What the hell is talent?

[Ricardo]

so this is what bs says that players are just diplomatic chickens in the locker room and FAA was so CAREFUL to say this here

'All I have to say, really, about a person like that is that I admire what he does on the court. He's a very good player. His tennis qualities are incredible.'

'Beyond that, if I wasn't a tennis player - for example, if we knew each other at school or whatever - he's not someone I would be friends with or hang out with. So you have to look at two things. There's the tennis player, and there's the person. I don't really feel like associating with a person like that.'

I think he speaks his mind about Nick, and so did Nadal. I single those two out as they already slammed Nick in public. Just ridiculous to see what the wannabe nobodies say here though.

Anyone with common sense would know, that players are diplomatic with reasonable things to say, such as they like every tournament they go to (obviously) but if they say they dislike someone, or they think some player is amazing, they probably really mean it.

And i am yet to hear rumours that FAA or Rafa went to a bar with Nick.

 

[Ricardo]

One thing though, those who can tolerate Nick's antic, really appreciate him greatly. I think off the court, he is charismatic and likeable, even big heads like Zvereve expressed admiration for the guy. Believe or not, Nick is popular with most players, and has impressed them with his tennis prowess (not the potatoes here though).

 

[Ricardo]

All those who praised Nick, also shared one thing in common...that they are incredible talents themselves, Fedal, FAA and JMac who are some of the best talents EVER. Must be pretty straight forward for them to spot their kind, now compare to the untalented internet wheelchair fan here who declared Nick to be an over-rated hack...I am sorry but stupidity here has no limits!

Someone can be so stupid and yet thinks he knows so much. Its already a worldwide phenom that people have unrealistic over-inflated ego these days, it's been like a disease that even the weaklings think they deserve as much as the strong...….or the stupid think they are as qualified as the real pros. All started with the equality bs, equality this and equality that, its just lies people have bought into...….some are just born to be peasants, to be stupid. When peasants think they carry as much weight as the elites, you see this kind of ridiculous things.

Nick the over rated hack, yeah right, and what are bs, mrzz and herios?

 

[Ricardo]

Talent is really a perception, we saw the likes of JMac, Fed, Safin, Nalby, Rios, Kyrgios etc to be hailed as super talents...…..now some have fulfilled what their talent promised and some did not, and some kind of did. Federer for sure, did what his talent was supposed to do, but lets say, he thought it was life changing for him when his closest coach and best friend died and then he became a different person, and finally put it all together. JMac, although touted to be most talented ever, was in and out of places so managed to still excel but probably left a bit on the table...….one thing though, he was fiercely competitive most days unlike Safin, Rios, Nalby and Kyrgios who were all known to tank some matches. I would say the above four never got the other aspects going, despite the talent, to show what they really could do. Fed had his life changing experience, JMac wanted to beat the best and be the best, I think the other four just have too much money yet achieving too little, and thus didn't really go the extra yards.

What's really stupid is when potatoes tell us to judge talent from results. Lendl said it himself that JMac was way more talented than him as most agree, yet Ivan was the way more accomplished singles player who also happened to come on top in their rivalry.

 

[Moxie]

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 think you just got this argument stuck in your craw because you and BS didn't agree on Nick. Now you're just fighting to prove you're right. Here's the thing: surely Tsonga has been hailed as the next big thing...back in the day. No one really discounts that he has gifts. But commentators DO buff up players as it suits them, esp. ginning up interest for a match. And players, as we have said, generally say the most gracious things about each other, even when they're meaningless.

As to Nick, I am on the side that says he's talented, though I don't believe I've ever said "exceptionally." And I've frankly been persuaded by some of the arguments on here as to why he's less than special, in some real ways. I'll ask you why YOU think he's talented, not just what others say about him. It would be interesting to know what you like about his game, and what you think is exceptional. It's just a conversation between all of us, as to "talent" in the abstract, and as to Nick in particular. Why not put in your own 2 cents?

 

[Moxie]

Talent is really a perception, we saw the likes of JMac, Fed, Safin, Nalby, Rios, Kyrgios etc to be hailed as super talents...…..now some have fulfilled what their talent promised and some did not, and some kind of did. Federer for sure, did what his talent was supposed to do, but lets say, he thought it was life changing for him when his closest coach and best friend died and then he became a different person, and finally put it all together. JMac, although touted to be most talented ever, was in and out of places so managed to still excel but probably left a bit on the table...….one thing though, he was fiercely competitive most days unlike Safin, Rios, Nalby and Kyrgios who were all known to tank some matches. I would say the above four never got the other aspects going, despite the talent, to show what they really could do. Fed had his life changing experience, JMac wanted to beat the best and be the best, I think the other four just have too much money yet achieving too little, and thus didn't really go the extra yards.

