Talent vs. No talent

[PascalMariaFan]

If you find highlights of a talented player putting the beat down on a no talent, post them here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH3Ly9Tizc4

The highlights of the 2006 Shanghai TMC RR between Nalbandian and Roddick I find to be the ultimate showcase of a talent making a mockery of a physical player.

Nalbandian runs him around the court, is light on his feet, and anticipates everything.
Putting in half as much effort as Roddick, yet generating more pace.

Roddick's serve kept the score tight, as usual. But he never had a chance from the baseline, considering his stronger groundstroke is significantly worse than Nalbandian's weaker. Forehand vs. forehand.

[NicolasH]

I don't think there's "No Talent" on tour. Even Gilbert had talent, his talent was winning matches.

Cheers,
n.

[bumblebee]

roddick's got no talent, dats why hes been a consistent top 10...

[PascalMariaFan]

Originally Posted by bumblebee

roddick's got no talent, dats why hes been a consistent top 10...

Watch the highlights and you'll take back your sarcasm, I guarantee it.
Roddick is nothing but an athletic goof with a pitcher's arm.

When he plays Nalbandian this fact is as clear as day.

[El Diablo]

It's quite an indictment of tennis as a serious sport when an "athletic goof with a pitcher's arm" can be as successful as Roddick's been.

[Stchamps]

Originally Posted by PascalMariaFan

Watch the highlights and you'll take back your sarcasm, I guarantee it.
Roddick is nothing but an athletic goof with a pitcher's arm.

When he plays Nalbandian this fact is as clear as day.

That's one match. I've seen Nalbandian play some terrible tennis before.

[crawl4]

but your saying he has no talent..you could say he has to work harder then others but like you make it out as if he was crap when he first started playing tennis

[Swissv2]

Originally Posted by PascalMariaFan

Watch the highlights and you'll take back your sarcasm, I guarantee it.
Roddick is nothing but an athletic goof with a pitcher's arm.

When he plays Nalbandian this fact is as clear as day.

Hmm...so that's why Roddick has a 3-2 winning record over Nalbandian, won in Dubai, won in San Jose, top 10 player since 2003?

I "clearly" understand now.

[PascalMariaFan]

Originally Posted by El Diablo

It's quite an indictment of tennis as a serious sport when an "athletic goof with a pitcher's arm" can be as successful as Roddick's been.

Tennis hasn't evolved as much as other sports have.
For instance table tennis, where no player in the top 1000 has a technical flaw to be found.

The good news is it's getting better. Slowly, but gradually.

[PascalMariaFan]

Originally Posted by Swissv2

Hmm...so that's why Roddick has a 3-2 winning record over Nalbandian, won in Dubai, won in San Jose, top 10 player since 2003?

I "clearly" understand now.

I'm talking talent here. Which resides in footwork, anticipation and ground game. Not tossing the ball into the air and hitting it.

And, if you don't remember, not too long ago. Nalbandian was serving like Volandri. The only reason Roddick has wins over Nalbandian is because of his monster serve. The only reason Roddick has career accomplishments is because of his serve.

[El Diablo]

There are two possibilities here....1) you're actually familiar with the details of the playing styles of 1000 table tennis players, or 2) you're a pathologic liar who makes it up as he goes along. Which is it?

[PascalMariaFan]

Originally Posted by Stchamps

That's one match. I've seen Nalbandian play some terrible tennis before.

Of course. Everyone plays poorly on ocassion.
But place an in-form Roddick against an in-form talent like Nalbandian and he'll be embarrassed every time.

[PascalMariaFan]

Originally Posted by El Diablo

There are two possibilities here....1) you're actually familiar with the details of the playing styles of 1000 table tennis players, or 2) you're a pathologic liar who makes it up as he goes along. Which is it?

no.1

Care to post highlights of a Roddick loss?
This thread needs contributions.

[SempreSami]

Originally Posted by PascalMariaFan

Tennis hasn't evolved as much as other sports have.
For instance table tennis, where no player in the top 1000 has a technical flaw to be found.

The good news is it's getting better. Slowly, but gradually.

Liez, football has odd happenings.

Pippo Inzaghi is technically awful but is the top scorer in all European competitions, not forgetting his brace in the Champions League final last season. Also, Titus Bramble plays for a Premiership team.

[PascalMariaFan]

Originally Posted by SempreSami

Liez, football has odd happenings.

Pippo Inzaghi is technically awful but is the top scorer in all European competitions, not forgetting his brace in the Champions League final last season. Also, Titus Bramble plays for a Premiership team.

bleh, team sports.

[Challenger]

Originally Posted by PascalMariaFan

I'm talking talent here. Which resides in footwork, anticipation and ground game. Not tossing the ball into the air and hitting it.

And, if you don't remember, not too long ago. Nalbandian was serving like Volandri. The only reason Roddick has wins over Nalbandian is because of his monster serve. The only reason Roddick has career accomplishments is because of his serve.

Well, it goes by what you define "talent" as. If serving at Roddick's level was easy and didn't require skill, then everyone on tour would be doing. Fact of the matter is, it does require talent to be able to serve at such spectacular levels. To get that high of a first serve percentage with the amount of power and accuracy he puts behind the ball is quite an achievement.

Also, saying he'd be nothing without his serve may be true, but it's also a stupid argument. Federer wouldn't be top 10 without his forehand, Nadal wouldn't be anywhere without his pure speed, etc. So what? All this hypothetical BS is worthless and not a very good instrument for debate.

Winning is the most important thing, and if the serve is that important of a shot, where a player who specializes in that alone can be a perennial Top 10 player, then it deserves to be something worthy of recognition. To dismiss it as a lesser ability is ridiculous and pretty much a testament to your own bias.

[Fries-N-Gravy]

it takes talent to be as clumsy as roddick and be in the top ten. he's able to continue winning with his crappy footwork and strokes.

[daku10]

i seriously don't get it...if anything, you're admitting that roddick's got a monster serve but i hope you realize that developing such a serve takes talent...isn't the serve one of the hardest shots in tennis? on top of that, i don't get how a player with absolutely no talent would be consistently ranked in the top 10? do you think you have talent? if you think you have talent then i would like to ask you why roddick is top 10 material and you're not...i'm sure you probably didn't have the same opportunities as roddick, but shouldn't talent shine through anyway?

[PascalMariaFan]

Originally Posted by Challenger

Well, it goes by what you define "talent" as. If serving at Roddick's level was easy and didn't require skill, then everyone on tour would be doing. Fact of the matter is, it does require talent to be able to serve at such spectacular levels. To get that high of a first serve percentage with the amount of power and accuracy he puts behind the ball is quite an achievement.

This is an old, overused arguement.
Talent is in the brain. Not the body.
Fast-twitch muscle fibre and strong wrist = big serve.
The fact is, serving has no dependancy on the opponent, there are no variables or footwork adjustments to be made.

Take an olympic javelin thrower. Teach them to hold a racquet. And they'll be hitting bombs in no time. Then ask them to tie their shoe laces, and they'll fall flat on their face.
Serving well has no translation into other talents. Too often players with big serves have no clue when it comes to rallying.

Originally Posted by Challenger

Also, saying he'd be nothing without his serve may be true, but it's also a stupid argument. Federer wouldn't be top 10 without his forehand, Nadal wouldn't be anywhere without his pure speed, etc. So what? All this hypothetical BS is worthless and not a very good instrument for debate.

Wrong wrong wrong.
Take away Roddick's serve, and replace it with a decent serve. He'll drop out of the top 200.
Take away Federer's forehand or Nadal's speed and replace them with respectively decent attributes, and they'll be top 10, easy.
This is not opinion, this is fact. Fed and Nadal have many tools to win points with. Roddick has one.

Originally Posted by Challenger

Winning is the most important thing, and if the serve is that important of a shot, where a player who specializes in that alone can be a perennial Top 10 player, then it deserves to be something worthy of recognition. To dismiss it as a lesser ability is ridiculous and pretty much a testament to your own bias.

Roddick has achieved what he's achieved fair and square. I won't take anything away from him.

But I believe that the serve plays too major a role in tennis, and a decrease in the size of the service box is necesarry. A big server with no other talents beating a great like Federer. Tennis deserves better than that.

[Vision84]

PascalMaria this thread is not much more intelligent than your thread about how Nadal is a disgrace to tennis for his moonballing every backhand thread.

If you could be a top player without talent then there would be many many more people at the 6.0 level and above. There are a lot of people who work really hard but top out at 5.0 or 5.5 or even lower.

Please stop reminding everyone about how limited your knowledge of tennis is with your threads.