Why do people always say certain players without results are 'talented'? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Why do people always say certain players without results are 'talented'?

out_grinder
03-14-2012, 08:20 PM
Nalbandian, Murray, Davydenko, Berdych...etc... all of these players are considered 'talented' by many who consider them to have the games to rival anyone when they're 'on'.

I disagree, because results (namely slam results) are the only thing that matters.

People make things too complicated by calling them 'head cases', 'chokers' etc. This leads to their 'talent' being vastly overrated.

I see it black and white.

Slam(s) = talented.

No slam = not talented.

Is Gaudio/Johansson more talented than Nalbandian/Murray/Berdych/Davydenko?

Hell yes.

You cannot even compare the talent of the former group to the second. Because the first group have the results.

And that's all that matters.

Snowwy
03-14-2012, 08:22 PM
Consistancy is the most underrated aspect of tennis and really sports among most observers.

Nole Rules
03-14-2012, 08:28 PM
I see it black and white.

Slam(s) = talented.

No slam = not talented.

:facepalm:

So going by your logic, Roddick is more talented/gifted than Nalbandian?

MuzzahLovah
03-14-2012, 08:31 PM
How many troll posts per day is the limit?

rocketassist
03-14-2012, 08:32 PM
This is Rodre Fegassi's double account. FACT.

Bashak
03-14-2012, 08:32 PM
because of stuff like this:

gt_W9xzl864

asmazif
03-14-2012, 08:34 PM
Not sure why I'm even responding to this, but they mean talent as in game/shots-wise, not talent in athleticism, consistency, physicality, mental functions and good ol' hard work. Bolelli and Cuevas are pretty talented guys, but have much, much lesser results than would be expected when contrasting games with say, Simon and Ferrer.

Filo V.
03-14-2012, 08:34 PM
There is more to winning than talent. It's not all about that in sports in general, it takes more than that to be successful. Doesn't mean players whose results are weak don't have the talent to have better results.

Say Hey Kid
03-14-2012, 08:37 PM
So anyone who won a slam is by default more talented than someone who hasn't?

Talent has nothing to do with results, it has to do with potential. People in all aspects of life don't live up to their fullest potential, while others work their ass off and make up for their lack of talent by hard work and determination. Tennis is no different. Just because you're naturally more talented at something doesn't automatically mean you're more successful and accomplished than someone who is less talented.

Kat_YYZ
03-14-2012, 08:37 PM
http://s2.hubimg.com/u/5990301_f496.jpg

LocoPorElTenis
03-14-2012, 08:38 PM
Is Johansson more talented than Nalbandian/Murray?

Hell yes.


:spit: :rolls: :lol:

JediFed
03-14-2012, 08:38 PM
So going by your logic, Roddick is more talented/gifted than Nalbandian?


Roddick has 10 GS SFs, more titles, more wins. So, yeah.

Nalbandian is talented, but he's not even in the top 10 of slamless players of all time. Only 11 titles, same as Henman.

GSMnadal
03-14-2012, 08:38 PM
They think talent = funky shots and some good clean technique.

Whereas the most important thing, what can win you slams, is probably just how hard you can consistently hit the ball, you always hear lower ranked players say that about guys like Nadal and Federer. That it's unreal how 'heavy' every ball is to cope with, due to the pace and spin.

Most of these 'talented' players don't have this kind of (consistent) weight in their shots.

out_grinder
03-14-2012, 08:41 PM
There is more to winning than talent. It's not all about that in sports in general, it takes more than that to be successful. Doesn't mean players whose results are weak don't have the talent to have better results.

I disagree.

I say Nalbandian is not talented. You say he is. We can go around in circles all day - there are no cold hard facts for you to say he is talented.

I say Federer is not talented. You say he is. I ask why, punk. You say he has 16 grand slam titles. I lose the argument.

Unless you have something to back it up, you can't go claiming that x player without a single grand slam is talented.

And to the guy who asked is Roddick more talented than Nalbandian?

Hell yes.

MIMIC
03-14-2012, 08:41 PM
Slam(s) = talented.


Imagine a scenario in which a player who has never won a single match in their entire career (and who has received the most bagels of anyone in tennis history) suddenly got 6 walkovers in route to a slam final....and then his opponent retired due to an illness, making him the champion.

Is that player considered "talented"?

SVK
03-14-2012, 08:41 PM
Talent is gifted. Achievements/slams are something you must earn...talent might help you only to certain level but it is not the only thing which matters. More like talent plays role a hard work (nobody is talented enough to win slams purely with talent and without any work). There are many talented players actually, which weren´t that good because they were limited...for example Santoro, he had a lot of talent in his hands, but he didn´t achieve that much because he was powerless.

However, it´s a bit subjective thing. As The Legend Hrbaty said once - I knew I wasn´t talented gamewise, but I had a talent for working hard.

GSMnadal
03-14-2012, 08:43 PM
Imagine a scenario in which a player who has never won a single match in their entire career (and who has received the most bagels of anyone in tennis history) suddenly got 6 walkovers in route to a slam final....and then his opponent retired due to an illness, making him the champion.

Is that player considered "talented"?

Yeah...

that never happens. Hope that helps.

To win a slam, you have to be a great tennis player, and of course are very talented.

MIMIC
03-14-2012, 08:45 PM
Yeah...

that never happens. Hope that helps.

To win a slam, you have to be a great tennis player, and of course are very talented.

Are you aware of the term "hypothetical"? :scratch:

The fact that it CAN (not necessarily WILL) happen proves that you don't need to be talented to win a slam. And this can obviously occur on a more realistic level. My example was extreme simply to prove a point.

GSMnadal
03-14-2012, 08:46 PM
Are you aware of the term "hypothetical"? :scratch:

Even hypothetically you're talking rubbish.

GSMnadal
03-14-2012, 08:48 PM
Are you aware of the term "hypothetical"? :scratch:

The fact that it CAN (not necessarily WILL) happen proves that you don't need to be talented to win a slam. And this can obviously occur on a more realistic level. My example was extreme simply to prove a point.

If you're participating in a slam, you belong to the top 128 guys from 6 billion people.

Fair to say you're pretty talented... or wait, what if someone walked over through all the futures, challengers, ATP 250's and 500's and Qualifying tournaments to have gained that sport. Yeah, I guess you're right after all.

Filo V.
03-14-2012, 08:50 PM
I disagree.

I say Nalbandian is not talented. You say he is. We can go around in circles all day - there are no cold hard facts for you to say he is talented.

I say Federer is not talented. You say he is. I ask why, punk. You say he has 16 grand slam titles. I lose the argument.

Unless you have something to back it up, you can't go claiming that x player without a single grand slam is talented.

And to the guy who asked is Roddick more talented than Nalbandian?

Hell yes.
There is nothing to disagree with. It does take more than talent to win matches, and ultimately grand slams. That's a given. It's a fact. If you choose not to believe that, then you choose to be ignorant. Fine by me.

Sunset of Age
03-14-2012, 08:50 PM
http://img.instructables.com/files/deriv/F6K/920M/GV8SCWZR/F6K920MGV8SCWZR.SMALL.jpg

MIMIC
03-14-2012, 08:53 PM
If you're participating in a slam, you belong to the top 128 guys from 6 billion people.

Fair to say you're pretty talented... or wait, what if someone walked over through all the futures, challengers, ATP 250's and 500's and Qualifying tournaments to have gained that sport. Yeah, I guess you're right after all.

You know what I mean: "5 straight 1st round losses" talented vs. "multiple slam winner" talented....or "talented enough to win a slam".

In my scenario, no one is going to consider the 1st round loss guy talented. But if he somehow manages to win a slam, is he suddenly going to become overwhelmed with talent or something?

TBkeeper
03-14-2012, 08:54 PM
Cause of shots like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQSlTv9sAw0

GSMnadal
03-14-2012, 08:57 PM
You know what I mean: "5 straight 1st round losses" talented vs. "multiple slam winner" talented.

Mine can also be true, so even a fat guy who eats at KFC every day can enter a tournament one day, and keep walking over all the way to a slam title.

It CAN happen, even though it won't, just like your situation. Both are utterly pointless in this situation, to win a slam, you need to beat 6 or 7 quality opponents in Bo5 matches. One does not simply fluke that.

EddieNero
03-14-2012, 09:01 PM
They think talent = funky shots and some good clean technique.

Whereas the most important thing, what can win you slams, is probably just how hard you can consistently hit the ball, you always hear lower ranked players say that about guys like Nadal and Federer. That it's unreal how 'heavy' every ball is to cope with, due to the pace and spin.

Most of these 'talented' players don't have this kind of (consistent) weight in their shots.

Consistency has nothing to do with pure tennis talent, talent means ability to produce shots less gifted guys can only dream about.
In terms of potential, players like Nalbandian or Safin are miles above Nadal, Johansson etc.

Nadal is only a very hard-working craftsman, who will never be considered as someone exceptional tennis-wise.

Looner
03-14-2012, 09:04 PM
You are obviously a glory-hunting Naturd fan. No point explaining the stupidity of your argument.

GSMnadal
03-14-2012, 09:06 PM
Consistency has nothing to do with pure tennis talent, talent means ability to produce shots less gifted guys can only dream about.
In terms of potential, players like Nalbandian or Safin are miles above Nadal, Johansson etc.

Nadal is only a very hard-working craftsman, who will never be considered as someone exceptional tennis-wise.

Consistency =/= consistent weight of shot.

If someone can hit consistent 80-100 MPH forehands every time without making a lot of errors, that player would be quite talented in my book. This aspect of the game is the most underrated aspect on here, you never see people talking about it. Federer and Nadal can hit those hard, spinning balls with so much ease, it's why the other players can't play their game, they're always struggling to control the ball.

GSMnadal
03-14-2012, 09:08 PM
You are obviously a glory-hunting Naturd fan. No point explaining the stupidity of your argument.

Coming from a Fed fan :superlol:

Mountaindewslave
03-14-2012, 09:13 PM
Nalbandian, Murray, Davydenko, Berdych...etc... all of these players are considered 'talented' by many who consider them to have the games to rival anyone when they're 'on'.

I disagree, because results (namely slam results) are the only thing that matters.

People make things too complicated by calling them 'head cases', 'chokers' etc. This leads to their 'talent' being vastly overrated.

I see it black and white.

Slam(s) = talented.

No slam = not talented.

Is Gaudio/Johansson more talented than Nalbandian/Murray/Berdych/Davydenko?

Hell yes.

You cannot even compare the talent of the former group to the second. Because the first group have the results.

And that's all that matters.

OP is on drugs if he really thinks that Gaudio has half the talent of Nalbandian....

what you're saying is just not true anyway, there is a big difference between talent and success. I could be the best baker in the world and just lazy and not keep track of times and burn all of my food. the same can be said in tennis, the most talented players do not always succeed. Nadal is not the most talented player of his generation but the most successful, explain that? talent is not the same as results and this thread is very foolish.

your logic would mean that Marcelo Rios was not talented. :o

BIGMARAT
03-14-2012, 09:14 PM
Imagine a scenario in which a player who has never won a single match in their entire career (and who has received the most bagels of anyone in tennis history) suddenly got 6 walkovers in route to a slam final....and then his opponent retired due to an illness, making him the champion.

Is that player considered "talented"?

You Idiot! How did he qualify in the main draw?

Mountaindewslave
03-14-2012, 09:19 PM
I disagree.

I say Nalbandian is not talented. You say he is. We can go around in circles all day - there are no cold hard facts for you to say he is talented.

I say Federer is not talented. You say he is. I ask why, punk. You say he has 16 grand slam titles. I lose the argument.

Unless you have something to back it up, you can't go claiming that x player without a single grand slam is talented.

And to the guy who asked is Roddick more talented than Nalbandian?

Hell yes.

you obviously have never played or watched the sport because any intelligent spectator or player recognizes that talent does not always equate into success.......

your logic actual does not go in circles because if the general tennis community considers a player such as Nalbandian immensely talented then he probably is. you say : why is Nalbandian talented, all i see is a hacK? Others answer: coaches, players, and analysts of the sport consider him one of the best talents of his generation.

not only that but the problem with your 'circular' argument is that we could show you one hundred amazing videos of Nalbandian and interviews of legends like Nadal and Federer claiming that he is one of the best players they have ever faced. you can argue all day that this is just 'opinion' but when so many people agree and the professionals do too then you are clearly wrong.

Looner
03-14-2012, 09:39 PM
Coming from a Fed fan :superlol:

You are a joke, obviously. I can count more categories in which Fed trumps Nadull than Nadull has slams. That is outside tennis and there he's also king.

feuselino
03-14-2012, 09:50 PM
we all know guys like Rios had no talent whatsoever! ;)

stewietennis
03-14-2012, 09:52 PM
Imagine a scenario in which a player who has never won a single match in their entire career (and who has received the most bagels of anyone in tennis history) suddenly got 6 walkovers in route to a slam final....and then his opponent retired due to an illness, making him the champion.

Is that player considered "talented"?

This type of reductio ad absurdum argument doesn't really help get your point across. I believe if you were to point to a championship in any of the major sports where the winner basically sleepwalked to the trophy, it would get your point across better. Hell, the 1999 NBA Championship is asterisked by some because of the shortened season. How much more, in your hypothetical scenario, if a player didn't win a a single match for a title? That would be an exception to the rule and would be excluded in the OP's blanket statement that majors = talent.

There is no quantifiable way to measure talent however there is a correlation between talent and majors; in that, you need a modicum of talent to win majors – hard work is not enough.

ossie
03-14-2012, 09:52 PM
if your favourite player is a slamless mug choker you would also keep telling yourself he is 'talented' so you can make yourself feel better.

Singularity
03-14-2012, 11:50 PM
It's quite simple.

Success = talent + luck.

Some people have the same amount of talent, but more luck. Hence they are more successful.

Farenhajt
03-14-2012, 11:52 PM
You can conduct a survey on the usage: 99% of the instances where specifically the word "talented" appears is when a hyped (or sexually favored, or both) player loses a potentially big match, always against a better ranked opponent.

When the current king of the game (whoever that may be) pulverizes an opponent, usually he's "great champion", "out of this world", "greatest of all times" or whatever, but never "talented". The word's already grown to be an empty consolation. (Cf. the very talented Gasquet)

Deathless Mortal
03-15-2012, 12:04 AM
The facepalm thread of the year.

benji47
03-15-2012, 12:25 AM
oh good Christ....

