PDA

View Full Version : Who is more talented?


Edstringer13
10-11-2009, 05:49 PM
Del Potro
Tsonga
Soderling
Verdasco
Gulbis
...

Conquistador
10-11-2009, 05:57 PM
Tsonga no question. His A game is better than all of the above. When tsonga has it going its him rafa and roger. Tsonga overpowers you and can serve with the best. Its not even close IMO. Del-Po hits it hard but tsonga is the best athlete of the group, and has the biggest forehand.

nfor304
10-11-2009, 06:02 PM
Talented in what way?

Talented at winning matches?

Talented at hitting the ball hard?

Talented at hitting a wide range of shots in a match?

tikkimonkey
10-11-2009, 06:10 PM
No Federer? D:<

Serendipitous
10-11-2009, 06:13 PM
Ernie Boy....

darthpwner
10-11-2009, 06:33 PM
Tsonga because he has a great all court game. Del Potro is machinelike and has no touch. Soderling has an atrocious looking game and is not a great fluid mover. Verdasco doesnt have a great serve. Gulbis is way too inconsistent and his forehand misfires a lot.

President
10-11-2009, 06:35 PM
Tsonga, Monfils, Djokovic, and Murray are all very talented and are very natural atheletes. I would say out of all of these, Tsonga is the most talented (very nice all court game)

jjermann
10-11-2009, 07:21 PM
talent is not only how you hit tennisball, its about mental consistency and tsonga doesnt have it

you guys always talking about talent but none of you have no clue what it is, its clear than murray and del potro are more talented than any of those guys....thats why they are top 5 players

OliverSimon
10-11-2009, 07:24 PM
Tomas Berdych

Edstringer13
10-12-2009, 04:23 AM
Djokovic,Del Potro can't volley.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
10-12-2009, 04:25 AM
Imo Del Potro and Gasquet, DP has this far made the most off it, Gasquet has...welll...not.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
10-12-2009, 04:25 AM
Djokovic,Del Potro can't volley.
Well, he could win the USO...so...

Edstringer13
10-12-2009, 04:29 AM
Talented in what way?
Ball striking ,shot making,ability to play different games,who has more complete game,can play in all surfaces well,who play plays more beautyful match to watch.

Talented at winning matches?
I don't think so

Talented at hitting the ball hard?Hit the ball hard is not talent,just strength

Talented at hitting a wide range of shots in a match?
this counts too.

Edstringer13
10-12-2009, 04:33 AM
Well, he could win the USO...so...

Have talent and not work hard on your potential doesn't give you titles.Don't have much talent and hard working gives you titles,but this isn't about winning or not.
Murray plays such an ugly game,however he beats and wins a lot,i don't think he is talented,he can run and practice a lot,that's why he is there,if wasn't able physically to out last people he would be where he was before top 30.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
10-12-2009, 04:40 AM
Have talent and not work hard on your potential doesn't give you titles.Don't have much talent and hard working gives you titles,but this isn't about winning or not.
Murray plays such an ugly game,however he beats and wins a lot,i don't think he is talented,he can run and practice a lot,that's why he is there,if wasn't able physically to out last people he would be where he was before top 30.
Well yeah i know, but DelPo is very talented and works really hard. Imo Murray and Nadal is not very talented but has worked like maniacs too achieve where they are.

dropshot winner
10-12-2009, 04:44 AM
talent is not only how you hit tennisball, its about mental consistency and tsonga doesnt have it

you guys always talking about talent but none of you have no clue what it is, its clear than murray and del potro are more talented than any of those guys....thats why they are top 5 players

Talent is not about metal consistency.

Murray's level of talent is severly underrated.
Del Potro isn't that talanted for an elite player IMO, he does not choke and hits bombs from all sides, but he doesn't have that magic in his game.

Gimmick
10-12-2009, 04:57 AM
Its a mockery of talent to include Del Potro in this list. He brings the big game as well as anyone and the best on occasion (USO), but talent...? No, he has made the most of the talent he has but thats not the same as having the most talent.
Tsonga on his hot days would tear most player up. Like nadal said after his loss at the AUO, Tsonga plays above himself. His talent is greater than the sum of his training and physical size/movement. He can also hit shots/volleys Del Potro wouldn't be able to conceive of or even attempt.
Seriously--Tsonga

christos_liaskos
10-12-2009, 04:58 AM
There are 3 types of talent. 1, the technical side of actually hitting the ball - the reason why everyone calls Gasquet so talented. 2, the mental side of the game - many would argue that however hard Gasquet works he will not fullfill his potential because he doesnt mentally have it. 3, this is the one that not many people know about and is also the reason why I argue that every player reaches their 'potential'. It's the desire to work hard. Many people will say Safin is mentally weak, however, I say to you, can you call a multiple Grand Slam winner and World Number 1 mentally weak? I would suggest Safin has the mental and technical side to be no1 as much as anyone, Federer included. What Safin doesnt have is the desire to work and fullfill his 'mental' and 'technical' talent because his 'desire' talent just isn't there.

Someone like Henman did fullfill his mental and technical talent because he had bucket loads of desire (or work ethic) talent.

If I had more time I would draw and upload some kind of bar chart to explain this better but instead i'll try and paint a picture for everyone. To explain potential you have to imagine drawing 3 bars, one for each of the talents - technical, mental and work ethic.

If you take the top of the bar as the potential for that particular talent, lets use Safin as an example and say the top level he can reach technical and mental talents is 100. Lets say he only ever actually reached 80% in these areas of fullfilling his talent, why? Because the 3rd bar, his work ethic bar, doesnt even have the potential of reaching 100. The potential of that talent tops at 70-80. So when he was fullfilling his work ethic potential he got the most that he could possibly squeeze out of his mental and technical side of his game.

On the other hand, imagine Henman again. The potential of his technical and mental talent might top out at around 80 but his work ethic talent was 100, therefore allowing him to get the most out of his mental and technical game.

By using this I argue that all players reach the potential and fullfill their talent, as long as you dont look at talent as being purely technical but appreciate there are other talents a player must have, the mental and work ethic side.

I hope all that made sense, like i said by actually drawing a bar chart/picture it might make more sense.

Edstringer13
10-12-2009, 05:01 AM
Well yeah i know, but DelPo is very talented and works really hard. Imo Murray and Nadal is not very talented but has worked like maniacs too achieve where they are.

I agree with you but let's see what people think.I didn't include Nadal in this list because everybody would pick him.

ceberus
10-12-2009, 05:05 AM
Del Potro, Tsonga or Djoker, can't pick one.

dropshot winner
10-12-2009, 05:12 AM
There are 3 types of talent. 1, the technical side of actually hitting the ball - the reason why everyone calls Gasquet so talented. 2, the mental side of the game - many would argue that however hard Gasquet works he will not fullfill his potential because he doesnt mentally have it.
I never understood why Gasquet is perceived as such a one in a billion talent. He can play great tennis like he did against Federer in 2005, but overall he has a lot of holes in his game.

As pretty as his backhand is, its backswing is way too long, he can't take it early which forces him to play meters behind the baseline.
His forehand (the 2nd most important shot in the modern game) is technically questionable, often short and more of a liability than a weapon.
He has a good serve and net-game, but I don't see in what ways he should be superior to a Federer or even Nalbandian in the talent deparment.

grafselesfan
10-12-2009, 05:12 AM
Shame on the 5 people who voted for Gasquet.

christos_liaskos
10-12-2009, 05:15 AM
I don't see why Gasquet should be so extremly talented. He can play great tennis like he did against Federer in 2005, but overall he has a lot of holes in his game.

As pretty as his backhand is, its backsing is way too long, he can't take it early which forces him to play meters behind the baseline.
His forehand (the 2nd most important shot in the modern game) is technically questionable, often short and more of a liability than a weapon.
He has a good serve and net-game, but I don't see in what ways he should be superior to a Federer or even Nalbandian in the talent deparment.

I was purely giving Gasquet as an example. I am sure there are plenty of other players out there who you can find to fit the rest of my post. By taking just that one quote I get the feeling that you are missing the point of the rest of my post

dropshot winner
10-12-2009, 05:17 AM
I was purely giving Gasquet as an example. I am sure there are plenty of other players out there who you can find to fit the rest of my post. By taking just that one quote I get the feeling that you are missing the point of the rest of my post

Even though I quoted you I meant that more in general.

A lot of people think that a pretty one-hander is the epitome of talent.

SerbWhoLovesDelPo
10-12-2009, 05:20 AM
Even though I quoted you I meant that more in general. A lot of people think that a pretty one-hander is the epitome of talent.

Very true.

-------------------------------

Come to think of it, Djokovic may actually be the most talented. He achieved more than all other guys at young age, even though he is a headcase with a bad fitness.

Although he doesn't do anything special, just reliable shot making and good serve.

mandy01
10-12-2009, 05:21 AM
i would pick Djoko.There's a lot he can do gamewise..He has a lot of variety.

christos_liaskos
10-12-2009, 05:23 AM
Even though I quoted you I meant that more in general.

A lot of people think that a pretty one-hander is the epitome of talent.

yes i see your point. Meanwhile i've thought of maybe a better example for you; half the WTA have an abundance of technical and work ethic talent, but how many times do we see them suffer and mental breakdown because the talent just isn't there in that department

dropshot winner
10-12-2009, 05:30 AM
Come to think of it, Djokovic may actually be the most talented. He achieved more than all other guys at young age, even though he is a headcase with a bad fitness.

Although he doesn't do anything special, just reliable shot making and good serve.

I disagree about Djokovic, he is a very good player, still vastly underrated by most.
But for one of the biggest talents he isn't using the full court enough, his slice and volleys aren't natural, and his forehand (as good as it is) looks a bit forced.

He is a very hard worker and is gifted with amazing movement and flexibility for a player of his size.

I don't think that he's a headcase or struggling with fitness, none of his losses since the Australian Open have been fitness or choke-related.
He got outplayed far and square by Nadal and Federer in the big matches.

Nalbandian is still one of the most talented players IMO, the guy has easily held his own against the Nadal forehand with his backhand and has also been able to match Federer in cross-court forehand rallys.
He has also outsmarted Murray and Federer multiple times.

Too bad he has such a low percentage game, mediocre serve and attitude.

grafselesfan
10-12-2009, 05:32 AM
It isnt an easy choice as there are alot of extremely talented guys on that list. If forced to choose I would pick Djokovic, but you could make a case for Del Potro, Cilic, Murray, Monfils (taking into account his insane athletic ability), and even Verdasco (I dont count his f-ed up head as that much a part of talent). Again shame on any of you who actually voted for Gasquet, by far the least talented player on that list.

Cesc Fabregas
10-12-2009, 05:35 AM
Well it has to be either Djoker, Murray or Del Potro. Gasquet more talented than them 3 is a joke.

dropshot winner
10-12-2009, 05:36 AM
yes i see your point. Meanwhile i've thought of maybe a better example for you; half the WTA have an abundance of technical and work ethic talent, but how many times do we see them suffer and mental breakdown because the talent just isn't there in that department
You're right about the WTA, they have a lot of technical skills but big deficits in "soft skills".

I still wouldn't call mental toughness a traditional talent. If you did, you'd have to erase a lot of talented players from the "most talented" list.

dropshot winner
10-12-2009, 05:41 AM
From that list I'd pick Murray, if he had a slightly better forehand the decision would be very easy.

Murray has a backhand almost as good as Agassi's, moves ridiculously well for a player of his size, has one of the best slices around, great hands at the net, returns as good as anyone, has a huge 1st serve and is a master tactician.

All he needs to win a few slams and eventually get to #1 is a more agressive mindset, and a few improvements on the forehand and 2nd serve.

Cesc Fabregas
10-12-2009, 05:52 AM
i would pick Djoko.There's a lot he can do gamewise..He has a lot of variety.

LOL, you don't have a clue. I like Djokovic alot but he does not have alot of variety, Rafael Nadal is constantley labeled one dimensional has more variety than Djokovic.

mandy01
10-12-2009, 05:53 AM
From that list I'd pick Murray, if he had a slightly better forehand the decision would be very easy.

Murray has a backhand almost as good as Agassi's, moves ridiculously well for a player of his size, has one of the best slices around, great hands at the net, returns as good as anyone, has a huge 1st serve and is a master tactician.

All he needs to win a few slams and eventually get to #1 is a more agressive mindset, and a few improvements on the forehand and 2nd serve.

I agree.Murray is one hell of a talented chap.

SerbWhoLovesDelPo
10-12-2009, 05:58 AM
I disagree about Djokovic, he is a very good player, still vastly underrated by most.
But for one of the biggest talents he isn't using the full court enough, his slice and volleys aren't natural, and his forehand (as good as it is) looks a bit forced.

He is a very hard worker and is gifted with amazing movement and flexibility for a player of his size.

I don't think that he's a headcase or struggling with fitness, none of his losses since the Australian Open have been fitness or choke-related.
He got outplayed far and square by Nadal and Federer in the big matches.


He could have done better against Nadal in Rome, Madrid, Olympics, Queens, Hamburg. And that's partially because he is a mental midget compared to Rafa. But when he plays Roger, he usually makes Fed choke.

His fitness was much worse when he was younger, and that's when he had most success.
--------------------------

I voted Tsonga but I'm not sure. He has an attractive game which is not usually very effective, and that's not just because of mental weakness.
-------------------------

Murray is very talented IMO. Definitely Top 3 there.
-------------------------

What about Delpo? He does not have a very attractive game, but his height and strength are definitely talent. That's what nature gave him after all. Someone was gifted with flexible hands, someone with height.

wyutani
10-12-2009, 05:59 AM
gael monflis....

grafselesfan
10-12-2009, 06:03 AM
LOL, you don't have a clue. I like Djokovic alot but he does not have alot of variety, Rafael Nadal is constantley labeled one dimensional has more variety than Djokovic.

I agree with this. He has more variety than say Gulbis or Blake but that isnt saying much. He is an outstanding ball striker though who when he is on can beat anyone with his sound, consistent, accurate clean, and very powerful strokes. He is complete in the sense he can serve, return, hit forehands, and backhands all excellent (volleys not so much). Versatile he is not though. Very rarely will you see anything outside of the the standard drive shots.

Cesc Fabregas
10-12-2009, 06:07 AM
I agree with this. He has more variety than say Gulbis or Blake but that isnt saying much. He is an outstanding ball striker though who when he is on can beat anyone with his sound, consistent, accurate clean, and very powerful strokes. He is complete in the sense he can serve, return, hit forehands, and backhands all excellent (volleys not so much). Versatile he is not though. Very rarely will you see anything outside of the the standard drive shots.

He has a great serve and return, moves well and has great groundstrokes off both wings but has a poor transition game, poor volleys and an average backhand slice.

SerbWhoLovesDelPo
10-12-2009, 06:09 AM
He has a great serve and return, moves well and has great groundstrokes off both wings but has a poor transition game, poor volleys and an average backhand slice.

His volleys are definitely better than poor, but his slice is not cool at all.

grafselesfan
10-12-2009, 06:11 AM
He has a great serve and return, moves well and has great groundstrokes off both wings but has a poor transition game, poor volleys and an average backhand slice.

I agree with all this. Still the latter things you mentioned are not nearly as important in todays game (unfortunately) so in many ways he is the prototype of the modern player. He has everything you need to be a great champion in todays game if he can keep his motivation and confidence up high enough. However versatile definitely wouldnt be the right word for just those things you are correct in saying he lacks.

dropshot winner
10-12-2009, 06:20 AM
He could have done better against Nadal in Rome, Madrid, Olympics, Queens, Hamburg. And that's partially because he is a mental midget compared to Rafa. But when he plays Roger, he usually makes Fed choke.

His fitness was much worse when he was younger, and that's when he had most success.

He should've won Queens last year, but in a lot of other close matches he got outplayed by Nadal on the big points, which doesn't qualify as a choke.

I'd say that his fitness is at a good level since 2007, he had some strange losses/retirements like Monte Carlo 08 against Fed and 09 AO against Roddick, but overall he handled a lot of long and intense matches well.


I voted Tsonga but I'm not sure. He has an attractive game which is not usually very effective, and that's not just because of mental weakness.
-------------------------

Murray is very talented IMO. Definitely Top 3 there.
-------------------------

What about Delpo? He does not have a very attractive game, but his height and strength are definitely talent. That's what nature gave him after all. Someone was gifted with flexible hands, someone with height.
Tsonga is definately very talented, as he isn't just about power. Unfortunately he has some very strange shot selection at times.

Edstringer13
10-12-2009, 11:15 AM
I agree that Fed chokes against Nadal,example given at the AUS Open.
Maybe because his one handed back hand is an easy prey to Nadal's crosscourt forehand.I also agree that Nadal's achievements last year were unbelievable,maybe the greatest.
But Nadal is a grinder not classy player,and he's not in this discussion.
I think Murray got where he is because of hard working and not talent,because the type o tennis he plays is just ugly.

Fedex
10-13-2009, 01:23 PM
From that list I'd pick Murray, if he had a slightly better forehand the decision would be very easy.

Murray has a backhand almost as good as Agassi's, moves ridiculously well for a player of his size, has one of the best slices around, great hands at the net, returns as good as anyone, has a huge 1st serve and is a master tactician.

All he needs to win a few slams and eventually get to #1 is a more agressive mindset, and a few improvements on the forehand and 2nd serve.

I agree.Murray is one hell of a talented chap.

What the OP means I think is pure natural talent.
Comparing different tennis players to what they were like when they first picked up a racket at a certain age would be a good indication of natural talent.
I know that six year old Murray was beating talented ten year olds in competitions.
One of the boys recalls how his confidence was totally shattered, understandably, but he didn't realise he was playing a freak of nature.
I'm not saying that Murray is the most talented because I don't know what Djokovic or Del Potro or Gasquet were doing at that age or what they could do when they first picked up a racket.
Also maybe one player might develop at a quicker or slower rate so it could be a very difficult thing to figure out.
For this reason I have not voted in the poll.

RQS11girl
10-13-2009, 04:42 PM
Gulbis is the best!

ubermeyer
10-13-2009, 05:03 PM
how are berdych and GULBIS here? even monfils and gasquet shouldn't really be here

Del Potro, followed by Safin, then Djokovic

Tennis360
10-13-2009, 05:18 PM
Shame on the 5 people who voted for Gasquet.


shame on you for not respecting other people's opinion.

mud volcano
10-14-2013, 11:37 PM
big difference between careers of djoker and other guys provided they are at same level in 2009 .
Well done Novak.

tipsa...don'tlikehim!
10-14-2013, 11:42 PM
More talentend, Del Potro leads the poll? :lol:
can't believe it.

Gasquet, hands down.
The only player close to him in that list is Murray.

tennis playa
10-15-2013, 03:44 AM
Del Potro
Tsonga
Soderling
Verdasco
Gulbis
...

You need to define talent. If you're talking about sheer physical skill then I don't think there's a huge diff between the top guys, I think that the thing that separates them is match play. No body gets hit off the court anymore and there isn't the variety of play in the game that there used to be ( games aren't won on guile anymore the way mac used to win) Novak constructs points really well in moving the ball side to side and using angles...so what do you mean by most talented?

shj9
10-15-2013, 08:42 AM
novak djokovic

degrease
10-15-2013, 12:59 PM
Results speak volumes. Has to be novak. Cant believe delpo still has most votes. I like the big argie but djokovic is clear winner from this group (no federer)

Crose
10-15-2013, 01:31 PM
If Tsonga had Rafa's mentality, he'd be an all-time great. He's my pick.

90's Clay
10-15-2013, 01:53 PM
From a Pure talent standpoint I would go with Berdych. Its a catastrophe that this guy hasn't won 4-5 slams anyways.

I don't think Nole is supremely raw talented or anything. Even though he has the best resume, he just puts in more work off the court than any of the other guys

NEW_BORN
10-15-2013, 05:35 PM
If Tsonga had Rafa's mentality, he'd be an all-time great. He's my pick.

Tsonga has a lot of raw power, but i wouldn't say he's the most naturally talented out of the poll options.

NEW_BORN
10-15-2013, 05:36 PM
From a Pure talent standpoint I would go with Berdych. Its a catastrophe that this guy hasn't won 4-5 slams anyways.

I don't think Nole is supremely raw talented or anything. Even though he has the best resume, he just puts does more work off the court than any of the other guys

How do you know this?? :confused::confused:

90's Clay
10-15-2013, 06:54 PM
How do you know this?? :confused::confused:

Because hes maximizing his abilities along with Murray and Nadal. While no one else is maximizing their talents (along with focus) into being the best.

Which is why we had like only 5 slam winners in the last 15 freakin years

bullfan
10-15-2013, 06:56 PM
Del Potro
Tsonga
Soderling
Verdasco
Gulbis
...

Seems like a stacked deck!

My guess is that Monfils is the most talented. He just has never lived up to his talent, he just wants to have fun, and doesn't seem to want that stress. He apparently is satisfied with his position, and I think the more driven folks should be grateful. There have been years where the top guys have said Monfils is the best athlete.

papertank
10-15-2013, 07:05 PM
Murray is the most talented out of this group, probably the most naturally talented player ever besides Federer. If he had the mental strength of Djokovic or Nadal he'd be on a different level than everyone else.

The level of play that Murray achieves when he is at his best is scary. Name me another player that could-

-Bagel Rafael Nadal allowing him to only win 4 points in the set
-Allowing a 7 time Wimbledon champion (Federer) to only win 7 games in a best of 3 match at Wimbledon.
-Straight set win over the world #1 in a Wimbledon final

Murray hardly ever achieves that level of focus, but when he does he's unbeatable.

NEW_BORN
10-15-2013, 07:30 PM
Because hes maximizing his abilities along with Murray and Nadal. While no one else is maximizing their talents (along with focus) into being the best.

Which is why we had like only 5 slam winners in the last 15 freakin years

But maybe those other guys are working just as hard as Djokovic, but they are just not as good in other aspects of the game.

In fact, i doubt very much that Djokovic is the type of person to bust his nuts in every training session.

tennis playa
10-15-2013, 11:20 PM
There are 3 types of talent. 1, the technical side of actually hitting the ball - the reason why everyone calls Gasquet so talented. 2, the mental side of the game - many would argue that however hard Gasquet works he will not fullfill his potential because he doesnt mentally have it. 3, this is the one that not many people know about and is also the reason why I argue that every player reaches their 'potential'. It's the desire to work hard. Many people will say Safin is mentally weak, however, I say to you, can you call a multiple Grand Slam winner and World Number 1 mentally weak? I would suggest Safin has the mental and technical side to be no1 as much as anyone, Federer included. What Safin doesnt have is the desire to work and fullfill his 'mental' and 'technical' talent because his 'desire' talent just isn't there.

Someone like Henman did fullfill his mental and technical talent because he had bucket loads of desire (or work ethic) talent.

If I had more time I would draw and upload some kind of bar chart to explain this better but instead i'll try and paint a picture for everyone. To explain potential you have to imagine drawing 3 bars, one for each of the talents - technical, mental and work ethic.

If you take the top of the bar as the potential for that particular talent, lets use Safin as an example and say the top level he can reach technical and mental talents is 100. Lets say he only ever actually reached 80% in these areas of fullfilling his talent, why? Because the 3rd bar, his work ethic bar, doesnt even have the potential of reaching 100. The potential of that talent tops at 70-80. So when he was fullfilling his work ethic potential he got the most that he could possibly squeeze out of his mental and technical side of his game.

On the other hand, imagine Henman again. The potential of his technical and mental talent might top out at around 80 but his work ethic talent was 100, therefore allowing him to get the most out of his mental and technical game.

By using this I argue that all players reach the potential and fullfill their talent, as long as you dont look at talent as being purely technical but appreciate there are other talents a player must have, the mental and work ethic side.

I hope all that made sense, like i said by actually drawing a bar chart/picture it might make more sense.

all the top pros are talented otherwise they wouldn't be where they are, their skills are manifested in different ways, it has nothing to with 1 or 2 handed backhands or whether they finish each stroke with a flourish or whether they are more physically imposing than the next guy. They all have ability and they work hard to maintain/hone their skill. Match play is what determines success not so much the physical tools

*Sparkle*
10-16-2013, 10:06 AM
I know that six year old Murray was beating talented ten year olds in competitions.
One of the boys recalls how his confidence was totally shattered, understandably, but he didn't realise he was playing a freak of nature.
I'm not saying that Murray is the most talented because I don't know what Djokovic or Del Potro or Gasquet were doing at that age or what they could do when they first picked up a racket.


I often wonder what happens to those guys and how many of them throw in the towel, not realising that the small child that humiliated them in front of their friends, was going to become one of the best players in the world, and that one day, all the kids from their tennis club will be pretending they were once beaten by him! :lol: