What the hell is talent?

[mrzz]

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

It could be his actual opinion, but it could be rhetoric. A few lines above he wrote in absolute terms that Gulbis was talented, "full stop", but he was referring to the "perceived opinion", even if he wrote the phrase in the first person. In that case the context was clearer, but it still could be the case here. I was in doubt the moment I read that phrase (but I tend to think he actually thinks Monfils is the most talented of the four, the four being him, Tsonga, Gasquet and Monfils).

Anyway, very good read.

 

[brokenshoelace]

It could be his actual opinion, but it could be rhetoric. A few lines above he wrote in absolute terms that Gulbis was talented, "full stop", but he was referring to the "perceived opinion", even if he wrote the phrase in the first person. In that case the context was clearer, but it still could be the case here. I was in doubt the moment I read that phrase (but I tend to think he actually thinks Monfils is the most talented of the four, the four being him, Tsonga, Gasquet and Monfils).

Anyway, very good read.

Yes, I too wondered if he means Monfils is perceived as being the most talented, since his whole argument seemed to lean towards how lazy people are in their assessment of talent. But what I found most telling is his disdain towards the perception around Gulbis: "if he loses, it's because he doesn't feel like playing." Hmmm, I wonder who that reminds me of.

Also, his line about Llodra is phenomenal, and it's something I've consistently touched on (but I'm no pro so it doesn't count). Basically, despite his amazing touch, how talented is he really when he can't hit a forehand? Now I never said that about Llodra himself but the logic is the same. How talented are you if your basic rally groundstrokes are poor?

 

[MikeOne]

I think the problem with talent is people have different definitions, it's sort of a gray area.

What is required to be a great tennis player? athleticism, eye-hand coordination (timing the ball), ability to concentrate, 'feel', mental strength, fitness.

Some think the mental aspect is not a talent, some think it is. Is ability to time the ball a talent but not ability to concentrate? why not? because people think 'timing' is innate but concentration is not? this is an endless debate..

To me, 'talent' is overrated, way overrated. People love to speak of guys like Nalbandian, Marcelo Rios and Safin as underdeveloped talent, as if they could, in theory, accomplish what Federer, Nadal, Djokovic have because of their abundant talent. The problem, is, what talent did they have exactly? and what did they not have? Here's the debate that matters. Let's focus on Marcelo Rios and Nallbandian. Both hit the ball cleanly and had 'feel', they could time the ball well. Okay, is that it? Seems we put a lot of weight on two things - eye-hand coordination (ability to time ball) and 'feel', ability to hit the ball in different ways. Okay, now, what about ability to concentrate point in point out? This is not a talent? We could argue, they lacked this talent. Now could they hit every shot as they pleased? not really, in the case of Nalbandian, his serve was mediocre, on most days. So, if he was so talented, why couldn't he just serve like Sampras, Federer? same for Rios. Isn't this a lack of talent?

Athleticism is a huge factor as-well. Is it any coincidence that Federer, Djokovic, Nadal are 3 of the greatest athletes tennis has ever known? super fast, agile, coordinated, balanced? Look around, the others, with exception of Monfils, don't quite measure up. It doesn't matter how well you can time and feel the ball, if you lack athleticism, you are at a disadvantage. Could've Rios or Nalbandian truly won 15-20 majors if they would've trained as hard and would've been as mentally strong? I doubt it, the big 3 win many matches, purely on their athleticism. When a player has length, speed and is agile/balanced, they can get to balls easier, they can position themselves better for shots, time and time again. This gives the more athletic player a massive advantage over a player who can feel/time ball better, over course of a match. How good is it to be able to time/feel ball better if you can't quite reach shots or position yourself as well as the more athletic player? Rios and Nalbandian didn't have quite the same athleticism.. They could've done more than what they did but i would not bet my money on them winning 15-20 slams just because they were aesthetically pleasing and timed the ball well.

Safin is one who had athleticism, a big serve and could hit the ball cleanly but he wasn't as agile and fast as big 3 either and he was a heavier guy, not sure he could've won 15-20 slams either. I saw him face off against Federer and lose more often than not to him, the AO was just one match and he barely won that one.