What's really stupid is when potatoes tell us to judge talent from results. Lendl said it himself that JMac was way more talented than him as most agree, yet Ivan was the way more accomplished singles player who also happened to come on top in their rivalry.

I agree with much of the above. Surely some players are recognized for their particular, and perhaps high degree of talent early on. Perhaps we should call this "raw talent." The pleasing shots that seem to come to certain players more naturally. From there, some find ways to fulfill potential, some don't. With Federer, perhaps it was a life-changing experience, or maybe he just needed to come to the full flower of his gifts...I suspect the later.

I have a bit of a problem with the bolded above. In sports, results matter. Which doesn't mean that we judge talent by results, but that a few nice shots without results eventually means not much. I have little patience for watching handfuls of beautiful random shots from players deemed "talented," when they can't seem to make anything out of them. Competitive drive is also a talent. As is tennis IQ. There is "talent" in some players shots, but if it remains "raw," in the sense of not capitalized upon, not formed into a complete game, or built on from match to match in a tournament, then it is just a bit of squandered beauty, and not really talented enough, then, in the end.

 

[mrzz]

I have little patience for watching handfuls of beautiful random shots from players deemed "talented," when they can't seem to make anything out of them

The problem with "few random shots" is simply statistics. If you connect 10% of them, you are not special. It is just selection bias that makes some think otherwise.

 

[brokenshoelace]

The problem with "few random shots" is simply statistics. If you connect 10% of them, you are not special. It is just selection bias that makes some think otherwise.

This extends to my whole "ceiling" point. On a very hot day, a lot of those random shots can go in and the result is a spectacular performance. Problem is people see that and get blown away by a player's talent, when in truth he A) can only do that rarely and B) he actually struggles to do the seemingly "simpler" things well, so how talented is he really? If you can't construct a point properly or can't hit a reliable backhand, that's a knock on your talent. Yet people are way too willing to disregard that because of the odd tweener or a 110 mph forehand winner.

 

[Ricardo]

I agree with much of the above. Surely some players are recognized for their particular, and perhaps high degree of talent early on. Perhaps we should call this "raw talent." The pleasing shots that seem to come to certain players more naturally. From there, some find ways to fulfill potential, some don't. With Federer, perhaps it was a life-changing experience, or maybe he just needed to come to the full flower of his gifts...I suspect the later.

I have a bit of a problem with the bolded above. In sports, results matter. Which doesn't mean that we judge talent by results, but that a few nice shots without results eventually means not much. I have little patience for watching handfuls of beautiful random shots from players deemed "talented," when they can't seem to make anything out of them. Competitive drive is also a talent. As is tennis IQ. There is "talent" in some players shots, but if it remains "raw," in the sense of not capitalized upon, not formed into a complete game, or built on from match to match in a tournament, then it is just a bit of squandered beauty, and not really talented enough, then, in the end.

when the pros mentioned Nick, they never talked about results...…...it was all about what they perceived Nick's qualities which are not quantified which the potatoes here are doing. Results? stats? give me a break, such Americanised way of thinking its just stupid. It's really just their eye test, anyone who puts it into absolute values with stats simply got it wrong as a start. So since its eye test, there is no question the people who know him, hit with him and played him carry the weight, not some TV fans who never did anything in this sport. In simple terms, the potato trio don't know what they are talking about.

 

[Ricardo]

This extends to my whole "ceiling" point. On a very hot day, a lot of those random shots can go in and the result is a spectacular performance. Problem is people see that and get blown away by a player's talent, when in truth he A) can only do that rarely and B) he actually struggles to do the seemingly "simpler" things well, so how talented is he really? If you can't construct a point properly or can't hit a reliable backhand, that's a knock on your talent. Yet people are way too willing to disregard that because of the odd tweener or a 110 mph forehand winner.

still stuck in your primitive ways? just listen to yourself. Rafa gave a bit of insight there, when he tried to explain that Nick has a lot of good 'ingredients'...listen to what the real McCoy tries to say, and you may be able to think outside your own little lala world.

btw Rafa doesn't say things to please Nick, absolutely no point. Given a preference he is more interested in slamming Nick for disrespecting the sport, not your imaginary trying-to-be-diplomatic bull crap. Having said that, I am sure you will just not get it given the level of understating shown.

