What the hell is talent?

[brokenshoelace]

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!

My man you mentioned Gulbis. That systematically makes your point an auto ad-hominem.

 

[calitennis127]

I see everyone has been chatting about Nalbandian without me around. I am delighted to now chime in.....here we go.

 

[calitennis127]

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.

It is true that many people have said that but in my case I have been more specific. The two main problems Nalbandian had - which were a reflection of subpar fitness and lack of practice dedication - were 1) low first-serve percentage and 2) a high number of double faults. Djokovic and Nadal have repeatedly shown that you do not have to be Ivo Karlovic or Federer at Wimbledon to be effective with your serving. With good placement and high first-serve percentage you can do a lot of damage. And perhaps most importantly you can avoid shooting yourself in the foot with poor serving. That is just as important as doing something powerful with it.

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...

Mike, you are totally missing the point. As someone who watched Nalbandian's matches more regularly than anyone, I can tell you with 100% certainty that the end of 2007 run was not an anomaly in terms of Nalbandian's baseline level; that was his norm. He kicked so many people's ass from the baseline in matches that he lost that is hard for me to think about without wincing.

What set Nalbandian's end-of-2007 results from the rest of his career was that he did not shoot himself in the foot with serving. If you look at his first-serve percentage and double fault totals, in each of those Madrid and Paris weeks they were in line with what you regularly see from Djokovic and Nadal (first-serve % around 65-70 with a low double fault count).

So what happened at the end of 2007 is not that Nalbandian started playing from the baseline in a way that he never had before. What was different is that he was serving like a normal Top 5 player. And when he did that we saw that he was virtually unbeatable, including for the Big Four.

Whilst i could be wrong, i do think that the stories of him not working hard are grossly overstated.

He worked on his strengths, not his weaknesses. That was the problem. It is not correct to say that he didn't work hard at all because he did. But he mainly focused on his baseline skills. He did not work on serve consistency or try to go to the next level with fitness excellence.

His serving could have been better and his fitness could have been higher-level. Those two faults were correctable. But he certainly did work on his baseline game; otherwise, it would not have been as consistently excellent as it was.

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?

He also made the semis of all 4 Slams and had commanding leads in numerous Grand Slam semis. He was up 2 sets to 0 on Baghdatis in the 2006 Australian semis and also up a set and a break on Federer in the 2006 Roland Garros semis. He also had a match point on Roddick in the US Open semis.

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.

Nalbandian made the semis or better of all 4 slams. He also made the Rome final. He was an all-court, all-surface player.

Nadal has dominated clay but won 2 Wimbledons, 3 UOs, 1AO... He had the game to win big events on all surfaces.

Again - Nalbandian made the semis or better of all 4 slams. He also made the Rome final. He was an all-court, all-surface player.

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.

Is that why he owned Nadal in the 2009 Indian Wells match (when Nadal was #1 and had just won the Australian Open) before squandering 5 match points at the end of the second set?

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.

No, total BS.....Nalbandian was always superlative in rallies - some days more excellent than others, but almost always excellent. His man problem was the wicked combination of low first-serve percentage and a high number of double faults. That is what shot his game in the foot.

His serve wasn't that great, he wasn't as athletic

Nalbandian was very athletic. Look at any of the matches he played against the Big 3/4 and look at how he covered the court in rallies. It fit right in with their level of athleticism.

 

[MikeOne]

It is true that many people have said that but in my case I have been more specific. The two main problems Nalbandian had - which were a reflection of subpar fitness and lack of practice dedication - were 1) low first-serve percentage and 2) a high number of double faults. Djokovic and Nadal have repeatedly shown that you do not have to be Ivo Karlovic or Federer at Wimbledon to be effective with your serving. With good placement and high first-serve percentage you can do a lot of damage. And perhaps most importantly you can avoid shooting yourself in the foot with poor serving. That is just as important as doing something powerful with it.

