Djokovic admits he and Murray are not as talented as Fed

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster

xan

Hall of Fame
being more talented doesnt necessarily translate into being a better player.
take any top list you want and im sure you dont rank players from 1-10 same way you would rank them in terms of talent.

as far as admitting the obvious, it would be obvious if you could measure talent somehow, since you cant you just hear what you want to hear, hence the thread.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, Federer has more raw talent than Murray or Djokovic but his talent is neutralized on the slower surfaces and players like Djokovic with his superior grinding skills can wear Federer down. At the end of the day, the win is all that matters.
 

Terenigma

G.O.A.T.
Well he's right but putting Murray next to him is slightly unfair. Murray is/was a much more talented player who's game has adopted to meet a need of how tennis played. If Murray was in the 90s with Federer/Hewitt then he would adapt and play much better than Djokovic would imo. Djokovic is just a machine who trained himself into becoming unbeatable, i think he is arguably the least talented of the Big 4 but easily the best at adapting and learning how to win when things are not going his way. Something Murray has not and might not ever learn.
 

killerboi2

Hall of Fame
Well he's right but putting Murray next to him is slightly unfair. Murray is/was a much more talented player who's game has adopted to meet a need of how tennis played. If Murray was in the 90s with Federer/Hewitt then he would adapt and play much better than Djokovic would imo. Djokovic is just a machine who trained himself into becoming unbeatable, i think he is arguably the least talented of the Big 4 but easily the best at adapting and learning how to win when things are not going his way. Something Murray has not and might not ever learn.

I too used to think that Murray was a more talented but less consistent version of Djokovic. Just my opinion but his game has a little more spark to it and is a little easier on the eye when he is at his best. However Murray needs to build his slam count to about 4 or 5 at the least if he really wants to be seen as being as talented as the other 3. The more they pull away from him, the harder it is to consider him a real big 4 member.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
I don't know what "naturally talented" means. It's been said for years that John McEnroe was more naturally talented than Ivan Lendl but we all know who got the better of their encounter.

Murray does has remarkable hands at the net like McEnroe, but Federer is still the better all court player.

It's kinda funny that Lendl wasn't considered that talented yet when Fed who is basically an upgraded version of Lendl with a bit more flair in his game came around and started winning everything they all said he's the most talented ever.

Shows how talent is subjective and open to interpretation.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
It's kinda funny that Lendl wasn't considered that talented yet when Fed who is basically an upgraded version of Lendl with a bit more flair in his game came around and started winning everything they all said he's the most talented ever.

Shows how talent is subjective and open to interpretation.
Lendl was super talented but he wasn't that popular with the media. They always said that Lendl had to work hard while a guy like McEnroe didn't have to train. However even if McEnroe trained he could never hit it as powerfully as Lendl. Both were gifted in different ways.
 

Inanimate_object

Hall of Fame
It's kinda funny that Lendl wasn't considered that talented yet when Fed who is basically an upgraded version of Lendl with a bit more flair in his game came around and started winning everything they all said he's the most talented ever.

Shows how talent is subjective and open to interpretation.
Lendl's serve was nowhere near as consistent as Federer. His groundstrokes are a foreshadow of Djokovic's, not Federer. He also hit running forehands with the best of them. Federer does not.
 

billboard

Rookie
Shiver me timbers. That little boy has learned wisdom from the golden manure of tennis.
"Here I go..." Cries.

"The match is on my racket."

"Djokovic is a joke".
"The wind was making me lose to djokovic".
"Junior trick shot. Wahhhh... Djokovic".
"I almost say if you are unfit, don't play." "I don't skip matches".
"It's great how the former players say I'm one of the greatest".
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Definition of Tennis Talent and skill

I believe Borg Number One did something like this but here's a possible definition of Tennis Talent. I've probably stolen some of his ideas so forgive me Borg Number One.

1. Ability to hit with great power off both sides.
Some players like a John Newcombe for example had the ability to hit with great power off his forehand but his backhand, while consistent was not an attacking shot. It leaves a vulnerable point. Some excellent examples today would be Djokovic and Murray. A few years ago Agassi was an ideal example. Laver, Connors and Arthur Ashe were great examples in the past.
2. Having a great overall serving game, first and second serve. The serve is the most important part of the game. Some players like John Doeg in 1930 won the US Championship mainly on serve. Guys like Sampras, Kramer, Ivanisevic, Hoad, Serena Williams and Gonzalez are ideal examples of this.
3. Having great mobility. By that I mean speed, footwork and anticipation. Players like Tilden, Gonzalez, Borg, Rosewall, Djokovic, Connors, Murray, Nadal, Federer and Sedgman are among those who excel in that area. Nadal and Federer have the ability to run around their weaker backhands to pound their forehands. Chris Evert is a great example of anticipation while Goolagong or Kim Clijsters is an example of all of this. Margaret Court was very underrated for her mobility.
4. Great reflexes. That's pretty obvious especially at the net where split second reflexes determine whether you'll hit a winner or get passed but also other areas. Players like Sedgman, Edberg, McEnroe, Laver, Hoad, Borg (yes I know Borg wasn't known for net play but people thought he had perhaps the fastest hands in tennis) are good examples of this. Navratilova is the best example I can think of among the women.
5. Racquet speed. Racquet speed has always be important in determining the outcome of any match. Nowadays I believe it's more important than ever. For example Nadal hits with the most rpms in tennis today which allows him to hit with huge topspin giving him great safety and the ability to make incredible shots. Borg was a great example of a player with incredible racquet speed. Vines' great windup and racquet speed gave him enormous power.
6. Being a lefty. Definitely an edge over right handers because players aren't use to facing them. Players like Laver, Connors, McEnroe, Ivanisevic, Tanner, Navratilova and Nadal are great examples of this.
7. Great stamina. Over the course of perhaps five sets or even three sets great stamina will allow the player to play at near their top level and will wear down other opponents.
8. Agility. Some player just never seem to be in the right position or cannot recover quickly from their previous shot. I think of a player like John Isner, who while he had the talent of great height to hit a super serve, well that same talent hinders his agility in my opinion. A player like Gonzalez or Sampras have excellent height but also were very agile.
9. Touch. It's not just drop shots but lobs, both topspin and slice, different spins, angles, changes of pace, disguise in their shots. Players like Laver, Gonzalez, Tilden, McEnroe, Riggs and Rosewall excelled in this area. Rosewall however didn't have the changes in spin but he was superb in other areas. Borg and Connors are excellent in changes of pace, spins, lobs and disguise.
10. Where to position themselves. Often I'll see a player in which he or she maneuvers the opponent out of position, the ball is floating high at mid court just asking to be volleyed away and the player retreats to the baseline to hit a titanic topspin groundstroke giving the opponent time to recover. Players like Chris Evert, Rosewall, McEnroe, Laver, Gonzalez, Edberg, Segura excelled in this area.
11. Consistent strokes. The ability to hit the ball solidly, keep the ball in play with powerful shots. Perfect examples would be players like Connors, Agassi, Rosewall, Riggs, Kramer and Lendl. These guys rarely mishit the ball and seems to always hit the ball on the sweet spot. Some players may hit a few beautiful shots and look good but they may mishit or not be as accurate as these players. These players have a consistent high level.
12. Mental strength. The ability to stay calm under pressure and hit strong shots. The ability to know what shot to hit in situations. Players like Laver, Borg, Gonzalez, Kramer, Nadal, Tilden were fantastic in this area.
Here's a list from an old post of mine that mentioned Borg Number One's list on definition of tennis talent that some may find interesting.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Lendl was super talented but he wasn't that popular with the media. They always said that Lendl had to work hard while a guy like McEnroe didn't have to train. However even if McEnroe trained he could never hit it as powerfully as Lendl. Both were gifted in different ways.

I think that's the main problem (and McEnroe comments at the time). I can't see how any tennis fan would really consider Lendl a mediocre talent but a hard worker, you can't achieve 1/10 of his success without tremendous talent, just not possible.

Lendl's serve was nowhere near as consistent as Federer. His groundstrokes are a foreshadow of Djokovic's, not Federer. He also hit running forehands with the best of them. Federer does not.

My point still stands, Lendl was basically a prototype for a 2000s dominant player. If we follow the logic that Lendl wasn't talented, than no one today really is.
 

Inanimate_object

Hall of Fame
I think that's the main problem (and McEnroe comments at the time). I can't see how any tennis fan would really consider Lendl a mediocre talent but a hard worker, you can't achieve 1/10 of his success without tremendous talent, just not possible.



