PDA

View Full Version : Is Djokovic More Talented Than Nadal?


TheRealTruth
03-06-2009, 07:55 AM
I know many people say Djokovic has more talent, has better serve and touch than Nadal, Nadal is just mentally more tough. But I think Nadal is actually more talented because he learnt to play with his unnatural hand. What do you think?

Oh my definition of talent is guys like; Federer, Nalbandian, Murray, Gasquet n such.

tahiti
03-06-2009, 08:00 AM
Djokovic is definitely talented, he has a lovely style, flattens his shots beautifully and paints the lines when his winners are working. I don't think Nadal is more talented because he plays left. I think they have different talents and are as talented as each other but in different areas.

thejoe
03-06-2009, 08:02 AM
Nadal's talents have carried him to the top of the rankings. Djoker's have not.

amx13
03-06-2009, 08:05 AM
Yes!... I think Djokovic is far more talented that Nadal...and yet Nadal is a far better player than Djoko.

miyagi
03-06-2009, 08:15 AM
It's hard to say....but being able to play with you weakest hand must surely take alot of talent and hard work.

Djoko does seem supremely talented though.....

I can't call it!

ChanceEncounter
03-06-2009, 08:20 AM
Nadal: Fights for every point in every match.

Djokovic: Pulls out for a sore throat.

Djokovic is probably more naturally gifted than Nadal. Hasn't worked out that way on the court.

Zaragoza
03-06-2009, 08:24 AM
I know many people say Djokovic has more talent, has better serve and touch than Nadal, Nadal is just mentally more tough. But I think Nadal is actually more talented because he learnt to play with his unnatural hand. What do you think?

Oh my definition of talent is guys like; Federer, Nalbandian, Murray, Gasquet n such.

Outside internet forums, few people would say Djokovic is more talented than Nadal.

veroniquem
03-06-2009, 08:30 AM
Djokovic is talented but not more than Nadal IMO. The difference in results between the 2 (which is huge) cannot be solely explained by the mental. The only surface where Djokovic's game rivals Nadal's is hard court.

TheRealTruth
03-06-2009, 08:49 AM
Outside internet forums, few people would say Djokovic is more talented than Nadal.

Not internet forums actually I heard quite a few people saying this at my local clubs that Djokovic being far more talented than Nadal yet mentally much weaker. So yeah generally from people around me who have interest in tennis not just internet. So I was wondering why?

thalivest
03-06-2009, 08:50 AM
Defintiely not. Djokovic is one of the most overrated players on TW. Players more "talented" than Djokovic (I didnt say better, I said more talented) at the very least are:

Federer
Nadal
Safin
Nalbandian
Murray
Gulbis

bolo
03-06-2009, 09:21 AM
nadal is more talented than djokovic, has a lot better feel/touch than djokovic.

Cesc Fabregas
03-06-2009, 09:21 AM
Defintiely not. Djokovic is one of the most overrated players on TW. Players more "talented" than Djokovic (I didnt say better, I said more talented) at the very least are:

Federer
Nadal
Safin
Nalbandian
Murray
Gulbis

Murray is no way more talented than Djokovic, Djokovic has a better serve, bigger forehand and an equally good backhand maybe better. Murray has a better net game and better defence (Djokovic still defends pretty well).

thalivest
03-06-2009, 09:24 AM
Murray is no way more talented than Djokovic, Djokovic has a better serve, bigger forehand and an equally good backhand maybe better. Murray has a better net game and better defence (Djokovic still defends pretty well).

I disagree Djokovic has a better serve and as good or better a backhand. Murray has a much better return of serve also. Game wise Djokovic's only edge is the forehand IMO. Anyway I already know reading your posts you dont like Murray and I readily admit I dont like Djokovic, so neither of us are entirely objective in this case probably so lets just agree to disagree.

thejoe
03-06-2009, 09:27 AM
I disagree Djokovic has a better serve and as good or better a backhand. Murray has a much better return of serve also. Game wise Djokovic's only edge is the forehand IMO. Anyway I already know reading your posts you dont like Murray and I readily admit I dont like Djokovic, so neither of us are entirely objective in this case probably so lets just agree to disagree.

I would disagree with you in the sense that Murray seems to have one of the worst serving percentages in the top 100, and he also has one of the worst second serves, but his serve, when on, is better than Djokovic's, for me anyway.

Gemini
03-06-2009, 09:27 AM
I think Nadal and Djokovic are equally talented but Nadal's much more athletic. Because Nadal's game is built around one primary aspect and his game plan is nearly the same from match to match, it makes him seem less talented because doesn't show a lot of variety.

cknobman
03-06-2009, 09:28 AM
nadal is more talented than djokovic, has a lot better feel/touch than djokovic.

Where do you come up with the conclusion that Nadal has more feel/touch than Djokovic?

LOL its the other way around. Nadal bashes ball with lots of spin and rarely hits finesse shots. Djokovic has one of the better drop shots on tour and can hit some serious clutch serves painting the lines(far more often than Nadal).

CocaCola
03-06-2009, 09:31 AM
Djokovic has still not improved to his full potential, but he will and yes, I also think that he is more talented than Nadal. By the end of this year he will be better in results too...

veroniquem
03-06-2009, 09:36 AM
Djokovic has still not improved to his full potential, but he will and yes, I also think that he is more talented than Nadal. By the end of this year he will be better in results too...
You mean he will have won 6 more slams and 9 more masters by the end of this year? Why is it I can't believe you? :)

Cesc Fabregas
03-06-2009, 09:38 AM
Djokovic has still not improved to his full potential, but he will and yes, I also think that he is more talented than Nadal. By the end of this year he will be better in results too...

On what basis do you think Djoker will have better results than Nadal, come on man I like Djoker but there is nothing to suggest he will have better results than Nadal.

thalivest
03-06-2009, 09:42 AM
Nadal already has atleast (probably more) than double the slams Djokovic will win in his whole career at only 22.

dr325i
03-06-2009, 09:47 AM
you should see his little bro -- the 13 year old one...
I saw him last week in Belgrade hitting on red clay...amazing, but losing it easily like the big brother...

bolo
03-06-2009, 09:48 AM
Where do you come up with the conclusion that Nadal has more feel/touch than Djokovic?

LOL its the other way around. Nadal bashes ball with lots of spin and rarely hits finesse shots. Djokovic has one of the better drop shots on tour and can hit some serious clutch serves painting the lines(far more often than Nadal).

I disagree, nadal has far better dropshots than djokovic and he is able to execute them in important situations even against someone of federer's and hewitt's speed. While I think it's a good idea that djokovic uses the drop shot, Djokovic fails more often with the dropshot than nadal.

Nadal is also a better finisher at the net than djokovic at this point, he also creates better angles of his ground strokes, has better passing shots, and can make the ball dip and hit the line like no one else in the game right now. Overall he just has a lot better ball control than djokovic.

I agree that djokovic has a better serve than nadal and can hit some lines. But I wouldn't say that tips the balance in djokovic's favor in the feel/touch department. If you think nadal doesn't hit finesse shots, then djokovic really doesn't hit any finesse shots at all. :)

Cyan
03-06-2009, 09:49 AM
Is Nalbandian more talented than Federer?

bolo
03-06-2009, 09:50 AM
ofcourse nadal has a better slice than djokovic too.

saram
03-06-2009, 09:51 AM
You can take all the eye-candy talent in this world and throw it in the garbage if you still lose. Sorry, but I'll take Rafa's success over Djokovic's 'talent'.

TheRealTruth
03-06-2009, 03:05 PM
I disagree, nadal has far better dropshots than djokovic and he is able to execute them in important situations even against someone of federer's and hewitt's speed. While I think it's a good idea that djokovic uses the drop shot, Djokovic fails more often with the dropshot than nadal.



I don't agree Nadal has better dropshots than Djokovic, true he execute them well most of the time but that's due to the nature of his game, consistency, which Novak lacks. Djokovic makes his signature backhand dropshots from the baseline which is technically more difficult to execute than Nadal's forehand only inside the service line dropshots.

oneguy21
03-06-2009, 03:09 PM
Talent: roughly equal (different in certain areas)
Mental strength, effort: Nadal by a long shot.

tacou
03-06-2009, 03:15 PM
I don't know what people are talking about when they think talent...
Nadal is #1, Djoko is #3, Nadal has 6 slams Novak has 1, Nadal leads the head 10-4 or something along those lines.

how is Novak more talented? he's not.

oneguy21
03-06-2009, 03:18 PM
Talent alone does not bring one to the top. There is this other element called perseverance that also plays a huge-***** role.

Andyk028
03-06-2009, 03:37 PM
I would say they are close to even, Nadal may have a slight edge with the groundies...I say this because it seems that Djokers groundies have little effect on Federer where with Nadal its a totally different ballgame.

veroniquem
03-06-2009, 03:45 PM
You can take all the eye-candy talent in this world and throw it in the garbage if you still lose. Sorry, but I'll take Rafa's success over Djokovic's 'talent'.
I agree. Playing the right shot at the right time is an essential part of talent IMO. There is skill, there is style but without efficiency and good tactical sense, those are not very useful in the end.

Satch
03-06-2009, 03:48 PM
BH Djokovic
FH Rafa
Feel Djokovic
Volleys Djokovic
Serve Djokovic
Stamina Rafa
Movement Rafa
Tactics equal

winner Djokovic

veroniquem
03-06-2009, 03:52 PM
BH Djokovic
FH Rafa
Feel Djokovic
Volleys Djokovic
Serve Djokovic
Stamina Rafa
Movement Rafa
Tactics equal

winner Djokovic
winner of what? Not of titles for sure neither of head to heads vs the top 10...

julesb
03-06-2009, 03:53 PM
BH Djokovic
FH Rafa
Feel Djokovic
Volleys Djokovic
Serve Djokovic
Stamina Rafa
Movement Rafa
Tactics equal

winner Djokovic

Djokovic doesnt do anything better than Nadal except the serve. Djokovic better volleys, LOL! Rafa is actually a pretty good volleyer, Djokovic stinks at the net.

Satch
03-06-2009, 03:59 PM
Djokovic doesnt do anything better than Nadal except the serve. Djokovic better volleys, LOL! Rafa is actually a pretty good volleyer, Djokovic stinks at the net.

haha yeah and Sampras won 12 French opens... Rafa can't volley that's the fact.

@veroniquem, we are talking about pure talent here pure talent doesn't win matches alone, you need a heart and mind of a champion, something Djoker hasn't got yet...
Nalbandian has the best 2HBH in tennis game still he won only 2 MS series 2 years ago, so what? Does that mean that he isn't talented? No.

VivalaVida
03-06-2009, 03:59 PM
winner of what? Not of titles for sure neither of head to heads vs the top 10...
agreed. Djokovic isnt even close to nadal in terms of talent. Gasquet is definitely not more talented than nadal as I have heard stated so many times :-?

julesb
03-06-2009, 04:00 PM
haha yeah and Sampras won 12 French opens... Rafa can't volley that's the fact.

