PDA

View Full Version : 100% Raw Talent


flyer
05-02-2008, 08:53 AM
Who is the absolute most talented player in tennis? People Im sure will make strong cases for Federer, Gasquet, Nalbandian, Baghdatis, Safin, Verdasco and others but based on talent alone I would say its Tomas Berdych...

Hes got a huge serve, a solid solid backhand that can rally with the best of them, moves pretty well for a tall guy and the etrxa height helps him in other departments, has a forehand that sounds like a rocket launcher just shot off, and plays well on all surfaces. He seems to have his head on backwards though, if he ever played to his potential I think he'd be almost unbeatable. A young Safin would be my choice because he was faster and had a bit more variety than Tomas but hes slower now so...

So based on raw talent alone would would you guys pick?

superman1
05-02-2008, 09:04 AM
Federer.

/thread

dh003i
05-02-2008, 09:04 AM
Still Federer, his variety and craft is unmatched, I'd argue even by Santoro.

willgonase10
05-02-2008, 09:20 AM
Safin has more talent than anyone. Federer lacks with his backhand. It is a weakness believe it or not. And lately with his slump, his forehand is becoming his enemy.

Safin has the best game technically. Sound forehand, awesome backhand, rocket serve and movement is great even though he had knee surgery. Only if the mental aspect of his game was up to par.

I've watched several Safin matches and he seems to be controlling his temper a lot now. Only on stupid shots does he freak out. (Missing easy swinging volley)

Iced_jacob
05-02-2008, 09:23 AM
I think Murray's strokes look so natural that make you think that this kid has tennis in his blood.
Too bad he is too inconsistent. Even though I don't really like him and his game tactics in terms of natural talent i think he should be a the top

Batoussai
05-02-2008, 09:23 AM
Safin has more talent than anyone. Federer lacks with his backhand. It is a weakness believe it or not. And lately with his slump, his forehand is becoming his enemy.

Safin has the best game technically. Sound forehand, awesome backhand, rocket serve and movement is great even though he had knee surgery. Only if the mental aspect of his game was up to par.

I've watched several Safin matches and he seems to be controlling his temper a lot now. Only on stupid shots does he freak out. (Missing easy swinging volley)

Maybe it's not such a good thing him being more calmer. He did a lot better if he freaked out a bit...

Must say Federer, Malisse and Gasquet on the talent part...

Don't rule out Olivier Rochus. Being that tall and getting in the top 50. The guy has got to have massive talent.

superman1
05-02-2008, 09:27 AM
Safin is very gifted, but he's not the most talented. The most talented guys are able to ride on their talent solely, even if everything else is crap. Federer even when he's at his worst will still make semifinals and finals. Safin has a few flaws in his game. He has never shown any promise on grass, which means that he is not complete. He probably would have been absolutely horrible with wood.

ClubHoUno
05-02-2008, 11:12 AM
1. Fed
2. Gasquet
3. Berdych

Jonas
05-02-2008, 11:16 AM
It's tough to argue against Federer....
but in terms of just "God dropped this guy on the earth to play tennis" I would rank them into groups of 3

Group 1 (no particular order)

1. Rios
2. Mcenroe
3. Federer

Group 2:
Safin
Nastase
Leconte/Gasquet (same guy IMO)

PROTENNIS63
05-02-2008, 11:21 AM
Safin has lots of talent. Fed is talented as well.

z-money
05-02-2008, 11:24 AM
either safin or ... jan silva!!! this lil kid is rediculous! look him up on youtube

raiden031
05-02-2008, 11:25 AM
Federer. I read his biography, Quest for Perfection so I got some insight onto his childhood and would say he is pure talent. The guy hated practicing and used to slack off all the time. He would lose to people in practice and when it mattered he would destroy them. Add that to his results over the past few years and there's no comparison with the other players out there.

Vlad
05-02-2008, 11:27 AM
Federer and Gasquet are able to come up with some of the most amazing shots on consistent basis, so I say it is between those 2.