By "talent" and "gift", people are purely talking about "skills" and "techniques".

To win slams you need to be a good athlete, which means being physically and mentally tough. That has very little to do with "telent", and in a lot of cases comes before talent even, which is why talented players are not always the ones to pull off slams.

rocketassist
03-15-2012, 12:29 AM
This is the physical era where you're more likely to succeed if you run around like Usain Bolt getting everything back into play miraculously than you are if you are a talented ballstriker/shotmaker.

So the OP is a spanner.

MaratandMilos
03-15-2012, 12:36 AM
Marat Safin had more natural talent than Rafael Nadal. He didn't have anywhere near the same level of mental toughness or consistency, though. That's why Nadal is one of the all-time greats and he isn't.

BroTree123
03-15-2012, 12:42 AM
Good fail shit.

Topspindoctor
03-15-2012, 12:50 AM
Marat Safin had more natural talent than Rafael Nadal. He didn't have anywhere near the same level of mental toughness or consistency, though. That's why Nadal is one of the all-time greats and he isn't.

Safin is another overrated headcase ballbasher. If talent means getting hot for 2 weeks and painting the lines with flat shots then we might as well call clowns like Del Potro talented as well.

Nalbandian is also overrated. Shit forehand, shit serve, etc.

rocketassist
03-15-2012, 12:52 AM
Safin is another overrated headcase ballbasher. If talent means getting hot for 2 weeks and painting the lines with flat shots then we might as well call clowns like Del Potro talented as well.

Nalbandian is also overrated. Shit forehand, shit serve, etc.

Safin is a pure ballstriker, Del Potro is a robotic ballbasher. They're nothing alike.

Certinfy
03-15-2012, 12:53 AM
Gasquet is the perfect example I think. Talented just because he has a good backhand? :confused:

Topspindoctor
03-15-2012, 12:57 AM
Safin is a pure ballstriker, Del Potro is a robotic ballbasher. They're nothing alike.

Safin is also a ballbasher :shrug: Not as robotic maybe, but ballbasher nonetheless. His inconsistency wasn't only because of him being a headcase, but because of his playstyle. When on, he was godlike, when off he could lose to anyone.

sexybeast
03-15-2012, 01:03 AM
Sometimes flamboyant tennis is mistaken for talent and ugly tennis must be untalented, which ofcourse is wrong. Results however dont always have something to do with talent.

rocketassist
03-15-2012, 01:06 AM
Safin is also a ballbasher :shrug: Not as robotic maybe, but ballbasher nonetheless. His inconsistency wasn't only because of him being a headcase, but because of his playstyle. When on, he was godlike, when off he could lose to anyone.

He could volley pretty well and his backhand was as clean a strike as any. His forehand was the on and off shot. It's an insult to compare him to Del Pony.

Vamos_Me_Rafa
03-15-2012, 01:07 AM
This is a thread about Andy Murray right?

fmolinari2005
03-15-2012, 01:13 AM
I know this thread is a joke, but I am bored ...

First of all: talent is a subjective issue. One can see talent as only ball striking abilities. One can argue that being supremely fit isn't for everyone too- meanining that two guys can have the same physical training schedule and still don't get the same physical fitness. I think Nadal's tennis is awful to watch, but it is a bit too much saying the guy isn't talented. If it was so easy to do what he does everybody would do it. Physical strenght IS a gift too ... someone like Fed was born with a natural ability to strike the ball better than most, someone like Nadal was born with superior physical abilities.

Another thing is the standard to which you measure success and its relationship to talent. If you take Gaudio, Coria and Nalby for example: who is more talented?! On this issue, I would say Nalbandian ... regardless of the fact that Gaudio won a slam and David didn't. I would go even further: Nalby had a better career, even without a GS title. Coria vs Gaudio is more controversial. I would still say that Coria was overall more talented, even if I liked Gaudio's game better ...

I see talent as a combination of many things. To be good in sports you gotta have physical talent, technical talent and "mental" talent. Take Rios and Nadal for example. Rios might be a sharper technical talent. But if you put everything on a scale, Nadal surpasses Rios with ease. I know me saying that will piss off some, but as much as I dislike Nadal's game, it is ridiculous saying otherwise.

If you see talent as only ability to hit great shots, then all bets are off. You can pick a couple of matches when a particular player was unplayable and make a case of this guy being the greatest talent ever.

If you consider talent even as a combination of many factors, you still can have one player having smaller achievements compared to his talented- without being an underachiever. There is a bit of luck to success also- being on the right place at the right time. As much as the Roddick haters will say otherwise, Andy is a clear example.

All in all, I don't think that you can push to the limit of saying that a guy that won multiple slams is less talented than a guy that never won a GS title. You might argue, all you want, that one guy plays a nicer game regardless of his achievement. But that is pretty much it and we enter the realm of speculation.

leng jai
03-15-2012, 01:16 AM
Gasquet is the perfect example I think. Talented just because he has a good backhand? :confused:

Here comes Captain Objective when it comes to Gasquet. Its not just the backhand, its the shot making as well. How many people with the physique of Gasquet been able to produce the caliber of tennis he has shown at times?

BauerAlmeida
03-15-2012, 01:23 AM
Safin is another overrated headcase ballbasher. If talent means getting hot for 2 weeks and painting the lines with flat shots then we might as well call clowns like Del Potro talented as well.

Nalbandian is also overrated. Shit forehand, shit serve, etc.

WTF? Are you high??

Nalbandian shit forehand????

SAFIN BALLBASHER???

MIMIC
03-15-2012, 01:26 AM
You Idiot! How did he qualify in the main draw?

OK, then Florent Serra gets the endless walkovers. Jesus Christ.

leng jai
03-15-2012, 02:39 AM
Up there as one of the most pointless hypothetical situations ever.

Ajde.

paseo
03-15-2012, 03:13 AM
Success = talent + luck.


more like, Success = talent + luck + hard work.

MIMIC
03-15-2012, 03:15 AM
Up there as one of the most pointless hypothetical situations ever.

Ajde.

Unless you're willing to share your crystal ball, I think it's fair to say that there will be some completely unforeseen, fluke winners in the future.

AntiTennis
03-15-2012, 03:29 AM
you can't be serious..:facepalm:..if there is people calling certain players "talented" is because they are..is that simple, but talent is not enought, you have to work hard and have a good mentality, but you can't say that if you have more success you are more talented, because are different things, there is a lot of players very talented with good potential but they don't know how to win..they have a bad mentality..or need work more etc :o

Kat_YYZ
03-15-2012, 03:34 AM
Gasquet is the perfect example I think. Talented just because he has a good backhand? :confused:

and because he gets his coke for free by extracting it orally from random club chicks :p

Mountaindewslave
03-15-2012, 03:41 AM
Gasquet is the perfect example I think. Talented just because he has a good backhand? :confused:

Gasquet actually has a pretty solid overall game and an underrated serve. the talent has always been there beyond the backhand, he just has no mental toughness and seems to not ever realize when to execute in points or what strategy's to use against certain players

HKz
03-15-2012, 03:41 AM
Nalbandian, Murray, Davydenko, Berdych...etc... all of these players are considered 'talented' by many who consider them to have the games to rival anyone when they're 'on'.