You make no sense cali, as if this is not part of talent. Did you observe how easy serving was for Sampras? It was like he was born to serve, that fluid motion... Federer? McEnroe? Serving, cali, is just like a fh or a bh, not being able to hit it effortlessly is a lack of talent. You somehow focus on backhands, volleys and forehands as if doing these things well is talent but not serving - if you can serve well, its not a talent? Lack of talent cali...

Mike, you are totally missing the point. As someone who watched Nalbandian's matches more regularly than anyone, I can tell you with 100% certainty that the end of 2007 run was not an anomaly in terms of Nalbandian's baseline level; that was his norm. He kicked so many people's ass from the baseline in matches that he lost that is hard for me to think about without wincing.

It was not the norm. I watched Nalbandian closely throughout his career and that WAS NOT HIS NORMAL LEVEL... I have told you before i saw him play Youhzny back when he was skinnier and i believe it was right after he made Wimbledon finals. I saw him up close and i saw nothing remarkable, nothing stuck out. I have seen many players live and there are players that you can see and right away notice something special. I saw Safin in 2000 live i USO and i was amazed. I saw Sampras in 2001 practicing and he looked crazy talented, i saw Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic. i saw nothing special in Nalbandian and in fact, it was Youhzny that i thought was the more talented player. What i saw in that match was Youhzny totally dictating with his fh and Nalbandian seemed to not have a big shot to hurt Youhzny. Maybe it was the court, he just couldn't produce that amazing level outside of indoors.

He worked on his strengths, not his weaknesses. That was the problem. It is not correct to say that he didn't work hard at all because he did. But he mainly focused on his baseline skills. He did not work on serve consistency or try to go to the next level with fitness excellence.

Serving didn't come easy to him, lack of talent.

He also made the semis of all 4 Slams and had commanding leads in numerous Grand Slam semis. He was up 2 sets to 0 on Baghdatis in the 2006 Australian semis and also up a set and a break on Federer in the 2006 Roland Garros semis. He also had a match point on Roddick in the US Open semis.

Been up two sets to 0 means nothing, as if it's sort of an indication of talent. I remember that match, did you forget Baghdatis started ripping shots and was a very talented player in his own right? You mention a few instances he had a 'shot' to make finals, you realize how pathetic this is? Why couldn't he put himself in that position much more often?

Nalbandian was very athletic. Look at any of the matches he played against the Big 3/4 and look at how he covered the court in rallies. It fit right in with their level of athleticism.

He was not at the level of Nadal, Djokovic or Federer and arguing he was is beyond stupid cali.

In the end cali, Nalbandian played beautiful tennis but i followed his career and saw him live. He was a player that when HOT, on indoors, could beat anyone. When not HOT and outside of indoors he could lose 1,2,1 to Ferrero as he did i think in AO 2008! The reason is simple - His game was based on being able too time the ball perfectly and take time away from opponents. He didn't have the defense/court coverage or BIG weapon to win often when he wasn't timing the ball perfectly. You think Nadal, Djokovic or Federer always won because they always produced his best? Nadal would use spin and defense to grind out matches where he wasn't hitting the ball well, Novak would do the same, Federer would use his serve, slice, court coverage too. I have seen these guys going out so many matches below their best because they had a few tools they could rely on to get them over finish line. When Nalbandian wasn't timing the ball perfectly and pushing opponents, he was absolutely mediocre - no big serve to bail him out, not the athleticism/court coverage to defend for 3-5 sets, he simply was totally exposed below his best, lost a ton of horrible matches. At his best, yes, he was very difficult to beat and played a type of tennis that is beautiful but it's what you do below your best that matters as much, probably even more.

in the end, the best way i can describe Nalbandian is as follows - he was a paradox, at his best, he made tennis look effortless but his game wasn't effortless because he couldn't summon his best often.

 

[monfed]

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!

Petetard miserable since 2009 LOL. 10 years in the crapper seems to have permanently damaged your brain.

 

[monfed]

My man you mentioned Gulbis. That systematically makes your point an auto ad-hominem.

