Mens Tennis Forums banner

Is being good when you are younger (aka "prodigy") the ultimate definition of talent?

1K views 19 replies 14 participants last post by  nadalfan2007 
#1 ·
Is being good when you are younger (aka "prodigy") the ultimate definition of talent?

Being good when younger means talent imo... less stuff that needs to be learned and experience plays a lesser factor, versus players who get better as they are older means they are better at adapting but not as talented.
 
#2 · (Edited)
Re: Is being good when you are younger (aka "prodigy") the ultimate definition of tal

Idk, so many players have unique form trajectories that it can be hard to establish a definitive talent-age correlation in this era.

Hate to draw negative attention to my favourite Bernard, but I think he was one of the closest to being lauded a young 'prodigy' in this generation, and he never really took off after success around the age of 18.

That's not to say he hasn't established himself as a good player, but if we consider success at a young age as being a key determinant of raw talent, he hasn't done anything big enough to prove that he's naturally any better than the later developers.

Then we have Kyrgios, who also had success at 18, but hasn't completely come into his own yet. Despite this, he appears to have as much talent as anyone in his generation. His early success may have been about raw ability, but it may have also just been because his game style had the physical power to compete on the tour while his peers where still physically developing.
 
#3 ·
Re: Is being good when you are younger (aka "prodigy") the ultimate definition of tal

The older players get, the more they realize they have to work really hard physically to be ranked inside the top 10.
Skills with a racket are easier to display at a young age, when a pro you really need the whole package (with the right substances too :)).
 
#4 ·
Re: Is being good when you are younger (aka "prodigy") the ultimate definition of tal

It's a tough transition from Junior to the Pro tour. We've also seen lately that the prime of some careers has been later in general. I still think we have been witnesses to something unique with a period of domination by 4 players, which means fewer younger players have been able to 'breakthrough'
 
#5 ·
Re: Is being good when you are younger (aka "prodigy") the ultimate definition of tal

Not quite, seeing wht they can do with a racquet on court is a better definition of talent. Some players who are good young are simply coached better or developed earlier and thus get a headstart, but that doesn't mean their celling is as high.
 
#9 ·
Re: Is being good when you are younger (aka "prodigy") the ultimate definition of tal

We know what's your agenda OP. That Nadal is the most talented player ever, so obvious lol.
Actually, following OP's logic, Nadal is a utter muppet, in comparison to Monica Seles. :shrug: :shrug:
 
#13 ·
Re: Is being good when you are younger (aka "prodigy") the ultimate definition of tal

Of course, nope. Look at Nadal, who has zero talent, but was a physical monster at his 18-19
this

talent = shotmaking ability. Hence Fed = talented. Also talented players are generally headcases which Fed was in the early part of his career.
 
#12 ·
Re: Is being good when you are younger (aka "prodigy") the ultimate definition of tal

What baffles me the most is why "being talented" (whatever that means) is somehow more valued here than great work ethic. OP put it that way like learning by practice is a bad thing :shrug:
 
#17 ·
Re: Is being good when you are younger (aka "prodigy") the ultimate definition of tal

Well, under this test, Becker would be the 2nd most talented male tennis player (Wimbledon at 17 years, 228 days). That makes some sense, but #1 and #3 would be Chang (French Open at 17 years, 110 days) and Wilander (French Open at 17 years, 293 days). That makes a lot loss sense.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top