What the hell is talent?

[brokenshoelace]

You know, it's funny, I've been thinking about Kyrgios some more, and I realize just how his inflated reputation is a product of his own failure. Case in point, let's compare him to the man Nadal just dispatched, Tsonga.

In 2008, Tsonga absolutely massacred Nadal in the 2008 Australian Open semi final. For the new kids around here, let me say this, it was embarrassing. By far the most helpless Nadal has looked in his career, and in my mind, the single most unbelievable performance I've ever seen in a major and I am 100% not even exaggerating. OG's like @britbox and @DarthFed could attest to how shocking that was for all of us on the old tennis.com forums. We couldn't believe how fucking incredible that guy played. The shotmaking was beyond belief, his serve was untouchable, his volleys were out of this fucking world.

As far as a performance goes, it was even more incredible than Kyrgios' 2014 coming out party vs. Nadal (I'd say significantly more incredible, actually).

The tennis world was in shock, and everyone was excited to see what this new guy brought to the table. Tsonga went on to become a consistent top 10/top 20 player, and had a very solid career, building on his grand slam final appearance with multiple grand slam semis, 2 Masters 1000 events win, holding two match points vs. Djokovic in the 2012 French Open semi to make it to the final, a WTF final loss, and finishing in the top 10 year after year. In addition, since performances vs. the big 3 seem to be the standard for some, Tsonga has beaten Federer 6 times, Nadal 4, and Djokovic 6 times. That's a pretty serious resume, and some decent big match scalp-collecting.

So why isn't he discussed at this huge wasted talent who should have done more when he is capable of such incredible heights when he plays his best? Well, because he actually went on and did something with his career, even if it wasn't being a GS champion. And this is the biggest difference: Since Tsonga became a very good player on a week to week basis, his performance against Nadal in 2008 becomes a case of "oh, well it wasn't his real level. I mean, he's good but not THAT good!" (ironically, "not his real level" were Nadal's comments about Tsonga after the match, which he got clobbered for, and while they were undoubtedly fueled by sour grapes, they are nonetheless true). So why isn't Nick's performances vs. Nadal "not his real level" rather than "Oh, THAT's what he's capable of if he worked hard." Because Kyrgios' career has been an abomination, so people refuse to believe someone who produced that performance can be THAT bad. So of course, he's just a wasted talent instead. Yet, Tsonga, who had more success but not quite on par with what he's "capable" of, isn't perceived the same way despite the fact that he has just as much game, if not more game than Nick: He's got a better forheand, a huge serve, infinitely better volleys, he's just as athletic if not more, etc... and on his day, capable of beating anyone and has done it on the big stage more than Nick did.

It's funny how the biggest boost to Nick's reputation is how much of a fuck up he is.

 

[Moxie]

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.

You are right to point out what seems to be GSM's prejudice about "natural v. learned." I think a lot of folks have this prejudice, and it is the basic fallacy of their argument. Somehow, they think, some players are "born" with certain skills, and others have to slog along to gain them. But as you say, everything is learned, all perfection comes from practice and hard work. As if that is some moral failing. But no one is born with a great forehand. Perhaps they're born with better quick-twitch muscles, better balance, or speed, but it all has to be learned and trained. And then, when faced with opposition to your best shots, talent is also, IMO, about adjustment. Nadal has flattened out his backhand into a huge weapon. Roger has made his own more aggressive. They weren't born with these shots, they trained them.

 

[monfed]

talent is shotmaking ability. Fed, Safin were naturals. dull is not talented so he has to work extra hard. Same for his spanish lapdog Ferret.

 

[El Dude]

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."

Well if draw the line between talent and skill as natural vs learned, then what I'm talking about with regards to health is a skill - so a learned ability.

 

[Moxie]

Well if draw the line between talent and skill as natural vs learned, then what I'm talking about with regards to health is a skill - so a learned ability.

I'm not sure the line is talent/skill is an equivalency to natural/learned. I think that's what we're debating here. Talent is the "x" factor we're discussing, maybe which means certain things come more "naturally," but I think these are still base-line. They all have to be nurtured to become skills, and they have to essentially be "learned." And practiced, and repeated, and improved upon. Tennis shots are "skills." And you're not born with them. You may be more inclined to some than others. But when you learn to employ them miles better than others, that's talent, imo.