The issue i have with 'talent' is that when someone says player A had more 'talent' than player B, they imply player A could've accomplished more, fitness/mental strength/work ethic held constant. I disagree.... First and foremost, player B may have underappreciated talents other than just 'timing/feeling' the ball and be a better overall athlete. People tend to bucket a specific skill as talent yet ignore others...

 

[mrzz]

The issue i have with 'talent' is that when someone says player A had more 'talent' than player B, they imply player A could've accomplished more, fitness/mental strength/work ethic held constant. I disagree.... First and foremost, player B may have underappreciated talents other than just 'timing/feeling' the ball and be a better overall athlete. People tend to bucket a specific skill as talent yet ignore others...

I agree with most of what is written on the entire post. Only thing is that, while I agree that people use to much the "talent" card, to say that it is impossible that a given player would have achieved more had he trained harder (which is sort of what you are implying) is a bit of a stretch. Off course, the opposite (blindly assuming that a given player could simply be so much more consistent and the like) is equally an exaggeration.

Changing subject, but staying on a point you touched in your post, it is quite obvious that there are a few different talents at play in tennis, and even the pure technique related ones can be divided into categories. I was puzzled when I read @brokenshoelace's comments about Llodra, because I actually remember having complete different perceptions of him in the span of 5 seconds. He hits an ugly baseline stroke and you think "ugh", but then... they guy had a "talent" for volleying which was absurd. So I think he is talented, just not "completely" talented, or better, with quite a specific talent.

 

[Ricardo]

Talent is innate, Nadal gave an example saying part of it is to make difficult shots with ease. However I agree that it's over-rated, as no player has been all time great without significant level of commitment to professionalism. But saying 'pleasing to the eye', never heard that from real experts, and it's mostly what our forum self-appointed experts would say.

 

[MikeOne]

I agree with most of what is written on the entire post. Only thing is that, while I agree that people use to much the "talent" card, to say that it is impossible that a given player would have achieved more had he trained harder (which is sort of what you are implying) is a bit of a stretch. Off course, the opposite (blindly assuming that a given player could simply be so much more consistent and the like) is equally an exaggeration.

i never said it was impossible, highly doubtful. Again, the player that is the most relevant here is David Nalbandian. Many think he could've achieved a lot more had he trained harder, trained smarter and had he being mentally stronger. Nalbandian's mythical talent is pretty much based on a few runs he made, in particular EOY ATP masters in 05 against Federer and 07 Paris and Madrid masters where he beat Nadal and Federer. During these runs, he dominated the opposition and did it with a display of beautiful tennis - power, angles, touch, masterful point construction etc... The implication is that had he played this way, in a more consistent manner, he would've achieved much more, possibly won as many slams as Fed, Djoker and Nadal. NOT SO FAST.

Whilst i could be wrong, i do think that the stories of him not working hard are grossly overstated. He did work much harder than people give him credit for but simply couldn't produce consistent results. He only made 1 slam final and in that final, got destroyed by Lleyton Hewitt, of all people. He was pretty good on all surfaces but just 1 slam final? His runs on indoor carpet were impressive but there is a pattern here - indoors.. Just as we have seen grass, clay court specialists, he seemed to be an indoor specialist. My point is, a truly talented player can produce a high level on all surfaces, he/she doesn't need to be helped by the court. Nadal has dominated clay but won 2 Wimbledons, 3 UOs, 1AO... He had the game to win big events on all surfaces. Nalbandian seemed to need a little help from indoor courts, maybe he liked the bounce or the speed of those courts. Outside of indoors, he was not that great... had mediocre results. I think his game was a game of streak tennis but not that effortless day in day out. Part of talent is winning below your best.. Nadal relied on heavy spin/high margin to win below his best, Federer his serve,/variety Djokovic his athleticism/movement. It seemed to be that Djoker, Nadal, Federer have been able to win many matches below their best but Nalbandian was pedestrian below his best. His serve wasn't that great, he wasn't as athletic so he relied on hot streaks where he could time the ball perfectly... then he was a monster. I don't think putting so much weight on what players do during a few hot streaks yet ignoring the majority of subpar performances makes any sense, there is a lack of talent somewhere if a player cannot win matches below their best and can only dominate in spurts, when hot.