I disagree, because results (namely slam results) are the only thing that matters.

People make things too complicated by calling them 'head cases', 'chokers' etc. This leads to their 'talent' being vastly overrated.

I see it black and white.

Slam(s) = talented.

No slam = not talented.

Is Gaudio/Johansson more talented than Nalbandian/Murray/Berdych/Davydenko?

Hell yes.

You cannot even compare the talent of the former group to the second. Because the first group have the results.

And that's all that matters.

What kind of thread is this? You can be extremely talented in your sport, but poor physically or mentally which are both very required for tennis especially today. Take Safin for example. Huge headcase but plenty say he is more talented than many other players that have had more success than him. No one is saying players like Nalbandian, Murray are better than xxx, but to say that they aren't more talented than some slam winners is really stupid and ignorant. They just weren't/aren't talented mentally or possibly physically.

Gabe32
03-15-2012, 05:01 AM
I made a thread on (more or less) this same subject http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=183351&highlight=

I agree with you in theory. For the most part, results = talent. Of course there are flukes and things like that. But generally, results (over years) are a great (I'd say the best) indicator of talent.

Of course there are underachievers/injury-prone/out-of-shape players who possibly could have won a slam or two, but this is all speculation.

Nalbandian is a board favorite here. I agree he is very talented, but even saying that is not enough for a lot of people here. He simply is not as talented as Roddick. Roddick has achieved amazing success with a relatively one dimensional game. Nalbandian has never made it work on the big stages (the slams). And citing his head-to-head with Federer does not necessarily prove talent. Murray has a winning head-to-head versus Federer. Anyone want to argue that he is more talented than Federer? Some players are just bad matchups against other players.

Nole Rules
03-15-2012, 06:00 AM
He simply is not as talented as Roddick.

:haha:

Gabe32
03-15-2012, 07:12 AM
:haha:

What? Don't just buy into the conventional "wisdom" of some message board without actually thinking.

David Nalbandian is VERY talented. I honestly like him as a player (I happen to strongly dislike Andy Roddick, so this has nothing to to with bias). But the statistics are simply too lopsided to conclusively say Nalbandian is of even equal talent as Roddick.

30 titles to 11. #1 player in tennis player in the world to #3. 1 grand slam to 0 grand slams. A 4 to 2 head to head record in favor of Roddick. Roddick reached a QF of a slam before Nalbandian. Roddick has won tournaments on all surfaces, while Nalbandian has not. Roddick has reached 5 slam finals (winning one), whereas Nalbandian has reached one and lost. Andy Roddick beat JCF, a former number 1 and slam champion in his one slam final vistory. The other 5 times he lost to arguably the greatest player ever, Roger Federer. Anybody care to dig up the stats on how long each player has spent in the top 10 in the world? Roddick has shown remarkable consistency for about a decade. Consistency-wise, he is only surpassed by Federer. Roddick has one of the best careers for a player with only 1 slam.


The top two definitions of the word "talent."

1) a special natural ability or aptitude: a talent for drawing.

2) a capacity for achievement or success; ability: young men of talent.

If we are going by the second definition, Roddick wins hands down. Roddick has shown much more of a "capacity for achievement" than Nalbandian, no question.

The first definition is more abstract and this is where most people are making their case for Nalbandian. The problem with this definition is there are no real, tangible markers for talent (obviously, as it is abstract). The closest thing we have are statistics. And yes statistics can be misleading, and/or manipulated. And honestly, if all Roddick had over Nalbandian was 1 fluke slam win, then maybe I could buy into the argument that Nalbandian has more "raw talent" than Roddick.

But once you get into this whole "talent" as some indescribable, abstract, Jedi-force like quality your case becomes much harder to prove. Maybe LeBron James has more talent than Roddick? If someone put a tennis racquet in his hand at the age of 5, I bet the guy would do very well for himself. He is a tremendous athlete, with great hand-eye coordination and dexterity. He is 6 foot 8 inches tall, so he would probably have a tremendous serve. Is this not a valid argument if we are using this definition of talent?

A much stronger case can be made that perhaps Nalbandian is more talented than Del Potro (comparable rankings/titles, though JMDP is much younger), or some other one slam wonder. But even that may be hard.

Deathless Mortal
03-15-2012, 09:50 AM
What? Don't just buy into the conventional "wisdom" of some message board without actually thinking.

David Nalbandian is VERY talented. I honestly like him as a player (I happen to strongly dislike Andy Roddick, so this has nothing to to with bias). But the statistics are simply too lopsided to conclusively say Nalbandian is of even equal talent as Roddick.

30 titles to 11. #1 player in tennis player in the world to #3. 1 grand slam to 0 grand slams. A 4 to 2 head to head record in favor of Roddick. Roddick reached a QF of a slam before Nalbandian. Roddick has won tournaments on all surfaces, while Nalbandian has not. Roddick has reached 5 slam finals (winning one), whereas Nalbandian has reached one and lost. Andy Roddick beat JCF, a former number 1 and slam champion in his one slam final vistory. The other 5 times he lost to arguably the greatest player ever, Roger Federer. Anybody care to dig up the stats on how long each player has spent in the top 10 in the world? Roddick has shown remarkable consistency for about a decade. Consistency-wise, he is only surpassed by Federer. Roddick has one of the best careers for a player with only 1 slam.


The top two definitions of the word "talent."

1) a special natural ability or aptitude: a talent for drawing.

2) a capacity for achievement or success; ability: young men of talent.

If we are going by the second definition, Roddick wins hands down. Roddick has shown much more of a "capacity for achievement" than Nalbandian, no question.

The first definition is more abstract and this is where most people are making their case for Nalbandian. The problem with this definition is there are no real, tangible markers for talent (obviously, as it is abstract). The closest thing we have are statistics. And yes statistics can be misleading, and/or manipulated. And honestly, if all Roddick had over Nalbandian was 1 fluke slam win, then maybe I could buy into the argument that Nalbandian has more "raw talent" than Roddick.

But once you get into this whole "talent" as some indescribable, abstract, Jedi-force like quality your case becomes much harder to prove. Maybe LeBron James has more talent than Roddick? If someone put a tennis racquet in his hand at the age of 5, I bet the guy would do very well for himself. He is a tremendous athlete, with great hand-eye coordination and dexterity. He is 6 foot 8 inches tall, so he would probably have a tremendous serve. Is this not a valid argument if we are using this definition of talent?

A much stronger case can be made that perhaps Nalbandian is more talented than Del Potro (comparable rankings/titles, though JMDP is much younger), or some other one slam wonder. But even that may be hard.

The statistics don't measure talent, so that argument is invalid. Also, talent being the "capacity for achievement or success" doesn't mean Roddick is more talented than Nalbandian because he achieved more. There is such thing as unrealized capacity, which Nalbandian has plenty of. The point is, having that capacity means having the talent, but realization of it is another thing.