Shaolin
05-02-2008, 11:29 AM
It's tough to argue against Federer....
but in terms of just "God dropped this guy on the earth to play tennis" I would rank them into groups of 3

Group 1 (no particular order)

1. Rios
2. Mcenroe
3. Federer

Group 2:
Safin
Nastase
Leconte/Gasquet (same guy IMO)



Quoted for truth.

dh003i
05-02-2008, 11:59 AM
LOL @ choosing Safin...he's talented for sure, but has some big holes, like drop-shots, volleys, net-game, etc. He's not a complete player.

fastdunn
05-02-2008, 12:05 PM
Federer is the most multi-dimensionally talented. I think I have seen very few better physically and atheletically talented but if you consider all the "other" dimensions like hand craftyness, court vision, game intelligence, all the subtle skills, he has all...

superstition
05-02-2008, 12:59 PM
Federer. I read his biography, Quest for Perfection so I got some insight onto his childhood and would say he is pure talent. The guy hated practicing and used to slack off all the time. He would lose to people in practice and when it mattered he would destroy them. Add that to his results over the past few years and there's no comparison with the other players out there.
McEnroe hated to practice also which is why he played doubles.

Acheron
05-02-2008, 01:38 PM
Nalbandian for sure. When he is at his best physically he can display awesome tennis, even better than Federer's.

superstition
05-02-2008, 01:39 PM
As far as contemporary players, I'd say:

Men:

Federer, Nadal, (honorable mention to Santoro)

Women:

Henin, Sharapova, S. Williams (honorable mention to Schiavone)


Historical:

wood era:
Tilden (winning %), Gonzalez (self-taught, won in his 40s)

graphite era:
Sampras (athletic talent)

wood era:
Wills-Moody (held her own with male players, extremely focused)

graphite:
Navratilova (put everything into her game, incredible longevity)

In an exhibition match in San Francisco on January 28, 1933, Wills defeated Phil Neer, the eighth ranked American male player, 6–3, 6–4.

Big-Serve
05-02-2008, 01:42 PM
santoro, federer, safin, gasquet, berdych, tsonga, monfils

raiden031
05-02-2008, 01:44 PM
Nalbandian for sure. When he is at his best physically he can display awesome tennis, even better than Federer's.

The only props I can give him is that he supposedly is fat yet can compete as a world-class player. The reason I say 'supposedly' is because the few times I've watched him play he didn't look fat to me.

helloworld
05-02-2008, 02:34 PM
Quote:
In an exhibition match in San Francisco on January 28, 1933, Wills defeated Phil Neer, the eighth ranked American male player, 63, 64.


Ana Ivanovic beat Djokovic in an exhibition two years ago. So does that make her better than the top male players???

stormholloway
05-02-2008, 02:46 PM
Safin has more talent than anyone. Federer lacks with his backhand. It is a weakness believe it or not. And lately with his slump, his forehand is becoming his enemy.

I do not believe it. Federer's backhand is not a weakness. That's mythological thinking. You don't have the kind of seasons Federer has had in the past if you have a weakness. It would have been exploited time and time again and led to more losses.

Safin has the best game technically. Sound forehand, awesome backhand, rocket serve and movement is great even though he had knee surgery. Only if the mental aspect of his game was up to par.

I've watched several Safin matches and he seems to be controlling his temper a lot now. Only on stupid shots does he freak out. (Missing easy swinging volley)

The movement isn't that great these days, and where was his great game against Federer in 2004 in Melbourne? I think Safin is up there in terms of talent but Federer does everything very well. Every one of his shots is comparable to the very best in the game.

helloworld
05-02-2008, 02:55 PM
I do not believe it. Federer's backhand is not a weakness. That's mythological thinking. You don't have the kind of seasons Federer has had in the past if you have a weakness. It would have been exploited time and time again and led to more losses.


I believe it is his weakness because his other attributes are clearly better than his backhand. A weakness the weakest shot that you possess. For Federer, it is clearly the backhand.

Jon Rudy
05-02-2008, 04:51 PM
I think Federer's backhand is his weakest shot, but it's hard to call it a weakness when it's so difficult to exploit. It seems he would lose more if it was actually a "weakness."

I may be flamed for saying it, but I'm starting to reconsider Safin's actual raw talent. He's got some nice looking strokes, but for as much of a rifle as his forehand might be, it goes long and breaks down a lot. I would think someone with raw talent would be able to crank out ridiculous forehands on a consistent basis along with every other shot like it was nothing at all.

Maybe that's raw talent. Heck, I don't know. But I would think somebody like Federer would have more raw talent since he can play poorly but get by relatively easy still just by his talent. Safin doesn't seem to be able to do that, or else we'd all be calling him the greatest of all time.

zagor
05-02-2008, 05:12 PM
Safin has more talent than anyone. Federer lacks with his backhand. It is a weakness believe it or not. And lately with his slump, his forehand is becoming his enemy.