Safin was a bit different. Whilst with Nalbandian, it's unclear what his work ethic was, Safin was legendary for not being focused on tennis... he even said he prioritized other things in life. He had a game that could win him matches below his best - huge serve and when hot, had amazing ground game. I would argue he worked less hard than Nalbandian yet won a couple of slams.... To me, Safin > Nalbandian in terms of potential. Having said this, he was a big guy who was prone to injury and not as agile, athletic as Nadal-Djoker-Fed... I don't think he could've won 15-20 slams had he worked harder and being more focused. Rafa-Nadal-Fed not only have abundant talent but 3 of the best athletes tennis has ever seen... combined with worth ethic and desire to be great, puts them above the rest.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Talent is innate, Nadal gave an example saying part of it is to make difficult shots with ease. However I agree that it's over-rated, as no player has been all time great without significant level of commitment to professionalism. But saying 'pleasing to the eye', never heard that from real experts, and it's mostly what our forum self-appointed experts would say.

Wait, this is in reference to me? Because the whole aesthetically pleasing nonsense is just that. I never cared for that. I don't find Nadal's game pleasing to the eye. It lacks a certain fluidity and effortlessness (unlike say, Federer or Nalbandian) yet he's obviously extremely talented and I love watching him play, so I really don't know what you're on about.

 

[brokenshoelace]

i never said it was impossible, highly doubtful. Again, the player that is the most relevant here is David Nalbandian. Many think he could've achieved a lot more had he trained harder, trained smarter and had he being mentally stronger. Nalbandian's mythical talent is pretty much based on a few runs he made, in particular EOY ATP masters in 05 against Federer and 07 Paris and Madrid masters where he beat Nadal and Federer. During these runs, he dominated the opposition and did it with a display of beautiful tennis - power, angles, touch, masterful point construction etc... The implication is that had he played this way, in a more consistent manner, he would've achieved much more, possibly won as many slams as Fed, Djoker and Nadal. NOT SO FAST.

Whilst i could be wrong, i do think that the stories of him not working hard are grossly overstated. He did work much harder than people give him credit for but simply couldn't produce consistent results. He only made 1 slam final and in that final, got destroyed by Lleyton Hewitt, of all people. He was pretty good on all surfaces but just 1 slam final? His runs on indoor carpet were impressive but there is a pattern here - indoors.. Just as we have seen grass, clay court specialists, he seemed to be an indoor specialist. My point is, a truly talented player can produce a high level on all surfaces, he/she doesn't need to be helped by the court. Nadal has dominated clay but won 2 Wimbledons, 3 UOs, 1AO... He had the game to win big events on all surfaces. Nalbandian seemed to need a little help from indoor courts, maybe he liked the bounce or the speed of those courts. Outside of indoors, he was not that great... had mediocre results. I think his game was a game of streak tennis but not that effortless day in day out. Part of talent is winning below your best.. Nadal relied on heavy spin/high margin to win below his best, Federer his serve,/variety Djokovic his athleticism/movement. It seemed to be that Djoker, Nadal, Federer have been able to win many matches below their best but Nalbandian was pedestrian below his best. His serve wasn't that great, he wasn't as athletic so he relied on hot streaks where he could time the ball perfectly... then he was a monster. I don't think putting so much weight on what players do during a few hot streaks yet ignoring the majority of subpar performances makes any sense, there is a lack of talent somewhere if a player cannot win matches below their best and can only dominate in spurts, when hot.

Safin was a bit different. Whilst with Nalbandian, it's unclear what his work ethic was, Safin was legendary for not being focused on tennis... he even said he prioritized other things in life. He had a game that could win him matches below his best - huge serve and when hot, had amazing ground game. I would argue he worked less hard than Nalbandian yet won a couple of slams.... To me, Safin > Nalbandian in terms of potential. Having said this, he was a big guy who was prone to injury and not as agile, athletic as Nadal-Djoker-Fed... I don't think he could've won 15-20 slams had he worked harder and being more focused. Rafa-Nadal-Fed not only have abundant talent but 3 of the best athletes tennis has ever seen... combined with worth ethic and desire to be great, puts them above the rest.

