[out_grinder]

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]

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

 

[Nole Rules]

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]

How many troll posts per day is the limit?

 

[norwood_10]

This is Rodre Fegassi's double account. FACT.

 

[Bashak]

because of stuff like this:

 

[asmazif]

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.]

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]

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]

 

[LocoPorElTenis]

Is Johansson more talented than Nalbandian/Murray?

Hell yes.

:spit: :rolls: :lol:

 

[GSMnadal]

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.

 

[JediFed]

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.

 

[out_grinder]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Even hypothetically you're talking rubbish.

 

[GSMnadal]

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.