Mens Tennis Forums banner

21 - 40 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
I understand where the OP's argument is coming from. He does have immense talent and shouldn't be ranked as low as he is right now. Of course, injuries have been setting him back in almost his whole career. With that said, comparing his talent to Federer's is ridiculous as Federer is unarguably by far the most naturally talented tennis player we have never produced on this planet, so it's not fair to Raonic, who is of course one of the very talented dudes out there. I think movement is part of your talent, which he lacks, so he's not a perfect player. He has many weaknesses as well as strengths and they are both part of his natural talent, so saying he's the most talented one is a bit of a strech, but I have no problem admitting he could have one a couple of major titles but for those injuries. Has he ever won any title of any significance in his career? I don't think he has any. That's a bigger riddle to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts
I understand where the OP's argument is coming from. He does have immense talent and shouldn't be ranked as low as he is right now. Of course, injuries have been setting him back in almost his whole career. With that said, comparing his talent to Federer's is ridiculous as Federer is unarguably by far the most naturally talented tennis player we have never produced on this planet, so it's not fair to Raonic, who is of course one of the very talented dudes out there. I think movement is part of your talent, which he lacks, so he's not a perfect player. He has many weaknesses as well as strengths and they are both part of his natural talent, so saying he's the most talented one is a bit of a strech, but I have no problem admitting he could have one a couple of major titles but for those injuries. Has he ever won any title of any significance in his career? I don't think he has any. That's a bigger riddle to me.
no rational answers allowed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,169 Posts
If Raonic had the tards Federer has, he'd have 35+ slams at this point even without Mirka. With her and her handbags, sky would be the limit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
539 Posts
Even though OP is trolling hard, as usual, I think he has a point. When people deem certain players "talented" it is usually shot-making qualities that are put forward. While the OP doesn't say so explicitly in the thread start, I think the point he tries to make (in a satirical way) is that "talent" is not all about shot-making. And I think he is right. To be skilled also in the defensive aspects of the game, no doubt it takes talent. Personally, I'm inclined to count most properties that make you more competitive on court as "talent".

With that said, there is at least one aspect that makes you more competitive on court, but cannot be counted as talent, and that is the size of a player. While the term "big three" does not refer to the physical size of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, in modern tennis it is clearly an advantage to be above average build. Given recent development, I would say that the best height for a tennis player is somewhere around 190-195 cm. That none of "big three" is that tall is probably a selection effect. The number of persons shorter than 190 cm are many more than those that are taller, and you don't lose that much by just being 5 cm shorter than the ideal height. Obviously, the interval of big three (185-190 cm) is close enough to perfect.

At this point, the perceptive reader might have understood where I'm going, and yes, you are right. Clearly the most talented player, at least among the currently active, is none other than Diego Schwartzman. The Argentinian is listed as 170 cm, but comparing him to others I find that hard to believe. Probably he is no more than 165 cm. That he still is able to compete with the very best is a small miracle. The discussion of who is the most talented player can stop right now. There can be only one answer: Diego Schwartzman.
 

·
justice for all
Joined
·
12,634 Posts
Even though OP is trolling hard, as usual, I think he has a point. When people deem certain players "talented" it is usually shot-making qualities that are put forward. While the OP doesn't say so explicitly in the thread start, I think the point he tries to make (in a satirical way) is that "talent" is not all about shot-making. And I think he is right. To be skilled also in the defensive aspects of the game, no doubt it takes talent. Personally, I'm inclined to count most properties that make you more competitive on court as "talent".

With that said, there is at least one aspect that makes you more competitive on court, but cannot be counted as talent, and that is the size of a player. While the term "big three" does not refer to the physical size of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, in modern tennis it is clearly an advantage to be above average build. Given recent development, I would say that the best height for a tennis player is somewhere around 190-195 cm. That none of "big three" is that tall is probably a selection effect. The number of persons shorter than 190 cm are many more than those that are taller, and you don't lose that much by just being 5 cm shorter than the ideal height. Obviously, the interval of big three (185-190 cm) is close enough to perfect.

At this point, the perceptive reader might have understood where I'm going, and yes, you are right. Clearly the most talented player, at least among the currently active, is none other than Diego Schwartzman. The Argentinian is listed as 170 cm, but comparing him to others I find that hard to believe. Probably he is no more than 165 cm. That he still is able to compete with the very best is a small miracle. The discussion of who is the most talented player can stop right now. There can be only one answer: Diego Schwartzman.
It's all fine but I have one question to you, Henrik.
You are a renown statistician of this site recognised by most regular users as both "accountable" and creative. Now, I can see many discussions regarding talent going on on this site (not just this one). And usually I am very frustrated by them because I find it borderline impossible to "measure" talent. How would you, as a statistician, "quantify" talent? Maybe there's some objective metrics to rank players according to the "amount" of talent they have?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,994 Posts
:D what a concept
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
539 Posts
...usually I am very frustrated by them because I find it borderline impossible to "measure" talent. How would you, as a statistician, "quantify" talent? Maybe there's some objective metrics to rank players according to the "amount" of talent they have?
Well, to be honest, I have only read a single university course in statistics. Thus I usually rely on my wife's knowledge (a statistics professor) on anything statistics related. With that said, I would guess that the statistician's approach to talent would be to measure various natural abilities (skills before you have begun training), plot the data and see if it resembles a Gauss curve (as it usually does). Once this is done, you can check what segment of the curve you belong to, and hope that you are one of only 10 000 persons that can do something, which is better from a statistical point of view, than if one in 1000 persons can do the same thing.

However, I'm not sure the statistician's perspective adds much to a debate about talent. The problem is that everyone thinks differently about the concept. Many would contrast "skill" and "talent". The true talent shows skill after very little training, but the less gifted have to spend countless hours on the practice court. I would beg to differ slightly with this view, as the main thing that separates the elite players from the rest is how well you respond to practice. Today the competition is strong enough that one cannot reach the absolute top without both hard work and natural talent. Being the best at an early stage (being a "natural talent") is not decisive unless you also have the crucial ability to respond well to hard work. The latter might also be viewed as a talent, I guess, which makes it even harder to separate the concepts of "skill" and "talent". My guess is that there will never by any consensus regarding who has the most talent, unless, of course, I can convince you all that Diego takes the price :sneaky:.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,268 Posts
Actually, that would be Greg Rusedski.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,032 Posts
Yes, it's only homogenization of surfaces and raonic's too long legs that account for the slam differential
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,612 Posts
What percentage of these replies are comedy? Only God can tell, and any just god surely does not care.

What made it fun for me watching Raonic when he started to peak was how obviously untalented he was, except for the incredible serve of course. he has the body type of a fridge, but mind of an engineer and serve of a god. Its like he was the brain child of a tennis simulation based on an MTF hypothetical. If someone had the serve of an Isner but sligtly better movement and motivation, what could they achieve. His forehand, baseball style controlled bashing and his effective but ass ugly backhand are that of a robot.

Watching Murray vs Raonic at the Aussie open in 2016 was like watching Jean Luc-Picard vs Data in a slam poetry competition. I think Aussie open 2016 was his peak, or at least it was for me. He was so stale, but was extremely ambitious and was developing his game very intelligently. However, his injuries has made development pretty difficult, and you can only be intrigued by watching a robot imitate human emotion for so long before it becomes tedious. His patterns are so basic.
 
21 - 40 of 40 Posts
Top