I agree for the most part here, although I'll say this:

Re: Nalbandian, most agree he underachieved, but the "mythical talent" you're referring to, as well as the implication he could have won as much as the top 3 comes from literally one person and one person only. No one else ever said that. That said, I do think Nalbandian didn't make the most of his talent. I don't think he was as lazy as made out to be in his prime, but I also don't think he went the extra mile like the others did. He could have used to lose a few extra pounds for instance. That would have helped with consistency. The idea isn't simply that a few pounds are going to make a big difference, but the dedication and mindset behind losing them and staying at a certain weight requires commitment, and that's something Nalbandian wasn't always ready for. When you're committed, it affects your mindset during matches. You have more to fight for, you stay more focused, etc... when you look at the amount of matches Nalbandian has blown in his career (the 2006 AO semi vs. Baghdatis when he was up 2 sets to love, coming on the heels of his infamous 2005 YEC win being a prime example), it's pretty glaring.

That said: "Part of talent is winning below your best.."

This is a great point, and I've always maintained this. So many top 30 players would look unstoppable on their best day. If any top 10 player plays his absolute best, he probably cannot be beaten. Some player's best are better than others, or at least, it looks better. It doesn't mean they can be better with more dedication because even with more training, they can't play that well (or even close) consistently. So if you're not good enough for your level to be good on average, I don't care how good your great level is, when you can only play it once in a blue moon.

That's why I don't buy Nick as this insane talent. if he were, his average level would be at least good enough to get him past some of these tomato cans he's losing to.

 

[MikeOne]

I agree for the most part here, although I'll say this:

Re: Nalbandian, most agree he underachieved, but the "mythical talent" you're referring to, as well as the implication he could have won as much as the top 3 comes from literally one person and one person only. No one else ever said that. That said, I do think Nalbandian didn't make the most of his talent. I don't think he was as lazy as made out to be in his prime, but I also don't think he went the extra mile like the others did. He could have used to lose a few extra pounds for instance. That would have helped with consistency. The idea isn't simply that a few pounds are going to make a big difference, but the dedication and mindset behind losing them and staying at a certain wait requires commitment, and that's something Nalbandian wasn't always ready for. When you're committed, it affects your mindset during matches. You have more to fight for, you stay more focused, etc... when you look at the amount of matches Nalbandian has blown in his career (the 2006 AO semi vs. Baghdatis when he was up 2 sets to love, coming on the heels of his infamous 2005 YEC win being a prime example), it's pretty glaring.

That said: "Part of talent is winning below your best.."

This is a great point, and I've always maintained this. So many top 30 players would look unstoppable on their best day. If any top 10 player plays his absolute best, he probably cannot be beaten. Some player's best are better than others, or at least, it looks better. It doesn't mean they can be better with more dedication because even with more training, they can't play that well (or even close) consistently. So if you're not good enough for your level to be good on average, I don't care how good your great level is, when you can only play it once in a blue moon.

That's why I don't buy Nick as this insane talent. if he were, his average level would be at least good enough to get him past some of these tomato cans he's losing to.

there is no question Nalbandian should've done more, how much more, is the question.

People tend to focus on beautiful shot making, especially during a few hot streaks but ignore so many factors that are part of the equation of greatness. Mental strength, work ethic are obviously important but there is more.

To make my point clear. Imagine you had a guy 5'3, slow, not very athletic but who could time the ball perfectly, take it on the rise and create any shot imaginable. Now imagine you have the complete opposite - a freakish athletic 6'3 guy with super long arms, who is super fast, agile but who has half the talent for timing the ball and feeling the ball. Would the 'more talented' ball striker have the advantage? not really... because court coverage is important. If the 5'3 slow guy cannot get to balls, he can't quite hit the ball as he would like to. On the other hand, the super athlete can reach more balls and position himself well, he may be able to thump the little guy. A tennis court is not that small, court coverage, agility, balance, athleticism are extremely important.