My point still stands, Lendl was basically a prototype for a 2000s dominant player. If we follow the logic that Lendl wasn't talented, than no one today really is.
I grant you that the term talent is so often abused that no one who uses it has a firm grasp on what they mean. But Federer is definitely not Lendl 2.0. They are both offensive baseliners strong off the forehand wing but the similarities end there. There's so much more to Federer's game that differentiates himself from any other player in tennis. We can't slave discussions about Federer's talent to discussions about Lendl's talent.
 

SoBad

G.O.A.T.
What Nole said:

“He [Federer] plays one, two games very quickly, chips and charges, just takes away the time, which Andy and I need. We are baseline players and we need a little bit more time. We are not as talented as Roger. Wins his service games in 30 seconds.”

It's good that Novak admits the obvious, see full quote here:

http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/29220/will-roger-federer-be-able-to-win-his-sixth-us-open-title/

The first week main draw hasn't even started yet and there's a massive psyop underway out of Belgrade already, hmmm....
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
I grant you that the term talent is so often abused that no one who uses it has a firm grasp on what they mean. But Federer is definitely not Lendl 2.0. They are both offensive baseliners strong off the forehand wing but the similarities end there. There's so much more to Federer's game that differentiates himself from any other player in tennis. We can't slave discussions about Federer's talent to discussions about Lendl's talent.
I have always thought certain players today have some similarities to players of the past. I have always thought Federer's game is very similar to that of Ellsworth Vines. Both had huge serves, super awesome forehands with excellent backhands. Both were and are quick.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members...sworth_vines/ed_atkinson_ellsworth_vines.html
 

mattennis

Hall of Fame
lendl and trollander aren't the only ones who claim Muzza has more talent than the other top 3 guys

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/13243702


"Talent" is a very fuzzy concept.

Every player is different, some players have "something" that almost no one else has, regardless of how many big titles he wins. Some like to call it "talent", "artist", whatever...

I can play that game too, and I can sincerely say that Marcelo Rios had "something", difficult to put into words, that neither Sampras, nor Agassi, nor Federer had.

Talent?, natural?, artist?

I don't know how to call it, but Marcelo did things (and the way he did it!) that Agassi, Sampras or Federer would not do, and possibly could not do (if they had tried).

Maybe Leconte, Arazi or McEnroe (or Nastase back then) are the most similar in that type of skill difficult to put into words, that Rios had.

It was obvious watching him play that he was "different", had "something" nobody else had.

Was it helpful to win big titles? No it was not (at least for Rios, Arazi or Leconte).

There were other players that were "better" (that won more), but none of them could do many of the things Rios did once and again.


And in a certain sense, why would they? Sampras had an amazing serve and great shots all around, Agassi was a relentless baseline machine putting pressure on you with each and every hit of the ball, Federer has an amazing serve, GOAT forehand and great shots all around, why would they try to do the low-percentage, rare and beautiful things that Rios did often?

If what you really want is to win the match, why would you try to do such things?


So, yes, some players have "something" that you know is "different", not necessarily useful to win big titles, and maybe Trollander, Pato Alvarez and Lendl saw something of this sort in Murray, who knows?
 
"Talent" is a very fuzzy concept.

Every player is different, some players have "something" that almost no one else has, regardless of how many big titles he wins. Some like to call it "talent", "artist", whatever...

I can play that game too, and I can sincerely say that Marcelo Rios had "something", difficult to put into words, that neither Sampras, nor Agassi, nor Federer had.

Talent?, natural?, artist?

I don't know how to call it, but Marcelo did things (and the way he did it!) that Agassi, Sampras or Federer would not do, and possibly could not do (if they had tried).

Maybe Leconte, Arazi or McEnroe (or Nastase back then) are the most similar in that type of skill difficult to put into words, that Rios had.

It was obvious watching him play that he was "different", had "something" nobody else had.

Was it helpful to win big titles? No it was not (at least for Rios, Arazi or Leconte).

There were other players that were "better" (that won more), but none of them could do many of the things Rios did once and again.


And in a certain sense, why would they? Sampras had an amazing serve and great shots all around, Agassi was a relentless baseline machine putting pressure on you with each and every hit of the ball, Federer has an amazing serve, GOAT forehand and great shots all around, why would they try to do the low-percentage, rare and beautiful things that Rios did often?