Mechlan
03-15-2012, 10:10 AM
The first definition is more abstract and this is where most people are making their case for Nalbandian. The problem with this definition is there are no real, tangible markers for talent (obviously, as it is abstract). The closest thing we have are statistics. And yes statistics can be misleading, and/or manipulated. And honestly, if all Roddick had over Nalbandian was 1 fluke slam win, then maybe I could buy into the argument that Nalbandian has more "raw talent" than Roddick.

But once you get into this whole "talent" as some indescribable, abstract, Jedi-force like quality your case becomes much harder to prove. Maybe LeBron James has more talent than Roddick? If someone put a tennis racquet in his hand at the age of 5, I bet the guy would do very well for himself. He is a tremendous athlete, with great hand-eye coordination and dexterity. He is 6 foot 8 inches tall, so he would probably have a tremendous serve. Is this not a valid argument if we are using this definition of talent?


But we're discussing talent, not results. Not who had the better career. There are many reasons for someone to have a better career - better fitness, focus, mental toughness, fewer weaknesses, etc. I don't think of those things as talent. Those are all parts of being a successful athlete, but don't necessarily have very much to do with being a talented tennis player. To me, it's more of the ability to hit a tennis ball. And yes, it is absolutely subjective, it's not something that can be measured. That's the whole reason we can debate it. There's nothing to discuss in raw numbers. Raw numbers don't equate to talent.

TBkeeper
03-15-2012, 10:10 AM
What? Don't just buy into the conventional "wisdom" of some message board without actually thinking.

David Nalbandian is VERY talented. I honestly like him as a player (I happen to strongly dislike Andy Roddick, so this has nothing to to with bias). But the statistics are simply too lopsided to conclusively say Nalbandian is of even equal talent as Roddick.

30 titles to 11. #1 player in tennis player in the world to #3. 1 grand slam to 0 grand slams. A 4 to 2 head to head record in favor of Roddick. Roddick reached a QF of a slam before Nalbandian. Roddick has won tournaments on all surfaces, while Nalbandian has not. Roddick has reached 5 slam finals (winning one), whereas Nalbandian has reached one and lost. Andy Roddick beat JCF, a former number 1 and slam champion in his one slam final vistory. The other 5 times he lost to arguably the greatest player ever, Roger Federer. Anybody care to dig up the stats on how long each player has spent in the top 10 in the world? Roddick has shown remarkable consistency for about a decade. Consistency-wise, he is only surpassed by Federer. Roddick has one of the best careers for a player with only 1 slam.


The top two definitions of the word "talent."

1) a special natural ability or aptitude: a talent for drawing.

2) a capacity for achievement or success; ability: young men of talent.

If we are going by the second definition, Roddick wins hands down. Roddick has shown much more of a "capacity for achievement" than Nalbandian, no question.

The first definition is more abstract and this is where most people are making their case for Nalbandian. The problem with this definition is there are no real, tangible markers for talent (obviously, as it is abstract). The closest thing we have are statistics. And yes statistics can be misleading, and/or manipulated. And honestly, if all Roddick had over Nalbandian was 1 fluke slam win, then maybe I could buy into the argument that Nalbandian has more "raw talent" than Roddick.

But once you get into this whole "talent" as some indescribable, abstract, Jedi-force like quality your case becomes much harder to prove. Maybe LeBron James has more talent than Roddick? If someone put a tennis racquet in his hand at the age of 5, I bet the guy would do very well for himself. He is a tremendous athlete, with great hand-eye coordination and dexterity. He is 6 foot 8 inches tall, so he would probably have a tremendous serve. Is this not a valid argument if we are using this definition of talent?

A much stronger case can be made that perhaps Nalbandian is more talented than Del Potro (comparable rankings/titles, though JMDP is much younger), or some other one slam wonder. But even that may be hard.

I'm wondering what would you say about Davydenko ? talent wise ?

MaxPower
03-15-2012, 10:22 AM
dunno why so many MTFers only follow the sport slammis when this is a tennis forum.

many very talented tennis players will never win a slam. That's a fact and not even worth to debate. If you don't understand why you know nothing about the sport and should go back to slammis and crazy gloryhunting of some multiple slam winner. Davydenko, Nalby etc have plenty of big tennis results so i don't really get the OP anyway

out_grinder
03-15-2012, 11:53 AM
dunno why so many MTFers only follow the sport slammis when this is a tennis forum.

many very talented tennis players will never win a slam. That's a fact and not even worth to debate. If you don't understand why you know nothing about the sport and should go back to slammis and crazy gloryhunting of some multiple slam winner. Davydenko, Nalby etc have plenty of big tennis results so i don't really get the OP anyway

if they don't win a slam they are worth nothing. Is that so hard to understand? So many people wax poetic about ballstriking ability...etc... Talking about that is wasting time. Results are what you talk about, and they prove talent. Nalbandian, Murray, Davydenko...etc... are untalented until proven otherwise by winning a slam.

leng jai
03-15-2012, 11:58 AM
Yes its so interesting to talk about arbitrary numbers and stats all day. That is what sport is all about, seeing which team or player has the highest number. Riveting stuff mate.

Ajde.

out_grinder
03-15-2012, 12:08 PM
Yes its so interesting to talk about arbitrary numbers and stats all day. That is what sport is all about, seeing which team or player has the highest number. Riveting stuff mate.

Ajde.

Sports are about results, not talent. Results are not abitrary - they are the reason sports exist. Results, stats and the recordbooks. Why talk about something you can't even quantify. like 'talent'? It makes me sick, and those people talking about it are just deluded fans of players without results.

Action Jackson
03-15-2012, 12:16 PM
It's like Federer and Sampras must have the greatest backhands of all time because they won 16 and 14 Slams respectively, even though it's not the main shot that got them there. That's crap.

Natural talent can't be measured by numbers it's really that simple. It's not about who is a better player which can be measured through results, achievements, how they have maximised their natural abilities like Federer and Ferrer for example. One is a very gifted player who took time to realise this, put the work in and got the great results. The other not so talented in comparison to his peers, has maximised his ability through sheer hard work and iron will to be the best player he can.

Therefore the OP is trolling, as it's something that can't be measured. There are so many different ways of measuring talent and what it means.

Numbers and stats aren't the answer to this. They measure who has been the most successful not the most talented. Of course talent is needed to make a living on the pro tour, but other factors at the elite level, the mental side, physical, work ethic combined with the talent that lead to the results.

tripwires
03-15-2012, 12:16 PM
Sports are about results, not talent. Results are not abitrary - they are the reason sports exist. Results, stats and the recordbooks. Why talk about something you can't even quantify. like 'talent'? It makes me sick, and those people talking about it are just deluded fans of players without results.

Sports isn't only about results. If that's all you're interested in, why bother watching? Might as well just read the sports section of the newspaper. You have your results right there.

BroTree123
03-15-2012, 12:29 PM
^^
Owned.

Jverweij
03-15-2012, 12:30 PM
jeez how hard is it to understand this? You cannot say that talent and result are the same thing. Talent is the potential someone has to do good. Results is just the showing that someone did good. I'd say there is quite a high degree of correlation between the two, but they are not the same.

As someone before said: results = talent + hard work (also stamina) + luck (personally i don't think luck is that big of a factor so I would instead add mental toughness). so let's change this into a mathematical equation for our less gifted thinkers here. we'll call results (a); talent (x); hard work (y); and mental toughness (z).
Our equation is now a = x + y + z. Logically.... a cannot be the same as x. Therefore, the OP is logically wrong.