Height also gives you advantage on the serve. Nalbandian wasn't a chump, he was fairly quick but compared to Nadal, Djoker, Federer, he was an inferior athlete. These 3 guys could reach balls Nalby couldn't and most importantly actually do something with it. Those backhand stretches Djoker does where he steals winners are crazy, Nadal does the same off both sides and Federer has always covered the court extremely well. These attributes are extremely important during days where players are not 'feeling' the ball very well. Djokovic can just defend when not hitting ball well and be a nightmare, Nadal has the spin which allows him to not miss even below his best, and he has speed. Federer has the serve and court coverage to bail him out of bad moments. Nalbandian was naked/vulnerable when below his best, his serve didn't bail him out and his defense was mediocre compared to these 3. Nalbandian, on a HOT streak, was as good as anyone but Nalbandian below his best? PEDESTRIAN, way inferior to Fed, Djoker and Nadal. So it's hard to say that had he worked harder, he would've achieved anything close to what these 3 achieved. It's not only cali saying it, i've debated this with others. I just think some put way too much weight on the beauty of what guys like Nalbandian could do at his very best but don't put the same weight on how he did below his best, on his average day, can't have it both ways. Nalbandian's game was a paradox - on his best days, he made tennis look effortless BUT his game wasn't effortless as he couldn't summon that level often.

 

[Ricardo]

That's why I don't buy Nick as this insane talent. if he were, his average level would be at least good enough to get him past some of these tomato cans he's losing to.

I don't know what it is about forum warriors that they would talk very disrespectfully of lower ranked players....tomato cans? someone ranked 100th in the world is one in a million best, are you even close to that in anything you do? second it doesn't work this way, not how tennis people see it anyway. They see Nick and talk about his exceptional talent, and I am sure they know Nick can lose to anyone any given time.

Average level is not part of what they look at in a player's talent. For some reason you are just stuck up in your own definition and live in denial....very typical of current degraded culture. Say Federer in his early days were inconsistent, losing to lower ranked players often but people always talked about his talent. With right coaching, training, attitude, maturity, whatever, he became consistent....his average level improve greatly. Now, that's not how talent is judged. Before you go on with more rubbish, think about this: your talent is never improved but your average level can be. Talent is innate, there is nothing concrete about it (which you always fail to understand)…….it simply isn't 'improvable'.
Fed didn't improve his talent, but he (or his coach) found ways for him to apply it very efficiently. Underachievers with talent, they could not/would not or just did not find ways to apply, so their average level didn't improve as people expected.

One thing I notice about forum warriors, most know jack shit (but they think they do), and think their opinion carries as much weight as the experts/players.

 

[MikeOne]

I don't know what it is about forum warriors that they would talk very disrespectfully of lower ranked players....tomato cans? someone ranked 100th in the world is one in a million best, are you even close to that in anything you do? second it doesn't work this way, not how tennis people see it anyway. They see Nick and talk about his exceptional talent, and I am sure they know Nick can lose to anyone any given time.

Average level is not part of what they look at in a player's talent. For some reason you are just stuck up in your own definition and live in denial....very typical of current degraded culture. Say Federer in his early days were inconsistent, losing to lower ranked players often but people always talked about his talent. With right coaching, training, attitude, maturity, whatever, he became consistent....his average level improve greatly. Now, that's not how talent is judged. Before you go on with more rubbish, think about this: your talent is never improved but your average level can be. Talent is innate, there is nothing concrete about it (which you always fail to understand)…….it simply isn't 'improvable'.
Fed didn't improve his talent, but he (or his coach) found ways for him to apply it very efficiently. Underachievers with talent, they could not/would not or just did not find ways to apply, so their average level didn't improve as people expected.

One thing I notice about forum warriors, most know jack shit (but they think they do), and think their opinion carries as much weight as the experts/players.

but you are the 'expert' we should all listen to, admire, learn from and just shut up, right?

the problem with your line of reasoning is that it is as flawed as the arguments you intend to deconstruct.