If Rafa cant volley than Djokovic cant even spell the word since he stinks at the net, his volley technique is total crap, he makes even Nadal look like a god at the net by comparision.

Satch
03-06-2009, 04:03 PM
If Rafa cant volley than Djokovic cant even spell the word since he stinks at the net, his volley technique is total crap, he makes even Nadal look like a god at the net by comparision.

i agree that volleys are the worst part of his game, but to tell me that Rafa is good at net, haha what a Joke.

Still Joker and Rafa are very bad at net so it doesn't matter much.

VivalaVida
03-06-2009, 04:07 PM
i agree that volleys are the worst part of his game, but to tell me that Rafa is good at net, haha what a Joke.

Still Joker and Rafa are very bad at net so it doesn't matter much.
I never understood that whole talent debate. I mean if people want to use that argument then they need to come out with a digital talent meter. I mean people always associate federer and gasquet with talent, while they are really talented, I dont think they should be placed above other top players because they 1HBH and have sexy looking groundstrokes.

veroniquem
03-06-2009, 04:07 PM
haha yeah and Sampras won 12 French opens... Rafa can't volley that's the fact.

@veroniquem, we are talking about pure talent here pure talent doesn't win matches alone, you need a heart and mind of a champion, something Djoker hasn't got yet...
Nalbandian has the best 2HBH in tennis game still he won only 2 MS series 2 years ago, so what? Does that mean that he isn't talented? No.
Pure talent doesn't exist, just my opinion. There's talent, hard work and mental abilities. You can't separate the 3, they're all needed and all play a part in the final result.
Of course Nadal can volley, I guess you haven't watched many of his matches at W to make such a silly statement.

maverick66
03-06-2009, 04:10 PM
i agree that volleys are the worst part of his game, but to tell me that Rafa is good at net, haha what a Joke.

Still Joker and Rafa are very bad at net so it doesn't matter much.

nadal volleys very well. his volleys are very underrated because he normally hits the approach shot so well he either wins the point or gets an easy put away.

Satch
03-06-2009, 04:11 PM
Pure talent doesn't exist, just my opinion. There's talent, hard work and mental abilities. You can't separate the 3, they're all needed and all play a part in the final result.

ok, you can say that the talent is a god-given ability to do something in a certain way no one else can do.

so yes, you can work on that but Fed will never have FH of Rafa or Djoker a BH of Gasquet.

so in that term i like the way Djoker plays the game more, i like him more as a tennis player and creature... if it's easier for you.

veroniquem
03-06-2009, 04:16 PM
ok, you can say that the talent is a god-given ability to do something in a certain way no one else can do.

so yes, you can work on that but Fed will never have FH of Rafa or Djoker a BH of Gasquet.

so in that term i like the way Djoker plays the game more, i like him more as a tennis player and creature... if it's easier for you.
I like Djokovic too. I don't see Nadal and Djokovic as being mutually exclusive! I hope we'll have a lot of Djoko-Nadal matches in the future as I find the matchup very entertaining. I still think Djokovic has some progress to make to reach Nadal's current level on other surfaces than hard court.

doublebreak
03-06-2009, 05:36 PM
ok, you can say that the talent is a god-given ability to do something in a certain way no one else can do.

so yes, you can work on that but Fed will never have FH of Rafa or Djoker a BH of Gasquet.

so in that term i like the way Djoker plays the game more, i like him more as a tennis player and creature... if it's easier for you.

You can not be serious. I think you meant Rafa will never have FH of Fed.

I can see the Nadal worshipers jumping on how Nadal owns Fed and blah blah...please save it.

When it comes to forehands, Federer's FH (in his dominant years) is definitely one of the best ground strokes in the history of the game. Nadal is a great player and his FH is very solid but will never come close to Federer's.

ChanceEncounter
03-06-2009, 05:46 PM
winner of what? Not of titles for sure neither of head to heads vs the top 10...

You do realize that talent != results.

If one person has a better natural feel for the game, and it comes easier for them, that person is generally speaking, more talented.

If someone has a better proclivity or aptitude for tennis, we say that person is the more "talented" tennis player. It's much like intelligence. If someone learns more quickly, figures tngs out more easily, and can think on their feet faster, that person is more 'intelligent.' That doesn't mean that he'll have a more successful career and a better job than someone less intelligent.

Pure talent doesn't exist, just my opinion. There's talent, hard work and mental abilities. You can't separate the 3, they're all needed and all play a part in the final result.
Of course Nadal can volley, I guess you haven't watched many of his matches at W to make such a silly statement.

Yes you can. The most talented player in the world would not win a point if he simply stood there on the court and let balls fly past him. That doesn't do a thing to diminish his ability/potential to play tennis. That's just a critique against his effort and mental fortitude.

Could you potentially claim that effort/mental fortitude is part of 'talent'? Sure, if you want to change the parameters of what most people consider 'talent,' yes. But in isolating "tennis talent," we're talking about how inclined a player towards playing quality tennis. Just like how in isolating IQ or intelligence, we're isolating a person's ability to solve new problems (i.e. fluid intelligence).

I like Djokovic too. I don't see Nadal and Djokovic as being mutually exclusive! I hope we'll have a lot of Djoko-Nadal matches in the future as I find the matchup very entertaining. I still think Djokovic has some progress to make to reach Nadal's current level on other surfaces than hard court.

Again, has nothing to do with talent.

doublebreak
03-06-2009, 05:53 PM
I know many people say Djokovic has more talent, has better serve and touch than Nadal, Nadal is just mentally more tough. But I think Nadal is actually more talented because he learnt to play with his unnatural hand. What do you think?

Oh my definition of talent is guys like; Federer, Nalbandian, Murray, Gasquet n such.

I guess it depends how you define talent. If it's just a set of skills, then you are really talking about who the better player is. I don't think that is what you are looking for. I would say you mean talent as innate abilities that of course with hard work translate into well developed skills. The innate part is basically the initial potential of being great at something, in this case tennis.

Provided we are looking for the kind of talent already mentioned I would say that I don't quite know, I would have to say Nadal. It's one of those subjective things that you just feel when you are witnessing the work of a genius and I don't get that feeling with either one. Nadal strikes me as a very talented athlete who happens to play tennis, I think he would have excelled at practically any sport. Djokovic is a very solid player with a lot of ambition, but I don't see him as having some kind of god given gift.

Players that have given me the sensation of great talent (not necessarily great results) at some point are: Agassi, Federer, Safin and Rios. Of course some more frequently than others, but it's just a feeling that you've witnessed something really special. I've never felt that while watching Nadal and Djokovic play, except great admiration for Nadal determination and tenacity. I'm just not sure that qualifies as a talent, I think it is more of a decision to commit to something you want with all you've got.

stormholloway
03-06-2009, 05:59 PM
People underestimate how talented Nadal is because he plays such a physical brand of tennis. His ball control is outstanding. He plays a one dimensional game only when such a strategy is effective against his opponent.

ChanceEncounter
03-06-2009, 06:36 PM
People underestimate how talented Nadal is because he plays such a physical brand of tennis. His ball control is outstanding. He plays a one dimensional game only when such a strategy is effective against his opponent.
I don't think anyone said that Nadal isn't talented. He's clearly very talented. At the same time, he would not be an elite player if he had the mental game of Djokovic and the same propensity to quit whenever the going gets tough.

Players that have given me the sensation of great talent (not necessarily great results) at some point are: Agassi, Federer, Safin and Rios. Of course some more frequently than others, but it's just a feeling that you've witnessed something really special. I've never felt that while watching Nadal and Djokovic play, except great admiration for Nadal determination and tenacity. I'm just not sure that qualifies as a talent, I think it is more of a decision to commit to something you want with all you've got.

In my opinion, Safin is one of the most 'talented' players on tour. As I said, I define talent as a natural endowment of aptitude towards a certain field. Safin certainly had that. In this case, being a freak athlete certainly does help Nadal's case.

That said, just how much of a freak athlete is Nadal? I bet if you took all of the players on Tour and told them to run a 100m dash, I doubt Nadal would win the race.

Clay lover
03-06-2009, 06:43 PM
I don't think anyone said that Nadal isn't talented. He's clearly very talented. At the same time, he would not be an elite player if he had the mental game of Djokovic and the same propensity to quit whenever the going gets tough.



In my opinion, Safin is one of the most 'talented' players on tour. As I said, I define talent as a natural endowment of aptitude towards a certain field. Safin certainly had that. In this case, being a freak athlete certainly does help Nadal's case.

That said, just how much of a freak athlete is Nadal? I bet if you took all of the players on Tour and told them to run a 100m dash, I doubt Nadal would win the race.

Raw speed is not the only measure of athleticism. Good reflexes are very important too and I think Nadal has tons of it.

pricey_aus
03-06-2009, 06:43 PM
gaaahh...
ive had this convo so many times.
i believe that Nadal is the least talented in the top 10.
BUT
he's work ethic and commitment is better than anybody ever, which combined with his talent, makes him the best player in the world.

ChanceEncounter
03-06-2009, 06:48 PM
Raw speed is not the only measure of athleticism. Good reflexes are very important too and I think Nadal has tons of it.
Obviously not, but you want to do the ruler-reflex test? I still don't think Nadal would have the fastest reflexes on tour.

Again, I never said Nadal wasn't athletic or wasn't talented. They are all athletic and talented or they wouldn't be top 5 players. We're talking at a level where any marginal difference in talent or ability can mean all the difference.

That's where Nadal's mental advantage plays a big factor. It's not an indictment of Nadal.

Nadal_Freak
03-06-2009, 06:59 PM
Nadal has definitely maxed out his talent more then Djokovic has. They are pretty equal in talent imo.

35ft6
03-06-2009, 07:04 PM
I think Nadal is more talented than Djokovic. Novak has prettier strokes, but less talent IMO.

Mick
03-06-2009, 07:41 PM
djokovic could imitate other players but nadal could not.
thus djokovic is more talented than nadal :D

TheTruth
03-06-2009, 07:42 PM
Outside internet forums, few people would say Djokovic is more talented than Nadal.

Agree.....

ChanceEncounter
03-06-2009, 07:48 PM
Agree.....
Disagree. I've seen this argument many times.

The average person seems to have extreme difficulty separating "talent" from other stuff, such as "ability," "skill," and "results."

TheTruth
03-06-2009, 07:52 PM
How talented we think one is, is pretty subjective. I don't think there's a way to measure who's more talented than someone else. Nadal and Djokovic are both talented.

NandoMania
03-06-2009, 08:13 PM
I don't think he's more talented because part of talent is the mind that uses it, and the landfill of tennis history is heaped with talent unused by the mind that directed it. Nadal's mental talent is a large part of what has made him No. 1 in the World.

ChanceEncounter
03-06-2009, 08:18 PM
How talented we think one is, is pretty subjective. I don't think there's a way to measure who's more talented than someone else. Nadal and Djokovic are both talented.
I don't think anyone said that Nadal isn't talented. He's clearly very talented.

No one said otherwise.

