learned. How quickly you learn, how quickly you "get it," is a huge part of talent. Every tennis pro works super hard, but doing something repeatedly doesn't necessarily guarantee improvement, even with the right coach, method, etc... (of course there will be relative improvement, but I'm talking about the kind of leap that makes a difference). So you can claim Nadal's backhand is "learned" in that it wasn't as good when he first started but got better through hard work. Sure. But I mean it was a a pedestrian shot in 2006, by 2007 it was good, by 2008 it became a weapon, and the guy was only like...21. That's talent.

Meanwhile, "special" talents like Kyrgios still can't hit a down the line backhand to save their lives.