PDA

View Full Version : This video makes me believe those that think Murray is more talented than RN and ND


dangalak
10-04-2012, 07:25 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVZ2yY-GDB8

Lemme guess: he lost and therefore it means nothing. :rolleyes:

Some of the shots he pulls of here are like a savant being at work. Sure Djokovic and Nadal are BETTER players, but I don't think they have the kind of tennis gift that allows Murray to play the way that he does. They win because they do ordinary things better than Murray. Murray is more talented IMO because he does extraordinairy things better. Talent=/=being better.

He may not be in the Nalbandian/Federer class of talent but :shock:

EDIT: This is the actual video. www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTnjCZr35NI

But you can watch the first one anyway.

Mainad
10-04-2012, 07:33 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVZ2yY-GDB8

Lemme guess: he lost and therefore it means nothing. :rolleyes:

Some of the shots he pulls of here are like a savant being at work. Sure Djokovic and Nadal are BETTER players, but I don't think they have the kind of tennis gift that allows Murray to play the way that he does. They win because they do ordinary things better than Murray. Murray is more talented IMO because he does extraordinairy things better. Talent=/=being better.

He may not be in the Nalbandian/Federer class of talent but :shock:

Wow! A thread that actually acknowledges Murray has some talent! Is that a first for TTW? :shock:

I completely agree with you but I'm not sure if a video of a Federer-Hewitt match is the best way to illustrate this! :wink:

rommil
10-04-2012, 07:35 AM
This was when Murray was Australian.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 07:40 AM
:lol:

Sorry guys.

Still massive defense by Fed. :)

Clarky21
10-04-2012, 07:41 AM
I don't think he's more talented than ****,but he is definitely more talented than Nadal.

Cormorant
10-04-2012, 07:44 AM
Safin, Hewitt, Roddick and Federer -they could certainly hold a candle or two to the present Big Four. Throw in Ferrer, Del Potro and Tsonga/Berdych/Soderling, we could've had a Big Ten in 2008/2009. Curse you medical science for progressing so slowly!

RF20Lennon
10-04-2012, 07:46 AM
Murray is more talented than nadal or djokovic but they both are better players

sunof tennis
10-04-2012, 07:50 AM
I had forgotten that match. Pleasantly surprised to see Murray serve and volley. He has good hands.

batz
10-04-2012, 08:22 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVZ2yY-GDB8

Lemme guess: he lost and therefore it means nothing. :rolleyes:

Some of the shots he pulls of here are like a savant being at work. Sure Djokovic and Nadal are BETTER players, but I don't think they have the kind of tennis gift that allows Murray to play the way that he does. They win because they do ordinary things better than Murray. Murray is more talented IMO because he does extraordinairy things better. Talent=/=being better.

He may not be in the Nalbandian/Federer class of talent but :shock:

EDIT: This is the actual video. www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTnjCZr35NI

But you can watch the first one anyway.


Meh. It was probably just windy that day.

AnotherTennisProdigy
10-04-2012, 08:25 AM
I've always thought Murray was the most talented when the 3 came along, he just didn't maximize his potential as well as the other 2. Nadal used his potential the best.

The Bawss
10-04-2012, 09:23 AM
Meh. It was probably just windy that day.

I see what you did there and had it not been sarcastic, I would have liked it!

MichaelNadal
10-04-2012, 09:56 AM
What are we basing talent on and how can someone be more talented than someone with much better results? I don't feel one way or another, just trying to make sense of it.

batz
10-04-2012, 10:06 AM
What are we basing talent on and how can someone be more talented than someone with much better results? I don't feel one way or another, just trying to make sense of it.

Well said. I'm struggling to see how Rafa, with his 11 measly slams, is less talented than Murrray.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 10:17 AM
What are we basing talent on and how can someone be more talented than someone with much better results? I don't feel one way or another, just trying to make sense of it.

By being a worse player.

Well said. I'm struggling to see how Rafa, with his 11 measly slams, is less talented than Murrray.

Do you actually watch him play? How could Rafa be more talented than Murray. Has he ever shown the kind of skill and variety that Murray showed in that video?

You probably also think that Roddick is more talented than Nalbandian and Soderling is more talented than Santoro. :lol:

Talented doesn't meant quality. But I was naive in expecting everyone to understand this.

Basically, what Nalbandian and Santoro, for example, have over the likes of Soderling and Roddick, is talent.

batz
10-04-2012, 10:32 AM
By being a worse player.



Do you actually watch him play? How could Rafa be more talented than Murray. Has he ever shown the kind of skill and variety that Murray showed in that video?

You probably also think that Roddick is more talented than Nalbandian and Soderling is more talented than Santoro. :lol:

Talented doesn't meant quality. But I was naive in expecting everyone to understand this.

Basically, what Nalbandian and Santoro, for example, have over the likes of Soderling and Roddick, is talent.



I've seen a couple of Andy's matches down the years.

I've seen Nadal play with plenty of skill and variety, especially on clay and grass.

NadalDramaQueen
10-04-2012, 10:46 AM
By being a worse player.



Do you actually watch him play? How could Rafa be more talented than Murray. Has he ever shown the kind of skill and variety that Murray showed in that video?

You probably also think that Roddick is more talented than Nalbandian and Soderling is more talented than Santoro. :lol:

Talented doesn't meant quality. But I was naive in expecting everyone to understand this.

Basically, what Nalbandian and Santoro, for example, have over the likes of Soderling and Roddick, is talent.

In other words, talent is a term that is free from the constraints of reality. Let your imagination run wild!

Trust in flawed, human perception, we must! Dangalak has showed us the true path!

dangalak
10-04-2012, 10:49 AM
I've seen a couple of Andy's matches down the years.

I've seen Nadal play with plenty of skill and variety, especially on clay and grass.

A: "Karlovic is taller than Nadal."
B: "How is that possible, he has won 11 fewer majors than Nadal."

A: "Monfils is more athletic than Nadal"
B: "How is that possible, he has won 11 fewer majors than Nadal."

A: "Murray is more talented than Nadal."
B: "How is that possible, he has 10 fewer majors than Nadal."

Get it now? :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zTnjCZr35NI#t=355s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zTnjCZr35NI#t=130s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zTnjCZr35NI#t=154s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zTnjCZr35NI#t=198s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zTnjCZr35NI#t=219s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zTnjCZr35NI#t=258s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zTnjCZr35NI#t=309s

This is why I consider him more talented than Nadal.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 10:50 AM
In other words, talent is a term that is free from the constraints of reality. Let your imagination run wild!

Trust in flawed, human perception, we must! Dangalak has showed us the true path!

Oh stop being so sore for God's sake.

Sim
10-04-2012, 10:55 AM
Murray may have more more shots that he can show off, but what Nadal and Djokovic do, they do it extremely well. (well enough to win 11 and 5 slams respectively).

dangalak
10-04-2012, 10:57 AM
Murray may have more more shots that he can show off, but what Nadal and Djokovic do, they do it extremely well. (well enough to win 11 and 5 slams respectively).

Hence why I said that they are BETTER. I mean, if you watch my clips and still disagree, fine.

But he is making Nadal look awfully stupid in some of those rallies. I rarely had the same feeling with Nadal. At least never with that extent.

batz
10-04-2012, 10:59 AM
A: "Karlovic is taller than Nadal."
B: "How is that possible, he has won 11 fewer majors than Nadal."

A: "Monfils is more athletic than Nadal"
B: "How is that possible, he has won 11 fewer majors than Nadal."

A: "Murray is more talented than Nadal."
B: "How is that possible, he has 10 fewer majors than Nadal."

Get it now? :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zTnjCZr35NI#t=355s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zTnjCZr35NI#t=130s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zTnjCZr35NI#t=154s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zTnjCZr35NI#t=198s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zTnjCZr35NI#t=219s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zTnjCZr35NI#t=258s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zTnjCZr35NI#t=309s

This is why I consider him more talented than Nadal.


Karlovic's height isn't a matter of conjecture - poor analogy. The 3 bolded words are key - you are presenting an opinion - albeit with some videos to back up your theory (I hope you included the one of him going round the net versus Cilic in the AO semis). I'm sure I could find some videos of Nadal doing crazy things too - because all these guys are hugely talented.

For me, the definition of talent includes the ability to win major titles, so there is some correlation between the number and nature of titles won and the amount of talent a given player has.

For you, the definition of talent is clearly different - but that's OK.

Sim
10-04-2012, 11:05 AM
Hence why I said that they are BETTER. I mean, if you watch my clips and still disagree, fine.

But he is making Nadal look awfully stupid in some of those rallies. I rarely had the same feeling with Nadal. At least never with that extent.

All 3 play a defensive style, but Nadal and Djokovic are leagues ahead of Murray in slam count. That means that Nadal and Djokovic are the two best defenders in today's game. Does that not equate to greater talent than Murray?

Might I also say that Nadal is a CC goat. How can he NOT be extremely talented? And that Djokovic had one of the best seasons ever last year. You can't accomplish that without hard work AND talent.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 11:12 AM
All 3 play a defensive style, but Nadal and Djokovic are leagues ahead of Murray in slam count. That means that Nadal and Djokovic are the two best defenders in today's game. Does that not equate to greater talent than Murray?

Might I also say that Nadal is a CC goat. How can he NOT be extremely talented? And that Djokovic had one of the best seasons ever last year. You can't accomplish that without hard work AND talent.

Nadal IS extremely talented. Doesn't mean that somebody else cannot have more of it.

Also, Nadal and Djokovic have FAR superior forehands than Murray has had through out 90% of his career. You know, the most important shot in the men's game currently? They are also fundamentally aggressive players, despite being grinders. (as in, they will go for it in the big points, unlike Murray, who even in his slam win could become passive and waited for something to happen.

Sim
10-04-2012, 11:23 AM
Nadal IS extremely talented. Doesn't mean that somebody else cannot have more of it.

Also, Nadal and Djokovic have FAR superior forehands than Murray has had through out 90% of his career. You know, the most important shot in the men's game currently? They are also fundamentally aggressive players, despite being grinders. (as in, they will go for it in the big points, unlike Murray, who even in his slam win could become passive and waited for something to happen.

I agree with this, but you don't have me convinced that Murray has more talent (in certain areas, sure, but not overall talent).

Ok, I might say that Murray is more talented than Djokovic but definitely not Nadal.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 11:41 AM
I agree with this, but you don't have me convinced that Murray has more talent (in certain areas, sure, but not overall talent).

Ok, I might say that Murray is more talented than Djokovic but definitely not Nadal.

That's a good compromise. :)

I dunno, that one backhand smash drop volley was just something you would typically see Federer do. It's like seeing a child build castles in the sand box, but onl,y he was doing it against Rafael Nadal. I have never seen Nadal play around with his opponent so much.

oy vey
10-04-2012, 12:03 PM
Fang's own mother thought he was talentless, and she is a coach of Scotland.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 12:05 PM
Fang's own mother thought he was talentless, and she is a coach of Scotland.

When he was 4. :)

kaku
10-04-2012, 12:34 PM
Murray's got great hands, should volley a lot more

Mainad
10-04-2012, 01:18 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zTnjCZr35NI#t=130s

I must say I had to laugh at this second one where (at 2.18 on the video I think) Nadal ends up on his arse staring daggers at his corner and points his racquet at them as if to say: "Who is this guy? You told me this one was gonna be a breeze, no? Now what do you expect me to do?" :lol:

kishnabe
10-04-2012, 02:07 PM
Murray played fantastic in that match. Sucks he didn't win...and Gonzo had to finsh what was left of Nadal.

NadalAgassi
10-04-2012, 02:10 PM
I dont think he is more talented than either of those two. Even with Nadal's work ethic and mental toughness would he have 11 majors now? Obvious answer is no. As for Djokovic, Djokovic for years was a huge underachiever, more of one than Murray, had major issues with fitness, work ethic, and choking, and still ended every single year ranked above Murray. Even in 2009 and 2010 when Djokovic was in a sophomore slump of sorts and playing well below his 2/3s of 2007 and 2008 level he still stayed ranked ahead of Murray almost the entire time.

Having more variety does not make you more talented. If so Santoro would be even more talented than Federer. Djokovic and Nadal have more straightforward games but overall more effective in the end, if all 3 are at their best, taking into account all surfaces, not just hard courts of course. If Murray ends up with 4 or 5 majors nobody would call him an underachiever, which is if he were more talented than Nadal or Djokovic, people would say he was in that case. I hope now that he has a major he can end up winning 4-6 majors and has atleast 1 year winning atleast 2 and as the clear #1 for the year. To me that is the full extent of his potential. I dont think he ever had more potential than Nadal or Djokovic, or was ever believed to have more.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 02:20 PM
I dont think he is more talented than either of those two. Even with Nadal's work ethic and mental toughness would he have 11 majors now? Obvious answer is no. As for Djokovic, Djokovic for years was a huge underachiever, more of one than Murray, had major issues with fitness, work ethic, and choking, and still ended every single year ranked above Murray. Even in 2009 and 2010 when Djokovic was in a sophomore slump of sorts and playing well below his 2/3s of 2007 and 2008 level he still stayed ranked ahead of Murray almost the entire time.

Having more variety does not make you more talented. If so Santoro would be even more talented than Federer. If Murray ends up with 4 or 5 majors nobody would call him an underachiever, which is if he were more talented than Nadal or Djokovic, people would say he was in that case.

I would consider talent and potential different things.

Again, Soderling has more potential. Santoro had more talent. Soderling was forced to play a one dimensional style, albeit one that worked. Santoro was far more natural on the court. It's almost like he was a child playing around.

Also, while it's true that nobody would call Murray an underachiever, it is because of his lack of success so far. When Djokovic and Murray came onto the scene (2005/2006) did you seriously say that Djokovic was way more talented?

NadalAgassi
10-04-2012, 02:23 PM
I would consider talent and potential different things.

Again, Soderling has more potential. Santoro had more talent. Soderling was forced to play a one dimensional style, albeit one that worked. Santoro was far more natural on the court. It's almost like he was a child playing around.

Also, while it's true that nobody would call Murray an underachiever, it is because of his lack of success so far. When Djokovic and Murray came onto the scene (2005/2006) did you seriously say that Djokovic was way more talented?

You see this is where we obviously disagree on what talent means. As much as I enjoy Santoro, I do not think Santoro is more talented than Soderling. A more unique, special, and enjoyable player yes, and one who will be remembered many more years as guys who can hit harder than Soderling will come but someone who plays like Santoro wont come often, but not more talented. Soderling maximizing what he do and commited to the sport will always achieve far more than Santoro can even with his best efforts, so to me that makes him far more talented.

I also get confused why people seem to downplay things like power, athletic ability, even natural ability to focus and work hard which comes easier to some than others as part of talent. Anything you are born with or that comes naturally is included in talent as far as I am concerned, not just feel for the ball and variety as some seem to think.

As for your other point I remember predicting back in 2005 that Djokovic would be the most success out of Djokovic, Gasquet, Murray, Berdych, Baghdatis, Monfils, that Gasquet, Monfils and Baghdatis were all way overhyped, that Berdych was someone I wasnt sure on but would probably be something in the middle, and that Murray would be the 2nd or 3rd most successful of that group, so I cant speak for everyone but I can say no I am not surprised how things panned out really.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 02:25 PM
You see this is where we obviously disagree on what talent means. As much as I enjoy Santoro, I do not think Santoro is more talented than Soderling. A more unique, special, and enjoyable player yes, but not more talented. Soderling maximizing what he do and commited to the sport will always achieve far more than Santoro can even with his best efforts, so to me that makes him far more talented.

I also get confused why people seem to downplay things like power, athletic ability, even natural ability to focus and work hard which comes easier to some than others as part of talent. Anything you are born with or that comes naturally is included in talent as far as I am concerned, not just feel for the ball and variety as some seem to think.

Eh, it's because power is mostly a thing that can work in most sports. It's not really a tennis specific ability. I always say it this way: Soderling is better because he does ordinary things better than Santoro. Santoro does extraordinary things though.

NadalAgassi
10-04-2012, 02:27 PM
Eh, it's because power is mostly a thing that can work in most sports. It's not really a tennis specific ability. I always say it this way: Soderling is better because he does ordinary things better than Santoro. Santoro does extraordinary things though.

Like you said power is something that works and is part of any sport. Thus having natural ability to do something with power in any sport is part of your "talent" (which matters more in the Soderling vs Santoro comparision than Nadal vs Murray anyway, as the latter two are much closer in power than the former two).

dangalak
10-04-2012, 02:31 PM
Like you said power is something that works and is part of any sport. Thus having natural ability to do something with power in any sport is part of your "talent" (which matters more in the Soderling vs Santoro comparision than Nadal vs Murray anyway, as the latter two are much closer in power than the former two).

Well, again, if I cannot explain it in words, look at some of the clips I linked in the first page. These kind of thing I would expect from a talented player. I've seen Nadal do similar things, but not THIS well.

I guess this is more semantics than anything. I would refer to what you call talent as "potential". Yeah, Nadal has more potential because of his superior athleticism, great forehand and aggressive nature. (in big points) His movement on clay and his heavy forehand in particular are what put him in that class. That would be what shows his potential.

Would "genius" or "brilliance" better describe what I mean? :)

firepanda
10-04-2012, 02:33 PM
Murray's definitely talented. Most British players in any sport seem to be all talent and no killer instinct. Nadal's definitely a talented athlete, but his tennis finesse come from hard work, I think. Djokovic is the only one who seems to be driven by mostly hard work.

That's my opinion: I'm a touch biased. :)

NadalAgassi
10-04-2012, 02:34 PM
Well, again, if I cannot explain it in words, look at some of the clips I linked in the first page. These kind of thing I would expect from a talented player. I've seen Nadal do similar things, but not THIS well.

I guess this is more semantics than anything. I would refer to what you call talent as "potential". Yeah, Nadal has more potential because of his superior athleticism, great forehand and aggressive nature. (in big points) His movement on clay and his heavy forehand in particular are what put him in that class. That would be what shows his potential.

Would "genius" or "brilliance" better describe what I mean? :)

Yes for me genius or brilliance would better describe what you mean. :) However some would concur with your definition of talent, and I do understand what you mean, and yes on that basis Murray is probably more talented than Djokovic or Nadal by your definition. My definition is talent is anything that is effective in your sport that comes through any form of natural ability, and just through hard work, delivery, and mental investment. So it all comes down to ones personal definition of talent in this case I think. By mine Nadal and Djokovic > Murray in talent and Soderling > Santoro in talent, by yours I would concur it is probably the other way around (and 120% for sure in the case of Soderling and Santoro, lol).

Nathaniel_Near
10-04-2012, 03:37 PM
A speculative thread, if I ever saw one.

Anyway, I have it roughly as Roger > Nadal > Djokovic = Murray, but Djokovic has some sensational luck, such as the AO surface changing to his absolute dream surface, helping enable his maiden Slam win and also giving him the best chance to build a roll after his DC success, given that it was the first Major coming afterwards. I can imagine in different conditions that more of Murray's strengths would shine and that his strokes and ethos would be more rewarded. As it stands, Nadal and Djokovic have more suitable and better ground-strokes for current day tennis.

paulorenzo
10-04-2012, 08:18 PM
it depends on how one defines talent.


if talent is defined as inherent ability, then it would be difficult to compare talent since there's no direct way to measure the talent of two different players from different backgrounds who develop differently. great shotmaking and variety shouldn't be measures of talent, and do not make a person more inherently talented, it just makes them a great shotmaker with great variety. also, shotmaking and variety aren't necessarily inherent traits since they are attributes that can become better through practice. perhaps murray practiced more flashy shots while nadal took the more conservative roue.

if one defines talent differently, as in just how good the person is, then this thread is pointless.