Some players may be inclined to lots of shots, more naturally, like Federer, or, let's say, Dimitrov. They still have to become actual skills. Tools. They have to be employed wisely. Tennis IQ comes into it here. You can have a great natural serve, but Fed is an example of this: it's not the hardest, but he places it so well. This he was not born with. It's a learned skill. As is a similar change in Nadal's serve, over time...he uses it smartly. That's a skill. Djokovic's serve has at times in his career been terrible. Now it's a weapon. This is learned and practiced, but is it also not down to his talent? If he didn't have the quick-twitch muscles, the hand-eye coordination, would he have been able to develop that serve? That is talent combined with practice, learned skills and effort. Now compare these with Karlovic or Isner's serves. These are great serves. Is not part of their greatness "naturalness?" By which I think some here equate "talent." But some of the "naturalness" is the fact that they're both nearly 7 feet tall. You can't teach that angle, but is that "talent?" They still have to develop a great serve. Especially if it's nearly all they've got.

Back to health: I still don't think it falls into any category of talent. Maybe, if you want to say that commitment to regimen falls into the category of a strong mentality/commitment to your sport, but I still think it's a stretch.

 

[Ricardo]

You know, it's funny, I've been thinking about Kyrgios some more, and I realize just how his inflated reputation is a product of his own failure. Case in point, let's compare him to the man Nadal just dispatched, Tsonga.

In 2008, Tsonga absolutely massacred Nadal in the 2008 Australian Open semi final. For the new kids around here, let me say this, it was embarrassing. By far the most helpless Nadal has looked in his career, and in my mind, the single most unbelievable performance I've ever seen in a major and I am 100% not even exaggerating. OG's like @britbox and @DarthFed could attest to how shocking that was for all of us on the old tennis.com forums. We couldn't believe how fucking incredible that guy played. The shotmaking was beyond belief, his serve was untouchable, his volleys were out of this fucking world.

As far as a performance goes, it was even more incredible than Kyrgios' 2014 coming out party vs. Nadal (I'd say significantly more incredible, actually).

The tennis world was in shock, and everyone was excited to see what this new guy brought to the table. Tsonga went on to become a consistent top 10 player, and had a very solid career, building on his grand slam final appearance with multiple grand slam semis, 2 Masters 1000 events win, holding two match points vs. Djokovic in the 2012 French Open semi to make it to the final, a WTF final loss, and finishing in the top 10 year after year. In addition, since performances vs. the big 3 seem to be the standard for some, Tsonga has beaten Federer 6 times, Nadal 4, and Djokovic 6 times. That's a pretty serious resume, and some decent big match scalp-collecting.

So why isn't he discussed at this huge wasted talent who should have done more when he is capable of such incredible heights when he plays his best? Well, because he actually went on and did something with his career, even if it wasn't being a GS champion. And this is the biggest difference: Since Tsonga became a very good player on a week to week basis, his performance against Nadal in 2008 becomes a case of "oh, well it wasn't his real level. I mean, he's good but not THAT good!" (ironically, "not his real level" were Nadal's comments about Tsonga after the match, which he got clobbered for, and while they were undoubtedly fueled by sour grapes, they are nonetheless true). So why isn't Nick's performances vs. Nadal "not his real level" rather than "Oh, THAT's what he's capable of if he worked hard." Because Kyrgios' career has been an abomination, so people refuse to believe someone who produced that performance can be THAT bad. So of course, he's just a wasted talent instead. Yet, Tsonga, who had more success but not quite on par with what he's "capable" of, isn't perceived the same way despite the fact that he has just as much game, if not more game than Nick: He's got a better forheand, a huge serve, infinitely better volleys, he's just as athletic if not more, etc... and on his day, capable of beating anyone and has done it on the big stage more than Nick did.

It's funny how the biggest boost to Nick's reputation is how much of a fuck up he is.

you must be patting yourself on the back for what you believe is a great theory. Anyone who's been around the game long enough knows Tsonga was never praised for his talent the way Nick is, ever. Unfortunately, for you in this case, is that all your theory is nothing more than your own opinion which carries no weight and doesn't amount to anything. again it doesn't matter if your analysis says his fh is this and his bh is that, better than Nick's bla bla bla, clearly all these pros don't look at how to judge players talent the way you do, and again you should think about the fact that all of Nadal, FAA, JMac, Fed etc etc etc, don't share your self-centred thought process. all these 'Nick got the praise because he actually fucked up more' theory, sorry keep it to yourself...….it really isn't how it works, you think people are idiots? you know when people say 'wise ass'.