Now how come players who are considered highly talented still have bad results. Let's schale results from 0-100, with 100 being incredible results and 0 being zip. We'd first have to determine the weight of all the components. So x+y+z can at maximum be 100, but they are not equally important. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that talent will gain you a maximum of 30 points, hard work 40 points, and mental toughness 30 points (up for debate ofcourse).

Now let's take Nalbandian into the equation. I'd say talentwise he scores high, so for the sake of argument, we give him 28 point. We all know he is not a very hard worker, so here he scores low, let's say 20 points. He is also abit of a mental midget, so here we will give him 18 points as well ( i know.. i'm being lenient). Nalbandian's total score would now be 64. As you can see this is a ok score, but no more than that, which is imo exactly what his results show.

Let's do the same for Nadal. He has talent, but not as much as Nalbandian, so let's give him 22 points. for hard work he get's all the points ofc, so that's 40. For mental toughness he also get's all the points, so that's 30. Now you see, Nadal ends up with a whopping 92 points! The guy must have amazing results.

don't you just love math?

EDIT: I'd like to add that if you lack any of the 3 required attributes, you should receive a zero score. So the model should actually consist of multiplications instead of additions, but i'm too lazy to calculate.

Alex999
03-15-2012, 02:29 PM
^^^agree with jve. we all know how talented Nalbandian, Kolya etc. are. super talented, great players. the fact that they haven't won any slams does not take their talent away. I think that they can produce some fantastic tennis but they lack CONSISTENCY. they go up and down. also, some of these great talents simply haven't worked too hard. I also think they are simply happy with what they have... they simply have great talent but their drive is very low.

Start da Game
03-15-2012, 02:43 PM
Nalbandian, Murray, Davydenko, Berdych...etc... all of these players are considered 'talented' by many who consider them to have the games to rival anyone when they're 'on'.

I disagree, because results (namely slam results) are the only thing that matters.

People make things too complicated by calling them 'head cases', 'chokers' etc. This leads to their 'talent' being vastly overrated.

I see it black and white.

Slam(s) = talented.

No slam = not talented.

Is Gaudio/Johansson more talented than Nalbandian/Murray/Berdych/Davydenko?

Hell yes.

You cannot even compare the talent of the former group to the second. Because the first group have the results.

And that's all that matters.


Consistancy is the most underrated aspect of tennis and really sports among most observers.


end of thread...

Gabe32
03-15-2012, 07:20 PM
Let's, for the sake of argument, pretend that the majority of people here on MTF are right and David Nalbandian is the most "talented" player to never win a slam. And due to laziness, apathy, distractions or whatever other excuse you want to use, he simply has not produced at the big moments.

Does anyone care to explain why he is one of the most beloved players here on MTF? Say what you will about Andy Murray, no one can say the guy doesn't try. He might collapse during the big games but he is making everything he can out of his career, or at least trying to.

Why so much love for a man who is allegedly sitting on a mound of talent and doing nothing about it (Nalbandian)?

Start da Game
03-15-2012, 07:30 PM
Let's, for the sake of argument, pretend that the majority of people here on MTF are right and David Nalbandian is the most "talented" player to never win a slam. And due to laziness, apathy, distractions or whatever other excuse you want to use, he simply has not produced at the big moments.

Does anyone care to explain why he is one of the most beloved players here on MTF? Say what you will about Andy Murray, no one can say the guy doesn't try. He might collapse during the big games but he is making everything he can out of his career, or at least trying to.

Why so much love for a man who is allegedly sitting on a mound of talent and doing nothing about it (Nalbandian)?

raw natural talent is what attracts most casual followers and noobs.....any 5 year old clown can take instant liking to nalby's or fed's tennis.....it takes a more mature head to perceive murray's tennis, his strengths and weaknesses......

it takes intellectual following of the sport to understand nadal's game and follow him.....nadal's tennis is for adults who understand the sport through and through.....people with 5 year old brains can't develop a liking to nadal's tennis.....

TBkeeper
03-15-2012, 08:07 PM
raw natural talent is what attracts most casual followers and noobs.....any 5 year old clown can take instant liking to nalby's or fed's tennis.....it takes a more mature head to perceive murray's tennis, his strengths and weaknesses......

it takes intellectual following of the sport to understand nadal's game and follow him.....nadal's tennis is for adults who understand the sport through and through.....people with 5 year old brains can't develop a liking to nadal's tennis.....

Start da fail is failing even more than Davy's choking against Fed :worship:

Deathless Mortal
03-15-2012, 08:07 PM
raw natural talent is what attracts most casual followers and noobs.....any 5 year old clown can take instant liking to nalby's or fed's tennis.....it takes a more mature head to perceive murray's tennis, his strengths and weaknesses......

it takes intellectual following of the sport to understand nadal's game and follow him.....nadal's tennis is for adults who understand the sport through and through.....people with 5 year old brains can't develop a liking to nadal's tennis.....

http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/8181/commonsense.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/811/commonsense.jpg/)

Mateya
03-15-2012, 08:36 PM
:facepalm:

Fail thread. Some people just don't know what talent is, those have probably never played tennis (except on playstation).

Talent is one thing and results are another thing.

Looner
03-15-2012, 09:11 PM
raw natural talent is what attracts most casual followers and noobs.....any 5 year old clown can take instant liking to nalby's or fed's tennis.....it takes a more mature head to perceive murray's tennis, his strengths and weaknesses......

it takes intellectual following of the sport to understand nadal's game and follow him.....nadal's tennis is for adults who understand the sport through and through.....people with 5 year old brains can't develop a liking to nadal's tennis.....

You follow him. It surely cannot be that hard.

leng jai
03-15-2012, 09:20 PM
raw natural talent is what attracts most casual followers and noobs.....any 5 year old clown can take instant liking to nalby's or fed's tennis.....it takes a more mature head to perceive murray's tennis, his strengths and weaknesses......

it takes intellectual following of the sport to understand nadal's game and follow him.....nadal's tennis is for adults who understand the sport through and through.....people with 5 year old brains can't develop a liking to nadal's tennis.....

Yeah hardcore tennis enthusiasts all follow the top players and its the casuals who enjoy watching lesser known "talented" mugs who don't have the big results. What world are you living in Start The Ajde?

Nadal's tennis the epitome of easy to follow and the most popular player amongst casual tennis fans. Casual sports fans can relate to him because his most prominent attributes aren't specific to tennis.

Argenbrit
03-15-2012, 09:48 PM
Is Gaudio/Johansson more talented than Nalbandian/Murray/Berdych/Davydenko?

Hell yes.
:facepalm:


Nalbandian/Murray/Berdych/Davydenko are all more talented than Gaudio and his fluke of a slam.

out_grinder
03-15-2012, 09:59 PM
:facepalm:


Nalbandian/Murray/Berdych/Davydenko are all more talented than Gaudio and his fluke of a slam.

Whatever.

Results say otherwise.

There is no such thing as 'underachieving' or 'overachieving.' Merely achieving. Don't overcomplicate matters.

If Nalby/Murray/Birdshit/Davy were so talented they would have fluked a slam like Gaudio. They haven't so I guess they're not as talented as Gaudio.

