Greatest Player Ever ... vs. the Greatest Talent

[byealmeens]

I think what makes tennis exciting is we still have different styles. Yes the game is becoming more one-dimensional but we still can see obvious differences between the big 3. When Hewitt was no.1 I thought that the tenacious, speedy baseline style was gonna dominate but out came Federer and his brand of smooth, elegant and efficient attacking tennis. He has the characteristics of a consistent modern baseliner but mixes it up with precise aggression and occasional all court play. Federer absolutely owned but then Nadal came out of nowhere and started regularly beating Federer. Nadal is not a natural attacker but he has his own talent in shotmaking: The ability to move the ball around when on the defensive. Never have I seen a person manipulate the ball so well even when pressured. Then Djokovic suddenly took over with his consistent, ball-machine like baselining with equal ability to attack and defend off both wings.

I would say all of them are talented; talented in their own ways and talented at executing their styles. We should not, however, equate talent to the ability to hit hard, or worse, the possession of "pretty shots".

Great post. And very interesting point. It's hard to measure "skills" when styles are different, and I suppose it's easy to credit the current #1 with maybe a little more than he deserves. Maybe I'm guilty of that in this case.

 

[LuckyR]

I think what makes tennis exciting is we still have different styles. Yes the game is becoming more one-dimensional but we still can see obvious differences between the big 3. When Hewitt was no.1 I thought that the tenacious, speedy baseline style was gonna dominate but out came Federer and his brand of smooth, elegant and efficient attacking tennis. He has the characteristics of a consistent modern baseliner but mixes it up with precise aggression and occasional all court play. Federer absolutely owned but then Nadal came out of nowhere and started regularly beating Federer. Nadal is not a natural attacker but he has his own talent in shotmaking: The ability to move the ball around when on the defensive. Never have I seen a person manipulate the ball so well even when pressured. Then Djokovic suddenly took over with his consistent, ball-machine like baselining with equal ability to attack and defend off both wings.

I would say all of them are talented; talented in their own ways and talented at executing their styles. We should not, however, equate talent to the ability to hit hard, or worse, the possession of "pretty shots".

It was Fed's dominace that "created" the need for a Nadal to come along and have a better game. Similarly, it was Nadal's accendance that lead to a need for a better Djokovic and hence his game which will beat the Nadal and the Fed game (on his surface, which happens to be the most popular in the real world, less so on the Tour).

I really believe that if there had never been a Fed, Nadal would not have worked as hard as he had to, to catch, then surpass, Fed. So in the absence of Fed, Rafa would likely have reached #1, but with a lesser game than he needed to develop to reach #1 with a Fed to beat.

You could say the same thing with Nole and Nadal. If Murray ever elevates his game (totally possible if he works on his Mental game, IMO) to surpass Nole, then it would be yet another example.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

federer is more talented than murray, murray is more talented than djokovic and nadal is in between murray and djokovic.

 

[TJfederer16]

Fed and Murray are more talented than Novak, its like what the commentator frew mcmillan was saying its like an artist painting his masterpiece, Murray and Roger can paint their masterpiece in many different ways whereas Novak paints one masterpiece all be it a very good one.

 

[Clay lover]

It was Fed's dominace that "created" the need for a Nadal to come along and have a better game. Similarly, it was Nadal's accendance that lead to a need for a better Djokovic and hence his game which will beat the Nadal and the Fed game (on his surface, which happens to be the most popular in the real world, less so on the Tour).

I really believe that if there had never been a Fed, Nadal would not have worked as hard as he had to, to catch, then surpass, Fed. So in the absence of Fed, Rafa would likely have reached #1, but with a lesser game than he needed to develop to reach #1 with a Fed to beat.

You could say the same thing with Nole and Nadal. If Murray ever elevates his game (totally possible if he works on his Mental game, IMO) to surpass Nole, then it would be yet another example.