In your case, you think that any player like Kyrgios or Nalbandian are/were underachievers because they just couldn't find ways 'to apply their talent' efficiently and effectively. Maybe lack of worth ethic, focus etc... Well, you could be right but you could be wrong.

i have already laid out my arguments on Nalbandian. I don't think it was a matter of not applying talent, i think he simply lacked the tools to be great consistently - not a great serve to bail him out below his best, didn't have the court coverage of guys like Nadal, Djoker, Fed. These 3 had tools to gets them Ws below their best, Nalbandian didn't. Tennis is about winning when you are below your best, on a consistent basis, not only when you are HOT and seeing the ball like a basketball. I actually saw Nalbandian live, just after he made Wimbledin finals, in 2003, i saw weaknesses.

Kyrgios, i'm not sure about. Unlike Nalbandian, he has a massive serve so he has tools to win below his best. His groundstrokes are pretty solid, he can come to net and he is pretty agile/fast, not quite as athletic as Nadal-Djoker-Fed but he's pretty athletic. I think Kyrgios is more of an underachiever than Nalbandian because Kyrgios actually has tools to beat anyone at his best but also has tools to win below his best. We all know he is a head case, has mental issues but definitely has the talent to do much more. Nalbandian, to me, was way more focused on tennis than Nick, Nick has mental problems, he admitted to it.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I don't know what it is about forum warriors that they would talk very disrespectfully of lower ranked players....tomato cans? someone ranked 100th in the world is one in a million best, are you even close to that in anything you do? second it doesn't work this way, not how tennis people see it anyway. They see Nick and talk about his exceptional talent, and I am sure they know Nick can lose to anyone any given time.

Average level is not part of what they look at in a player's talent. For some reason you are just stuck up in your own definition and live in denial....very typical of current degraded culture. Say Federer in his early days were inconsistent, losing to lower ranked players often but people always talked about his talent. With right coaching, training, attitude, maturity, whatever, he became consistent....his average level improve greatly. Now, that's not how talent is judged. Before you go on with more rubbish, think about this: your talent is never improved but your average level can be. Talent is innate, there is nothing concrete about it (which you always fail to understand)…….it simply isn't 'improvable'.
Fed didn't improve his talent, but he (or his coach) found ways for him to apply it very efficiently. Underachievers with talent, they could not/would not or just did not find ways to apply, so their average level didn't improve as people expected.

One thing I notice about forum warriors, most know jack shit (but they think they do), and think their opinion carries as much weight as the experts/players.

Yeah, poor Nick, he's just like early days Federer...just waiting for the right coaching, training, attitude, maturity. After all, he's only had 5 years to find that. Yes, that's far more likely to be the case. FIVE YEARS and he couldn't find none of that shit you're talking about. Either that, or he's not as good as you think he is. Whichever one seems more likely to you my man.

 

[Ricardo]

Yeah, poor Nick, he's just like early days Federer...just waiting for the right coaching, training, attitude, maturity. After all, he's only had 5 years to find that. Yes, that's far more likely to be the case. FIVE YEARS and he couldn't find none of that shit you're talking about. Either that, or he's not as good as you think he is. Whichever one seems more likely to you my man.

some players never found the ways so he isn't the only one, don't see why one should whinge about that. Again it isn't as simple as 'either' 'or', if you try not to think like a simpleton. also its more involved than, 'if a talented player finds ways to apply then he would automatically be an all timer'. other factors come into play too, how about discipline? how about his physical conditioning? even things happen off court can have big impact on the court. Rafter wasn't an exceptional talent when he was younger, but Roche took him under his wing, trained him the right way and of course they probably gel well together, with some good momentum/good fortune he became a world class player....for a couple years he had the presence, that he would not be an underdog against anyone even Sampras or Agassi. So much goes into development of a world class player, you just can't pin point and jump to conclusions with simplistic thinking/observation.

 

[Ricardo]

but you are the 'expert' we should all listen to, admire, learn from and just shut up, right?

the problem with your line of reasoning is that it is as flawed as the arguments you intend to deconstruct.

In your case, you think that any player like Kyrgios or Nalbandian are/were underachievers because they just couldn't find ways 'to apply their talent' efficiently and effectively. Maybe lack of worth ethic, focus etc... Well, you could be right but you could be wrong.

i have already laid out my arguments on Nalbandian. I don't think it was a matter of not applying talent, i think he simply lacked the tools to be great consistently - not a great serve to bail him out below his best, didn't have the court coverage of guys like Nadal, Djoker, Fed. These 3 had tools to gets them Ws below their best, Nalbandian didn't. Tennis is about winning when you are below your best, on a consistent basis, not only when you are HOT and seeing the ball like a basketball. I actually saw Nalbandian live, just after he made Wimbledin finals, in 2003, i saw weaknesses.