When people saw Tsonga's AO match vs Nadal, the perception has been that he played out of his mind, which of course was shared by Nadal himself thus the saying 'it was not his real level'. But when the greats and most people watch Nick, even his early days, they have different take on his 'talent'. I know what upset you, you think all these people (including the greats and experts) can't see the truth, and only you and your mates (mrzz and herios) do...….I don't know what to say, but I am bemused by your trio who really think only you lot have the in-depth knowledge....while the pros don't, not even if they have actually studied him, played him, hit with him.

And all that real life experience with Nick, compared to you lot, who are potatos behind the screen. It's really funny those who haven't done anything, believe they know better than the whole lot of experts.

 

[DarthFed]

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.

Oh us old timers do have chances with them if we have a lot of green in our pockets. You know how it is in this land

 

[mrzz]

It's funny how the biggest boost to Nick's reputation is how much of a fuck up he is.

The post where it comes from is very, very spot on. Perfect catch the comparison with Tsonga, all the better that I like the guy. The only part I would maybe rephrase -- because I actually agree with the "spirit" of it -- is the quoted last phrase. His failures are that boost, that is the very smart conclusion that your post leads to, but when you say that he is a "fuck up", you are implicitly agreeing with the narrative that he is a "wasted talent". My impression (and obviously I may be wrong, but here you need to let the obvious explicit all the time) is that he is fact an "anti fuck up", because he -- in his own strange way -- maximizes his results. In the end, he has a "portfolio" which is inconsistent in itself, the major results as you pointed out, even results on MS1000 and most ATP's in fact... opposed by the occasional runs (on smaller tournaments) and the famous wins against the Big 3.

It all boils down to which "side" you think is the "real". Most people seem to believe that is the occasional shiny moments, that only are not the norm because of his "head". A minority -- we included -- think the opposite, that the real is the one that gets the (relatively) early round exits. IMO, it is precisely what you described as a "fuck up" that earned him those out of the curve results (and a monster serve, of course).

 

[brokenshoelace]

The post where it comes from is very, very spot on. Perfect catch the comparison with Tsonga, all the better that I like the guy. The only part I would maybe rephrase -- because I actually agree with the "spirit" of it -- is the quoted last phrase. His failures are that boost, that is the very smart conclusion that your post leads to, but when you say that he is a "fuck up", you are implicitly agreeing with the narrative that he is a "wasted talent". My impression (and obviously I may be wrong, but here you need to let the obvious explicit all the time) is that he is fact an "anti fuck up", because he -- in his own strange way -- maximizes his results. In the end, he has a "portfolio" which is inconsistent in itself, the major results as you pointed out, even results on MS1000 and most ATP's in fact... opposed by the occasional runs (on smaller tournaments) and the famous wins against the Big 3.

It all boils down to which "side" you think is the "real". Most people seem to believe that is the occasional shiny moments, that only are not the norm because of his "head". A minority -- we included -- think the opposite, that the real is the one that gets the (relatively) early round exits. IMO, it is precisely what you described as a "fuck up" that earned him those out of the curve results (and a monster serve, of course).

I meant "fuck up" from the perspective of those who believe in his talent. Now, I actually do think Nick should be better than this, obviously, but nowhere near what he's made out to be.

Further to Nick vs. Tsonga, think of what would have happened if Tsonga never developed relative consistency (again, relative) and had some success, and his claim to fame remained that one win over Nadal as well as the follow up wins vs. the big 3. Imagine if Tsonga spent his time telling everyone how he doesn't put in the time off the court, spent his career outside the top 20, and acted like a jerk. He would have been discussed far more as this mercurial talent and he would have turned into the myth Kyrgios seems to be turning into.

One thing I'll say about Nick, and it's a nuance many seem to interpret different: He has a high ceiling on a given day. I think that's what people often confuse with how big of a talent he is. A high ceiling on a given day is NOT the same as a high ceiling overall, week in and week out. His high ceiling on a given day can be higher than another player's ceiling in isolation, but on a week to week basis, player B is the one capable of playing better. And this does not mean Nick is more talented. How talented are you really, when you can only showcase your talent once in a blue moon?