BIGMARAT
03-15-2012, 10:11 PM
Winning in Tennis requires a number of ingredients.

You can change the percentages based on your own assesment.

1. Talent - 50%
2. Hardwork/Attitude - 30%
3. Resources(coaches/proper training) - 10%
4. Luck( injury/luck in draw/lucky shots) - 10%

Argenbrit
03-15-2012, 10:12 PM
Whatever.

Results say otherwise.

There is no such thing as 'underachieving' or 'overachieving.' Merely achieving. Don't overcomplicate matters.

If Nalby/Murray/Birdshit/Davy were so talented they would have fluked a slam like Gaudio. They haven't so I guess they're not as talented as Gaudio.
Let's look at their best results in Slams then.

Nalbandian
Australian Open SF
French Open SF
Wimbledon F
US Open SF

Murray
Australian Open F
French Open SF
Wimbledon SF
US Open F

Berdych
Australian Open QF
French Open SF
Wimbledon F
US Open 4R

Davydenko
Australian Open QF
French Open SF
Wimbledon 4R
US Open SF

Gaudio
Australian Open 3R
French Open W
Wimbledon 2R
US Open 3R

It's clear that despite winning RG, Gaudio has the worst results. Never went past 2nd and 3rd in any of the remaining Slams.

out_grinder
03-15-2012, 10:24 PM
No, hhe has the best results because he won a slam.

That trumps 200 consecutive slam finals

BIGMARAT
03-15-2012, 10:31 PM
No, hhe has the best results because he won a slam.

That trumps 200 consecutive slam finals
:rolleyes:

TigerTim
03-15-2012, 10:50 PM
No, hhe has the best results because he won a slam.

That trumps 200 consecutive slam finals

and winning every single masters series 1000 for a entire decade......:o

Lestat
03-15-2012, 11:07 PM
is nadal talented or just a hard worker?



PS: gaudio was actually very talented.

BIGMARAT
03-15-2012, 11:14 PM
is nadal talented or just a hard worker?



PS: gaudio was actually very talented.

??? are you nuts? hardwork alone wont give you multiple slams!!!
let alone dominate clay.

BauerAlmeida
03-15-2012, 11:29 PM
I agree that this thread makes no sense, but Gaudio was very talented. He is clearly an under-achiever, not an over-achiever just because he fluked a slam.

His tennis was fantastic but he had some serious mental issues.

Alex999
03-15-2012, 11:59 PM
Let's, for the sake of argument, pretend that the majority of people here on MTF are right and David Nalbandian is the most "talented" player to never win a slam. And due to laziness, apathy, distractions or whatever other excuse you want to use, he simply has not produced at the big moments.

Does anyone care to explain why he is one of the most beloved players here on MTF? Say what you will about Andy Murray, no one can say the guy doesn't try. He might collapse during the big games but he is making everything he can out of his career, or at least trying to.

Why so much love for a man who is allegedly sitting on a mound of talent and doing nothing about it (Nalbandian)?
I'll tell ya. when I see Nalby hitting those sick angles I have an orgasm :). watch his masters matches back at the end of 2007, you'll understand.

fast_clay
03-16-2012, 12:18 AM
Nalbandian, Murray, Davydenko, Berdych...etc... all of these players are considered 'talented' by many who consider them to have the games to rival anyone when they're 'on'.

I disagree, because results (namely slam results) are the only thing that matters.

People make things too complicated by calling them 'head cases', 'chokers' etc. This leads to their 'talent' being vastly overrated.

I see it black and white.

Slam(s) = talented.

No slam = not talented.

Is Gaudio/Johansson more talented than Nalbandian/Murray/Berdych/Davydenko?

Hell yes.

You cannot even compare the talent of the former group to the second. Because the first group have the results.

And that's all that matters.

hmmm... this post reminds me of something...

hmmm..

oh yeah...

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm182/patma2003/runner-pooped-himself.gif

Sports isn't only about results. If that's all you're interested in, why bother watching? Might as well just read the sports section of the newspaper. You have your results right there.

:spit: hahahahaa... out_grinder :haha: you dumb sh!t...



it takes intellectual following of the sport to understand nadal's game and follow him.....nadal's tennis is for adults who understand the sport through and through.....people with 5 year old brains can't develop a liking to nadal's tennis.....

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm182/patma2003/pong1.jpg

tripwires
03-16-2012, 01:08 AM
hmmm... this post reminds me of something...

hmmm..

oh yeah...

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm182/patma2003/runner-pooped-himself.gif



OH MY GOD. :facepalm: I'm having breakfast here. :sobbing:

Pirata.
03-16-2012, 01:46 AM
Coria was infinitely more talented than Gaudio despite the fact that Gaudio won a slam.

Hope this helps.

it takes intellectual following of the sport to understand nadal's game and follow him.....nadal's tennis is for adults who understand the sport through and through.....people with 5 year old brains can't develop a liking to nadal's tennis.....

omg :haha:

clown post of the year

Stronga23
03-16-2012, 01:50 AM
Monfils got to 7th in the world by just playing defense. That just shows you how talented he is. Unfortuantely he likes to entertain more than focus on winning :sad:

Pirata.
03-16-2012, 01:53 AM
Monfils got to 7th in the world by just playing defense. That just shows you how talented he is. Unfortuantely he likes to entertain more than focus on winning :sad:

:hug:

It really is a joke that SdG wimped out and withdrew from the ACC contest last year. This is just one example of a guy who has so much clownish talent and yet has never won the big prize :sad:

Sunset of Age
03-16-2012, 01:57 AM
it takes intellectual following of the sport to understand nadal's game and follow him.....nadal's tennis is for adults who understand the sport through and through.....people with 5 year old brains can't develop a liking to nadal's tennis.....

Oh I only just noticed this gem. It's... full of stars! :spit:

BTW, can people please NOT quote that disgusting picture of that runner ever again? :sobbing:

fast_clay
03-16-2012, 02:05 AM
omg :haha:

clown post of the year

Oh I only just noticed this gem. It's... full of stars! :spit:


this... is how you get seeded come november... outrageous and consistent form... grinding down the opposition all year people... all year... in the image of his idol

such fans are only bestowed upon the true gods of clay



BTW, can people please NOT quote that disgusting picture of that runner ever again? :sobbing:

Negative Great Warrior Princess Sunset.

There will be more runner.

leng jai
03-16-2012, 02:11 AM
http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm182/patma2003/runner-pooped-himself.gif

Mmmm delicious.

Ajde.

Sunset of Age
03-16-2012, 02:19 AM
this... is how you get seeded come november... outrageous and consistent form... grinding down the opposition all year people... all year... in the image of his idol

such fans are only bestowed upon the true gods of clay

:lol:

Negative Great Warrior Princess Sunset.

There will be more runner.

Damn, you're mean. :(

:haha:

Pirata.
03-16-2012, 02:43 AM
Ad-block, Karin ;)
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-plus/
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom

Sunset of Age
03-16-2012, 03:02 AM
Ad-block, Karin ;)
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-plus/
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom

Thanks!!!! :o

Puschkin
03-16-2012, 06:40 AM
This is such a useless discussion. Does anyone really think that one can get to the the Top 20 without talent and hard work?
For permanent success, other factors come into play, such as the mental mindset, health and sometimes a bit of luck.