What are you talking about? Gulbis is talented. If you can't see that there's nothing I can say.

 

[monfed]

In general to understand talent, one has to actually play the sport. If I never played tennis, I wouldn't know who is talented.

For example, I haven't played NFL so I don't know who the talented quarterbacks are. Many say Peyton Manning is talented, more than Brady. Now I can't tell between these two. They're probably right but I can't say as I have never played it.

Another good example is Ronaldo vs Messi. Messi is more talented than Ronaldo but it's not a slight on Ronaldo as he's achieved a lot as well. Just isn't better than Messi and that's something his fans will have to accept. I think Zidane is more talented than Messi because he seems to have more time on the ball. He ripped apart an entire brazilian side in 2006 singlehandedly, something Messi hasn't done on the international level against a top side. This is something talent can do, untalented players can't have such a big impact specially when they're not playing well while talented players can that's why they're considered dangerous.

I've been playing tennis since an early age. Not trying to brag, but having played it and seen other players I can tell who is talented and who isn't. Typically defensive players aren't talented that's why they resort to defensive tactics to keep them close with the talented bunch and then move in for the kill by making them choke.
Defensive players win on the basis of exerting enough pressure so that the talented player chokes/breaks. Add slow courts in the mix and the gap between the talented player and the defensive player reduces.

Most of the time the talented player isn't mentally strong because they don't have to be as they win easier. Federer is a rare case of having both that's why he's considered the GOAT. Perceptibly he's mentally weaker than dull and fakervic, but that's primarily because these days the courts are slower, these two are defensive players so their not truly tested mentally and Fed is basically a fossil. He's 37 FFS, he should be in commentary box let alone pushing these two grinders to the brink at slam level. But that's what talent can do.

In Fed's prime he would never let go a 40-15 lead, let alone drop 4 consecutive bloody points. If DJ is so mentally strong, how did he trip up on the net at RG 13? How did he serve double faults on MPs against Nadal in not one but two consecutive RGs in 2013 and 2014? So they all have their mental frailties but overall defensive minded players are perceivably mentally tougher.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Ehhhhhhhh, I'm never on board with Cali with the over the top Nalbandian stuff ("his athleticism fit right in with the big 3") but Mike saying he saw "nothing special" in Nalbandian is ludicrous. His level of ball striking, hand-eye coordination, feel, taking the ball early, etc... is unique.

 

[calitennis127]

Mike and Broken, please watch this video of the Nalbandian-Nadal Miami match and tell me what points show Nadal was in a different class of "athleticism"? Mind you, this was even after Nalbandian hip surgery. Which rallies show that Nadal was just in a whole different class athletically?

Also, for Mike: how did Nalbandian win the first set 7-6 and have two breakpoints at 2-2, 15-40 in the second set if he wasn't as good outdoors? Doesn't he need perfect conditions to be competitive with the top players, according to you?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Mike and Broken, please watch this video of the Nalbandian-Nadal Miami match and tell me what points show Nadal was in a different class of "athleticism"? Mind you, this was even after Nalbandian hip surgery. Which rallies show that Nadal was just in a whole different class athletically?

Also, for Mike: how did Nalbandian win the first set 7-6 and have two breakpoints at 2-2, 15-40 in the second set if he wasn't as good outdoors? Doesn't he need perfect conditions to be competitive with the top players, according to you?

Wait wait wait wait wait wait:

Are you saying Nalbandian is on par with Nadal in terms of athleticism?

Don't dodge the question. Yes or no. Your reply should literally be a one word answer.

 

[Ricardo]

Serving didn't come easy to him, lack of talent.

Serving doesn't come as easy to Nadal and Djoker as some of the good servers, lack of talent? not so simple, I would suggest.

 

[calitennis127]

Wait wait wait wait wait wait:

Are you saying Nalbandian is on par with Nadal in terms of athleticism?

In terms of quickness and natural fluidity of movement (i.e. natural gifts), yes. In terms of endurance and physique (partially natural, partially earned), no. Nadal obviously showed an ability to play at a higher level for longer lengths of time than Nalbandian did.

It depends on how specifically you are defining athleticism.

Don't dodge the question. Yes or no. Your reply should literally be a one word answer.

I didn't dodge your question. So in exchange don't dodge mine. Allow me to ask once again:

"Mike and Broken, please watch this video of the Nalbandian-Nadal Miami match and tell me what points show Nadal was in a different class of "athleticism"? Mind you, this was even after Nalbandian hip surgery. Which rallies show that Nadal was just in a whole different class athletically?"

 

[calitennis127]

Serving doesn't come as easy to Nadal and Djoker as some of the good servers, lack of talent? not so simple, I would suggest.

Exactly right, and I was going to say that in a long reply. Djokovic and Nadal have not been anywhere close to Sampras-like in their serving, but they are better in other aspects of the game than Sampras was. Likewise, Nalbandian was better than Sampras in many key respects. And Nalbandian certainly had the "talent" to fix the low first-serve percentage/double fault problem. Any Top 50, let alone Top 10, player has the ability to fix the problem Nalbandian had in that respect. It was the result of neglect, apathy, and lack of determination to confront it. Nalbandian just kept working on his strengths without fixing this weakness.

 

[brokenshoelace]

In terms of quickness and natural fluidity of movement (i.e. natural gifts), yes. In terms of endurance and physique (partially natural, partially earned), no. Nadal obviously showed an ability to play at a higher level for longer lengths of time than Nalbandian did.

It depends on how specifically you are defining athleticism.



I didn't dodge your question. So in exchange don't dodge mine. Allow me to ask once again:

"Mike and Broken, please watch this video of the Nalbandian-Nadal Miami match and tell me what points show Nadal was in a different class of "athleticism"? Mind you, this was even after Nalbandian hip surgery. Which rallies show that Nadal was just in a whole different class athletically?"

I'm not dodging your question. It's ludicrous to even entertain. The idea that Nalbandian is as quick as Nadal is laughable. Depends on how I'm defining athleticism?

Nadal is bigger, stronger, has better endurance, is quicker, faster, moves better, more agile... so which characteristics make this a question? Nadal is just a better athlete, period. Nalbandian is fluid, and has good footwork, sure. I just don't see how the athleticism thing is even a question. Watching a video of them in Miami doesn't change that.

 

[calitennis127]

I'm not dodging your question. It's ludicrous to even entertain. The idea that Nalbandian is as quick as Nadal is laughable. Depends on how I'm defining athleticism?

Nadal is bigger, stronger, has better endurance, is quicker, faster, moves better, more agile... so which characteristics make this a question? Nadal is just a better athlete, period. Nalbandian is fluid, and has good footwork, sure. I just don't see how the athleticism thing is even a question. Watching a video of them in Miami doesn't change that.

I don't see how Nadal was quicker than Nalbandian. I agree with you on endurance but not quickness. I will also acknowledge that Djokovic and Nadal have been more durable in being able to extend themselves in long rallies and flail their bodies all over the place, and then keep doing it for hours after long rallies. But if you're just talking raw quickness and side-to-side movement Nalbandian is right there with them.

If it is so obvious to you that Nadal is much better an athlete, why don't you cite some specific points in that Miami match? Give me some specific examples of where Nadal's athleticism was clearly on another level from Nalbandian's and explain why.

Don't run from the argument. I know you claim to love specific details of tennis like racquet head acceleration which you claimed Federer at age 29 was losing drastically. So with that same eye to detail, please cite specific examples from the Miami match I posted the highlights of. I'm sure you'll be able to unearth something for your case.

 

[MikeOne]

Ehhhhhhhh, I'm never on board with Cali with the over the top Nalbandian stuff ("his athleticism fit right in with the big 3") but Mike saying he saw "nothing special" in Nalbandian is ludicrous. His level of ball striking, hand-eye coordination, feel, taking the ball early, etc... is unique.

I saw him vs youhznh in 04 USO. That was back when he was supposedly more of a threat, he had made finals on wimbledon in 02.

And who are you to dictate what i observe or how i should see things? That’s right, you see what you see and i see what i see.

Have you actually seen nalbandian live?

What i remember from that match was that nalbandian was average and it was Youhzny who dictated play, with his forehand. The match can be summarized as nalbandian trying to figure out a way to get upper hand in rallies but didn’t seem to be able to dictate play as often as youhzny could, everytime youhzny would get a good look at a fh, he had nalbandian on the ropes.

And yes, i saw nothing remarkable about nalbandian on that day; in fact, after watching about 2 sets, i was bored and wanted to go see who was on practice courts.

So yes, i wasn’t impressed by him and neither did i see anything special and who the f are you to tell me what i should’ve seen, i saw what i saw and if you weren’t there then stfu.

Nalbandian only impressed me when i saw him beat federer in 05 atp tour finals, then i saw something different, a level i did not see when i saw him live. He then showed same crazy level in 07 paris and madrid.

So, actually, it all makes sense. On his average day he was just average, didn’t show anything special, as what i saw in 04 USO. On his hot days, he showed something else, but usually on indoors. This is nalbandian in a nutshell.. not that good day in day out but amazing when playing indoors and hot.

 

[calitennis127]

I saw him vs youhznh in 04 USO. That was back when he was supposedly more of a threat, he had made finals on wimbledon in 02.

Lol.....why do you define Nalbandian's entire career by one match you saw live? That is ridiculous. I saw Nadal lose in straights to Djokovic at Cincinnati live in 2008. The match lasted barely an hour. Should I define all of Nadal by that one match?

Have you actually seen nalbandian live?

Yes, I saw him play at Cincinatti in both 2010 (Ljubicic) and 2011 (Murray). He was ridiculously impressive both times.

Nalbandian only impressed me when i saw him beat federer in 05 atp tour finals, then i saw something different, i level i did not see when i saw him live. He then showed same crazy level in 07 paris and madrid.

Did you see him when he owned Nadal at Indian Wells in 2009 and Jason Goodall said during the second set that he was "toying with" Nadal?

Oh, and that was an outdoor match. I guess that defeats your theory that Nalbandian was only elite indoors.

So, actually, it all makes sense. On his average day he was just average, didn’t show anything special,

He was special in rallies at least 80% of the time. He lost mainly because of sloppy serving issues (first-serve percentage and double faults) that could have been corrected with more practice on serving technique and more commitment to elite-level fitness.

 

[calitennis127]

Here is another video to illustrate how full of it Broken and Mike are. How could someone watch this and say that Djokovic was just in a totally different athletic class? They both look very athletic. Djokovic is obviously longer and more elastic, but in terms of quickness and explosive movement there is next to no difference.

Also, how would Mike explain Nalbandian getting the better of Djokovic in so many rallies OUTDOORS like he did? I thought he could only do that indoors.

 

[MikeOne]

Here is another video to illustrate how full of it Broken and Mike are. How could someone watch this and say that Djokovic was just in a totally different athletic class? They both look very athletic. Djokovic is obviously longer and more elastic, but in terms of quickness and explosive movement there is next to no difference.

Also, how would Mike explain Nalbandian getting the better of Djokovic in so many rallies OUTDOORS like he did? I thought he could only do that indoors.

is this a joke?

you posted a video of Djokovic beating Nalbandian 6-1, 7-6 as proof of Nalbandian being as athletic and that he is more talented? You say he got the better of Djokovic in many rallies? of course. Any top 50 player will get the better of Djokovic in some rallies! Nadal does, Federer does, Stan does... So Djokovic dominates 100% of the rallies vs others but not against Nalbandian? wtf is going on here, what logic is this cali?

Many of the top tennis players are fast - Verdasco, Ferrer, Davydenko etc... but Nalbandian is not as athletic overall as Djokovic or Nadal or Federer.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I don't see how Nadal was quicker than Nalbandian.

Yeah, so anyway, moving on...