If what you really want is to win the match, why would you try to do such things?


So, yes, some players have "something" that you know is "different", not necessarily useful to win big titles, and maybe Trollander, Pato Alvarez and Lendl saw something of this sort in Murray, who knows?
No, it's the polar opposite of what you suggest. Murray has great game IQ, he always knows which shot is the highest percentage, he reads the game situation very well, his shot selection is the most orthodox. Murray also has great defensive slice BH, and he always knows when he should use that to keep the ball in play safely enough.

Murray's game is polar opposite of "that something". And IMO, his hand-eye and/or racquet skill is not that godly. He just always does exactly what's written in textbooks. Just for starters, in safe shot selection, read about "Wardlaw Directionals".
 
Rafa.
That's why Rafa leads 23-10 and 9-2 in slam meetings.
He was a physically better athlete at his peak, but far lesser talent for the game. Just see how dramatically his results drop now that he's declined physically.

And, H2H is meaningless with players of different age. All that matters is 17/302/6 >>>> 14/141/0.
 

mattennis

Hall of Fame
No, it's the polar opposite of what you suggest. Murray has great game IQ, he always knows which shot is the highest percentage, he reads the game situation very well, his shot selection is the most orthodox. Murray also has great defensive slice BH, and he always knows when he should use that to keep the ball in play safely enough.

Murray's game is polar opposite of "that something". And IMO, his hand-eye and/or racquet skill is not that godly. He just always does exactly what's written in textbooks. Just for starters, in safe shot selection, read about "Wardlaw Directionals".

Actually I see Murray closer to what you describe, but at first I thought maybe Pato Alvarez, Wilander and Lendl (but not myself) could have seen something "different" (of the sort I was talking about above).

In short, I quite agree with your description of Murray.
 
^ Rafa declined physically after 2008, and still won 3 slams in 2010.
Rafa is the ONLY MAN EVER to win slams on clay, grass and hardcourt in a calendar year, because Federer wasn't talented enough.
Rafa has been playing with a broken foot since 2004 (and won slams for 10 years in a row), because he has surreal talent.
You can't teach what Rafa does with the forehand (and with backhand passing shots too).
Rafa WAY PAST HIS PHYSICAL PRIME swept the North American Summer in 2013 (which Federer has never been able to do).
Rafa, despite supposedly being a weaker hardcourt player than Djokovic, has won more US Opens than Djokovic.
When they play on slow hardcourts, Djokovic has the edge because Djokovic uses gymnastics, but faster hardcourt allows Rafa to win because Rafa has the better strokes.
 

The_18th_Slam

Hall of Fame
^ Rafa declined physically after 2008, and still won 3 slams in 2010.
Rafa is the ONLY MAN EVER to win slams on clay, grass and hardcourt in a calendar year, because Federer wasn't talented enough.
Rafa has been playing with a broken foot since 2004 (and won slams for 10 years in a row), because he has surreal talent.
You can't teach what Rafa does with the forehand (and with backhand passing shots too).
Rafa WAY PAST HIS PHYSICAL PRIME swept the North American Summer in 2013 (which Federer has never been able to do).
Rafa, despite supposedly being a weaker hardcourt player than Djokovic, has won more US Opens than Djokovic.
When they play on slow hardcourts, Djokovic has the edge because Djokovic uses gymnastics, but faster hardcourt allows Rafa to win because Rafa has the better strokes.
Tell me MOAR!
 

Zoid

Hall of Fame
^ Rafa declined physically after 2008, and still won 3 slams in 2010.
Rafa is the ONLY MAN EVER to win slams on clay, grass and hardcourt in a calendar year, because Federer wasn't talented enough.
Rafa has been playing with a broken foot since 2004 (and won slams for 10 years in a row), because he has surreal talent.
You can't teach what Rafa does with the forehand (and with backhand passing shots too).
Rafa WAY PAST HIS PHYSICAL PRIME swept the North American Summer in 2013 (which Federer has never been able to do).
Rafa, despite supposedly being a weaker hardcourt player than Djokovic, has won more US Opens than Djokovic.
When they play on slow hardcourts, Djokovic has the edge because Djokovic uses gymnastics, but faster hardcourt allows Rafa to win because Rafa has the better strokes.

I remember seeing Novak get a 9.7 for his floor routine at the Beijing olympics - it was there that i foresaw what would become of him. The uber talented Nadal would get too injured playing his talented game style and the flexy serb would stretch his way to grand slam glory.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Doesn't mean they aren't as talented. Federer is just better at playing an aggressive game. Federer is more talented in different ways but doesn't mean hes more talented in general.

Nole is a more talented baseline player.
 

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
No, it's the polar opposite of what you suggest. Murray has great game IQ, he always knows which shot is the highest percentage, he reads the game situation very well, his shot selection is the most orthodox. Murray also has great defensive slice BH, and he always knows when he should use that to keep the ball in play safely enough.

Murray's game is polar opposite of "that something". And IMO, his hand-eye and/or racquet skill is not that godly. He just always does exactly what's written in textbooks. Just for starters, in safe shot selection, read about "Wardlaw Directionals".
When a player plays high percentage tennis/shots:

- You dislike the player: pusher
- You don't dislike the player: great game IQ
 

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
Doesn't mean they aren't as talented. Federer is just better at playing an aggressive game. Federer is more talented in different ways but doesn't mean hes more talented in general.

Nole is a more talented baseline player.



I can't name one thing in tennis that Murray was more talented than Federer at, besides cramping. I'd say Djokovic is around the same talent pool as Federer, and they had similar stats at 22 as well. Murray, 10 years into his career still has problems on his FH and serve, something Federer never had (although his movement and FH did decline in tandem in 2007/08).
 

SublimeTennis

Professional
What Nole said:

“He [Federer] plays one, two games very quickly, chips and charges, just takes away the time, which Andy and I need. We are baseline players and we need a little bit more time. We are not as talented as Roger. Wins his service games in 30 seconds.”

It's good that Novak admits the obvious, see full quote here:

http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/29220/will-roger-federer-be-able-to-win-his-sixth-us-open-title/

It depends, if you put Novak on a slow hard court like AO, when Novak has TIME, he's nearly unbeatable, he's like a machine. On faster courts of course Roger is better.

I don't think enough attention is to the this years Wimbledon Semi's, Murray played his all time absolute best, but so did Roger, Roger is just that much better.

I like what Nadal said, trying to get the quote exactly right "When I play Roger, if I'm 100% and he's not I have a chance, but if he's playing 100% I just play as hard as I can, then congratulate him at the net". Nadal has always said Federer is better, and it's not a lie or false humility, Nadal is definitely better on slow courts, no doubt about that, but as far as talent, Nadal plays 5 feet behind the baseline, hits with high percentage shots deep, uses his body to keep it up, but as far as talent as Nadal said "He has a perfect serve, perfect forehand, perfect backhand, he has no weaknesses".

I love Nadal, but he is a very limited player, he MUST HAVE a large racquet with Poly and slow courts, THAT'S HIS GAME, put him with Gut where he can't hit with all of that spin, put him on a fast court and he's out. Fed can play a small racquet with Gut on fast courts, or slow courts, he's just so much better in every way, and that's no knock on Nadal, I just think Federer is much better than we know, just imagine this, what if they never slowed down all of the courts? What if over the last ten years the courts were as fast as the 90's, I promise you Fed's GS titles would be over 20, I have no doubt about this. I mean when he gets the great Djokovich on fast courts, Dubai and Cincinati, which are not as fast as the 90's fast courts, he almost toys with him, Djokovich MUST HAVE TIME, when it's taken away he can't cope, this is one reason why Wawrinka gives him a hard time, he has that monster hard back hand that takes away time from Novak.
 

Gazelle

G.O.A.T.
Lendl and Wilander have said Murray is more naturally talented than Federer.

Seems natural talent doesn't require to hit a forehand, second serve, nor tweeners or amazing halve volleys. So what is talent then? Winning points while holding your hip?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NGM
When a player plays high percentage tennis/shots:

- You dislike the player: pusher
- You don't dislike the player: great game IQ
Some of my recent feelings of 2015 Murray: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/what-the-murray-is-seeking-to-attack-now.532640/

As for comparison to Djokovic, Murray has indeed more game IQ. Djokovic has superior strokes, but Murray can still beat him. Djokovic also tends to be "robotic", and his defensive slice and the choice of when to use it are not natural for him. He often also struggles with some shorter balls, almost loses balance, and the famous acrobatics start. Djokovic can handle baseline ball bashing better than anybody, but his court sense in vertical direction is very limited.
 

Gazelle

G.O.A.T.
It's kinda funny that Lendl wasn't considered that talented yet when Fed who is basically an upgraded version of Lendl with a bit more flair in his game came around and started winning everything they all said he's the most talented ever.

Shows how talent is subjective and open to interpretation.

Lendl's game was a bit ahead of his time and thus not appreciated as much as it should have been. The guy was crazy talented, making prototype modern style strokes work without very modern equipment, while McEnroe had it far easier to time a ball with his continental agricultural strokes, but because he did it with lot of touch was thought of as talented (which obviously he was, but certainly not that he had more talent in his little toe than Lendl overall).
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
Let the Mind Games begin!

Can't wait for Luthi to come back with 'Nole is the greatest returner of all time AND a better father than Roger'. Pass the popcorn...

Lendl and Wilander have said Murray is more naturally talented than Federer.
Wilander said a lot of outrageous things trying to stay relevant; Lendl was on the payroll and at the time he first said that, trying to boost Murray's confidence to get him over the finish line in big matches. Both succeeded. Doesn't make it true.

With Murray's 2nd serve, to put him at the top of the 'most talented' list is laughable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NGM

merwy

G.O.A.T.
As hard it is to determine raw talent, no way in HELL will I ever say that Murray has more of it than Federer. No freaking way. You only have to look at the fluidity of Fed's motions. But if you want to say that that's not what talent means. That's fine then, look at the results. Look at the 17 slams. You think someone with 2 slams is more talented than someone with 17 slams? The funny thing is that I think Federer could've won even more based purely on his talent. The reason for that is that Federer molded all his talent into a game that works best in the 1995-2005 era. Now his "fragile" playing style gets abused by the hardcore grinders. Isn't it even more proof of his talent that Federer was able to adapt his game to the modern era and still be pretty much on top of it?
 

Zoid

Hall of Fame
My talk on talent that i posted in another thread:

Talent, IMO, is as subjective a topic as you can get because the criteria for each person differs. I've had numerous discussions with fellow players and coaches alike about what they perceive as talent and what it means to them and generally I would have to summarise it as this. "The ability to make a difficult task look easy". Federer can hit a flick backhand passing shot and make it look easy. Marcelo Rios could hit a backspin dropshot a foot over the net with incredible consistency. Mcenroe could hit half volleys without bending his knees. It's the incredible result married with making it look easy that a lot of people 'see' is talent. The confusion and debate comes in when you start comparing top players against each other - and bias creeps in etc. You could argue until the sun comes down that player A is more talented than player B but you will never come to a hard and strong agreement until you settle on a criteria of talent you both agree on.
For me, a lot of the emphasis is placed on intangibles, or improvisation. Players that can improvise mid point show a degree of 'talent' in that they make a shot they obviously haven't practiced a lot look easy.

Feel is another one, you can't teach good feel - you either have it or you don't. You can teach a textbook forehand and backhand and you can go to the gym to improve your strength, but you can't teach Mcenroe feel.

Every guy on tour can blast groundstrokes, sure some do it better than others - but talent for me goes to the guys that can hit the shots every player knows is hard. The flick half volleys, the backhand smash, the deft drop volleys, dead run passing shots where they thread the needle. Just my two cents.

I don't see much improvisation from Murray or Novak or Rafa - Fed has piles of youtube videos dedicated to this kind of thing.

Of course this is just my opinion on talent, i've come to develop it after years of discussions with fellow players.
 

dante1976

Rookie
Omg funboys will be funboys... Federer (and I am not a fan btw) is pure talent ;) Djoko and Rafa are grinders with helluva dedication but... both of them suffer from "I'll keep the ball in play, opponent should start missing" game philosophy ;) And that cost them much (obviously Djoko suffered much more 14>9 Slams, much more GS finals lost). Pure talent will let you play in your mid 30's but grinding... well you have "smoking guns" all over the tour (Djoko will be there too in 2-3 years max).
 

HipRotation

Hall of Fame
How come all this talent was of no use against Rafa?
2sa1jpk.gif
 
Top