Safin has the best game technically. Sound forehand, awesome backhand, rocket serve and movement is great even though he had knee surgery. Only if the mental aspect of his game was up to par.

I've watched several Safin matches and he seems to be controlling his temper a lot now. Only on stupid shots does he freak out. (Missing easy swinging volley)

Federer's backhand a weakness? Please,this is the guy that won 12 slams playing almost exclusively from the baseline(except Wimbledon 2003) and got to two FO finals in a row,if you mean that it's weakness against Nadal on clay,well almost every backhand would breakdown against Nadal's forehand on clay.In my opinion Safin while very talented is also the most overrated player on this board,In my opinion Federer is far more talented.My picks for pure talent(beside Federer obviously) would be Mcenroe,Sampras,Agassi and the massive underachiever Michael Stich.

edmondsm
05-02-2008, 05:15 PM
Nalbandian for sure. When he is at his best physically he can display awesome tennis, even better than Federer's.

Add to that the fact that Nalbandian can play marathon matches and make huge comebacks all the while having the physique of professional-potato-chip-eater.

beedlejuice22
05-02-2008, 06:23 PM
i'd have to say that i have the most raw talent out of everyone. you should see my sweet backhand...NOT

on a more serious note, I think venus and serena have a lot of raw talent. i know you guys on here are gonna eat this one up but come on. they learned from their father who had never been into tennis before. that has got to tell you something. that they could learn solely from a person who had no prior experience and still become multi grand slam champions

fastdunn
05-02-2008, 06:26 PM
Federer's backhand is definitely a weaker side but it's still as good as one hander can get.(not that 2nder is better).

I mean nobody, in history of tennis, with 1 handed backhand, would handle lefty's top/side spinned balls with authority.

edmondsm
05-02-2008, 06:26 PM
on a more serious note, I think venus and serena have a lot of raw talent. i know you guys on here are gonna eat this one up but come on. they learned from their father who had never been into tennis before. that has got to tell you something. that they could learn solely from a person who had no prior experience and still become multi grand slam champions

I for one think that's a damn good point.

GeorgeLucas
05-02-2008, 06:31 PM
Federer, Nadal, Santoro, Verdasco, Safin, Paradorn Blahblahblah, Nalbandian.

All have magnificent coordination and reaction speed.

ruski07
05-02-2008, 06:45 PM
obviously fed is one of the most talented guys out there, being able 2 win tournaments playing far below his ability at times, but verdasco and nalbandian are also soo talented, if verdasco had a brain in his head he could easily be top 20/10 his forehand is just ridiculous...and as for nalbandian he is the cleanest ball striker on the atp tour, i love watching him play, if onli he shedded sum kg's and didnt do stupid drop shots at important moments in matched...also safin has 2 b up there, sum of the things he can pull off on a tennis court is unbelieveable

pr0n8r
05-02-2008, 06:49 PM
Agassi's half-volley from the baseline clean ball striking is one of the best gifts tennis has seen. His raw talent is often obscured by how hard he worked later in his career.

johnny ballgame
05-02-2008, 07:28 PM
Must say Federer, Malisse and Gasquet on the talent part...


Good call on Mallisse. He has always been so silky smooth from the baseline. Motivation was his problem early in his career, but more recently it's been battling injuries.

willgonase10
05-02-2008, 07:35 PM
On the WTA tour, I think Hingis and the Williams Sisters are the most talented. Even more so than the overhyped Henin on these boards.

Hingis just had that feel when she is playing that she can place the ball anywhere and her game was complete! Took the ball so darn early ala Agassi/Federer.

Venus obviously is gifted with long legs and height for power. Richard wanted her to be a serve and volley player. :)

Serena is in a class of her own I think. Her personality may be questioned sometimes but her game is by far unmatched. She has the baseline power, the finesse, the reach at net, and a lot of variety. Even more so than her sister.

Serena lobs, Venus doesn't. Serena hits VERY good dropshots, Venus rarely.

80'stennis
05-02-2008, 09:20 PM
Good call on Mallisse. He has always been so silky smooth from the baseline. Motivation was his problem early in his career, but more recently it's been battling injuries.
I agree. I know he doesn't have tremendous results, but of all the current players I've seen close up, meaning 15 ft from the court, he's been the most impressive. Just the way it sounds when he hits the ball. So clean and pure with not a lot of effort. I haven't seen Federer this close, however. But I've seen some of the others mentioned in this thread, on the same court (Indian Wells 2nd court): Nalbandian, Bagdatis, Safin, Berdych.

I'd like to see Verdasco live, he's got tremendous talent as well. And while we're at it I'd have to say that lefties seem to have more raw talent than righties in general. But that may be, and probably is, because there are simply fewer lefties and so their games seem more unique.

Definitely Johnnie Mac is up there. Probably my most favorite player to watch because of his control, court sense, and overall inspiration.

But like another posted above all these players have sick talent.

pow
05-02-2008, 09:25 PM
I believe it is his weakness because his other attributes are clearly better than his backhand. A weakness the weakest shot that you possess. For Federer, it is clearly the backhand.

Federer's backhand is only seen as a weakness because the rest of his game is so perfect. Federer's backhand would be seen as a definite strength had it been on another player.

Safin has good looking strokes but he doesn't get the results anymore. His match with Baghdatis at the AO 2008 was a beauty because both of them struck the ball beautifully but he isn't consistent enough, his backhand is flat which is nice when he is hitting winners but a pain to watch when they're sailing long. I'm rooting for Safin but I wouldn't take any of his strokes over that of Federer or Nadal.

Cup8489
05-02-2008, 09:34 PM
I do not believe it. Federer's backhand is not a weakness. That's mythological thinking. You don't have the kind of seasons Federer has had in the past if you have a weakness. It would have been exploited time and time again and led to more losses.



The movement isn't that great these days, and where was his great game against Federer in 2004 in Melbourne? I think Safin is up there in terms of talent but Federer does everything very well. Every one of his shots is comparable to the very best in the game.

he was in a hurry leaving his house and forgot to pack it; he brought it to the aus open in 05 though. he wrote on his hand 'pack your game'

Tempest344
05-02-2008, 10:14 PM
Federer
he's been at the top for ages

talent doesn't just come out of nowhere...you have to work hard too

don_nguyen11490
05-02-2008, 11:04 PM
Pancho Gonzalez.

100% self-taught with no coach. No Luxilon Strings, No Midsize or even midsize racket, just a 65 inch woodie, and he dominated for 8 years.

M J
05-02-2008, 11:45 PM
Monfils. Crazy speed, huge serve, huge groundstrokes. If he had Federer's or Nadal's ability to put it all together, he would beat them.

On second thought, the ability to recognize when to play which shot has as much to do with raw talent as anything. So if that counts, the answer is obviously Federer.

scineram
05-04-2008, 05:11 AM
LOL @ Monfils.

Roger so owns Marat.

TennisProdigy
05-04-2008, 06:33 AM
Hmm a player of pure raw talent. You've just described me!!! Thanks.

Alexio92
05-04-2008, 07:08 AM
Pancho Gonzalez.

100% self-taught with no coach. No Luxilon Strings, No Midsize or even midsize racket, just a 65 inch woodie, and he dominated for 8 years.
+2

10char

Bogie
05-04-2008, 11:48 AM
i think santoro is the more talented player to ever grace a tennis court. i mean all of the guys like safin, fed, etc. have solid groundstrokes and shots that they can hurt you with. it is incredible to think how much harder santoro has had to work throughout his career to achieve as much as he has with just a forehand slice and a brilliant mind. guys like safin and roddick don't have to think as much out on the court because approx. 80% of their matches they win with free points and just taking it to their opponents. santoro has had to outsmart everyone he's played his entire life and use his ingenuity to win matches, tons of them. so based on pure talent, santoro is ahead by a mile. do you ever think we're going to see another player like him? there's always going to be another safin, fed, and nadal, if not now then 20 years from now. another santoro on the other hand...........

don knot
05-04-2008, 01:05 PM
There may be players equall to Marcelo Rios, but none that were more naturally gifted...
Short in stature, but he could play a big man's game with 140( mph plus) serves and huge ground strokes.
He could (and mostly) played the "handsy" "feely" game from the baseline with top spin angles and deft drop shots.
The game was too easy for Rios, and that was his biggest problem imo.
The same could be said for Mcenroe./

NamRanger
05-04-2008, 02:46 PM
Nadal, his stroke/serve technique have weird kinks to them. Because of this, Nadal must compensate with just sheer raw natural talent and heart.

superstition
05-04-2008, 04:58 PM
Ana Ivanovic beat Djokovic in an exhibition two years ago. So does that make her better than the top male players???
Wills Moody played with men regularly. It's a different case. Obviously Ivanovic has zero chance against Djokovic in a real match.