 

[Ricardo]

The problem with "few random shots" is simply statistics. If you connect 10% of them, you are not special. It is just selection bias that makes some think otherwise.

stats my ass, it's for simpletons in this discussion. If you don't have the eye, you just don't get it. Isn't it obvious that Rafa, FAA, Fed etc are the best judges of Nick's talent, and you just belong to the couch? you have just got nothing to refute them, 'selection bias'? might as well say dog pooh, it's all the same since you just don't know about his qualities.

 

[brokenshoelace]

"Results? Stats? Who cares about all that concrete evidence...It's perfectly normal for someone who is supposedly so talented to fail to get past the 4th round while losing to nobodies 16 majors in a row. Look at all those flashy shots that he makes. That's the eye test! It's the one eye test. There's the other eye...the one that ignores all the times those shots sail miles out or hit the net. But that's not an indicator of anything."

 

[brokenshoelace]

My favorite part of someone calling others dumb is an inability to provide a single argument beyond "listen to the pros."

 

[Ricardo]

Ricardo, I think you just got this argument stuck in your craw because you and BS didn't agree on Nick. Now you're just fighting to prove you're right. Here's the thing: surely Tsonga has been hailed as the next big thing...back in the day. No one really discounts that he has gifts. But commentators DO buff up players as it suits them, esp. ginning up interest for a match. And players, as we have said, generally say the most gracious things about each other, even when they're meaningless.

As to Nick, I am on the side that says he's talented, though I don't believe I've ever said "exceptionally." And I've frankly been persuaded by some of the arguments on here as to why he's less than special, in some real ways. I'll ask you why YOU think he's talented, not just what others say about him. It would be interesting to know what you like about his game, and what you think is exceptional. It's just a conversation between all of us, as to "talent" in the abstract, and as to Nick in particular. Why not put in your own 2 cents?

players slammed him, stop this bs about them being diplomatic when it comes to Nick. Of course you would be persuaded by the bs potatoes here, these are very primitive observers who believe they know something....despite they have zero credentials. So what does it matter what my 2 cents are regarding Nick? if those who have played Nick in real matches talk about his amazing qualities, I have no grounds to refute them....that's what objective people do, basic common sense. I know people who played Nick since junior days, and their description is in line with the above mentioned pros. Of course that doesn't qualify me to be the judge but in any case, these potato trio with no tennis qualies are in no position to refute them. Am just not inspired join these self inflated potatoes.

 

[Ricardo]

"Results? Stats? Who cares about all that concrete evidence...It's perfectly normal for someone who is supposedly so talented to fail to get past the 4th round while losing to nobodies 16 majors in a row. Look at all those flashy shots that he makes. That's the eye test! It's the one eye test. There's the other eye...the one that ignores all the times those shots sail miles out or hit the net. But that's not an indicator of anything."

concrete evidence? since when is talent judged with 'concrete evidence'? you are just primitive beyond redemption, sorry to tell you but potatoes don't get to judge. If you have no credential, you should know your place.

 

[Ricardo]

My favorite part of someone calling others dumb is an inability to provide a single argument beyond "listen to the pros."

argument about what? already told you that all your bs stats and results don't mean jack in this discussion. The pros don't once bring that shit in when talking about their perception of Nick, if you are anything more than a primitive self-inflated simpleton, you would've learnt. You are damn right you, as couch sitting potato with no credentials, are not qualified to refute multiple pros who talked about Nick's qualities...even if you do refute, has no weight. Anyone can voice an opinion (or argument), except it means jack without certain prerequisites. Now stop dreaming that your perception will ever have the chance of being more insightful than the pros. Just try this, voice your precious opinion in a public place, very like the first question at you would be "who the fuk are you?"

 

[Moxie]

The problem with "few random shots" is simply statistics. If you connect 10% of them, you are not special. It is just selection bias that makes some think otherwise.

This is too dismissive, I think. Are you talking about so-called "talented players" in general, or specifically about Kyrgios?

 

[mrzz]

@Ricardo, you got to my ever-growing ignore list with your relentless repetitions, but I see Broken's and Moxie's reply to you and I decided to view the ignored content.