If you are talking about them having to work hard to make it , you are talking about skill, not talent right ? I think working hard to surpass your contemporaries is one thing ; having the talent to get there in the first place and sustain your game is another. Naddjokmur became factors at a young age because of their talent.

 

[Steve0904]

It was Fed's dominace that "created" the need for a Nadal to come along and have a better game. Similarly, it was Nadal's accendance that lead to a need for a better Djokovic and hence his game which will beat the Nadal and the Fed game (on his surface, which happens to be the most popular in the real world, less so on the Tour).

I really believe that if there had never been a Fed, Nadal would not have worked as hard as he had to, to catch, then surpass, Fed. So in the absence of Fed, Rafa would likely have reached #1, but with a lesser game than he needed to develop to reach #1 with a Fed to beat.

You could say the same thing with Nole and Nadal. If Murray ever elevates his game (totally possible if he works on his Mental game, IMO) to surpass Nole, then it would be yet another example.

+1000. People often don't look at it this way, but I've said this many times.

 

[RF20Lennon]

Djokovic doesnt have the natural skill Federer has. The only skill Djokovic has is return of serve other than that its just grinding. Fed is a shot maker and has every shot in the book. Even Murray has more natural talent than novak.

GOAT-Fed
Most talented- Fed (overall, individually there are other people ahead, Karlovic and Isner in serving for example)

 

[RF20Lennon]

Gotta throw Agassi's name in the hat here.

THe man could literally play in mud or on ice and find a way to win the tournament.

There wasn't a surface this guy couldn't win on. That takes tremendous talent

Blue clay :twisted:

 

[doobiedoodoo]

Not sure about talent or skill, but determination goes to Nadal.

 

[above bored]

I agree with a lot of your points, but I disagree that Fed's game has not improved, especially his backhand. I think the standard is higher today ... baseline bashing is a huge part of the game and Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray have raised the bar. His backhand has become better if for no other reason than to compete with these guys.

But there are intangibles, of course. Confidence, movement, fitness, etc. At his prime, Federer had more of each, and I think maybe that is what he's referring to. In terms of the stroke it self ... the consistency, power, and even spin I would say is better today.

I think in some respects Federer has improved and in other respects he has lost something, as will happen with age. I think much of his game has just been maintained at a high enough level to remain competitive and adapted to current circumstances.

There are human limitations. Once you get to such a high level in any physical activity, you will reach a point when the learning curve flattens, at which point your level will fluctuate above and below that line from one day to the next, but will not improve dramatically. I don’t think you perpetually improve when you are already almost at your limit or the current human limit.

I think now he is a physically stronger and more experienced player, which will manifest itself in a variety of ways on court. I also think the power he is capable of has been maintained from his younger years, but he does not appear to employ it as much. Nevertheless, I think that tactically he is smarter.

What he has lost are the intangibles you mention, which in many respects are the most important thing at these high levels. He is not as quick and sharp as he was at his best. This is important because, as any coach will tell you, getting to and reacting to the ball in time is half the shot and will improve consistency significantly. Then there is the confidence and the focus/hunger, which for most champions peak when they are in the prime of their youth, before doubt and fatigue start to emerge. Federer is not as fresh as when he was younger and cannot only focus on tennis now with a young family. And regarding fitness, it becomes more difficult to recover from exertion as you age.

Aside from his movement, the thing I have noticed most about the current Federer compared to his prime is that he makes more unforced errors than he used to during his best years prior to 2008. In 2008 his unforced errors really went up, which has improved since then, but not prior to that period. Obviously he had health and fitness issues in 2008, but I don’t think he has ever been able to get back to that bubble of confidence or mental and physical synergy he had at the peak of his powers. There was a time when his game functioned more like clockwork, particularly 2004 – 2006, when you knew even before the shot, that a short ball meant the point was over. Those days are gone. Now he has many more unprovoked ups and downs in his performances.

