BackhandDTL
Hall of Fame
Pure talent?
Nadal, Djokovic, Kyrgios, Fognini, Del Potro
Nadal, Djokovic, Kyrgios, Fognini, Del Potro
Most naturally talented player bar Roger
- Thread starter Hellenic Hero
- Start date
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
Yet it's taken Federer 20 years to win 20 slams - an average of 1 slam a year. Lol He played as a pro for 4 years before he won his first title and that was the first time he went beyond the QF. Such talent.
K-H
Hall of Fame
People need to remeber, when talking about a talented tennis player, it's not just an effective FH or BH that makes you talented. You have to be good in more facets of the game. When judging a seasoned Pro, you look at all his abilities. Not just one aspect.
You have to look at:
Whos more talented athletically
Whos more talented mentally
Whos more talented in terms of footwork
Whos more talented in terms of ground strokes
Whos most talented in terms of reactions for return
Etc
Because just having one of these doesn't make you a great player. You need to have all them to be a great a TENNIS PLAYER.
So when looking at talent at such a young age, you have to take all this into consideration. Why only look at groundstrokes when tennis is so much more than just that. It's stupid really...
A lot of ppl say federer wasn't disciplined early in his career. Well that's his flaw. Someone like Nadal was naturally more hardworking and that's a talent in itself. Some players don't have that at the start of their career but it came natural to someone like Rafa.
I'm not saying roger isn't talented, but you bend the rules for him
You have to look at:
Whos more talented athletically
Whos more talented mentally
Whos more talented in terms of footwork
Whos more talented in terms of ground strokes
Whos most talented in terms of reactions for return
Etc
Because just having one of these doesn't make you a great player. You need to have all them to be a great a TENNIS PLAYER.
So when looking at talent at such a young age, you have to take all this into consideration. Why only look at groundstrokes when tennis is so much more than just that. It's stupid really...
A lot of ppl say federer wasn't disciplined early in his career. Well that's his flaw. Someone like Nadal was naturally more hardworking and that's a talent in itself. Some players don't have that at the start of their career but it came natural to someone like Rafa.
I'm not saying roger isn't talented, but you bend the rules for him
Zara
G.O.A.T.
It would be crazy to imply that Fed didn't have the discipline (guy only knows tennis). I have seen Nadal having other interests outside Tennis. Wasn't able to locate one for Fed.
Zara
G.O.A.T.
In other words, it's subjective and can't be presented as a fact which was the point.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
If I said Rafa was the best server that ever picked up a racquet I would deserve to be ridiculed because there is nothing to back it up. It's the same with saying Federer is the most talented when, in his first 4 years as a pro, he mainly lost in the 1st round. He even lost in qualifying.
Last edited:
Zara
G.O.A.T.
LOL
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Honestly, Nadal, Mac and Safin are my other picks.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
It simply took a bit more time for Fed to put it all together since his arsenal was really big.
Nadal has lots of natural talent, but him breaking through earlier than Fed was more a consequence of him developing physically pretty fast (at 19 he was a physical beast already) and his style of play being much more basic.
Going by your logic, Hewitt was more naturally talented than Fed since he broke through at an earlier age too.
Ehh..."universal opinion" changes every 5 minutes with those guys you mentioned (particularly when it comes to GOAT matters). I wouldn't get too excited about that. Fed got hyped as a once-in-a-lifetime talent because he came first, and dominated early. So his "talent" narrative stuck, because nobody thought there would ever be any other players as good as him or who would win as much (Nadal was only supposed to win on clay, as "universal opinion" went.LOL).
Fast forward to 2020, and we have two players in Fed's era who have won enough and beaten him soundly enough to be considerd better players in the eyes of many. The old "Fed is the most talented player ever" trope looks less and less convincing as the days go by.
And Uncle Toni is being polite and humble. Djokovic's parents are convinced he's the most gifted player ever. We supposed to take their word for it?
Last edited:
Zara
G.O.A.T.
One would be quite naive - not to mention biased not to see how talented Nadal is. You'd find quite a few players out there who work really hard and quite disciplined, doesn't mean they are at Nadal level or ever will be - even quarter of it. It's a joke not to notice it and shoot blanks.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Well, that was a great win no matter how you put it. And Sampras wasn't completely finished given how he would perform at the USO that same year afterwards.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Nadal doesn't need defending. He was beating FO champions at 16 already.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
It's sarcasm on the part of Uncle Toni.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Oh yeah, Uncle Toni is a liar when his statements don't fit your agenda.
Zara
G.O.A.T.
And those talents are overrated. In other words, not a talent. Talent is not something you sit on idly and wonder about things. You will have the urge to pursue it. If not, then it's all an illusion; beginner's luck etc.. If there is no consistency, then it's not a talent.
Mozart won't sit on his arse and not pursue his talent, for example. Let's not confuse the two.
Last edited:
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
All these ex-players are being disingenuous saying Federer is the most talented when he hasn't been able to win more than one slam on clay in over 20 years.
Last edited:
6august
Hall of Fame
He's excepionally good at return but i feel that if he goes deep in more HC and grass tournaments such stats would go down.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
No, I'm not saying he is a liar, he's just going with the flow tongue in cheek.
shamaho
Professional
so... talent can be measured in a quantifiable way is it ?
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
How much deeper should Rafa go than winning 4 USO titles and 5 Canadian titles - on hard court? Add to that, one Singles Olympic Gold Medal.
Hewitt is a stupid comparison. Lots of players used to break through at his age. It was hardly rare.Nadal was a literal child who was beating fully adult tennis players. Hewitt was not beating former Grand Slam Champions at 14 years old (like Nadal did when he beat Pat Cash in an exho).
Zara
G.O.A.T.
Yes, but we also see two non-grass court players beating this insanely talented players named Federer in his prime on his very favourte surface. I'd highlight this far more over that single win over Sampras.
Last edited:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Who exactly are these 2?
FatHead250
Professional
Coming from a lifelong Roger fan. Obviously nadal.
He played for like 10 years exclusively on clay and he is the most dominant on this surface since like 14 years of age. And he had enough talent to be beating veterans of tennis on their favorite hard and grass courts. Taking into consideration the two real surfaces - clay and grass. Nada so far ahead. It's a joke
He played for like 10 years exclusively on clay and he is the most dominant on this surface since like 14 years of age. And he had enough talent to be beating veterans of tennis on their favorite hard and grass courts. Taking into consideration the two real surfaces - clay and grass. Nada so far ahead. It's a joke
Zara
G.O.A.T.
The term effortless is subjective and depends on the surface. For example, Nadal looks quite effortless on clay while Federer & Murray on grass and Djokovic on hard.
Zara
G.O.A.T.
Surely you jest. Nadal and Djokovic? Nadal specifically in 2008?
Which achievement is greater? Federer beating Sampras at 2001 Wimbledon in the 4th round where top players are subject to vulnerability? In other words, not as prepared and easy to catch off guard. Or Nadal beating Federer at Wimbledon 2008 final where players tend to bring their very best?
6august
Hall of Fame
Very impressive, but in total he has 7 Slams outside clay, Djokovic has 16, Federer has 19 but Federer is also one of the best serves ever. 16 vs 7, that's more than double.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
It's easy to pick one match where, if I remember, Rafa was suffering from a stomach bug. Roger has to pull all the stops when he faces Rafa, Novak or Andy otherwise he would be humiliated.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
So it's OK for Federer and Djokovic to only have one slam outside grass and h/c. How is it, that it's the King of Clay who has a Singles Olympic Gold Medal on hard court?
Last edited:
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
I see this topic come up on TTW and in general, where I saw Mac a couple of years ago say Kyrgios was the most talented outside of the big 4. Based on the what exactly? I think Thiem, for example, is more talented. Then you see other names pop up . Who decides what talent is and why that person's talent is greater than the next guy's? It's way too subjective and tinged in bias to be a topic that can be seriously discussed in my opinion, with a definitive answer.
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
I think it is very hard to find natural talent in players that have been playing a game for 30 years. We needed to see them from the beginning. Talent comes naturally, so the best time to judge that is at the beginning.
D
Deleted member 748597
Guest
Federer was never that talented. His parents worked for the pharma company.
Krish0608
G.O.A.T.
Lol. Nadal did it on the 3rd try (after 2006, 2007) and barely scraped through. Beating Sampras was Federer's first ever appearance on Centre Court. And what vulnerability are you talking about. Sampras had won the previous 4 Wimbledons. Federer broke that streak as a 19 year old.
Krish0608
G.O.A.T.
Ah, of course.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Most likely but even then it may not be visible because some athletes are late bloomers.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
There a lot of naturally talented players, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray come straight to the forefront of recent players, if you take steps back, you will see a plethora of immensely talented players.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
The man plays the style known as - Who Gives A Rat @$$ Tennis - he just happens to be very talented at it and make it look remarkable at times.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Hitman
Bionic Poster
LOL - Looks like selective amnesia if you remember that Rafa was suffering from a stomach during WTF 2011, yet don't recall that Federer was suffering from a heat stroke in that Miami 2004 event, after he got ill in the desert sun of IW during the final...he nearly went out the round before to Davydenko who as you may or may not know, Federer has owned on HC, and then Federer followed up Miami by having to skip MC to recover. But the Miami 2004 is fully legit, the WTF 2011 win though is tainted.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
To beat the King of Swing on his own court in fast grass conditions was something special, that was basically the match that not only kick started Federer's career but it was looking back, the passing of the torch from one incredible champion to another. One of the biggest highlights of his career and certainly brought his talent out for the world to see...you don't just beat Pete at Wimbledon center court unless you have some serious talent at your disposal. I didn't like it at the time, since I was hoping for Pete to get five in a row, but couldn't fault Federer in the manner he pulled it off, he basically brought in Pete's game into his own style. I have always said that Pete lived on through Federer.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Djokovic? When has he beaten prime Fed at Wimb?
Nadal beating Federer in 2008 is certainly better than Krajicek beating Sampras in 1996.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Federer beating Sampras shows he was talented. Just like Nadal and Djokovic beating Federer. Don't see what's the controversy here.
Zara
G.O.A.T.
Nadal was also primarily a clay court player which makes it even more unique. A great grass-court player beating another grass-court player is not as unique. Ask Muster to do it to Sampras back then. We will raise the bet and give him to try 5 times.
And if Federer is so insanely talented, then why don't we see him beating Nadal at RG final or even coming close - even after a number of tries? Surely you are overselling Federer while comfortably underselling Nadal.
Oh and btw, all players are vulnerable at any slam at an earlier stage but it's tough to beat them when they advance at a later stage.
Last edited:
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Krajicek was a much bigger upset though.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
How about a 17 year old Coric beating Rafa in their very first meeting in Basel in 2014?
And before you bring up his appendix, read this:
Tennis: Federer blown away by Nadal storm
March 30: Rising star 17-year-old Spaniard Rafael Nadal overwhelmed top-seeded Roger Federer in the third round of the Nasdaq-100 Open.
www.theguardian.com
"Federer certainly had his excuses, though he did not volunteer them. He suffered heat exhaustion after playing Tim Henman in 40C at Indian Wells a week before and had been unable to prepare for Miami."
edberg volleys
Hall of Fame
Djokovic is obviously extremely talented. His ability to take ball on the rise is something else. No one else can deal with Nadal's super heavy topsin FHs like Djokovic with his double handed BH. His RoS is totally based on his ability to take ball verrrrrrryyy early.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Of course he was....Rafa never loses when healthy. Good to see this same narrative live on a decade later.
Similar threads