No, there isn't a way to discretely "measure" talent, and there is a level of subjectivity. There's also subjectivity in measuring intelligence. But I think it's pretty fair to say that someone like Marilyn vos Savant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant) is a smarter than the average English teacher. The game comes more easily for Djokovic. He's nowhere near Nadal's conditioning and mental game, and he's still able to play very well on all surfaces.

Nadal's clearly a much harder worker and he's made visible strides in his game. Djokovic, not so much.

But as they say, hard work often trumps talent.

lawrence
03-06-2009, 08:19 PM
I think Nadal and Djokovic are equally talented but Nadal's much more athletic. Because Nadal's game is built around one primary aspect and his game plan is nearly the same from match to match, it makes him seem less talented because doesn't show a lot of variety.

not really, hes found a style that decimates 99% of the tour, so hes sticking with it
why would you switch your style up if its winning slams on pretty much all surfaces for you?

Ripster
03-06-2009, 08:25 PM
No one said otherwise.

No, there isn't a way to discretely "measure" talent, and there is a level of subjectivity. There's also subjectivity in measuring intelligence. But I think it's pretty fair to say that someone like Marilyn vos Savant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant) is a smarter than the average English teacher. The game comes more easily for Djokovic. He's nowhere near Nadal's conditioning and mental game, and he's still able to play very well on all surfaces.

Nadal's clearly a much harder worker and he's made visible strides in his game. Djokovic, not so much.

But as they say, hard work often trumps talent.

Agree. People are putting way too much emphasis on the mental game and results. Sure Nadal has much better credentials than Djokovic but from a pure talent standpoint, I'd much rather have Djokovic's game over Nadal's.

This reminds me of the Federer vs. Nadal talent thread that went on forever. Federer and Djokovic are both slightly more talented IMO.

flying24
03-06-2009, 08:28 PM
Federer and Djokovic both slightly more talented? LOL! Federer is way more talented than Djokovic, so they both cant be the same relative to Nadal, whatever that is.

saram
03-06-2009, 08:28 PM
Agree. People are putting way too much emphasis on the mental game and results. Sure Nadal has much better credentials than Djokovic but from a pure talent standpoint, I'd much rather have Djokovic's game over Nadal's.

This reminds me of the Federer vs. Nadal talent thread that went on forever. Federer and Djokovic are both slightly more talented IMO.

More talented but lose all the time--care to re-define your assessment here? I mean how can one be more talented and lose all the time?!?!?!?!

flying24
03-06-2009, 08:30 PM
Ripster is a Djokovic fanatic. I remember some of his posts from the year end Masters in November and they were downright hilarious.

TheTruth
03-06-2009, 08:33 PM
not really, hes found a style that decimates 99% of the tour, so hes sticking with it
why would you switch your style up if its winning slams on pretty much all surfaces for you?

Agree.......

egn
03-06-2009, 08:54 PM
Talent and success don't always come hand and hand. Take Nalbandian, loads of talent, never won a slam. I think Djokovic has more natural talent than Nadal, he has more weapons, and an overall better game. However I feel Nadal is far superior to him. Nadal is a better player than him. Nadal works at it more, and has a lot more heart than Djokovic. Nadal is more mature and does not "choke" or give in. Nadal is mentally superior to Djokovic. Sure Djokovic I feel has more talent and more skill tennis wise, but I don't think he will ever be on Nadal's level as he does not use it to his potential and he never will because he will never be mentally strong enough as a player.

Ripster
03-06-2009, 08:56 PM
More talented but lose all the time--care to re-define your assessment here? I mean how can one be more talented and lose all the time?!?!?!?!

Djokovic has won some of their meetings so he doesn't lose all the time to Nadal. I'm simply agreeing with chanceencounter's statement that hard work trumps talent a lot of the time.

Ripster
03-06-2009, 08:57 PM
Ripster is a Djokovic fanatic. I remember some of his posts from the year end Masters in November and they were downright hilarious.

It's downright hilarious that you're bring this up given your comments and the fact that Djokovic ended up winning the tournament.

thalivest
03-06-2009, 08:58 PM
The only 2 recent players with more talent than Nadal IMO are Federer and Safin. That is it. Djokovic having more talent than Nadal makes me laugh.

JoshDragon
03-06-2009, 09:00 PM
Djokovic has won some of their meetings so he doesn't lose all the time to Nadal. I'm simply agreeing with chanceencounter's statement that hard work trumps talent a lot of the time.

Djokovic, has a horrible record against Nadal and Federer. Djokovic can't even establish a winning h2h against Nadal on hard courts.

saram
03-06-2009, 09:08 PM
The only 2 recent players with more talent than Nadal IMO are Federer and Safin. That is it. Djokovic having more talent than Nadal makes me laugh.

I would actually say the only one with more 'given talent' than Rafa is Roger. Safin has the potential to have more talent--but never showed it outside of a couple of hot streaks. Rafa, even though less 'talented' than Roger--has twice the 'winner's mentality' than Roger. Rafa just finds a way to win regardless and that is what I love about him. I don't like his strokes in any way--but his desire and heart are un-matched in the last decade.

thalivest
03-06-2009, 09:08 PM
I would actually say the only one with more 'given talent' than Rafa is Roger. Safin has the potential to have more talent--but never showed it outside of a couple of hot streaks. Rafa, even though less 'talented' than Roger--has twice the 'winner's mentality' than Roger. Rafa just finds a way to win regardless and that is what I love about him. I don't like his strokes in any way--but his desire and heart are un-matched in the last decade.

I agree on all you said.

saram
03-06-2009, 09:12 PM
I agree on all you said.

Rafa really is a winner in all aspects. He is humble, genuine, sincere, and has the heart of a lion--if not more. He is not arrogant, tips his hat to Roger and acknowledges what Roger has done in the last decade--yet trumps it all with heart and vigor.

Some people suggest I don't like Rafa on this board--but that is not true. I just don't like the biased fan-base that represents him here.

But if I had to pick one player on the ATP to go into battle with me--I'd take Rafa 8 days a week. He's a champion, warrior--and fighter.

TheTruth
03-06-2009, 09:13 PM
Rafa is way more talented than Roger. His results, his early start, his mastery of three surfaces suggest this. This is not a subjective opinion but based on real, actual results. IMO!

ESP#1
03-06-2009, 09:15 PM
Its not an absurd thought to think that Djoko has more talent than Rafa, i am not saying i agree but he does posses some great qualities that one may argue in his defense. To me the most talented player is still Nalbandian

saram
03-06-2009, 09:18 PM
Rafa is way more talented than Roger. His results, his early start, his mastery of three surfaces suggest this. This is not a subjective opinion but based on real, actual results. IMO!

See, this is what I mean about the fan-base being biased. Reading some of the comments is like pulling teeth without novocaine.

ChanceEncounter
03-06-2009, 09:19 PM
Rafa is way more talented than Roger. His results, his early start, his mastery of three surfaces suggest this. This is not a subjective opinion but based on real, actual results. IMO!

You can't be "IMO" and claim that it's not "subjective." Rafa's results speak for themselves. But many of these results come from the fact that he's such a hard worker and is willing to put in the time to improve his game. He's not stubborn like Federer where he wants to beat people his way all the time. Rafa knows when he needs to make adjustments and he works on them continuously.

I don't understand some Nadal fans. No one is diminishing Rafa's accomplishments by saying that there are more talented players on tour (there are). It's not a backhanded insult to claim that Rafa wins because of his mental game. It's just the way it is.

Some fans seem to act like Nadal has to be the most talented guy to ever pick up a racket, and he has the best mental game in sports history. If this was the case, he would never lose a match. :rolleyes:

saram
03-06-2009, 09:19 PM
Its not an absurd thought to think that Djoko has more talent than Rafa, i am not saying i agree but he does posses some great qualities that one may argue in his defense. To me the most talented player is still Nalbandian

Novak has the skills to be #1 in the world--just like Marat, Nalby, Murray, etc. They just are so inconsistent...

ESP#1
03-06-2009, 09:21 PM
Rafa is way more talented than Roger. His results, his early start, his mastery of three surfaces suggest this. This is not a subjective opinion but based on real, actual results. IMO!

What does IMO stand for? I seem to be a bit confused

TheNatural
03-07-2009, 12:17 AM
joker has a better backhand and backhand return, but Nadal is a better more talented player and a more instinctive player.

luckyboy1300
03-07-2009, 12:25 AM
What does IMO stand for? I seem to be a bit confused

from her standpoint: In My "Super-Biased" Opinion.

bolo
03-07-2009, 05:54 AM
I don't agree Nadal has better dropshots than Djokovic, true he execute them well most of the time but that's due to the nature of his game, consistency, which Novak lacks. Djokovic makes his signature backhand dropshots from the baseline which is technically more difficult to execute than Nadal's forehand only inside the service line dropshots.

Nadal attempts and executes on both backhand and forehand drop shots, djokovic only really hits backhand dropshots. I agree that djokovic tries to hit harder dropshots but even taking that into account nadal just has a lot better feel for the ball.

Are we forgetting the impossible banana shots that he hits on clay and that he pulled off against verdasco at the AO? How about that shoestring passing shot against Mahut at queens a couple of years ago? How about the slide, shovel-lob, with his back to the net orver djokovic's head at hamburg 08? There is the slide, backhand dink past a flailing federer in the final game at hamburg 08; How about all those perfectly placed first shots against a federer at the net that result in the 2nd shot being an easy winner.

The list just goes on and on and on imo. In the hands/feel/ball control department nadal is a lot better.

Gemini
03-07-2009, 12:09 PM
not really, hes found a style that decimates 99% of the tour, so hes sticking with it
why would you switch your style up if its winning slams on pretty much all surfaces for you?

What are you saying "Not Really" to? The fact that I said that Nadal is more athletic than Djokovic? I think the majority of people would definitely agree with me based on the ridiculous (amazing) defense that Nadal plays which often results in setting up his offense.

No where in my statements did I say that Nadal should change his style of play but only mentioned that because Nadal plays a game built around one major aspect that he appears less talented. Djokovic on the other hand is more likely mix in a variety of shots and when he's hitting them it looks like he might be more talented because he possesses greater variety.

I agree with you when you say that shouldn't change a style that's going to get you the win against just about anyone you play.

NamRanger
03-07-2009, 12:30 PM
The only 2 recent players with more talent than Nadal IMO are Federer and Safin. That is it. Djokovic having more talent than Nadal makes me laugh.


I would put Nalbandian above Nadal in terms of pure ball striking capability. However, he's always too fat.

anointedone
03-07-2009, 12:31 PM
I would put Nalbandian above Nadal in terms of pure ball striking capability. However, he's always too fat.

I am still trying to decide how talented Gulbis and Cilic are. Too early to tell I guess. I think Del Potro is overrated though.

NamRanger
03-07-2009, 12:39 PM
I am still trying to decide how talented Gulbis and Cilic are. Too early to tell I guess. I think Del Potro is overrated though.


If we're talking about pure tennis ability, Gulbis by far is way better than those 3. However, he's too hot and cold like Safin. Cilic to a degree is the same way also.