What people don't realize is the nature of Nick's game and the nature of his "talent" is much more suited for one off hot days than consistent good performances. Because his ground game isn't good enough in rallies on a consistent basis, he relies so much on shotmaking, momentum, being "random," etc... that's just not the kind of game that leads to week-to-week success, but when it clicks, it can be unstoppable on a given day. In that sense, @britbox is right that Nadal would have preferred Nishikori than Kyrgios. Yes, Kyrgios has a higher ceiling on a given day, but his overall game, on a week to week basis, isn't as good as Kei's. People just have a certain perception about what talent is and associate with flash and shotmaking. Kyrgios wishes his ground strokes were actually as good as say, a prime Davydenko, and that he can take the ball as early and as cleanly as Davydenko did, yet I don't hear anyone talking about what an amazing talent Davydenko was.

It's also why Nick has good success vs. the big 3 but fails against lesser players. Because relying on getting yourself angry, berating umpires, blaming everything, taunting your opponent, mind games, trick shots, momentum building shots, and other gimmicks that Kyrgios employs match in and match out is impossible. You can't do that every match. Talent is also having the ability to play well and beat your opponent on some side court with a couple of hundred people watching, and blaming that on him just not getting up for these matches is lazy and ignores the limitations of his game. But, you can do these things on a few select occasions against certain players and try to pump yourself up to play your game, which when it works, can be unplayable. Except, it often doesn't, and people seem far too willing to ignore that part for some reason, or justify it with silly notions of Nick not caring enough.

 

[Moxie]

I was listening to the commentators today gaming Bautista Agut v. Paire. They said it would be hard to call because Paire is the more "talented," but RBA the sturdier, mentally, or reliable or whatever. This comment reminded me of our conversation here. Now, you may all razz me off the thread to bring them in as examples, but they are less polarizing than Nick (and Rafa), and maybe there's something about them worth looking at, for the sake of the discussion.

First: "Talented" v. "Sturdy." Clearly, one has a very positive connotation, and the other rather a negative one, however unfairly, and I think it gets to the heart of what we're discussing here. I think a lot of fans like the notion that some players are simply touched by the gods on their FH/BH/serve, etc. The ugly fact of visibly working at something seems to shatter some illusion. That there's something preferable/magical about an effortless-looking shot, over displaying that you can work the points and the score and win matches. I don't deny that some players are great shot-makers, or that winners aren't more satisfying than UFEs, but they all have to work in combination with the scoring system to achieve the win, which, let's face it, is what matters. On this point, I would also say the "hard workers" don't get enough credit for their winners, or their hand in winning their matches.

Second: Inconsistency. Paire is an example of a stylish player who can't seem to control his game, week-in/week-out. Like Kyrgios, we often wonder which Benoit will show up. I find him impossible to pick in draw challenges. He's ranked #32 (to RBA's #22,) so creditable, but not shaking up the world, though I think he has beaten Djokovic.

Third: Reliablility. I liked @brokenshoelace's mention of Davydenko and Nishikori, above. As to RBA's year, though...he has beaten Novak twice in 2 meetings. And this is a resurgent Djokovic. In Doha, at the beginning of the year, RBA won the title beating: Berrettini, GGL, Stan, Novak and Berdy. This is fully under the radar stuff, in terms of recent fan memory. And then he beat Novak in Miami. And today he gets sneered at by some for beating Paire. When he has the far better grass win percentage.

Fourth: Ceiling. I also thought it was good that Broken brought this (back?) in. Certainly, some players have a higher ceiling than others, though that seems to come with a lower basement. This relates to my first point, above, and perhaps is the same point. When we see a player who has a fantastic high point, ("ceiling,") we look to see that repeated. When they fall short, we lament it, and keep saying, "if only...." But we fail to recognize that if certain players could make those shots repeatable, they would be Federer/Nadal/Djokovic. Most of them tend to give us a shot of the day without even always winning their matches. Here is where we don't recognize that the middle-level guys who put in the work and wait for their moment actually do better. They may not live and die by one fantastic shot, but they know how to win tennis matches. I think the notion of a player's "ceiling" gets some people hung up, such as Kyrgios', and Paire's. And Dimitrov's, and Nalbandian's: they are capable of great shots...high ceiling...but they don't tend to string them together.

So my question is: is that really "talent," or is it just some pale version of the magic that we hope to see? Federer actually produces the "magic." That's why he's loved and revered. I think Nadal and Djokovic do, too, though it doesn't always look as Magical from them. They pull the curtain back on hard work.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Never been a fan of the word talent. Not that I do not believe in it, it is just that it is meaningless in the absence of other ingredients. I would strongly urge folks to read The Sports Gene by David Epstein. Good book, tackles a lot of subjects including talent.