Having said that, I always preferred watching shot-makers over grinders and always will. And finally, there are players for whom I get up at 3.00 am to watch them play, it is something emotional, their overall demeanor, how they behave on and off the court (when the cameras are off), what they say in pressers and how they say it, etc. In that case, results don't matter. I will always support them.

out_grinder
03-16-2012, 10:13 AM
For those that say that if I love results so much, and not talent and shotmaking flair - why don't I skip watching tennis altogether and just look at the results...

That's what I do anyway.

Watch the movie Moneyball.

Believe me, sports can be reduced to stats and results.

Who cares if talent exists or not. People don't remember you for your talent - they remember you for your results and records.

leng jai
03-16-2012, 10:17 AM
For those that say that if I love results so much, and not talent and shotmaking flair - why don't I skip watching tennis altogether and just look at the results...

That's what I do anyway.

Watch the movie Moneyball.

Believe me, sports can be reduced to stats and results.

Who cares if talent exists or not. People don't remember you for your talent - they remember you for your results and records.

Your post count sucks. GTFO.

Ajde.

Jverweij
03-16-2012, 10:31 AM
Your post count sucks. GTFO.

Ajde.

oh boy are you gonna love me... :D

stebs
03-16-2012, 10:52 AM
Oh no! It's this word, 'talent'. I do think it is one of the most misleading, misused and difficult to attribute predicates in sport. Almost in virtue of its definition, this is a word to use on sports people that CANNOT be directly correlated with results. The whole point of the word (one might argue) is to distinguish something like, 'natural ability', or, 'potential ability'. The problem here is that different people will include different elements of the game under this heading, for example:

A) Shot making ability - I think this is a fine way to use 'talent' but it should be understood that it is very narrow. I regularly see people use, 'is talented' to indicate 'is a shotmaker'. This definition is unproblematic, there is a degree of subjectivity but no more than many other sporting terms. The problem here is that it is absurd to equate shot-making ability with something like 'potential ability'. The two are connected but not directly. Just because someone is a good shot-maker, there's no guarantee that they have the other necessary endowments to succeed at a very high level.

B) Flair - Similar to above. Players who play with an unusual or, often, an aesthetically pleasing style are considered 'talented'. Again, use the word this way if you wish, but make no mistake, having an aesthetically pleasing game is NOT equivalent to having a very high potential. Sometimes they come together, sometimes they come apart. Equally so for players who play an all court game. Use talent to indicate a player's variety if you wish, but don't think that is the same as those players having a high 'potential for success'.

C) Technical ability overall - This is a common usage as well. Essentially, this is something like ball striking or the way a player hits the ball in all situations. For some reason, serve is often inexplicably left out of this definition. This is perhaps the most common usage I see although it is still often used inconsistently even within a single utterance. The reason (in my opinion) is that 'technical ability' itself remains in need of definition. For my part, I can't see how you can reasonably define that term without some appeal to results. The reason being, there is no objective standard of technical ability. Rather, we have the following disambiguation:

1) There is the utility of a technique for winning tennis points. This seems the most common sense way to say someone has very good technical ability. Your shots directly lead to you winning a lot of points, so you have good technical shots.

2) There is a return to the aesthetic. This seems the most common (though I think misguided) description of technical ability. People who hit the ball smoothly (Nalbandian is the paradigm here) are preferred for their 'easy style'.



So, we have three definitions here. We have 'propensity for hitting great shots'. We have 'style' or 'variety'. We have 'technical ability' which either collapses back into 'style', or becomes, 'propensity to use ones shots to win points'. It is clear the last of these is inextricably related to results (whoever uses their shots best to win points is bound to win a lot of matches).

However, we still have a problem here which plagues all definitions. That is the status of movement and physical ability when discussing talent. Some would like to include such 'natural abilities' in discussing talent, some would like not to. The problem is, attempting to abstract the other elements of tennis from movement and physicality is, in my opinion, bordering on the absurd. Is it realistic to say Federer's shots convey talent without including the way he moves to hit those shots in that thought? I think not.

Finally, we have the problem of attempting to single out the properties which are 'propensities' or 'dispositions'. That is, how can we say, of a player who isn;t playing very well, that he somehow has more 'propensity to play very well' than another player? The answer is by subjective opinion and preference of game style. It becomes clear to me that, in lieu of any technical or professional definition of the word talent, it becomes next to meaningless in many situations.

This is not to say the word is completely useless, just very often. Certainly, the OP is mistaken in using the word to demarcate '...has won a grand slam', and '...hasn't won a grand slam'. This is surely not the correct application of the term. However, in my opinion, this word is very troubling for a thoughtful fan of tennis. It's application is many, varied, and thus often confused in meaning. Further, even when people try and apply it with a common meaning in mind, it is highly doubtful that the property they are attempting to describe is one that we can pick out accurately by watching as observers. On the 'technical ability' definition which speaks of shots, abstracted from physical abilities, I think any professional coach would say nobody has the coaching skill to pick out who is better than who on such a definition.

HKz
03-16-2012, 11:11 AM
raw natural talent is what attracts most casual followers and noobs.....any 5 year old clown can take instant liking to nalby's or fed's tennis.....it takes a more mature head to perceive murray's tennis, his strengths and weaknesses......

it takes intellectual following of the sport to understand nadal's game and follow him.....nadal's tennis is for adults who understand the sport through and through.....people with 5 year old brains can't develop a liking to nadal's tennis.....

oh fucking god

what another clown post by tard da fail

Argenbrit
03-16-2012, 10:46 PM
Check out the current IW match to see why players like Nalbandian are talented.

BEBE91
03-17-2012, 01:41 PM
Are people so stupid here that they don't understand that mental toughness and tactical skill are also talent...Also I think Gasquet isnt very talented because he is lazy to practice. That kind of players will not win slams.

out_grinder
03-17-2012, 02:00 PM
Check out the current IW match to see why players like Nalbandian are talented.

Bump cuz he lost

AHAHAHA

tripwires
03-17-2012, 02:13 PM
Bump cuz he lost

AHAHAHA

I didn't expect you to get it.

Farenhajt
03-17-2012, 02:30 PM
Fans of players who lived up to their promise, and then some - they never speak about talent, but about results.

Fans of players who never lived up to what was believed to be their promise - they always speak about talent, and about results not so much.

And there's no reconciliation between the groups. Ever.

156mphserve
03-17-2012, 06:20 PM
anyone with a ranking point is talented, some are more talented than others but to even consider that it's slam results that constitutes talent is crazy:lol:

Infinity
03-17-2012, 09:26 PM
So, do you think Roger Federer of 2010 (16 GS) was more talented than 2007 Roger Federer (12 GS)?

Start da Game
03-17-2012, 09:33 PM
absolutely.....actually 2011 was his best year talent wise.....

TBkeeper
03-17-2012, 09:58 PM
absolutely.....actually 2011 was his best year talent wise.....

you're stupid you're born with talent you cannot increase it !

Mateya
03-18-2012, 10:19 AM
So, do you think Roger Federer of 2010 (16 GS) was more talented than 2007 Roger Federer (12 GS)?

:facepalm: :stupid: