defining "talent"

[TheFifthSet]

I won't define it here, but I will say that talent is overrated in tennis to a very large degree.

It's an early-bloomers sport. If you don't start before 10, you're nearly always screwed. Talent is less important in tennis than sports like basketball, football, boxing, MMA etc. where you can conceivably start at 13-20+ (Steve Nash: 13, Tim Duncan: 14, Hakeem Olajuwon: 17, George Foreman: 18ish, Deontay Wilder: 19, Jimi Manuwa: 27) and still be elite within those fields due to certain innate characteristics/physical advantages.

Yet, it's not talked about in those sports even 1/10th as much as in tennis, where 'talent' evaluations permeate every discussion about a player. That's always driven me nuts.

However nebulously-defined a concept it is, it's very important. But less important than we like to believe. Take every 'talented' tennis player in OE history and imagine them starting the sport at 13. Where do you see them going?

 

[TheFifthSet]

AAAAAIGHT

Here's what most tennis fans, coaches, and pundits and commetators will see as talent

- flashiness
- pretty shots
- making highlight reels
- athleticism
- touch
- getting early results
- tanking matches
- omg one handed backhand - see pretty shots

Here's what they'll ignore completely
- Very obvious technical limitations
- Strokes that are quick to set up
- Shot reliability
- Taking the ball early
- Clean hitting
- Accuracy
- Returning

Seriously that's all there is to it.

- Gasquet is a huge talent cause his backhand looks pretty, but his serve and forehand are technical garbage.
- Paire has the worst forehand in history that increases thework load of opthalmologists around the world cause people get spontaneous cataracts from seeing it.
- Gael Monfils is perhaps the biggest physical talent in tennis history for Bo3, but he lacks all the clean hitting
- Dimitrov has all the tools to make highlight reels, his shots kinda look like Fed, but his serve and backhand are technically not great and his forehand timing isn't great, so he lacks all the basics (serve+1/forehand/return)
- Shapovalov is just not a clean hitter. He takes huge cuts but can't hit 3 balls inside the stadium if his life depends on it
- Nishikori is just vertically challenged + he has a bad serve technique. Being under 180 gets you nothing but a lack of reach and a lack of serve and power. Technically very talented baseliner
- Del Potro is just one of those dudes who'd be in the 1-4 Slam range in any era. Kinda overrated in my opinion cause his serve should be better with how tall he is and his backhand and movement were never that great
- Chung. Can't serve and is only impressive from the baseline when he's redlining. His average level is average, his bad level gets bageled left right and centre. He beat Djokovic once, that's all there is to him
- Kyrgios. Only talented at serving and flashy shots. Can't properly attack with his forehand cause it takes 2 years to hit one, can't return, can't construct a point. Most overrated talent in history
- Fognini, technically terrible serve. Very high peaks where he can hang with everyone from the baseline, but he can't reproduce it.
- Gulbis. Forehand technique is the stuff of nightmares. Serve technique is bad too, and only somewhat effective cause Lord Gulbis is insane strong.
- Sock. Has 2 incredible weaknesses

Now the untalented ones
- Berd, really clean ball striker. Doesn't serve big enough, kinda lacks easy raw power vs top guys too
- Incredibly talented baseliner. Like Nishikori, he's vertically challenged. Immensely talented returner
- Simon. Insane tennis IQ, clean ball striker, great mover
- Raonic. Very, very talented server
- Isner/Karlovic. Incredibly talented at being tall
- Anderson, super talented at being tall, also ****ing talent at Grand Slam draws
- Zverev, is generally seen as very talented. He falls somewhere in the middle. Not a flashy game, it's kinda 3 dimensional, his forehand and 2nd serve return do cap his game significantly
- Cilic, mostly just a choker. Peaks are up there with the likes of Delpo and Wawrinka, but they just last shorter
- Edmund, just a solid player with great forehand, not really remarkable or anything
- Goffin, immaculate ballstriker, just underpowered
- RBA, nothing special really, kind of a micky mouse vulture
- PCB. Talented at looking like a rat. HOw the hell did that reach a Slam semi.