Del Potro is talented for sure, but he's abit one dimensional compared to Gulbis and Cilic. However, he's consistent and that's why he is where he is now.

anointedone
03-07-2009, 12:44 PM
If we're talking about pure tennis ability, Gulbis by far is way better than those 3. However, he's too hot and cold like Safin. Cilic to a degree is the same way also.



Del Potro is talented for sure, but he's abit one dimensional compared to Gulbis and Cilic. However, he's consistent and that's why he is where he is now.

Del Potro just seems to have one game. When he runs into someone who can either shut it down (Federer in Australia) or do it better (Berdych last fall in a match) he looks like a fish out of sea. It is a bit amazing he is even in the top 10 considering but as you said he is consistent. I laughed when so many people were calling him the unofficial #5 at one point last year though. Yeah he had a great summer while people were away at the Olympics for much of it (he had a win over Roddick, but mostly nothing else that big). He still has alot more to prove, other than he is a consistent solid player who can do well when able to play his game vs opponents.

I agree Gulbis is wildly inconsistent. I am kind of waiting for him to show the ability to play more percentage tennis and adapt when things are not working.

TheTruth
03-07-2009, 12:52 PM
See, this is what I mean about the fan-base being biased. Reading some of the comments is like pulling teeth without novocaine.

I feel you, but it seems it's ok to say Roger is more talented and that's supposed to be a given? I happen not to agree. I think Rafa is more talented, he just has a game that we haven't seen before. That to me makes him even more talented. It's a kind of an paradox I think. "Roger is more talented", but let's watch Rafa beat him most of the time without having an ounce of talent.

TheTruth
03-07-2009, 12:55 PM
You can't be "IMO" and claim that it's not "subjective." Rafa's results speak for themselves. But many of these results come from the fact that he's such a hard worker and is willing to put in the time to improve his game. He's not stubborn like Federer where he wants to beat people his way all the time. Rafa knows when he needs to make adjustments and he works on them continuously.

I don't understand some Nadal fans. No one is diminishing Rafa's accomplishments by saying that there are more talented players on tour (there are). It's not a backhanded insult to claim that Rafa wins because of his mental game. It's just the way it is.

Some fans seem to act like Nadal has to be the most talented guy to ever pick up a racket, and he has the best mental game in sports history. If this was the case, he would never lose a match. :rolleyes:

The IMO is based on how I view the results. My opinion is still subjective. All opinions are. Maybe I didn't word it clearly, but I still believe in what I said.

TheTruth
03-07-2009, 12:57 PM
joker has a better backhand and backhand return, but Nadal is a better more talented player and a more instinctive player.

There. He said it better than me.

NamRanger
03-07-2009, 12:58 PM
I feel you, but it seems it's ok to say Roger is more talented and that's supposed to be a given? I happen not to agree. I think Rafa is more talented, he just has a game that we haven't seen before. That to me makes him even more talented. It's a kind of an paradox I think. "Roger is more talented", but let's watch Rafa beat him most of the time without having an ounce of talent.


I have to agree. Many people on these forums call Nadal a far inferior tennis player, with little to no talent.



What does that make Federer then? A player with supposedly infinite talent, being beaten by a one dimensional, no to little talent player?

coloskier
03-07-2009, 12:58 PM
After Djokovic getting straight setted by Ferrer today, I think the OP is a little ahead of himself.

TheRealTruth
03-07-2009, 05:54 PM
After Djokovic getting straight setted by Ferrer today, I think the OP is a little ahead of himself.

How was I ahead of myself? Did you even read my OP at all?:rolleyes:

I know many people say Djokovic has more talent, has better serve and touch than Nadal, Nadal is just mentally more tough. But I think Nadal is actually more talented because he learnt to play with his unnatural hand. What do you think?

OddJack
03-07-2009, 05:58 PM
Djoker plays more on smarts that Muscle, Nadal is more muscle than smarts.

Djoker is more talented in tennis terms. Nadal is talented in staying extremely focus and a high degree of will power.

ChanceEncounter
03-07-2009, 06:16 PM
I feel you, but it seems it's ok to say Roger is more talented and that's supposed to be a given? I happen not to agree. I think Rafa is more talented, he just has a game that we haven't seen before. That to me makes him even more talented. It's a kind of an paradox I think. "Roger is more talented", but let's watch Rafa beat him most of the time without having an ounce of talent.

It's not a "paradox" at all. You should look up the definition of that word.

Again, because talent never implies results. It doesn't imply playing level. It doesn't even mean skill or ability. It means "talent." As I said, the most talented player in the universe would not win a point if he just stands there. Not unless he's some alien race that can repel balls back to the opponent's side of the court just by his mere presence.

I can flip the same scenario back to Nadal fans. Again, if Rafa has more talent than anyone, and he's also much stronger mentally, how come anyone can beat him at all, ever? There's obviously players out there with similar or greater talent.

Nadal_Freak
03-07-2009, 06:26 PM
Djoker plays more on smarts that Muscle, Nadal is more muscle than smarts.

Djoker is more talented in tennis terms. Nadal is talented in staying extremely focus and a high degree of will power.
Ridiculous comments. Nadal plays the percentages while Djokovic gets impatient and loses many points due to this.

ChanceEncounter
03-07-2009, 06:39 PM
Ridiculous comments. Nadal plays the percentages while Djokovic gets impatient and loses many points due to this.

That would seem to corroborate that Nadal is better at "staying focused," wouldn't it? :confused:

ChanceEncounter
03-07-2009, 06:40 PM
I'm guessing by "tennis smarts," he means tennis variety. Nadal's point construction and mental game is obviously far superior.

Thirteen
03-07-2009, 06:47 PM
I guess it depends on what you define as being "talented". The ability and willingness to put in the hard miles in practice can be considered talent as well. Nadal has that in spades, and for some, like Ferrer, it's their primary talent.

vtmike
03-07-2009, 07:25 PM
Is Djokovic more talented than Nadal?

Answer: No...I mean right now Nadal is more talented because of his level of fitness but I think he is going to break down pretty soon for obvious reasons and then maybe Djokovic might become more talented...but until he breaks down, Nadal is definitely the more talented player!

NamRanger
03-07-2009, 07:52 PM
It's not a "paradox" at all. You should look up the definition of that word.

Again, because talent never implies results. It doesn't imply playing level. It doesn't even mean skill or ability. It means "talent." As I said, the most talented player in the universe would not win a point if he just stands there. Not unless he's some alien race that can repel balls back to the opponent's side of the court just by his mere presence.

I can flip the same scenario back to Nadal fans. Again, if Rafa has more talent than anyone, and he's also much stronger mentally, how come anyone can beat him at all, ever? There's obviously players out there with similar or greater talent.


A. Federer puts in as much Nadal does in terms of fitness, etc.
B. Federer plays pretty damn well when he faces Nadal the majority of the time
C. Nadal has to be pretty damn talented to be able to keep up with Federer



Yeah. I think that sums it up quite nicely. Federer may edge out Nadal in the talent department, but by no means is he far superior (otherwise their H2H would look very different).

Spider
03-07-2009, 07:58 PM
There is no way Federer is more talented than Nadal, if so, it wouldn't be an ownage in their head to head in this "so called rivalry".

In fact, almost all the times, that they have faced each other, Fed turns into a one dimensional player who happens to rely on top spin rallies on the backhand side (in spite of being aware that Nadal owns him in the baseline tassles). If he was as multi talented, surely he would have found a way to win (and avoided losing 13 times to your biggest rival).

ChanceEncounter
03-07-2009, 08:09 PM
A. Federer puts in as much Nadal does in terms of fitness, etc.
B. Federer plays pretty damn well when he faces Nadal the majority of the time
C. Nadal has to be pretty damn talented to be able to keep up with Federer



Yeah. I think that sums it up quite nicely. Federer may edge out Nadal in the talent department, but by no means is he far superior (otherwise their H2H would look very different).

There is no way Federer is more talented than Nadal, if so, it wouldn't be an ownage in their head to head in this "so called rivalry".

In fact, almost all the times, that they have faced each other, Fed turns into a one dimensional player who happens to rely on top spin rallies on the backhand side (in spite of being aware that Nadal owns him in the baseline tassles). If he was as multi talented, surely he would have found a way to win (and avoided losing 13 times to your biggest rival).

Again, fallacious argument. I find it really quite funny how people can't separate talent from results.

In other words. If the word result, or any reference to a player's results and achievements comes into your post, you are NO LONGER talking about talent from a purely talent standpoint.

Clear yet? Talent != results/achievements/skills/etc.

Santoro has incredible skill and some pretty nice achievements, but he's far from being naturally talented or gifted.

Nadal has great talent, no one said otherwise. But what separates him from the other top players is his mental game. He's much stronger there with similar tier talent.

If he was a better talent AND much stronger mentally, he would never lose a match. As I said, it's not a backhanded compliment to say that what separates Nadal as a player isn't talent but concentration, point construction, and other mental aspects.

LurkingGod
03-07-2009, 08:16 PM
You can't be "IMO" and claim that it's not "subjective." Rafa's results speak for themselves. But many of these results come from the fact that he's such a hard worker and is willing to put in the time to improve his game. He's not stubborn like Federer where he wants to beat people his way all the time. Rafa knows when he needs to make adjustments and he works on them continuously.

I don't understand some Nadal fans. No one is diminishing Rafa's accomplishments by saying that there are more talented players on tour (there are). It's not a backhanded insult to claim that Rafa wins because of his mental game. It's just the way it is.

Some fans seem to act like Nadal has to be the most talented guy to ever pick up a racket, and he has the best mental game in sports history. If this was the case, he would never lose a match. :rolleyes:

Do talent and gift have the same meaning? Pardon my confusion as english isn't my first language.

If they are, then 'talent' in tennis should be judged in the same vein as talent in arts, musics, acting, etc.. It's the God given abilities that can't be replicated with lessons and practices of those non-talented ones regardless of the amount of hard work they put into it.

People who take singing lessons can hit all the high notes, can sing in tune, can imitate the original artists when singing their songs with the same singing style and vocal technique. They can even sing better than the original artists because they know the right way to hit every note in the music book. These singers mostly ended up as as Idols contestants (but couldn't win it) or singing in a pub or a cover band.

The talented singers can make the songs their own. People can copy them afterwards but they can't copy their identity. Talented singers know how to make you 'feel' the songs before they learn how to sing properly. When talented singers hit the high notes they have the way to hit those notes and send the chills down your spine.

Back to tennis, talented players are those who have their threadmark shots. There's a reason people talk about Fed's forehand, Sampras's serve, Agassi's return - and Nadal's heavy top spin.

It's undeniable that Fed's the king of the shot making. But apart from Federer, no one has ever hit those out of this world shots more often than Nadal. His hard work, mental toughness and physical strength have rewarded him with his consistency and the victories in some tight matches. But he'd have been just a consistent top 10 players if he's just a player with average talent.

He may have improved on his weaknesses through hard working and practicing but a lot of his strengths came from natural talent. For example people think his ability to reach the unreachable balls and get them back into play or even hit the winner out of them comes from his will to run after every ball plus the speed to get to them in time. I don't think that's the case. There've been a few players on tour who're just as quick and run after every ball but none of them could do much with the out of reach balls apart from not hitting them out. Nadal has hit the cross court winners out of those 'should have been clear winners' often enough that it looks normal coming from him. Do you think the other players wouldn't have tried to hit the same shot if what they needed to do was practice as hard as he did?

So let's get back to the topic, what make Djokovic more talented than Nadal? He serves better than Nadal but so does Roddick and Kalovic. He's a more natural hard court player because he can hit flat shots better than Nadal but Nadal can hit to spin shots better than him so what the point?

Spider
03-07-2009, 08:16 PM
Again, fallacious argument. I find it really quite funny how people can't separate talent from results.

In other words. If the word result, or any reference to a player's results and achievements comes into your post, you are NO LONGER talking about talent from a purely talent standpoint.

Clear yet? Talent != results/achievements/skills/etc.

Santoro has incredible skill and some pretty nice achievements, but he's far from being naturally talented or gifted.

Nadal has great talent, no one said otherwise. But what separates him from the other top players is his mental game. He's much stronger there with similar tier talent.

If he was a better talent AND much stronger mentally, he would never lose a match. As I said, it's not a backhanded compliment to say that what separates Nadal as a player isn't talent but concentration, point construction, and other mental aspects.

You make good points, but who is to say what the actual definition of talent is. I believe, talent is something that can be defined in various different ways. For example, if Nadal is mentally one of the strongest players out there, then yes that is a huge talent to have.

You cant believe tennis comes easily to anyone, every one has to work hard to develop their games (and the other important things that are necessary to succeed at the top level). So Federer has worked on his game like only he can and the same can be said about Nadal.

Therefore I say Nadal is as talented if not more than Federer as talent doesn't have to be restriced to the shots that you pull out (and even there Nadal can pull out some unthinkable shots).

thalivest
03-07-2009, 08:21 PM
A. Federer puts in as much Nadal does in terms of fitness, etc.
B. Federer plays pretty damn well when he faces Nadal the majority of the time
C. Nadal has to be pretty damn talented to be able to keep up with Federer



Yeah. I think that sums it up quite nicely. Federer may edge out Nadal in the talent department, but by no means is he far superior (otherwise their H2H would look very different).

I agree. I have no problem with people saying Federer is a bit more talented than Nadal but he wouldnt have such a horrible head to head with Nadal if he were way more talented. Federer is one of the hardest workers on tour as well, his mental toughness is clearly below Nadal's but ahead of the vast majority of tour, he is great at getting the most out of his abilities and preparing properly.

ChanceEncounter
03-07-2009, 08:29 PM
Do talent and gift have the same meaning? Pardon my confusion as english isn't my first language.

If they are, then 'talent' in tennis should be judged in the same vein as talent in arts, musics, acting, etc.. It's the God given abilities that can't be replicated with lessons and practices of those non-talented ones regardless of the amount of hard work they put into it.

People who takes singing lessons can hit all the high notes, can sing in tune, can imitate the original artists when singing their songs with the same singing style and vocal technique. They can even better than the original artists because they know the right way to hit every note in the music book. These singers mostly ended up as as Idols contestants (but couldn't win it) or singing in a pub or a cover band.

The talented singers can make the songs their own. People can copy them afterwards but they can't copy their identity. Talented singers know how to make you 'feel' the songs before they learn how to sing properly. When talented singers hit the high notes they have the way to hit those notes and send the chills down your spine.

And in tennis, apart from Federer, no one has ever hit those out of this world shots more often than Nadal. His hard work, mental toughness and physical stregth have rewarded him with his consistency and the victories in some tight matches. But he'd have been just a consistent top 10 players if he's just a player with average talent.

He may have improves on his weaknesses through hard work and practicing but a lot of his strengths came from natural talent. For example people think his ability to reach the unreachable balls and get them back into play or even hit the winner out of them comes from his will to run after every ball plus the speed to get to them in time. I don't think that's the case. There've been a few players on tour who're just as quick and run after every ball but none of them could do much with the out of reach balls apart from not hitting them out. Nadal has hit the cross court winners out of those 'should have been clear winners' often enough that it looks normal coming from him. Do you think the other players wouldn't have tried to hit the same shot if what they needed to do was practice as hard he did?

So let's get back to the topic, what make Djokovic more talented than Nadal? He serves better than Nadal but so does Roddick and Kalovic. He's a more natural hard court player because he can hit flat shots better than Nadal but Nadal can hit to spin shots better than him so what the point?

Good post. Nadal does have a tendency to hit a lot of good shots, but that's where you see the evolution of his game the last few years. He has added those angles to his game. He did not come out of the gates with the ability to paint the lines like he does now. That's why I feel it's more through hard work than natural gifts.

He has above average talent, certainly, but Djokovic has great talent too. He's in the top 4 (top 3) even when he's got lousy conditioning and a very questionable mental game. He's not great at putting points together, but he has great natural power from both wings (without being that strong or fit of a guy overall), good touch, and has a more fluid serving motion and a better serve than Nadal.

In terms of mental strength, concentration, point construction, and transition, Nadal is obviously much stronger than him by a country mile.

Let's put it this way, if you put Nadal in Djokovic's body, and put Djokovic in Nadal's body, what do you think would happen? First of all, I see Nadal-in-Djokovic working extremely hard on his conditioning, bulking up, and working on his endurance. But I also see a player that has a more dangerous arsenal of shots. If you put Djokovic-in-Nadal's body, I don't see a top five player.

You make good points, but who is to say what the actual definition of talent is. I believe, talent is something that can be defined in various different ways. For example, if Nadal is mentally one of the strongest players out there, then yes that is a huge talent to have.

You cant believe tennis comes easily to anyone, every one has to work hard to develop their games (and the other important things that are necessary to succeed at the top level). So Federer has worked on his game like only he can and the same can be said about Nadal.

Therefore I say Nadal is as talented if not more than Federer as talent doesn't have to be restriced to the shots that you pull out (and even there Nadal can pull out some unthinkable shots).

I believe we're trying to isolate tennis talent from mental ability. For example, both Verdasco and Nadal were hailed, in Spain, for having tremendous tennis talent. The difference came from their temperaments. Nadal had a much stronger mental game, was a hard worker, and had incredible focus in a match. Verdasco didn't, and Nadal succeeded where Verdasco and his similar talent failed.

Now, Verdasco apparently has grown up and has learned to cultivate his talent better, and he gave Nadal all he could handle at the AO.

Certainly having Nadal's temperament may be a rarity in and of itself, but in this discussion, we're trying to isolate the level of Djokovic's natural gifts versus that of Nadal's, and that's where I think Djokovic has the edge in terms of talent.

Certainly playing tennis at an elite level isn't easy for anyone. No one rolled out of bed one day and dominated tennis, but it's unquestionably easier for some people than others. It's the same as learning anything. Some people may be incredibly musically inclined. They can replicate a song after hearing it just a few times. Other people may be tone deaf and need a lot of training just to get the song right. In this case, we'd say that the first person is more talented.

Now, it's certainly possible that the second person works his butt off and becomes a better musician than the first person, but that says nothing about their inherent talent level.

TheNatural
03-07-2009, 11:24 PM
If you put Joker in Nadal's body, Uncle Tony will make him play lefty to make him play a more instinctive , less mechanical style of tennis. I think that's how Nadal developed those rare talents.



Good post. Nadal does have a tendency to hit a lot of good shots, but that's where you see the evolution of his game the last few years. He has added those angles to his game. He did not come out of the gates with the ability to paint the lines like he does now. That's why I feel it's more through hard work than natural gifts.

He has above average talent, certainly, but Djokovic has great talent too. He's in the top 4 (top 3) even when he's got lousy conditioning and a very questionable mental game. He's not great at putting points together, but he has great natural power from both wings (without being that strong or fit of a guy overall), good touch, and has a more fluid serving motion and a better serve than Nadal.

In terms of mental strength, concentration, point construction, and transition, Nadal is obviously much stronger than him by a country mile.

Let's put it this way, if you put Nadal in Djokovic's body, and put Djokovic in Nadal's body, what do you think would happen? First of all, I see Nadal-in-Djokovic working extremely hard on his conditioning, bulking up, and working on his endurance. But I also see a player that has a more dangerous arsenal of shots. If you put Djokovic-in-Nadal's body, I don't see a top five player.



I believe we're trying to isolate tennis talent from mental ability. For example, both Verdasco and Nadal were hailed, in Spain, for having tremendous tennis talent. The difference came from their temperaments. Nadal had a much stronger mental game, was a hard worker, and had incredible focus in a match. Verdasco didn't, and Nadal succeeded where Verdasco and his similar talent failed.

Now, Verdasco apparently has grown up and has learned to cultivate his talent better, and he gave Nadal all he could handle at the AO.

Certainly having Nadal's temperament may be a rarity in and of itself, but in this discussion, we're trying to isolate the level of Djokovic's natural gifts versus that of Nadal's, and that's where I think Djokovic has the edge in terms of talent.

Certainly playing tennis at an elite level isn't easy for anyone. No one rolled out of bed one day and dominated tennis, but it's unquestionably easier for some people than others. It's the same as learning anything. Some people may be incredibly musically inclined. They can replicate a song after hearing it just a few times. Other people may be tone deaf and need a lot of training just to get the song right. In this case, we'd say that the first person is more talented.

Now, it's certainly possible that the second person works his butt off and becomes a better musician than the first person, but that says nothing about their inherent talent level.

koalakoala
03-07-2009, 11:45 PM
If you put Joker in Nadal's body, Uncle Tony will make him play lefty to make him play a more instinctive , less mechanical style of tennis. I think that's how Nadal developed those rare talents.

For a right hand, shouldn't it be more instinctive to play right hand and more mechanical to play left hand?

Nadal's style is more mechanical.

P_Agony
03-08-2009, 12:25 AM
IMO Djokovic has more natural talent than Nadal. However, like I said in other threads many times before, pure talent is about 5%-10% of how good a player is. Nadal has the better mental game, stamina, movement and consistency, and therfore he's the better player of the two.

ChanceEncounter
03-08-2009, 01:56 AM
IMO Djokovic has more natural talent than Nadal. However, like I said in other threads many times before, pure talent is about 5%-10% of how good a player is. Nadal has the better mental game, stamina, movement and consistency, and therfore he's the better player of the two.
Bingo.

All you need is a certain amount of pure talent, enough to give you the opportunity to develop your game.

It's not a diss on Nadal to say there are more talented players. There were likely more talented players for every great champion, from Laver to Borg to Sampras to Federer, but those guys had something that separated them from the other talents.

ChanceEncounter
03-08-2009, 01:57 AM
If you put Joker in Nadal's body, Uncle Tony will make him play lefty to make him play a more instinctive , less mechanical style of tennis. I think that's how Nadal developed those rare talents.

You'd also see a player that quits on plays, retires from matches, and gives up on chasing certain balls.

If Nadal did that, he would not be a champion.

roddickfan90
03-08-2009, 04:10 AM
i think djokovic is more talented than nadal because he has more weapons on court,

cottontail
03-08-2009, 06:05 AM
Those who think Djokovic, or Federer for that matter, is more talented than Nadal are probably more used to playing/watching tennis on hard courts. If you're more into clay court tennis and understand how creative you need to be on the red stuff, you'd be able to see how immensely talented Nadal is, not only on clay but on other surfaces.

Sure Djokovic is super talented too. But I think people who underestimate Nadal as just a physically and mentally strong player with lesser talent than Djokovic are the ones who think clay court tennis is boring, and that's their limit.

Mind you, I'm not a clay court tennis devotee. My first tennis idol was Ivanisevic. I just like to watch tennis on all surfaces and appreciate different challenges each surface brings to players.

bolo
03-08-2009, 09:50 AM
It's not a "paradox" at all. You should look up the definition of that word.

Again, because talent never implies results. It doesn't imply playing level. It doesn't even mean skill or ability. It means "talent." As I said, the most talented player in the universe would not win a point if he just stands there. Not unless he's some alien race that can repel balls back to the opponent's side of the court just by his mere presence.

I can flip the same scenario back to Nadal fans. Again, if Rafa has more talent than anyone, and he's also much stronger mentally, how come anyone can beat him at all, ever? There's obviously players out there with similar or greater talent.

This is the 2nd time you have set up this strawman of nadal "having more talent then anyone". This thread is simply a discussion of nadal vs. djokovic.

While nadal does lose about 15-20 matches a year the fact is that based on verifiable things like statistics the only pro era champion comparable to nadal is borg. While nadal doesn't win every match, his amazing resutls are consistent with someone who has both great mental and physical gifts.

CocaCola
03-08-2009, 10:01 AM
On what basis do you think Djoker will have better results than Nadal, come on man I like Djoker but there is nothing to suggest he will have better results than Nadal.

I was talking about the results in 2009 because I think that Djokovic will have better results at WB and USO than Rafa for sure.
He will never win more slams than Nadal but if he win couple of AO, USO or Wimb he will have more respect than Rafa (who will probably win another 4-5 RG and maybe 1-2 of rest 3 GS).

doublebreak
03-08-2009, 10:05 AM
There is a nice condensation of stories/interviews about Nadal in the thread: Some really funny stories about Rafa Nadal...!
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=198408

I have a great admiration and respect for Toni Nadal, he's a very rational man with a great overall vision. There are some comments from him in a story shown in that thread that shed some light into the subject of talent. I didn't look for the exact source, but you can find it on the thread above, post #13.

I'll just copy this section where Toni Nadal is being asked why he was never as good as his nephew in tennis (he highest level he played was Spanish second division):

...“But you never really made it,” I point out. “The highest level you played was the Spanish second division, but the blood in your veins is the same as your nephew’s.”

“I don’t understand the question,” he says.

“Why weren’t you as good as him?” “It happens.” He shrugs. “But there are reasons,” I counter. “Well, the first thing is that he had more talent, and I never played as much as him; I only started playing when I was 14 or 15 and it was different. We played sport because it was sport, not to become great players, and it doesn’t always work like that. My father is a musician, I’m not; you either have an aptitude for something or you don’t, it’s as simple as that.”

Rafa was just four when Toni noted that the kid might make a player. “I could see he had an aptitude the first time he hit a ball,” he says, “and when he kept making progress we thought he would make a good player, but not that good. And then he won the under12 Balearic Islands championships; he was eight and playing against kids who were four years older. I thought, ‘That’s not normal. Carlos Moya never did that’. So that was really the start of it.”

Rafa was handed some basic rules as they began their march towards the summit. Toni didn’t tolerate bad manners. Toni didn’t tolerate that he stepped on the back of his shoes. Toni didn’t tolerate the throwing of rackets. Toni didn’t tolerate petulant behaviour. Toni didn’t tolerate excuses.

“We knew he had the talent,” the coach explains, “but success in sport is not about talent, it’s about being better than everyone else. To be a good player you need to work on your technique, but you also need to work on your head.”...

bolo
03-08-2009, 10:11 AM
If they are, then 'talent' in tennis should be judged in the same vein as talent in arts, musics, acting, etc.. It's the God given abilities that can't be replicated with lessons and practices of those non-talented ones regardless of the amount of hard work they put into it.

People who takes singing lessons can hit all the high notes, can sing in tune, can imitate the original artists when singing their songs with the same singing style and vocal technique. They can even better than the original artists because they know the right way to hit every note in the music book. These singers mostly ended up as as Idols contestants (but couldn't win it) or singing in a pub or a cover band.
It's undeniable that Fed's the king of the shot making. But apart from Federer, no one has ever hit those out of this world shots more often than Nadal. His hard work, mental toughness and physical stregth have rewarded him with his consistency and the victories in some tight matches. But he'd have been just a consistent top 10 players if he's just a player with average talent.

He may have improves on his weaknesses through hard work and practicing but a lot of his strengths came from natural talent. For example people think his ability to reach the unreachable balls and get them back into play or even hit the winner out of them comes from his will to run after every ball plus the speed to get to them in time. I don't think that's the case. There've been a few players on tour who're just as quick and run after every ball but none of them could do much with the out of reach balls apart from not hitting them out. Nadal has hit the cross court winners out of those 'should have been clear winners' often enough that it looks normal coming from him. Do you think the other players wouldn't have tried to hit the same shot if what they needed to do was practice as hard he did?

So let's get back to the topic, what make Djokovic more talented than Nadal? He serves better than Nadal but so does Roddick and Kalovic. He's a more natural hard court player because he can hit flat shots better than Nadal but Nadal can hit to spin shots better than him so what the point?

Good post. Hewitt's a good contrast to nadal, in 2005 Hewitt hit the gym, worked really hard, bulked up and........lost to safin in the final of the AO.

I still hold that basically what you are seeing with nadal is an all time great who is slowly shedding clay court tendencies that turn out to be weaknesses off clay. The fact that he is slowly but surely able to make these changes and win, while others seemingly could not/cannot (sampras/federer with clay, borg with hard courts, lendl with grass) should suggest to people that the fundamental gifts are there. Otherwise he would be another guy who loses to the Safins of the world after reaching finals of surfaces that he either didn't grow up on or that he wasn't built for.

If nadal was like most of typical clay court greats, he would have developed into a great player around 21-22, slowly gained some experience on other surfaces, put up a good fight, but in the end mostly end up with a lot of RG titles. But he is such a physical beast and he is so dominant on clay that he basically moved up the clay court domination to 2-3 years ahead of schedule, which has bought him time to make headway on other surfaces. It's been an amazing thing to watch unfold over the last 3 years especially since the guy standing in his way on these other surfaces is Federer.

bolo
03-08-2009, 10:20 AM
Bingo.

All you need is a certain amount of pure talent, enough to give you the opportunity to develop your game.

It's not a diss on Nadal to say there are more talented players. There were likely more talented players for every great champion, from Laver to Borg to Sampras to Federer, but those guys had something that separated them from the other talents.

There are even greater talents than laver, borg, sampras, federer, that didn't make it because they lacked "something"? :rolleyes: :)

bolo
03-08-2009, 10:39 AM
Those who think Djokovic, or Federer for that matter, is more talented than Nadal are probably more used to playing/watching tennis on hard courts. If you're more into clay court tennis and understand how creative you need to be on the red stuff, you'd be able to see how immensely talented Nadal is, not only on clay but on other surfaces.

Sure Djokovic is super talented too. But I think people who underestimate Nadal as just a physically and mentally strong player with lesser talent than Djokovic are the ones who think clay court tennis is boring, and that's their limit.

Mind you, I'm not a clay court tennis devotee. My first tennis idol was Ivanisevic. I just like to watch tennis on all surfaces and appreciate different challenges each surface brings to players.


I agree with you here. A lot of people prefer smooth/flashy shotmakers like federer, mcenroe, sampras. It's hard for them to imagine that someone coming out of the agassi,borg,lendl mold is as "talented" as a federer, mcenroe, or sampras. No no no, that's impossible. :)

Actually this discussion is interesting in the sense that it gives us a lower bound of how low you have to go before someone is thought to be nadal's equal in terms of tennis gifts. Clearly for some djokovic is above nadal. I would imagine most of these same guys might also put murray ahead of nadal.

So I wonder is nadal at the davydenko level in terms of tennis talent and nadal's mental gifts make up the difference in results between the two?

imalil2gangsta4u
03-08-2009, 11:10 AM
nadals had work and metally strength has carried him to the top. i think thats more impressive than talent.

gunnd5000
03-08-2009, 12:10 PM
Djokovic: Pulls out for a sore throat.
Hasn't worked out that way on the court.

My point exactly he needs to be more determined and not pull out of matches beacuse of heat, headaches and a eye lash falling out

gj011
03-08-2009, 12:25 PM
My point exactly he needs to be more determined and not pull out of matches beacuse of heat, headaches and a eye lash falling out

Where are these green trolls coming from. :rolleyes:

Again, you obviously didn't watch the AO match. If anything Djokovic should have retired earlier in this match.

julesb
03-08-2009, 12:31 PM
I was talking about the results in 2009 because I think that Djokovic will have better results at WB and USO than Rafa for sure.
He will never win more slams than Nadal but if he win couple of AO, USO or Wimb he will have more respect than Rafa (who will probably win another 4-5 RG and maybe 1-2 of rest 3 GS).

You are truly clueless. You think Djokovic will have better results than Nadal on grass, ROTFL!! Nadal is already a Wimbledon Champion and 3 time Wimbledon finalist and is only a year older than Djokovic. Djokovic winning a couple Wimbledon in the future when he isnt in the league of people like Federer and Nadal on grass? Yeah right, in your dreams only.

Nadal has won 2 of the last 3 slams none of which are French Opens yet he is only going to win 1-2 more the rest of his career. Delusional fanboy.

P_Agony
03-08-2009, 12:38 PM
There are even greater talents than laver, borg, sampras, federer, that didn't make it because they lacked "something"? :rolleyes: :)

To be fair, I don't think I've ever seen someone more talented than Federer. His ability to hit winners from just about everywhere is where his talent speaks for itself. For example, the lob-smash shot against Djokovic in the US Open 08 semi final. This shot is a pure example of where talent comes into play, and it's far from Federer's best winner. The face Federer had so many of those unbelievable shots over the years just show what a big talent he has. He can play every shot in the book, and he invents shots of his own from time to time.

DMan
03-08-2009, 01:02 PM
Again, you obviously didn't watch the AO match. If anything Djokovic should have retired earlier in this match.

Well, maybe he shouldn't have even bothered playing that Australian Open match!

Pity poor Djoker. He can *only* play matches when conditions are optimal. It can't be too hot for the poor dear! Oh he will need to have enough practice on a specific surface. And have absolutely NO injuries/health issues whatsoever. The crowd must be totally supportive of him (yeah right, like that'll ever happen!!!)

Then the Djoker might actually win a few matches.

bolo
03-08-2009, 01:10 PM
To be fair, I don't think I've ever seen someone more talented than Federer. His ability to hit winners from just about everywhere is where his talent speaks for itself. For example, the lob-smash shot against Djokovic in the US Open 08 semi final. This shot is a pure example of where talent comes into play, and it's far from Federer's best winner. The face Federer had so many of those unbelievable shots over the years just show what a big talent he has. He can play every shot in the book, and he invents shots of his own from time to time.

The lob-smash is a unique shot. Federer has to be up there in the pro era, so does sampras and borg. Imo it's a tossup between federer and sampras.

Nadal is an interesting case, unfortunately imo his game is so claycourt-coated that he will be difficult to place. But I have no trouble placing him above djokovic. :)

tacou
03-08-2009, 03:35 PM
novak overwhelmed nadal with superior talent today... alas, it was not enough!

veroniquem
03-08-2009, 03:42 PM
novak overwhelmed nadal with superior talent today... alas, it was not enough!
Today was a perfect example of how Novak is not more talented than Rafa, whatever sense you want to give to the word talent. Actually the last game of the match was a textbook illustration of Nadal's extreme talent for shotmaking.

WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
03-08-2009, 03:53 PM
I've never thought about it. I think they are unique individuals just like anyone else, and have their plusses and their minuses, as they have to appearances quite different personality and playing styles. Trying to say if one is more talented than the others is a circular argument imo because most everyone posting is being totally subjective to their own preferences of player.

NickC
03-08-2009, 04:10 PM
In terms of natural stroke and technical ability, Djok is light years ahead Rafael in terms of raw talent and ball striking ability. Who has the better looking strokes, from a technical standpoint? Novak, obviously, unless your version of a technically sound stroke is a moonball looping stroke. Unfortunately for Mr. Djokovic, Nadal is much more gifted in the most important categories, such as drive, aggression, and determination. Which skill set determines a better career? I think that's an obvious answer.

matchmaker
03-08-2009, 04:14 PM
I think you can't make any sensible statement on who is more talented. They both have different playing styles. Djoko is more of a flat ball striker who takes the balls early on the rise, which requires a lot of coordination. Nadal has a unique talent in the spin he puts on the balls and the angles he can find under pressure.

I think you can only judge them on results and in that segment Nadal does far better for now.

LurkingGod
03-08-2009, 04:38 PM
Let's put it this way, if you put Nadal in Djokovic's body, and put Djokovic in Nadal's body, what do you think would happen? First of all, I see Nadal-in-Djokovic working extremely hard on his conditioning, bulking up, and working on his endurance. But I also see a player that has a more dangerous arsenal of shots. If you put Djokovic-in-Nadal's body, I don't see a top five player.

Sorry but I don't see it that way. Nadal fitness and body type are likely a genetic thing so you can't just put his mind on anyone's body and expect that player to become a physical beast just like him.

A big part of Nadal's confidence comes from his physical condition. He knows he can outhit, outrun, outlast his opponent so he can give 100% to every shot he hit because of his belief that he won't run out of gas if the match goes long. Moreover, the fact that he always tries to get his racket on what shoud be his opponent's clear winners also comes from the confidence that he CAN reach those ball and return them with interest. Most players wouldn't waste their energy to do the same thing because they know even if they can get their racket on the ball they're still unlikely to win the point. See the difference?

You put Nadal on Djokovic body and you rip him off that confidence. You also rip him off the advantage of paying left-handed. He may have more weapons to choose from (though honesty I don't know what these additional weapons would be?? I'd rather have Nadal's overhead and net game). He'd become a better cluth player and win more close matches but you wouldn't see him win any marathon matches back to back either. He'd win more than one GS but he wouldn't be unbeatable on HC because he'd have to share the titles with Fed.

Djokovic has no such confidence in his physical condition. He has confidence in his tennis but he can't rely on his physical strength to carry him through if the match doesn't go his way. You give him Nadal's fitness and you wouldn't see a player who lose to Roddick because of the heat. Nadal has EVERY weapon he needs to win on clay and the stamina to back it up. Djokovic on Nadal's body would have enough of what it take to win a few RGs plus the advantage of playing left-handed. He'd win a few RG and a few clay MSs but he wouldn't be unbeatable on Clay because he'd have to share the titles with Fed.

Both of them would win more GS than Djokovic but less GS than Nadal. :)

bolo
03-08-2009, 04:46 PM
In terms of natural stroke and technical ability, Djok is light years ahead Rafael in terms of raw talent and ball striking ability. Who has the better looking strokes, from a technical standpoint? Novak, obviously, unless your version of a technically sound stroke is a moonball looping stroke. Unfortunately for Mr. Djokovic, Nadal is much more gifted in the most important categories, such as drive, aggression, and determination. Which skill set determines a better career? I think that's an obvious answer.

raw talent and ball striking? Nadal is acknowledged (murray, mcenroe) as having phenomenal racquet head speed. The only guys who are really talked about in this dept. are federer and nadal. Now you are probably thinking off ball-striking that is effective on fast courts and yes djokovic has the edge here, but nadal's ballstriking is just as, if not more, suitable for the slower courts.

better looking strokes? does anyone really care?

LurkingGod
03-08-2009, 04:49 PM
In terms of natural stroke and technical ability, Djok is light years ahead Rafael in terms of raw talent and ball striking ability. Who has the better looking strokes, from a technical standpoint? Novak, obviously, unless your version of a technically sound stroke is a moonball looping stroke. Unfortunately for Mr. Djokovic, Nadal is much more gifted in the most important categories, such as drive, aggression, and determination. Which skill set determines a better career? I think that's an obvious answer.

I think the fact that Nadal's strokes aren't textbook perfection is the indication of his superior RAW talent. If you watched Nadal matches and all you could see from his game was the moonball looping strokes then you missed 80% of the other shots he'd made.

LurkingGod
03-08-2009, 04:55 PM
Good post. Hewitt's a good contrast to nadal, in 2005 Hewitt hit the gym, worked really hard, bulked up and........lost to safin in the final of the AO.

I still hold that basically what you are seeing with nadal is an all time great who is slowly shedding clay court tendencies that turn out to be weaknesses off clay. The fact that he is slowly but surely able to make these changes and win, while others seemingly could not/cannot (sampras/federer with clay, borg with hard courts, lendl with grass) should suggest to people that the fundamental gifts are there. Otherwise he would be another guy who loses to the Safins of the world after reaching finals of surfaces that he either didn't grow up on or that he wasn't built for.

If nadal was like most of typical clay court greats, he would have developed into a great player around 21-22, slowly gained some experience on other surfaces, put up a good fight, but in the end mostly end up with a lot of RG titles. But he is such a physical beast and he is so dominant on clay that he basically moved up the clay court domination to 2-3 years ahead of schedule, which has bought him time to make headway on other surfaces. It's been an amazing thing to watch unfold over the last 3 years especially since the guy standing in his way on these other surfaces is Federer.

Great post and I totally agree!!!!! It's his natural talent that allowed him to adapt his game to suit grass and HC and won a slam on both. If it's all about hard work then the other players would've done the same already and there'd have been more multi-surfaces slam winners in the history book.

You just can't make the improvement the way he did with determination and hard working alone. You need to have a gift to do so.

LurkingGod
03-08-2009, 05:05 PM
novak overwhelmed nadal with superior talent today... alas, it was not enough!

So he decided to pull his pants down out of frustration...:oops:

bolo
03-08-2009, 05:11 PM
Great post and I totally agree!!!!! It's his natural talent that allowed him to adapt his game to suit grass and HC and won a slam on both. If it's all about hard work then the other players would've done the same already and there'd have been more multi-surfaces slam winners in the history book.

You just can't make the improvement the way he did with determination and hard working alone. You need to have a gift to do so.

Lendl is another good example. He tried his hardest to take wimbledon a surface that U.S. open winners generally have pretty good success at, but a surface that didn't fit his game. He made 2 finals, many semifinals but in the end he was not successful. Nadal not only made the final at the AO this year but amazingly took down the dominant hard courter over the last 6 years in the process.

CyBorg
03-08-2009, 05:13 PM
Talent is mental too. The way you think the game is talent.

Nadal is the best thinker in tennis by far.

veroniquem
03-08-2009, 05:13 PM
In terms of natural stroke and technical ability, Djok is light years ahead Rafael in terms of raw talent and ball striking ability. Who has the better looking strokes, from a technical standpoint? Novak, obviously, unless your version of a technically sound stroke is a moonball looping stroke. Unfortunately for Mr. Djokovic, Nadal is much more gifted in the most important categories, such as drive, aggression, and determination. Which skill set determines a better career? I think that's an obvious answer.
"moonball looping stroke"? Obviously you haven't watched the match today and have watched very few recent Nadal matches. That is a 100% absurd statement and either Federer or Djokovic would agree that you are way off.

NamRanger
03-08-2009, 05:26 PM
Talent is mental too. The way you think the game is talent.

Nadal is the best thinker in tennis by far.


Of course Federer fans will say that Nadal is nothing but a one dimensional topspin player who does nothing but abuses Federer's BH.

tacou
03-08-2009, 05:30 PM
Today was a perfect example of how Novak is not more talented than Rafa, whatever sense you want to give to the word talent. Actually the last game of the match was a textbook illustration of Nadal's extreme talent for shotmaking.

of course you sensed my sarcasm?

Gugafan
03-08-2009, 05:55 PM
In terms of natural stroke and technical ability, Djok is light years ahead Rafael in terms of raw talent and ball striking ability. , and determination.

Troll alert...Nadal shotmaking ability from defensive parts of the court is unreal. Unmatched by no player in the modern era...Did you miss the Aus Open or Wimbledon Final??

veroniquem
03-08-2009, 06:19 PM
of course you sensed my sarcasm?
Yes I did. I was backing your post up, not contradicting it.

$$$$mony$$$$
03-08-2009, 06:23 PM
i dont believe in talent. i believe that everyone, you and i to, are bourn equal and the skill level of these professionals is something they acquire over there lives.
its impossible to compare two professionals by means of natural bourn talent because how do we know how talented they where at birth. we dont, and it is a silly topic

JeMar
03-08-2009, 07:13 PM
Do talent and gift have the same meaning? Pardon my confusion as english isn't my first language.

If they are, then 'talent' in tennis should be judged in the same vein as talent in arts, musics, acting, etc.. It's the God given abilities that can't be replicated with lessons and practices of those non-talented ones regardless of the amount of hard work they put into it.

People who takes singing lessons can hit all the high notes, can sing in tune, can imitate the original artists when singing their songs with the same singing style and vocal technique. They can even sing better than the original artists because they know the right way to hit every note in the music book. These singers mostly ended up as as Idols contestants (but couldn't win it) or singing in a pub or a cover band.

The talented singers can make the songs their own. People can copy them afterwards but they can't copy their identity. Talented singers know how to make you 'feel' the songs before they learn how to sing properly. When talented singers hit the high notes they have the way to hit those notes and send the chills down your spine.

Back to tennis, talented players are those who have their threadmark shots. There's a reason people talk about Fed's forehand, Sampras's serve, Agassi's return - and Nadal's heavy top spin.

It's undeniable that Fed's the king of the shot making. But apart from Federer, no one has ever hit those out of this world shots more often than Nadal. His hard work, mental toughness and physical stregth have rewarded him with his consistency and the victories in some tight matches. But he'd have been just a consistent top 10 players if he's just a player with average talent.

He may have improved on his weaknesses through hard working and practicing but a lot of his strengths came from natural talent. For example people think his ability to reach the unreachable balls and get them back into play or even hit the winner out of them comes from his will to run after every ball plus the speed to get to them in time. I don't think that's the case. There've been a few players on tour who're just as quick and run after every ball but none of them could do much with the out of reach balls apart from not hitting them out. Nadal has hit the cross court winners out of those 'should have been clear winners' often enough that it looks normal coming from him. Do you think the other players wouldn't have tried to hit the same shot if what they needed to do was practice as hard he did?

So let's get back to the topic, what make Djokovic more talented than Nadal? He serves better than Nadal but so does Roddick and Kalovic. He's a more natural hard court player because he can hit flat shots better than Nadal but Nadal can hit to spin shots better than him so what the point?

I liked this.

jmjmkim
03-08-2009, 07:39 PM
Something to think about.

$$$$mony$$$$
03-08-2009, 07:47 PM
I liked this.

so did I. i felt that was almost the perfect way to put it

LurkingGod
03-08-2009, 08:00 PM
i dont believe in talent. i believe that everyone, you and i to, are bourn equal and the skill level of these professionals is something they acquire over there lives.
its impossible to compare two professionals by means of natural bourn talent because how do we know how talented they where at birth. we dont, and it is a silly topic

Umm.. So by your logic my tone deaf brother could become the next Pavarotti if he took a singing lesson and practice hard. Any clup players could become a top 100 players if they worked hard enough and had a good coaching. Anyone who couldn't draw a stick figure could go to an art school and become good artists. Roddick could be as good as Fed IF he worked harder in his junior years or throughout his career..:???:

God isn't that fair, sad but true. Talents do exist and not everyone is born with them.:cry:

LurkingGod
03-08-2009, 08:52 PM
I liked this.

Thanks.:):)

OddJack
03-08-2009, 09:17 PM
Talent is mental too. The way you think the game is talent.

Nadal is the best thinker in tennis by far.

Well, thanks for the laugh.

Tell me how much thinking it takes to dig out every ball and pay knees for it buddy?

He's a thinker allright, except all of it's done by toni.

In every profession people who think more use muscle less. Haven't you figured that out yet?

OddJack
03-08-2009, 09:24 PM
Of course Federer fans will say that Nadal is nothing but a one dimensional topspin player who does nothing but abuses Federer's BH.

Why not giving your own opinion rather than hiding behind some "Federer Fans"?

NamRanger
03-08-2009, 09:52 PM
Why not giving your own opinion rather than hiding behind some "Federer Fans"?


Attempt to troll me? Explain to me how Federer has lost to the same one dimensional strategy that Nadal supposedly uses 13 times, across all surfaces. You'd think that an intelligent and talented player like Federer would have come across a solution by now don't you?



Truth : Nadal is better than Federer at the moment. Period.

OddJack
03-08-2009, 10:08 PM
Attempt to troll me? Explain to me how Federer has lost to the same one dimensional strategy that Nadal supposedly uses 13 times, across all surfaces. You'd think that an intelligent and talented player like Federer would have come across a solution by now don't you?



Truth : Nadal is better than Federer at the moment. Period.

H2H Results are not everything. If it's everything for you then you can have him.

If consistency, longevity, variety, over all achievements, etc etc... mean anything to you then have patience, look farther than "the moment" because it's very short lived. When you look back at the history of the game do you look at the moments or do you look at the achievements and records?
And it's not over yet.
If you ask me stupid as s/he is, the freak has got into your heads somehow.

NamRanger
03-08-2009, 10:17 PM
H2H Results are not everything. If it's everything for you then you can have him.

If consistency, longevity, variety, over all achievements, etc etc... mean anything to you then have patience, look farther than "the moment" because it's very short lived. When you look back at the history of the game do you look at the moments or do you look at the achievements and records?
And it's not over yet.
If you ask me stupid as s/he is, the freak has got into your heads somehow.



You're performing a Nadal_Freak by attempting to avoid my counter argument. Basically, you conceded and admit defeat. Thank you.

OddJack
03-08-2009, 10:24 PM
You're performing a Nadal_Freak by attempting to avoid my counter argument. Basically, you conceded and admit defeat. Thank you.

I admit defeat only because I just realized I was talking to an empty space.

You have no argument, people like you see no further than your nose which is as short as the moment.

Blank
03-09-2009, 12:37 AM
Talents remain as talents unless they get worked on.

Guys who perfected all their 5 talents, will beat those with 10 but only perfected 3.

P_Agony
03-09-2009, 02:06 AM
Why not giving your own opinion rather than hiding behind some "Federer Fans"?

Because he wants to start a flame war, what else there is to it?

koalakoala
03-09-2009, 02:37 AM
Nadal+Uncle Toni are really the best thinker(s) at this moment. Hope Federer+Cahill can top them.

Federer, listen and get some help.

koalakoala
03-09-2009, 02:37 AM
Oh, I forgot about Murray. He is up there as well.

swedechris
03-09-2009, 03:11 AM
Nole is way better talented than Nadal in doing 3 things:
1.Imitating other players styles
2.Telling jokes and being funny in interviews in English
3. The one we all know already.. at faking injury.

in the area of stalling they are a draw IMO.

the rest Rafa is better at.. aka playing tennis and winning matches.

abmk
03-09-2009, 03:16 AM
Talent is mental too. The way you think the game is talent.

Nadal is the best thinker in tennis by far.

Hmm, then care to explain why the nadal-monfils match in doha played out the way it did or for that matter his scheduling ??

bolo
03-09-2009, 08:36 AM
Hmm, then care to explain why the nadal-monfils match in doha played out the way it did or for that matter his scheduling ??

Nothing to explain, it's just one loss. Did you notice who won the australian open?

Nothing all that wrong with his scheduling either, he played more matches last year, got better on all surfaces and took no. 1. What more do you want from the guy?

tacou
03-09-2009, 08:50 AM
Yes I did. I was backing your post up, not contradicting it.

oh, splendid.

LurkingGod, nice post.

I do think "natural talent" plays a part in athletics, to some degree; look at Richard Gasquet's backhand-- that shot is beautiful and cannot have been designed, it simply always 'was'. Still, talent is an objective term while results are not. Argue all you want about the aesthetics of Nadal's game or how his "determination to chase down every ball and great stamina" are the only reasons he's #1, but that's the fact-- he is #1.

Nadal's achievements currently dwarf Novak's. Djokovic is a good player, one of the best on tour, but in no way is he more talented than Nadal, no matter how you define that term.

martini1
03-09-2009, 10:11 PM
Nadal: Fights for every point in every match.

Djokovic: Pulls out for a sore throat.

Djokovic is probably more naturally gifted than Nadal. Hasn't worked out that way on the court.

:LOL: Especially in AO he got those soccer chanting fans.

abmk
03-09-2009, 10:29 PM
Nothing to explain, it's just one loss. Did you notice who won the australian open?

Its not about it being one loss, its about the manner of the loss, monfils never allowed him to get into rhythm and nadal could do nothing about it , he was very disturbed by monfils strategy ...

Nothing all that wrong with his scheduling either, he played more matches last year, got better on all surfaces and took no. 1. What more do you want from the guy?

Right like playing rotterdam this year which was a week after AO. Like playing doubles in paris masters near year-end in 2008 and then retiring in singles due to injury. Missing TMC and Davis Cup final due to injury. But there is nothing wrong with his scheduling .

I didn't question nadal's accomplishments , he is a great great player , I was only questioning the statement that nadal is the best thinker in tennis by far ....

LurkingGod
03-09-2009, 11:55 PM
Its not about it being one loss, its about the manner of the loss, monfils never allowed him to get into rhythm and nadal could do nothing about it , he was very disturbed by monfils strategy ...
....
Rafa always looked annoyed when he lost a point, let alone a match. I agree with bolo it's just a match that his opponent outplayed him on that day. And it's Monfils not an unname qualifier. When Pete Sampras had a losing record against Wayne Ferreira I didn't see people giving too much thought on the manner of Pete's losses nor did they hail Wayne's strategy as a textbook to beat him...

I didn't question nadal's accomplishments , he is a great great player, I was only questioning the statement that nadal is the best thinker in tennis by far

We're talking about the 'thinking' that happened on court. He didn't plan his own schedule all by himself. And his injury at the end of the year was the result of playing too many matches, the price he had to pay for reaching the semis or final on most of the tournaments he'd played.

LurkingGod
03-10-2009, 12:10 AM
LurkingGod, nice post.

I do think "natural talent" plays a part in athletics, to some degree; look at Richard Gasquet's backhand-- that shot is beautiful and cannot have been designed, it simply always 'was'. Still, talent is an objective term while results are not. Argue all you want about the aesthetics of Nadal's game or how his "determination to chase down every ball and great stamina" are the only reasons he's #1, but that's the fact-- he is #1.

Nadal's achievements currently dwarf Novak's. Djokovic is a good player, one of the best on tour, but in no way is he more talented than Nadal, no matter how you define that term.

Thanks.:)

Of course talent alone doesn't make anyone a great player. Talent presents the potential but players with great potential still need skills, strategies and fitness to win a match. I don't know why people seems to underrate Nadal's talent. I thought he's something special the first time I saw him play Lleyton Hewitt in AO and he didn't even come close to win that match.

bolo
03-10-2009, 05:46 PM
Rafa always looked annoyed when he lost a point, let alone a match. I agree with bolo it's just a match that his opponent outplayed him on that day. And it's Monfils not an unname qualifier. When Pete Sampras had a losing record against Wayne Ferreira I didn't see people giving too much thought on the manner of Pete's losses nor did they hail Wayne's strategy as a textbook to beat him...



We're talking about the 'thinking' that happened on court. He didn't plan his own schedule all by himself. And his injury at the end of the year was the result of playing too many matches, the price he had to pay for reaching the semis or final on most of the tournaments he'd played.

If there is really a pattern to monfil's victory against nadal, I expect that nadal will make an adjustment in the next match. I can imagine that monfils is the type of player that bothers nadal now (like simon,murray, although from what I read nadal made an adjustment to simon in the AO match) but let's see monfils do it a couple of more times before we draw any conclusions.

I don't think there is all that much to defend with his scheduling. Broadly nadal played more matches last year than the year before, won more, and took the no. 1. If his knees gave out at the end, you have to believe that nadal thinks that what he had to gain was worth it. He is a smart guy, and as you said the pain at the end was the price he was willing to pay for his results.

MrBen
03-11-2009, 01:12 AM
More talented, but not as consistent