Most naturally talented player bar Roger

Who springs to mind? Paire appears to be one who can do some incredible things with a tennis ball without appearing to put in much effort off court or on, Kokkinakis for someone always injured appears to have a remarkable level for someone who plays three months a year, who've I missed?
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
Who springs to mind? Paire appears to be one who can do some incredible things with a tennis ball without appearing to put in much effort off court or on, Kokkinakis for someone always injured appears to have a remarkable level for someone who plays three months a year, who've I missed?
If Roger was naturally talented why did it take him so long to win his first slam? He had a series of first round exits until he was nearly 22 in both Masters and slams. He didn't even make the SF in Masters or slams until 2002 when he won Madrid then won Wimbledon in 2003.
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
Who springs to mind? Paire appears to be one who can do some incredible things with a tennis ball without appearing to put in much effort off court or on, Kokkinakis for someone always injured appears to have a remarkable level for someone who plays three months a year, who've I missed?
Natural talent should be judged by results not by a figment of someone's imagination.
 
Natural talent should be judged by results not by a figment of someone's imagination.
No, it shouldn't. I know a guy who's ranked around #400 ATP. I'm also adamant that he would train harder than say a Benoit Paire would, but Paire is top 30 and he isn't. Paire has also said he wasn't playing much tennis aged 14 and 15, whilst at the same time this guy was playing four hours a day and had dropped out of school by that age, so obviously it does exist
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
No, it shouldn't. I know a guy who's ranked around #400 ATP. I'm also adamant that he would train harder than say a Benoit Paire would, but Paire is top 30 and he isn't. Paire has also said he wasn't playing much tennis aged 14 and 15, whilst at the same time this guy was playing four hours a day and had dropped out of school by that age, so obviously it does exist
That is your opinion. It is not fact.
 

junior74

G.O.A.T.
If Roger was naturally talented why did it take him so long to win his first slam? He had a series of first round exits until he was nearly 22 in both Masters and slams. He didn't even make the SF in Masters or slams until 2002 when he won Madrid then won Wimbledon in 2003.
At least Federer himself thinks he is talented. That's something to build on!

It's been 11 years since the last slam winner was under 22. 11 years of no talent.

#stronkera
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
You are mixing up talent and discipline. Fed always has been incredibly talented. But the insanely disciplined guy is Rafa, who by the way was one of the most physically talented young guys ever to play tennis - which is what it takes to win slams at such a young age.
You can't just attribute Rafa's instant success to his physicality. Rafa is the more naturally talented who built on that with training. Success based on natural talent alone should be demonstrated by instant results. To turn pro at the age of 17 in 1998 which Roger did and not win anything or even come close to winning anything until 2002 at the age of 21 is not a demonstration of natural talent and he wasn't just walking into matches without training.
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
So I can apply to join an orchestra as a violinist or any other musical instrument player based purely on my perceived natural talent even though I've never made the grade in any examination showing how good I am?
 
Last edited:

Krish0608

Hall of Fame
If Roger was naturally talented why did it take him so long to win his first slam? He had a series of first round exits until he was nearly 22 in both Masters and slams. He didn't even make the SF in Masters or slams until 2002 when he won Madrid then won Wimbledon in 2003.
Talent doesn't help you sustain your level, nor does it make you physically stronger. Talent doesn't help you develop the physical attributes and the mental discipline you need to compete and win a GS. Federer was insanely talented, which is why as a 19 year old, he beat the Pete Sampras at the Centre Court of Wimbledon, ending his 4 tournament streak. He couldn't sustain the level and do it match after match. That is why he lost to Tim Henman the very next match, taking nothing away from Tim though. To "realize" your potential, a lot of things need to go right. Which happened only in 2003 for Federer even though the unanimous opinion was that he was always insanely talented.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
Nadal was beating full grown professional tennis players at like 14. He was a prodigy. Roger may have more effortless looking strokes (which leads to bias for him in "talent" arguments), but I think you can make the argument that Rafa is more talented. The guy was just ridiculously gifted at such a young age.
 

6august

Hall of Fame
Beside Federer and Nadal? Djokovic and it's not even close.

Put hatred aside and you'll see it's unreal for a guy who has serious problem with breathing can become one of the best baseliners ever.

It's even more crazy for a guy with vision problem can become the best returner ever.

He inspires children all over the world. He convinces them that living in poor conditions, having health problems can't prevent you from being the best. He's the real ambassador of tennis in particular and sports in general.

Saying it as a Fedanatic.
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
Nadal was beating full grown professional tennis players at like 14. He was a prodigy. Roger may have more effortless looking strokes (which leads to bias for him in "talent" arguments), but I think you can make the argument that Rafa is more talented. The guy was just ridiculously gifted at such a young age.
I absolutely agree with you. People are translating effortless looking style into natural talent but if that translates into instant success they could have a point but not when there are a series of failures for years until adulthood.
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
Roger doesn't look so effortless when he's up against real competition like Murray, Djokovic and Nadal. When he was in an era where he had no match, it was easy for him to play effortless tennis.
 

N01E

Professional


Everyone knows this stat, but it looks like not everyone seems to understand what it means. It refers to games won as a returner, not thanks to the return (good luck measuring that). Nadal with his positioning shifts the focus away from the ROS and moves it towards the rally. He doesn't put that much pressure on the server for the first shot (the total opposite would be the SABR) instead trying to give neutral response and then outrally his rival. This works great against opponents who he dominates from the baseline, but can cost him a lot during "big" matches against Djokovic, Federer or Thiem who are capable of beating him in the rally. During Wimbledon 2019 final Toni even said to Rafa that he should be returning closer to the baseline against Roger like Novak was doing even though he was the better returner in the semi according to your stat. And I'm still leaving out the potenial problems with S&V (Muller 2017) or the fact that the importance of serve and return is drastically reduced on clay, which also reflects in the stat. Last year we've got a perfect example with AO 2019 how important it is to fully understand what the data trully means and that your best source of information is just watching matches. As simple as that.
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
Everyone knows this stat, but it looks like not everyone seems to understand what it means. It refers to games won as a returner, not thanks to the return (good luck measuring that). Nadal with his positioning shifts the focus away from the ROS and moves it towards the rally. He doesn't put that much pressure on the server for the first shot (the total opposite would be the SABR) instead trying to give neutral response and then outrally his rival. This works great against opponents who he dominates from the baseline, but can cost him a lot during "big" matches against Djokovic, Federer or Thiem who are capable of beating him in the rally. During Wimbledon 2019 final Toni even said to Rafa that he should be returning closer to the baseline against Roger like Novak was doing even though he was the better returner in the semi according to your stat. And I'm still leaving out the potenial problems with S&V (Muller 2017) or the fact that the importance of serve and return is drastically reduced on clay, which also reflects in the stat. Last year we've got a perfect example with AO 2019 how important it is to fully understand what the data trully means and that your best source of information is just watching matches. As simple as that.
Whatever.
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
Everyone knows this stat, but it looks like not everyone seems to understand what it means. It refers to games won as a returner, not thanks to the return (good luck measuring that). Nadal with his positioning shifts the focus away from the ROS and moves it towards the rally. He doesn't put that much pressure on the server for the first shot (the total opposite would be the SABR) instead trying to give neutral response and then outrally his rival. This works great against opponents who he dominates from the baseline, but can cost him a lot during "big" matches against Djokovic, Federer or Thiem who are capable of beating him in the rally. During Wimbledon 2019 final Toni even said to Rafa that he should be returning closer to the baseline against Roger like Novak was doing even though he was the better returner in the semi according to your stat. And I'm still leaving out the potenial problems with S&V (Muller 2017) or the fact that the importance of serve and return is drastically reduced on clay, which also reflects in the stat. Last year we've got a perfect example with AO 2019 how important it is to fully understand what the data truly means and that your best source of information is just watching matches. As simple as that.
So we should all pick and choose the stats we believe in?

Nadal vs Karlovic 5:0
Djokovic vs Karlovic 1:2

Nadal vs Muller 4:2 (Rafa first lost to Muller as a teenager)
Djokovic 4:0.

If you the best returner, it shouldn't matter which surface it's on, you should come up trumps.
 
Last edited:

6august

Hall of Fame
Modern tennis rewards robotic consistency, not talent.

Some of the most talented players in the world probably aren't even top 100.
Agree. I'm more talented than Federer and I'm not even a pro tennis player.

I could immediately hit the tweener and the backhand smash smoothly 1 week after starting playing tennis. Accroding to TT members, those are very difficult shots.
 

accidental

Hall of Fame
The Nadal

Dude was built like a full grown man at age 16, and beat the reigning French Open champ in one of his first ATP matches on clay
 

mental midget

Hall of Fame
this comes up...a lot? usual suspects are rios for sure, nalbandian, and going back further guys like mac of course, , nastase, leconte...currently maybe fognini and yeah, kyrgios.
 

Thriller

Semi-Pro
Genuine natural talent shows up early when you are young, not physically developed yet, not yet mature emotionally and have little matchplay experience to fall back on but what God gave you allows you to overcome those disadvantages and compete and defeat the best pro players whose development trajectory is ffar more complete.

That is not Roger Federer's story. For sure he had a tremendous amount of potential but not what I would describe as out of the box natural talent.
 

NADALalot

Hall of Fame
Federer has never been as talented as Nadal, because Federer mostly copied the text book, whereas Nadal has unique strokes.
Even Nadal's serve looks completely different to everyone else's....
While his lasso forehand was the ultimate trendsetter, so much that Federer eventually copied it....
And his 2-hand-backhand is technically led by the left-hand, despite using the right-hand for power!
 

JoshuaPim

Semi-Pro
Genuine natural talent shows up early when you are young, not physically developed yet, not yet mature emotionally and have little matchplay experience to fall back on but what God gave you allows you to overcome those disadvantages and compete and defeat the best pro players whose development trajectory is ffar more complete.

That is not Roger Federer's story. For sure he had a tremendous amount of potential but not what I would describe as out of the box natural talent.
The reason was a certain amount of mental immaturity. Federer believed that his supreme talent was all that was necessary, and was shocked to find that hard work and focus could sometimes win out. Once he wised up, that's when the GOAT appeared.
 

King No1e

G.O.A.T.
There you are again using a general impression as fact. According to ATP statistics, Rafa is the best at ROS.
Return game and return as a single shot are entirely different. Nadal has GOAT-tier return game, but he doesn't attack returns, he just gets into the point with them. Djokovic actually goes on the attack with his ROS. Agassi did the same thing back in his day.
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
Return game and return as a single shot are entirely different. Nadal has GOAT-tier return game, but he doesn't attack returns, he just gets into the point with them. Djokovic actually goes on the attack with his ROS. Agassi did the same thing back in his day.
Attacking the return is no use unless you eventually win the point.
 

King No1e

G.O.A.T.
For active players, it's hard to pick anyone other than Djokovic. Shapovalov and Zverev also have serious talent but it remains to be seen whether they can maximize it.
If we're counting retired players, it's McEnroe without a doubt.
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
That is your opinion. It is not fact.
Just as it’s your opinion (and a laughable one at that) that Fed isn’t the most talented player to ever pick up a racket. It’s a near-universal opinion, stated by Borg, McEnroe, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Laver, Evert, Safin and anyone who two functioning eyeballs. Even Uncle Toni has said Fed is the most talented player ever.

If you can’t see that Nadal’s style requires extreme effort and Fed’s is effortless, you apparently have never watched a single match from with of them.
 

King No1e

G.O.A.T.
Just as it’s your opinion (and a laughable one at that) that Fed isn’t the most talented player to ever pick up a racket. It’s a near-universal opinion, stated by Borg, McEnroe, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Laver, Evert, Safin and anyone who two functioning eyeballs. Even Uncle Toni has said Fed is the most talented player ever.

If you can’t see that Nadal’s style requires extreme effort and Fed’s is effortless, you apparently have never watched a single match from with of them.
I think clayqueen specifically meant Federer on break points.
 
Top