When you say that you know someone who played him since junior days... these guys played with all the other top 50's? Because, as we stated a billion times, it is OBVIOUS that we are talking in RELATIVE terms to the top 100. It is OBVIOUS, and we already STATED THE OBVIOUS, that, compared to an average mundane tennis player, NK is talented. He is a top 50 player. The guys who played him since junior days are just saying that he is above average. Well, his RESULTS that got him to become a top 50 professional are proof of that. If your friend also routinely hit with, say, Diego Schwartzmann, Jack Sock, Pablo Carreno-Busta and so on, and he says, "oh, for sure NK is MUCH more talented than those", than we have a conversation. Since I hardly suspect no, then that argument is completely void.

Second... can you point out ONE SINGLE TIME where some TV commentator said "oh, this guy is NOT talented"). The world "talent" is one of the most used ones in any TV transmission. Everyone is talented. Everyone is special (boy, I am making a huge effort not to make an acid remark here). These guys BUSINESS is to SELL tennis to LARGE audiences. "Special talent" is the magic word. Now NK attracts audience, his matches are fun (nobody here is arguing that). He is a good "product" for tennis, so commentators AND fellow players, specially big names who care for the sport, will obviously tout him because it is of their interest to do so. ECONOMIC interest. I really thought that was an obvious one.

And about "credentials"... do you really know who are the posters in real life? I can guarantee you I have in fact ZERO credentials in tennis -- apart from playing as a lousy amateur and watching it a lot. But the others? Who knows... and, still, if an "authority" cannot come up with an argument better than mine... sorry, it won't convince me. You seem to believe that everything boils down to some ethereal non measurable quantity that the "pros" can perceive when they hit with him, and all of them were in just absolute awe after one magic hit session... that seems like a fairy tale to me, to chose a soft expression.

The fun thing is that you got so offended with people just stating their opinions... maybe with the fact that they had the "audacity" to disagree with the pros. And you probably missed that in general everyone who questions his "super natural talent" are smart enough to offer something else as a trade off. I, in particular, always told that for me he is one of the smartest tennis players out there. So you either have selection bias when you defend the guy (yeah, I chose the expression just to piss you off), or you really can't stand the fact that people have balls enough to disagree with the "pros".

Hmm... I liked that idea. I guess me, @herios and @brokenshoelace are part of the "potato sized balls" club.

 

[mrzz]

This is too dismissive, I think. Are you talking about so-called "talented players" in general, or specifically about Kyrgios?

In general, but it obviously applies to Kyrgios. It applies even to Federer in fact. You know that I think he is the true GOAT, but he looks quite better on youtube highlights than on the vast majority of actual matches.

 

[brokenshoelace]

The single best take on talent I've seen, courtesy of Gilles Simon (a pro, so his opinion has to be accepted as per the new rules):

http://www.tennisworldusa.org/news/...y-from-the-baseline-is-talented-while-nadal-/

Drawing a comparison between compatriot Richard Gasquet and Rafael Nadal, Simon said, 'When Richard Gasquet sends a backhand ten miles from the corner of the stands, they say it's talent. They're right. But when Rafael Nadal does the same with a forehand, they say it's strength and that it's physical. There's complete agreement about Federer's talent, but when it comes to Djokovic, there's doubt. They say he has no great shot. Except that when you serve at him at 275 kph and he takes it every time, in the middle of the racquet. That's incredible talent. If you ask Jan de Witt, who has the most talent, Roger or Novak, he'll hesitate to reply.'

Elaborating further, he said, 'Television distorts perceptions. People don't see what's so special about Kei Nishikori. He has the best two-handed backhand I've ever seen. He finds incredible angles but that doesn't make an impression. I often use the example of Michael Llodra. He had an amazing volley and touch but he couldn't hit a correct forehand. Was he gifted? Safin had a patent on talent his entire career, but when it came to hands, he was like me. Now, Ernests Gulbis is the same. He's talented, full stop. If he loses, it's because he doesn't feel like playing.'

He also mentioned, 'In France, in the beginning, I had the impression that it was better to be less good. With talent that Gulbis who's ranked 50th is more esteemed than a Ferrer who's third. Now, I couldn't care less whether people see if I have talent or not. I usually answer that my talent is my timing. Talent is weighing 70 kg and hitting 50 winners against Rafa in Rome (last year). I hope it doesn't get taken the wrong way, but when I see that they think that I have less talent than Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, it's impressive. Jo hammers every shot. It's very forceful. Between us four, Gael Monfils is the one who has the most talent.'

Of course he had to ruin it by talking about Monfil's talent but whatever...