Overall, people wrongly treat tennis talent as one dimensional, while it's very multidimensional. Some one dimensional strenghts can carry one to the top 10 (serve), while some one dimensional weaknesses can break somebody's chances at winning Slams.

Generally, you want players who can move great, have great stroke mechanics that
1. Don't limit power
2. Are quick and enable one to take the ball early
3. Have an open racket face for a long time so the variability due to tiny mistimings isn't huge (Delpo is the prime example of this)

Then there's things like movement, tall guys need to serve amazing, returning and reaction times add another dimension, and then there's transition game and net game and touch for more creative poitns that will always boost %points won a little bit.

Then you look for players who's strenghts complement each other and can make up for the weaknesses. I think Nadal is an example, cause while his serve is definitely underhwhelming for most of his career, it can work disgustingly well if his forehand is firing, and especially on grass his hold game is rather narly.

Then there's certain games that will work well vs weaker players but just stop working vs top players, and at the top level I think different qualities start to matter a little more. That's why Ferrer has like 30 titles, while having 0 wins over Federer for example.

Every player. EVERY SINGLE PLAYER has some weaknesses in one way or the other. If you look at tennis as 4 seperate games, being 1st serve points, 2nd serve poitns, and 1st and 2nd return points, no single player is hugely talented at all of them. But the greats of today are at least great at 2 or 3 of them, while being acceptable in the others.

Fed excells at 1st and 2nd serve points and 1st serve return. His 2nd serve return has always been his greatest weakness.
Djokovic excells at 1st and 2nd serve return and 2nd serve points. His 1st serve points aren't weak
Nadal excells at 2nd serve and return points, where he scores off the charts
Murray's return stats are just immaculate, and his great baseline game makes his serve stats passable despite the weak serve.

Yadayadayada
In short, the Big 4 are easily the players on Tour with the fewest weaknesses. Murray has the weak 2nd serve, and the disparity in results for him vs the field and the Big 3 is tremendous. They have all the things I mentioned earlier. They don't have problems generating pace, incredibly reliable strokes, they're incredible athletes and they can generally neutralize almost any game type and exploit any player who inevitably has more weaknesses than they have.

I am not saying the Big 4 have no weaknesses, I am rather saying they're minor. Rafa could serve more dominantly and he could return more aggressively. Minor. Fed's 2nd serve return game is pretty weak, but the other 3 stats are incredible. Djokovic' transition game has lost him a few matches, but almost nobody can consistently exploit it. Murray's the only one with 2 weaknesses, being the 2nd serve and the forehand lacking reliable offensive power.

Now, looking at the younger generation. They all have much more weaknesses than the Big 3. It's not even funny. Their stats are absolutely terrible compared to the Big 4 when they were 21. And yet some of them are poised to win a manure quantity of them cause somebody freaking has to.

**** this got big

Are you....me?

Don't think I've ever read a post that makes 100+ separate claims confidently where I agree with basically all of them.

Fun read. Do this more often!

 

[Anni.Angel]

So why is the "talented" group not doing better? Are they all headcases, or too injury prone?

Just as many people pointed in many other sports, every single talented person is lazy AF.
It is absolutely impossible to find a talent that is an workaholic, out of question.

 

[FRV4]

Just as many people pointed in many other sports, every single talented person is lazy AF.
It is absolutely impossible to find a talent that is an workaholic, out of question.

I kinda doubt this for something as fun as competitive sports, especially tennis.

 

[Jonas78]

Isnt talent just what makes a player like Messi better than the rest, although they work out just as hard?

I dont buy "natural ability to do something well without much training/efforts.". For example, noone can play the guitar on a high level without playing for hours every day for several years. But some guitar players just become better than others, although they play just as much.

 

[tennis_error]

Talent is word used to up your greatness in situation when you have pretty backhand but lose to biggest rivals, or when you lose a lot because you are mostly bad at court, but you need to be "important" name in tennis (talented but don't care situation)...

 

[Herald]

Talented means I like watching them, not talented means I don't. Duh.

 

[dadadas]

Isnt talent just what makes a player like Messi better than the rest, although they work out just as hard?

I dont buy "natural ability to do something well without much training/efforts.". For example, noone can play the guitar on a high level without playing for hours every day for several years. But some guitar players just become better than others, although they play just as much.

Some folks struggle to shoot a football with their weaker foot
Some folks can use both feet to shoot, pass & dribble with ease.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

simple, fedr

 

[D.Nalby12]

Shotmaking.
Touch
Anticipation
Footwork

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Are you....me?

Don't think I've ever read a post that makes 100+ separate claims confidently where I agree with basically all of them.

Fun read. Do this more often!

This must have been Red Rick the Grey or something lol.

 

[Jonas78]

Some folks struggle to shoot a football with their weaker foot
Some folks can use both feet to shoot, pass & dribble with ease.

Sure, but noone is good at football the first time they play. To become very good at something you have to put in the hours, whether its sports or music. Its not like someone can just pick up the guitar and play. But if 10 people play the guitar for 2 hours every day for a year, one of them will become the best, thats talent.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

Sure, but noone is good at football the first time they play. To become very good at something you have to put in the hours, whether its sports or music. Its not like someone can just pick up the guitar and play. But if 10 people play the guitar for 2 hours every day for a year, one of them will become the best, thats talent.

talent is an innate thing and can be noticed even without training (being good at first time the play/sing etc), immediately, michael jackson was seen as the most talented by his parents, from the very beginning, as soon as he opened his mouth, compared to his brothers

 

[Red Rick]

I won't define it here, but I will say that talent is overrated in tennis to a very large degree.

It's an early-bloomers sport. If you don't start before 10, you're nearly always screwed. Talent is less important in tennis than sports like basketball, football, boxing, MMA etc. where you can conceivably start at 13-20+ (Steve Nash: 13, Tim Duncan: 14, Hakeem Olajuwon: 17, George Foreman: 18ish, Deontay Wilder: 19, Jimi Manuwa: 27) and still be elite within those fields due to certain innate characteristics/physical advantages.

Yet, it's not talked about in those sports even 1/10th as much as in tennis, where 'talent' evaluations permeate every discussion about a player. That's always driven me nuts.

However nebulously-defined a concept it is, it's very important. But less important than we like to believe. Take every 'talented' tennis player in OE history and imagine them starting the sport at 13. Where do you see them going?

I disagree here. This is just down to how much of the skill depends on what traits and when in development this develops the most. I don't think talent is skill - nurture.

 

[Jonas78]

talent is an innate thing and can be noticed even without training (being good at first time the play/sing etc), immediately, michael jackson was seen as the most talented by his parents, from the very beginning, as soon as he opened his mouth, compared to his brothers

Maybe when it comes to certain things, like singing and dancing, which almost every child naturally do in one way or another, you can see it. But these things are also closely related to interest, which isnt necessarily the same as talent. I would guess the Jackons grew up with music and dancing and that Michaels talent was pretty obvious yes.

I play the guitar and i can assure you that you cant see if a person is talented on the guitar the first time he/she picks it up. You have to practise for many hours to get anything meaningful from a guitar, but as i said, if 10 people start playing at the same time, and practise for just as long, you will soon see who is talented and who isnt.

 

[TheFifthSet]

I disagree here. This is just down to how much of the skill depends on what traits and when in development this develops the most. I don't think talent is skill - nurture.

I didn't get all of this but I'll take a stab. I'm basically saying that talent fixation is better-suited to sports which don't require such an insanely rote devotion to perfecting specific fine-motor movements, and where starting the sport after a certain point basically makes pro aspirations impossible. You can have all of the physical tools required to succeed in a sport like tennis (and in that sense, talent is very much a determinant), but if they aren't nurtured at the right time then you'll be massively behind the eight ball in a way that just isn't the case in other sports where an early start isn't as important and "natural" ability shines more...yet fans of those sports don't spend nearly this much time debating talent as I've seen us do.

Mainly venting that we all spend so much time debating a bunch of unquantifiable fluff lol. Never seen anything like it in any other sport.

Also not saying that talent (however unquantifiable) isn't extremely important to reach the top mind you.

 

[jl809]

Talent is how many tweeners or slapped forehands you can hit in a match

Oh and it’s also directly proportional to how many drop shots you try, regardless of success rate, which is why Alcaraz is the most talented next next genner

 

[mindmaster91]

AAAAAIGHT

Here's what most tennis fans, coaches, and pundits and commetators will see as talent

- flashiness
- pretty shots
- making highlight reels
- athleticism
- touch
- getting early results
- tanking matches
- omg one handed backhand - see pretty shots

Here's what they'll ignore completely
- Very obvious technical limitations
- Strokes that are quick to set up
- Shot reliability
- Taking the ball early
- Clean hitting
- Accuracy
- Returning

Seriously that's all there is to it.

- Gasquet is a huge talent cause his backhand looks pretty, but his serve and forehand are technical garbage.
- Paire has the worst forehand in history that increases thework load of opthalmologists around the world cause people get spontaneous cataracts from seeing it.
- Gael Monfils is perhaps the biggest physical talent in tennis history for Bo3, but he lacks all the clean hitting
- Dimitrov has all the tools to make highlight reels, his shots kinda look like Fed, but his serve and backhand are technically not great and his forehand timing isn't great, so he lacks all the basics (serve+1/forehand/return)
- Shapovalov is just not a clean hitter. He takes huge cuts but can't hit 3 balls inside the stadium if his life depends on it
- Nishikori is just vertically challenged + he has a bad serve technique. Being under 180 gets you nothing but a lack of reach and a lack of serve and power. Technically very talented baseliner
- Del Potro is just one of those dudes who'd be in the 1-4 Slam range in any era. Kinda overrated in my opinion cause his serve should be better with how tall he is and his backhand and movement were never that great
- Chung. Can't serve and is only impressive from the baseline when he's redlining. His average level is average, his bad level gets bageled left right and centre. He beat Djokovic once, that's all there is to him
- Kyrgios. Only talented at serving and flashy shots. Can't properly attack with his forehand cause it takes 2 years to hit one, can't return, can't construct a point. Most overrated talent in history
- Fognini, technically terrible serve. Very high peaks where he can hang with everyone from the baseline, but he can't reproduce it.
- Gulbis. Forehand technique is the stuff of nightmares. Serve technique is bad too, and only somewhat effective cause Lord Gulbis is insane strong.
- Sock. Has 2 incredible weaknesses

Now the untalented ones
- Berd, really clean ball striker. Doesn't serve big enough, kinda lacks easy raw power vs top guys too
- Incredibly talented baseliner. Like Nishikori, he's vertically challenged. Immensely talented returner
- Simon. Insane tennis IQ, clean ball striker, great mover
- Raonic. Very, very talented server
- Isner/Karlovic. Incredibly talented at being tall
- Anderson, super talented at being tall, also ****ing talent at Grand Slam draws
- Zverev, is generally seen as very talented. He falls somewhere in the middle. Not a flashy game, it's kinda 3 dimensional, his forehand and 2nd serve return do cap his game significantly
- Cilic, mostly just a choker. Peaks are up there with the likes of Delpo and Wawrinka, but they just last shorter
- Edmund, just a solid player with great forehand, not really remarkable or anything
- Goffin, immaculate ballstriker, just underpowered
- RBA, nothing special really, kind of a micky mouse vulture
- PCB. Talented at looking like a rat. HOw the hell did that reach a Slam semi.


Overall, people wrongly treat tennis talent as one dimensional, while it's very multidimensional. Some one dimensional strenghts can carry one to the top 10 (serve), while some one dimensional weaknesses can break somebody's chances at winning Slams.

Generally, you want players who can move great, have great stroke mechanics that
1. Don't limit power
2. Are quick and enable one to take the ball early
3. Have an open racket face for a long time so the variability due to tiny mistimings isn't huge (Delpo is the prime example of this)

Then there's things like movement, tall guys need to serve amazing, returning and reaction times add another dimension, and then there's transition game and net game and touch for more creative poitns that will always boost %points won a little bit.

Then you look for players who's strenghts complement each other and can make up for the weaknesses. I think Nadal is an example, cause while his serve is definitely underhwhelming for most of his career, it can work disgustingly well if his forehand is firing, and especially on grass his hold game is rather narly.

Then there's certain games that will work well vs weaker players but just stop working vs top players, and at the top level I think different qualities start to matter a little more. That's why Ferrer has like 30 titles, while having 0 wins over Federer for example.

Every player. EVERY SINGLE PLAYER has some weaknesses in one way or the other. If you look at tennis as 4 seperate games, being 1st serve points, 2nd serve poitns, and 1st and 2nd return points, no single player is hugely talented at all of them. But the greats of today are at least great at 2 or 3 of them, while being acceptable in the others.

Fed excells at 1st and 2nd serve points and 1st serve return. His 2nd serve return has always been his greatest weakness.
Djokovic excells at 1st and 2nd serve return and 2nd serve points. His 1st serve points aren't weak
Nadal excells at 2nd serve and return points, where he scores off the charts
Murray's return stats are just immaculate, and his great baseline game makes his serve stats passable despite the weak serve.

Yadayadayada
In short, the Big 4 are easily the players on Tour with the fewest weaknesses. Murray has the weak 2nd serve, and the disparity in results for him vs the field and the Big 3 is tremendous. They have all the things I mentioned earlier. They don't have problems generating pace, incredibly reliable strokes, they're incredible athletes and they can generally neutralize almost any game type and exploit any player who inevitably has more weaknesses than they have.

I am not saying the Big 4 have no weaknesses, I am rather saying they're minor. Rafa could serve more dominantly and he could return more aggressively. Minor. Fed's 2nd serve return game is pretty weak, but the other 3 stats are incredible. Djokovic' transition game has lost him a few matches, but almost nobody can consistently exploit it. Murray's the only one with 2 weaknesses, being the 2nd serve and the forehand lacking reliable offensive power.

Now, looking at the younger generation. They all have much more weaknesses than the Big 3. It's not even funny. Their stats are absolutely terrible compared to the Big 4 when they were 21. And yet some of them are poised to win a manure quantity of them cause somebody freaking has to.

**** this got big

Fantastic post — I agree, and I’d like to add my perspective.


What you wrote resonated deeply with me. I’ve been a competitive player for many years and I’ve always believed that talent in tennis is widely misunderstood — not just among fans, but even among coaches and commentators. You nailed it when you said that flashy shots and beautiful technique are overvalued, while essential
qualities like consistency, tactical intelligence, and reliability are ignored.


In my own experience, I’ve come to see tennis not just as a physical sport, but as a mental and strategic game — almost like chess. I spend a huge amount of time analyzing opponents, visualizing match situations in advance, and building game plans to exploit weaknesses. Sometimes I’ve "played the match in my head" before even stepping on court.


That’s where I believe true talent lies:

• In being able to stay mentally composed under pressure
• In constructing points with intention and precision
• In understanding what not to do just as much as what to do
• In knowing how to play the percentages, not just the crowd

A lot of fans say things like "Kyrgios is the most talented" just because he hits trick shots. But to me, a player who can consistently deliver under pressure, build points, and adapt strategically is infinitely more talented than someone who chooses low-percentage flair over effectiveness. Kyrgios has insane hand skills, but lacks the mindset and discipline to back it up — and that’s part of talent too.


Gilles Simon was my favorite player growing up for exactly this reason. He didn’t have highlight-reel shots, but he could neutralize any opponent by using clean, flat shots with perfect timing and rally tolerance. He was patient, smart, and mentally strong — all signs of real talent.


And I completely agree about the Big Four: they’ve succeeded not because they’re “naturally gifted” in the flashy sense, but because they have the fewest weaknesses and the strongest minds. Novak, especially, is the most complete player in tennis history in my opinion — not just because of his technique, but because of his mental dominance and court intelligence.


We need to broaden the conversation around what tennis talent really means. It’s multi-dimensional. It’s not just “how pretty your backhand looks.” It’s how many problems you can solve on court, how few unforced errors you make, how deeply you understand the geometry and rhythm of the game.


So thank you for this post — it’s one of the best breakdowns I’ve seen on this topic.

 

[MichaelNadal]

 

[Incognito]

Barbra Streisand and Whitney Houston are talented. Never taken voice lessons but sounded incredible.


Madonna on the other hand had vocal coaches but could never develop a good singing voice and could never improve her technique.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Fantastic post — I agree, and I’d like to add my perspective.


What you wrote resonated deeply with me. I’ve been a competitive player for many years and I’ve always believed that talent in tennis is widely misunderstood — not just among fans, but even among coaches and commentators. You nailed it when you said that flashy shots and beautiful technique are overvalued, while essential
qualities like consistency, tactical intelligence, and reliability are ignored.


In my own experience, I’ve come to see tennis not just as a physical sport, but as a mental and strategic game — almost like chess. I spend a huge amount of time analyzing opponents, visualizing match situations in advance, and building game plans to exploit weaknesses. Sometimes I’ve "played the match in my head" before even stepping on court.


That’s where I believe true talent lies:

• In being able to stay mentally composed under pressure
• In constructing points with intention and precision
• In understanding what not to do just as much as what to do
• In knowing how to play the percentages, not just the crowd

A lot of fans say things like "Kyrgios is the most talented" just because he hits trick shots. But to me, a player who can consistently deliver under pressure, build points, and adapt strategically is infinitely more talented than someone who chooses low-percentage flair over effectiveness. Kyrgios has insane hand skills, but lacks the mindset and discipline to back it up — and that’s part of talent too.


Gilles Simon was my favorite player growing up for exactly this reason. He didn’t have highlight-reel shots, but he could neutralize any opponent by using clean, flat shots with perfect timing and rally tolerance. He was patient, smart, and mentally strong — all signs of real talent.


And I completely agree about the Big Four: they’ve succeeded not because they’re “naturally gifted” in the flashy sense, but because they have the fewest weaknesses and the strongest minds. Novak, especially, is the most complete player in tennis history in my opinion — not just because of his technique, but because of his mental dominance and court intelligence.


We need to broaden the conversation around what tennis talent really means. It’s multi-dimensional. It’s not just “how pretty your backhand looks.” It’s how many problems you can solve on court, how few unforced errors you make, how deeply you understand the geometry and rhythm of the game.


So thank you for this post — it’s one of the best breakdowns I’ve seen on this topic.

I agree in large part with your analysis, although some of this may come down to semantics.
How do we define = and distinguish among - talent, skill and mindset.
I think you've identified a lot of the ingredients that go into winning matches (and tournaments)...

 

[mindmaster91]

Barbra Streisand and Whitney Houston are talented. Never taken voice lessons but sounded incredible.


Madonna on the other hand had vocal coaches but could never develop a good singing voice and could never improve her technique.

You think madonna wasn't talented? Not maybe having great singing voice but she was unbelieveble performer and that's talent

 

[Incognito]

You think madonna wasn't talented? Not maybe having great singing voice but she was unbelieveble performer and that's talent

I was referring to their vocals

 

[roysid]

Talent to me is the period of time it takes to master a set of skills. Nobody was born with the ability to play tennis. Roger did not split step his way down Lynette’s birth canal.

The shorter the period to master skills required to achieve objectives, the more talented.

Distasteful comment