 

[Lavs]

Team 'Greatest' - Federer, Djokovic, Sampras, Lendl, Nadal
Team 'Talent' - Nalbandian, Safin, Rios, Agassi, JMac

(Federer and Agassi could be easily put in both teams)

The question, which team would win is a challenge though

 

[above bored]

I agree with a lot of your points, but I disagree that Fed's game has not improved, especially his backhand. I think the standard is higher today ... baseline bashing is a huge part of the game and Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray have raised the bar. His backhand has become better if for no other reason than to compete with these guys.

But there are intangibles, of course. Confidence, movement, fitness, etc. At his prime, Federer had more of each, and I think maybe that is what he's referring to. In terms of the stroke it self ... the consistency, power, and even spin I would say is better today.

Can you honestly say Federer's backhand has become better than it was in these videos? If there are any videos which show a marked improvement in this display from 2006 and 2007, I would definitely like to see them.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAyh1zB4AwA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WASb906o11E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9MuA9K_w8Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqG-PpP7H0s

 

[Steve0904]

Can you honestly say Federer's backhand has become better than it was in these videos? If there are any videos which show a marked improvement in this display from 2006 and 2007, I would definitely like to see them.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAyh1zB4AwA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WASb906o11E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9MuA9K_w8Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqG-PpP7H0s

I agree. People like to say his BH has improved, but it really hasn't, at least not to the naked eye. It's become more consistent to match the slowing of the courts these days, but I wouldn't say it's better than it was in his prime. I think it's a conscious adjustment Federer's made tbh. In his prime it was a more aggressive shot. Today it's probably more consistent, but as I said the slight difference in his BH has to do with the difference in the courts IMO. Also he doesn't do the flick BH anymore. At least very rarely, and it's not because he lost the talent to do that particular shot. He's just slower than before.

 

[NetNinja68]

If Djokovic his movement is better, his groundstrokes are better and his serve is better, then why does Federer at 31 win more service games than prime Djokovic?

Feds serve is definitely better and his forehand and volley are a little better but everything else goes to the Djoker!

 

[10is]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq066-sAEW0

... And to think I used to consider the Aus Open "slow" at the time... these days I don't think any major is even as "fast" as the "slow" Aus Open was back then... rather sad and ironic.

 

[10is]

I agree. People like to say his BH has improved, but it really hasn't, at least not to the naked eye. It's become more consistent to match the slowing of the courts these days, but I wouldn't say it's better than it was in his prime. I think it's a conscious adjustment Federer's made tbh. In his prime it was a more aggressive shot. Today it's probably more consistent, but as I said the slight difference in his BH has to do with the difference in the courts IMO. Also he doesn't do the flick BH anymore. At least very rarely, and it's not because he lost the talent to do that particular shot. He's just slower than before.

Exactly!

*****

 

[Sid_Vicious]

10is! Welcome back. Your eloquent posts were missed. 8)

 

[10is]

10is! Welcome back. Your eloquent posts were missed. 8)

Awwww Sid... thank you! I had to leave for I could slowly feel my sanity being trampled away by the incessant and shameless trolling here, ironically mirroring the current attritious/atrocious nature of the sport which sadly nourishes it. Which is why I envy the fortitude of stalwart and decent individuals like yourself and a few others like zagor and abmk to not only withstand the lunacy but actually attempt to challenge it. THE AUDACITY!!! Alas! I lack both the courage and the vigor and actually find some of the more obstinate trolls here rather frightening creatures. After all... THIS. IS. TALKTENNIS!!!!!!!!

Though I must say, you are being way too kind -- not so much eloquent as verbose and redundant I'm sure.

 

[LuckyR]

If you are talking about them having to work hard to make it , you are talking about skill, not talent right ? I think working hard to surpass your contemporaries is one thing ; having the talent to get there in the first place and sustain your game is another. Naddjokmur became factors at a young age because of their talent.

Well, I have intentionally shied away from throwing around the terms: "skill" and "talent" partially because there is not a consensus on what they exactly mean and partially because even if there was agreement on the definition, ultimately they are meaningless since tennis is Won and Lost based on points, games & sets, not evaluations from judges.