 

[britbox]

Well, the key is for me in how you determine the word "talent". For me, I determine as "natural upside". And Kyrgios ranks pretty highly on that scale in my interpretation. I'm not confusing it with success, application, technique. At the end of the day, results are where it's at.

 

[Moxie]

Well, the key is for me in how you determine the word "talent". For me, I determine as "natural upside". And Kyrgios ranks pretty highly on that scale in my interpretation. I'm not confusing it with success, application, technique. At the end of the day, results are where it's at.

How we determine the word "talent" is the key to this conversation. So, you're in the camp of there's something that you think comes "naturally?" But the bigger question remains: what is that? I think we've established that nothing really comes without work and repetition, no matter how "natural" it may seem. I'm not clear about "natural upside." How would you define that? Why does one player have it, and not another...say...more accomplished player. That's one thing we're debating here, and it's very hard to peg.

 

[Ricardo]

People just don’t get it, talent isn’t determined by any means of absolute values.

I meant "fuck up" from the perspective of those who believe in his talent. Now, I actually do think Nick should be better than this, obviously, but nowhere near what he's made out to be.

Further to Nick vs. Tsonga, think of what would have happened if Tsonga never developed relative consistency (again, relative) and had some success, and his claim to fame remained that one win over Nadal as well as the follow up wins vs. the big 3. Imagine if Tsonga spent his time telling everyone how he doesn't put in the time off the court, spent his career outside the top 20, and acted like a jerk. He would have been discussed far more as this mercurial talent and he would have turned into the myth Kyrgios seems to be turning into.

One thing I'll say about Nick, and it's a nuance many seem to interpret different: He has a high ceiling on a given day. I think that's what people often confuse with how big of a talent he is. A high ceiling on a given day is NOT the same as a high ceiling overall, week in and week out. His high ceiling on a given day can be higher than another player's ceiling in isolation, but on a week to week basis, player B is the one capable of playing better. And this does not mean Nick is more talented. How talented are you really, when you can only showcase your talent once in a blue moon?

What people don't realize is the nature of Nick's game and the nature of his "talent" is much more suited for one off hot days than consistent good performances. Because his ground game isn't good enough in rallies on a consistent basis, he relies so much on shotmaking, momentum, being "random," etc... that's just not the kind of game that leads to week-to-week success, but when it clicks, it can be unstoppable on a given day. In that sense, @britbox is right that Nadal would have preferred Nishikori than Kyrgios. Yes, Kyrgios has a higher ceiling on a given day, but his overall game, on a week to week basis, isn't as good as Kei's. People just have a certain perception about what talent is and associate with flash and shotmaking. Kyrgios wishes his ground strokes were actually as good as say, a prime Davydenko, and that he can take the ball as early and as cleanly as Davydenko did, yet I don't hear anyone talking about what an amazing talent Davydenko was.

It's also why Nick has good success vs. the big 3 but fails against lesser players. Because relying on getting yourself angry, berating umpires, blaming everything, taunting your opponent, mind games, trick shots, momentum building shots, and other gimmicks that Kyrgios employs match in and match out is impossible. You can't do that every match. Talent is also having the ability to play well and beat your opponent on some side court with a couple of hundred people watching, and blaming that on him just not getting up for these matches is lazy and ignores the limitations of his game. But, you can do these things on a few select occasions against certain players and try to pump yourself up to play your game, which when it works, can be unplayable. Except, it often doesn't, and people seem far too willing to ignore that part for some reason, or justify it with silly notions of Nick not caring enough.

This is just such a juvenile post with the poster showing no hope of understanding.....this is purely bean counting, typical of very very low level thinking.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

How we determine the word "talent" is the key to this conversation. So, you're in the camp of there's something that you think comes "naturally?" But the bigger question remains: what is that? I think we've established that nothing really comes without work and repetition, no matter how "natural" it may seem. I'm not clear about "natural upside." How would you define that? Why does one player have it, and not another...say...more accomplished player. That's one thing we're debating here, and it's very hard to peg.

You and me can hit forehand 1000 times everyday by way of practice and it is not going to be anyway near that of pros not to mention Fedal. Not everybody can acquire any skill by mere hardwork and repetition.

Having said that, it does not mean that one can be lazy at the pro level thinking they are natural talents. That is a recipe for becoming irrelevant very fast. One always must work hard trying to exploit the natural talents they have and trying to hone other skills in which they are not naturally talented as well.

 

[Ricardo]

How we determine the word "talent" is the key to this conversation. So, you're in the camp of there's something that you think comes "naturally?" But the bigger question remains: what is that? I think we've established that nothing really comes without work and repetition, no matter how "natural" it may seem. I'm not clear about "natural upside." How would you define that? Why does one player have it, and not another...say...more accomplished player. That's one thing we're debating here, and it's very hard to peg.

We don’t determine the word talent, after all who are ‘we’? The vast difference in experience, ability, judgement and common sense says it’s not for ‘us’ to decide as if ‘we’ set the criteria for the world to go by...laughable really. Seems common these days that some self-inflated posters with no credentials can play the experts, while the real experts got it wrong...according to them anyway

 

[Moxie]

We don’t determine the word talent, after all who are ‘we’? The vast difference in experience, ability, judgement and common sense says it’s not for ‘us’ to decide as if ‘we’ set the criteria for the world to go by...laughable really. Seems common these days that some self-inflated posters with no credentials can play the experts, while the real experts got it wrong...according to them anyway

If we're going to discuss something so much, I think it is fair to make an attempt to define terms. You seem to think that we here at TF are not capable of judging it, which is different from defining it, each to her/his understanding and taste. However, I'd disagree that we can't judge it, because, well, giving opinions is what we're here for. What you seem to forget about the "experts" (players and commentators) is that they sometimes say very politic things, or what is best to say at the moment, so it's not always to be trusted.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I LOOOOOOOOOVE that someone is seriously trying to act like former/current pros' opinion is gospel when legitimately most of them say the most idiotic things and everyone agrees that literally all of them verge from mediocre to awful commentators. As far as current pros, they're in the locker room every day, they see these guys every day, they have to be very careful about what they say.

 

[Ricardo]

If we're going to discuss something so much, I think it is fair to make an attempt to define terms. You seem to think that we here at TF are not capable of judging it, which is different from defining it, each to her/his understanding and taste. However, I'd disagree that we can't judge it, because, well, giving opinions is what we're here for. What you seem to forget about the "experts" (players and commentators) is that they sometimes say very politic things, or what is best to say at the moment, so it's not always to be trusted.

give me one reason why they praise Nick, the way they don't do for Tsonga who bs thinks is even more talented. Nadal especially has zero reason to actively come out and say Nick is top talent, should be winning slams, playing for no 1 etc etc....he actually should just slam Nick (like he did anyway). btw I think you also think Nick is exceptional talent, but for self appointed experts here, id say they have no credentials....and I can also say they have diff motivations (even as simple as they don't like him) so belittling him feels good for them.

 

[Ricardo]

I LOOOOOOOOOVE that someone is seriously trying to act like former/current pros' opinion is gospel when legitimately most of them say the most idiotic things and everyone agrees that literally all of them verge from mediocre to awful commentators. As far as current pros, they're in the locker room every day, they see these guys every day, they have to be very careful about what they say.

oh yeah FAA and Nadal just publicly slammed Nick in front of the world so I am sure you think they have strong motivation to praise Nick……..again I ask, what do you know about Nick? apart from sitting on a couch watching TV, compared to those who have played him, studied him or practiced with him.....and those qualified seem to have concensus while all you do is speculate that, people including pros are delusional about him because Nick is a fuck up therefore getting that mystique...…like you actually know, in your own weird way of thinking, with your self-inflated belief that you can observe what others all fail to see...…..same goes for mrzz.

probably spend more time than it deserves, but I will simply this for you. The internet warriors here talking down Nick share one thing...……..they don't like him. You trio (bs, mrzz and herios) are nothing but potatoes with no real experience just talk shit because you don't like him.

Compared to the pros, Fed and JMac don't particularly dislike him, while Nadal and FAA actually despised Nick (unless they fake it in front of press but I doubt they pretend that) yet they all have the opposite opinion to the funny potato trio here.

but of course, bs tells us his amazing observation.....that MOST of the former/current pros say the most idiotic things and EVERYONE agrees that literally all of them verge from mediocre to awful commentators. Now this is my opinion, JMac has a history of hyping up things (but not known to be idiotic), but Fed, Nadal and FAA are not known to say idiotic things......id say that most of the time they are pretty spot on with things, IMO.

And my observation is you are a couch potato who imagine unrealistic stuff in your little twisted world, without a single tennis credential to refute what they said. I can also tell you NOT everyone agrees they are awful, and MOST people think Nick is super talented.