Wills Moody, by contrast, was known for developing her game by playing men. This makes that exhibition result more credible, even if he played with a handicap (I have no idea). And, the equipment and game back then made it more possible for a woman with her focus and skill (flat strokes) to give men trouble.

stormholloway
05-04-2008, 05:31 PM
I believe it is his weakness because his other attributes are clearly better than his backhand. A weakness the weakest shot that you possess. For Federer, it is clearly the backhand.

A weakness isn't the weakest shot you possess. A weakness is a part of your game that can be easily exploited. To say it's a weakness is to say it's weak, and it isn't.

Federer's backhand a weakness? Please,this is the guy that won 12 slams playing almost exclusively from the baseline(except Wimbledon 2003) and got to two FO finals in a row,if you mean that it's weakness against Nadal on clay,well almost every backhand would breakdown against Nadal's forehand on clay.

Like he said, you don't win 12 slams almost exclusively from the baseline if you have a weak backhand. Sorry, it doesn't happen. You'd be lucky to win one slam with a weak backhand. Courier would be the obvious mention here but he lived by stepping around his backhand. Moya, again, lives by stepping around his backhand.

It doesn't get much better as far as one handers go than Federer's.

AznHylite
05-04-2008, 07:32 PM
I believe it is his weakness because his other attributes are clearly better than his backhand. A weakness the weakest shot that you possess. For Federer, it is clearly the backhand.

Well, what if he had no weaknesses, just that his backhand was below par than all his other shots. I don't think his backhand is a weakness at all, it's definitely better than most backhands. This is especially true when his backhand is put into a passing shot situation.

stormholloway
05-04-2008, 11:18 PM
Yeah, his passes are wicked. With the compact/classic swing of his you can't do much better. With a loopier style like Guga's or Gasquet you can do some different things.

Ljubicic for number1
05-04-2008, 11:55 PM
Santoro.

and Phillippousis could have been anything with a better work ethic and without the injuries.

VikingSamurai
05-05-2008, 12:04 AM
I am gonna say Pat Cash. Ugly forehand, and even uglier backhand. But seemed to get it all to work with his speed and ability to read a ball and the structure of a point.

Second for me was Boris Becker. Not unlike Safin, he was the first true power player and could have dominated tennis if it weren't for his love for life outside of tennis. To do what he did, and be the size he was at 17 is just amazing..

Historical: Laver over everyone. Just a gift on two legs..

Gorecki
05-05-2008, 12:20 AM
Hicham Arazi anyone?

rounick
05-05-2008, 12:48 AM
Appart from the obvious Safin and Federer,Ernests Gulbis and Marcos Baghdatis would be my votes.

!Tym
05-05-2008, 01:19 AM
Safin is very gifted, but he's not the most talented. The most talented guys are able to ride on their talent solely, even if everything else is crap. Federer even when he's at his worst will still make semifinals and finals. Safin has a few flaws in his game. He has never shown any promise on grass, which means that he is not complete. He probably would have been absolutely horrible with wood.

Different kinds of talent.

A lot of Safin's perceived talent has to do with his size. It's not just his superb timing that allows him to clock the ball with such precision when he's on, but also just his shear size and the leverage he gets on a ball. It's like with Ivo Karlovic, pure talent and genius of serving, or does his height have a little do with that? Karlovic's racket head speed on his serve isn't THAT amazing, but his overwhelming height sure does help him a lot.

To me, Safin is a pure ball striker for sure, he's a ten in this category whereas maybe guys like Rios and Agassi you might put at a ten plus. But other than this, his greatest talent is in his physique. It's like a dream physique for tennis. It's solidly built yet not lumbering like a Larsson, not too tall that low balls become uncomfortable for you (what Rosset used to say was the biggest drawback to his height, that he hated having to bend down for low balls), yet more than tall enough to clock your groundies and serve and give you plenty of reach to prevent aces (Agassi's problem as one commentator pointed out, despite his awesome hand-eye coordination, his short reach made him a little susceptible to being aced, just not enough reach, had to guess) and cover the lines up at the net.

Safin's hands, however, to me weren't naturally all that great. To me, when he first came up this was especially evident, he had a bit of what I call "stone hands" at net. He later remedied this and became a solid volleyer, but to me he was still a wee bit leaning toward a mechanical volleyer, not what you'd call a real natural.

Safin thus to me is a genius of ball-striking, hand-eye coordination and tennis optimal physique, but not so much elsewhere.

Meanwhile McEnroe for all his genius hand-eye coordination and egg drop soup hands and sweet and sour soup competitive fire...he was rather ASTONISHINGLY poor in the ball clocking/racket head speed department wouldn't you say, at least outside his serve? The guy wouldn't exactly be my choice in a little bout of fisticuffs where the only rule was you had to knock your opponent out cold to win.

Bruguera and Federer to me are particularly gifted in the wrists, able to manipulate their wrists so adeptly, so finely, so quickly that it's amazing. Just amazing wrist work.

Santoro's talent is his mind and being able to see things in slow motion like the matrix, and then redistributing reality as we know it. He is a shape shifter and mind bender with the ball. I guess the term is "mentalist"...his hands ain't half bad either.

Sampras' great talent on his serve? That may well have had to do with his abnormal flexibility in his shoulder, I guess you could say how BJ Penn gets an "unfair" advantage with his extra set of arms, err, I mean his legs which function almost like arms because of his dexterity and flexibility with his legs. Gumby limbs are definitely an advantage in sports...just ask Guga.

Kuerten whole body seemed to be made of licorice, and yet this is to me what made it so very difficult to read his shots. It wasn't just the wicked pace and spin and angle he could paste a ball with, it was that he almost seemed to leave his opponents frozen in time before he unleashed it. Best I could describe it is that he was like a willow tree that bends and bends and sways and sways and never seems to stay still, UNTIL it suddenly kind of just SNAPS in the opposite direction. That's why Kuerten's power shots so often left opponents wrong-footed in my opinion. His willowyness would spell them, charm them, into sleep, (like an expert snake charmer and his flute) then WHAM, Guga would suddenly turn into the striking venemous snake on contact.

That was his primary talent.

The thing you'll note is that there have been many 100% raw talent's in one particular physical aspect in the elite ranks through the years, and I don't think it's by accident. Those that are genetically a little freaky or off the wall, it gives that little edge I believe that separates them from the rest.

Regarding Pat Cash? I wouldn't say he was a raw talent as much as I'd say he's thoroughbred, a pure, raw, unbridled athlete in every sense of the word and sinew. This guy was strong yet supple, could take off like a jackazz hyena in a second and get in your face and in your mind all at the same time. I also think there's something slightly irritating about him to face, and that he's the kind of player who you just look at him and he gets under your skin for some reason. Greg Rusedski and Vince "I ain't afraidaya" Spade and even a little Justin Gimelstob all have a little of this "quality" going for them.

As far as someone like Leconte, I would say that he had all the shots and flair in the world, but as with guys like Hicham Arazi, Cedric Pioline, and Richard Gasquet; time and time it's been proven that all the shots and flair in the world mean nothing without a center. What these kind of players have IS brilliant talent, don't get me wrong, but it's like they're lacking a core and center in their being that ever prevents them from being great. What I mean is that a champion long jumper for all his sprinting still must plant before he takes off, but with guys like these it's as though they can never get maximum lift off because they're off kicking and jumping and running in zero gravity with no control over themselves and no idea where they're going.

morten
05-05-2008, 01:56 AM
Hicham Arazi anyone?

Yes Arazi was amazing, stunning to watch live. My votes goes to Mac, Hingis, Navratilova, Laver, Rios, Stich, Federer, Mecir, and... Tauziat! (incredible timing and feel) (Tym, great post btw..)

fps
05-23-2008, 04:46 AM
Nadal, his stroke/serve technique have weird kinks to them. Because of this, Nadal must compensate with just sheer raw natural talent and heart.

i wanted to discount nadal from this debate on the basis that he is actually right-handed and then "learned" to play left-handed. since everything he does has been rigorously coached into him, i wanted to point out that this meant his "natural" game as a righty was stunted early, and his lefty game is all practice.

then i realised that his ability to become top-of-the-world class with his "other" hand is probably perfect evidence that the guy is among the most naturally talented players ever to pick up a racquet.

montx
05-23-2008, 06:22 AM
All around hands down, there is no comparison in my books...Federer is the one.

Bjorn99
05-23-2008, 06:27 AM
Damn, this TYM can write, and see. Must vortex his water also.

RedWeb
05-23-2008, 08:21 AM
There can be only one!... Brad Gilbert.

Lotto
05-23-2008, 08:28 AM
People say that Federer was "born" with his forehand. Now, I obviously don't mean he could hit it like he can know when he was a one or even 15 year old but he was extremely gifted.
Not all tennis players are naturally born athletes though. Alot of top sports people can actually be made athletically with proper training and technique can be developed quite easily if they have the right training.

nikdom
05-23-2008, 01:55 PM
Another angle to look at this issue from is the physical size of a player in his/her generation. In this generation of ripped players like Nadal, Safin (heck even Murray is ripped under that shirt), Federer is a skinny bean pole. Have you ever seen him shirtless? The 'mosquito' JCF is more muscular than Roger. So all the power that Roger generates to hang with this crowd comes from flawless, intuitive movement (you can't learn that - Just ask Roddick), out-of-this-world timing and amazing hand eye co-ordination are nothing but pure talent.

Roger became aware of his potential at some point and decided to take care of the mental part and keep working on his fitness and speed. The rest is unadulterated, God-given talent. The way he locks his eyes on that ball, I'm certain he would have been an excellent baseball hitter even with his size.

Iced_jacob
05-23-2008, 02:02 PM
I think Nadal is a born athlete but I don't think he is one of the guys that you could certainly say he should be a tennis player. I mean..he could be a great athlete in a lot of other sports as well. Speed, power etc...

CyBorg
05-23-2008, 02:02 PM
Federer. I read his biography, Quest for Perfection so I got some insight onto his childhood and would say he is pure talent. The guy hated practicing and used to slack off all the time. He would lose to people in practice and when it mattered he would destroy them. Add that to his results over the past few years and there's no comparison with the other players out there.

Sounds like an unbiased perspective.

iamke55
05-23-2008, 05:36 PM
Another angle to look at this issue from is the physical size of a player in his/her generation. In this generation of ripped players like Nadal, Safin (heck even Murray is ripped under that shirt), Federer is a skinny bean pole. Have you ever seen him shirtless? The 'mosquito' JCF is more muscular than Roger. So all the power that Roger generates to hang with this crowd comes from flawless, intuitive movement (you can't learn that - Just ask Roddick), out-of-this-world timing and amazing hand eye co-ordination are nothing but pure talent.

Roger became aware of his potential at some point and decided to take care of the mental part and keep working on his fitness and speed. The rest is unadulterated, God-given talent. The way he locks his eyes on that ball, I'm certain he would have been an excellent baseball hitter even with his size.

He is greatly talented, but if locking his eyes on the ball meant anything, then he wouldn't be making so many shanks and other such unforced errors so often, especially on clay. Roddick beat him by just keeping the ball in play and waiting for him to miss, making far fewer errors despite being famous for not looking at the ball.

nikdom
05-23-2008, 10:49 PM
He is greatly talented, but if locking his eyes on the ball meant anything, then he wouldn't be making so many shanks and other such unforced errors so often, especially on clay. Roddick beat him by just keeping the ball in play and waiting for him to miss, making far fewer errors despite being famous for not looking at the ball.

Hmmm... let me guess, you're a Roddick fan offended by my suggestion that he doesn't know how to move. So you had to come up with something that sounds reasonable but is just a way to trash my guy... correct? Nice try though!

PascalMariaFan
05-23-2008, 11:39 PM
Nalbandian, without a doubt. The best hand eye coordination in sport.
He has absolutely no serve or movement, but still manages to destroy top ranked players.

Iced_jacob
05-23-2008, 11:52 PM
Nalbandian, without a doubt. The best hand eye coordination in sport.
He has absolutely no serve or movement, but still manages to destroy top ranked players.

When je is not thinking about his next car race! :P

fps
05-24-2008, 02:24 AM
He is greatly talented, but if locking his eyes on the ball meant anything, then he wouldn't be making so many shanks and other such unforced errors so often, especially on clay. Roddick beat him by just keeping the ball in play and waiting for him to miss, making far fewer errors despite being famous for not looking at the ball.

it's difficult with current players. when people look back at federer's career and assess how talented he was, they'll look at the good stuff, they'll look at his peak years, which appear to be 2004-6, although 2007 was a highly successful career in a year as well.