Kyrgios, i'm not sure about. Unlike Nalbandian, he has a massive serve so he has tools to win below his best. His groundstrokes are pretty solid, he can come to net and he is pretty agile/fast, not quite as athletic as Nadal-Djoker-Fed but he's pretty athletic. I think Kyrgios is more of an underachiever than Nalbandian because Kyrgios actually has tools to beat anyone at his best but also has tools to win below his best. We all know he is a head case, has mental issues but definitely has the talent to do much more. Nalbandian, to me, was way more focused on tennis than Nick, Nick has mental problems, he admitted to it.

Talent is only part of the potential that can make a great player. Yes apart from not applying their talent as best they can, they probably don't have some of the tools that could get them over the line. I never argued against that. Davy doesn't have that ultra athletism, so when he isn't hot and can't dictate play point in and point out, he would not be able to grind out a win with his defence (something the big 3 frequently do, especially Nadal and Novak who often ended up winning despite that their opponents played better).

Of course I do believe Nick has some weird mental issues. Some warriors here suggest that it's just an act but those who have played for real, tell me how you would even think of serving under arm on a big point against the best, you just don't. In that pressure situation you would act on instinct...…under pressure you simply would not be able to 'pretend', unless you are wired incorrectly. So far, Nick has shown he is fearless in big moments, plays really clutch often, and against the best players...…..on the other hand, when the pressure is off, players not so good, his level often corresponds to that. No question in my mind that he is exceptional talent, with mental blocks. And yes I agree with experts about Nick not because I take their words as bible, there is just nothing to suggest otherwise.

 

[MikeOne]

speaking of talent, i watched last set of Kyrgios and Tsitsipas who i think have the most potential of the young generation. Too bad i missed first 2 sets but looking at these two play, it seems Kyrgios has a bit more upside. He has that huge serve and huge fh, his bh is not bad at all.. he moves well. Tsitsipas is an all-court player, can do everything but it looks as if when both are focused and playing their best, Nick can attain a slightly higher level. As it stands, Tsitsipas is the more focused, fitter, motivated player but Nick is slightly more talented.

 

[monfed]

talent is something inborn that you can't develop or grow. Fed is ridiculously talented. Noone even comes close. dull, faker are all products of their era and they're winning by grinding opponents. No talent there.

Haas, Safin, thugios, Gulbis are talented.

Cilic, delshitro, Berdshit are ballbashers but not really talented.

 

[El Dude]

Thanks for reaffirming that fans of all players can be absolute morons, monfed - even fans of one's own favorite player.

 

[mrzz]

Not sure where to post this, but I was watching the Pan-american games tennis competition final match between Brazilian João Menezes (ranked at #213) and Chile's Marcelo Tomas Barrios (#282). Menezes won, he might get to top 100 at some point (which for us here is some achievement, he beat Jarry on the quarters btw), but the reason I post is that the Chilean player had some crazy shots in his arsenal, hope I get some highlights (not available just yet).

One thing, and I want to ask if anyone has ever seen something similar at professional level, is that Barrios, when he used drop shots, he held the racquet in a completely different way. Instead of holding the handle on the extreme, at the butt of the racquet, he would grab it by the neck. And it worked almost to perfection. It looked like a trick shot at first, but it was really his technique of drop shots.

 

[monfed]

Thanks for reaffirming that fans of all players can be absolute morons, monfed - even fans of one's own favorite player.

Making ad-hominem attacks when you don't have an argument. Typical keyboard warrior. You don't even have the balls to quote me. Shoo now!

 

[MikeOne]

dull, faker are all products of their era and they're winning by grinding opponents. No talent there.

.

If only this were true, that we could just grind our way to 16-18 slams without much talent and have a winning record vs the supposed GOAT.

Oh, it’s just a dream... darn!! I thought for a minute i had a chance!