Nadal is talented in discipline n hard work but Federer is a tennis player from GOD..

GasquetGOAT

Hall of Fame
http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2012-04-10/9291.php (Thanks to oddjack for the link)
Stakhovsky on Federer-Nadal:

Federer plays a less physical tennis. Someone has more God-given talent; someone has more of something else. For me, Nadal is more talented in terms of discipline and hard work. Thanks to that he became the No.1 player at the time. But Federer – that’s a tennis player from God, a talent which found “his own” sports field.

Everyone learns from Federer. In 2006-2008, Roger moved tennis in an absolutely different direction. He played so quickly that everyone followed him. But then the slowing down of courts started.

What do you make out of this comment?

I think Stakky is right on the money, Nadal's biggest talent is hard work contrary to what a lot of his fans like to believe that Nadal is most talented in shot making (Djokovic for example is a much more talented shot maker than Nadal). But overall, Nadal is no doubt a talented tennis player.

;)
 

Paul Murphy

Hall of Fame
Well I happen to believe that God created the beauty we see around us and there's no doubt in my view that Fed has the most beautiful game around.
Roger is the artist and Rafa is the worker.
 
I think Federer would have Sampras' serve, net skills, forehand and mental toughness if Federer was from God. The only edge Federer has over Sampras is on clay.
 

Homeboy Hotel

Hall of Fame
Tis true. Nadal's natural talent ended at dominance at the French Open.

It took a lot of hard work and determination to win the other 3 slams. However Wimbledon, the courts slowing down worked in his favour.
 

GasquetGOAT

Hall of Fame
I think Federer would have Sampras' serve, net skills, forehand and mental toughness if Federer was from God. The only edge Federer has over Sampras is on clay.

I'm sure Stakky took all of the mentioned into consideration when making the comment. Are you saying Stakky was wrong and you are right?
 

stringertom

Bionic Poster
I think Federer would have Sampras' serve, net skills, forehand and mental toughness if Federer was from God. The only edge Federer has over Sampras is on clay.

Revisionist history: '01Wimby R16 Fed over Pete 3/2 on REAL GRASS (h2h is very important, no?); Major HC titles: Fed 9, Pete 7.
 
Revisionist history: '01Wimby R16 Fed over Pete 3/2 on REAL GRASS (h2h is very important, no?); Major HC titles: Fed 9, Pete 7.

Actually, Sampras on his last legs when Federer beat him. Not very impressive that Federer needed 5 sets, either. It's not a whole lot different to when Nadal beat Agassi at Wimbledon, however Nadal won in straight sets.
 

zcarzach

Semi-Pro
Hard work is not a talent. You can't be talented in hard work. To succeed, you need hard work and talent, something that both Rafa and Roger have.
 

AM95

Hall of Fame
Actually, Sampras on his last legs when Federer beat him. Not very impressive that Federer needed 5 sets, either. It's not a whole lot different to when Nadal beat Agassi at Wimbledon, however Nadal won in straight sets.

well sampras went on to win another major after that, not to mention that he was going for a 5th straight wimby. just in case you forgot, agassi was 35 when he lost to nadal, sampras was just 30 when he lost to federer.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Actually, Sampras on his last legs when Federer beat him. Not very impressive that Federer needed 5 sets, either. It's not a whole lot different to when Nadal beat Agassi at Wimbledon, however Nadal won in straight sets.

Lol nice comparison. Sampras wasn't even 30 at the time when teenage Fed beat him and as sure as hell he was still playing well enough. Not to mention that was Sampras' best surface.
Agassi aged 36, played a handful of matches in 2006, on his worst surface.
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2012-04-10/9291.php (Thanks to oddjack for the link)


What do you make out of this comment?

I think Stakky is right on the money, Nadal's biggest talent is hard work contrary to what a lot of his fans like to believe that Nadal is most talented in shot making (Djokovic for example is a much more talented shot maker than Nadal). But overall, Nadal is no doubt a talented tennis player.

;)
So Djokovic being a better shotmaker is a fact now, is it?

As for the original post:

"Talent" encompasses many things. According to some people here, the fact that Rafa's English hasn't improved is proof that he is not a talented tennis player.

The world isn't fair. Hard work without talent gets you nowhere. A borderline mentally-******** student who studies hard is bound not to do so well academically as a student with genius intellect who studies the morning of the exam. I'm sick and tired of people saying that Federer is enormously talented who doesn't need to practice as hard to succeed, or that Nadal is talentless, physical freak who's gotten to where he is through hard work alone (some people don't even have the good grace even give him that much credit).

Besides, "talent" is generally meaningless, because we can't put a value (number) on it. Most of it is based on impressions of success. If the same Federer we have come to know never won anything (injury, bad luck, bad line calls, etc. etc.), most of us here will be heralding Rafa's incredible, limitless talent instead. Face it, "talent" is often another title, another excuse we give to the successful, to convince ourselves that their success is something we couldn't have possibly achieved anyway.

Of course, I'm not saying that "talent" is completely meaningless. Some people have better, say, anticipation that others. Others can change direction easily, or have good feel at the net. But can we agree on what constitutes "tennis talent"? No, because tennis isn't about just about hitting the ball, yet people act as though that's all there is to talent. If Fed were slower than Karlovic piggybacking Serena Williams on his back on clay, would he still have 16 slams? What if he were prone to cramps? What if he lacked fortitude and physical strength/stamina to last long enough to close out tough, long matches? To rule out a player's talent because his game is physical is pretty idiotic considering that we are ultimately talking about a sport here, which is de facto physical.

So what I mean here is that all this talk about talent is ultimately a series of bandwagoning and/or trolling at a professional, journalistic level to generate publicity (particularly in the case of dissenting opinions/statements) and therefore income, nothing more, and all this discussion about who the most talented player is, is more or less an exercise in giving our favourite players a personal stamp of approval.
 
Last edited:

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
This interview has already been posted three or four times. Are we gonna start a thread daily over each line that some player out of the top 50 said in some interview?
 

GasquetGOAT

Hall of Fame
This interview has already been posted three or four times. Are we gonna start a thread daily over each line that some player out of the top 50 said in some interview?

Yeah, its either that, or we continue to read all the fascinating discussions in the Nadal News thread.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
^ You don't have to go over to the NN thread. And from your sarcastic tone it sounds like you don't admire Nadal.
 
Actually, Sampras on his last legs when Federer beat him. Not very impressive that Federer needed 5 sets, either. It's not a whole lot different to when Nadal beat Agassi at Wimbledon, however Nadal won in straight sets.

If Sampras was on his last legs, then how did he manage to win USO after that?
 

GasquetGOAT

Hall of Fame
Most of it is based on impressions of success. If the same Federer we have come to know never won anything (injury, bad luck, bad line calls, etc. etc.), most of us here will be heralding Rafa's incredible, limitless talent instead.

Oh I'm not so sure about that. If Federer didn't win anything he will still be praised of his unrealised talent, just like Nalbandian generally regarded as the most talented to never win a slam. I don't think most of us here will be heralding Rafa either way, like I said, Nadal is talented no doubt but a different kind of talent.
 

Crisstti

Legend
Tis true. Nadal's natural talent ended at dominance at the French Open.

It took a lot of hard work and determination to win the other 3 slams. However Wimbledon, the courts slowing down worked in his favour.

I'm sure al great players accomplish what they do through both talent and hard work... but anyway, achieving something through hard work and determination more than cheer talent seems to be all the more amazing and admirable.

How is one type of grass any more real than another? Do you mean genetically?

Gotta agree with you there.

To rule out a player's talent because his game is physical is pretty idiotic considering that we are ultimately talking about a sport here, which is de facto physical.

+1
 

Cup8489

G.O.A.T.
Actually, Sampras on his last legs when Federer beat him. Not very impressive that Federer needed 5 sets, either. It's not a whole lot different to when Nadal beat Agassi at Wimbledon, however Nadal won in straight sets.

Except Agassi wasnt 4 time defending champion and a favorite to win the event.

OH SNAP.
 

wings56

Hall of Fame
sooo... just because federer's game looks aesthetically appealing and his movement looks effortless means that he couldnt possibly have worked tirelessly by spending hours upon hours, year after year, to achieve this appearance? yeah... he totally just woke up with his ability exactly how it is...
 

Clarky21

Banned
All of these players have to practice tirelessly to perfect their games,and hone their skills. Fed is no exception to that whether or not he has God given talent.
 

Leto

Semi-Pro
Sampras has a level 92 serve, Federer is only a 78, so Sampras has 14 more toughness.

If you say so....did not dispute that Fed would want the Sampras serve, which was already included in the original list (especially second serve, if I had to specify more clearly).

So assuming Fed got his wish and got the Sampras serve, why would he need anything from Sampras on the mental toughness front?

Based on what you say, Sampras is probably way more mentally weaker than Fed overall, but thanks to his great serve, was able to counteract that weakness.
 
Actually, since noone knows exactly how much both players work outside their official matches, it is pretty difficult to say that one of them works harder than the other. I bet that most people's views on the amount of work, they put, are directly influenced from their estimate about the talent of the respective player. Which is rather difficult to quantify.

As far as talent is concerned, I prefer to view this matter in the light of their respective game styles. Fed's talent was chanelled to the more classical style, which made it more recognizable. Nadal's talent was channeled into a highly specialized area. I still regret the fact, that Nadal did not work with more competent coach than Tio Toni. I am convinced, that Tony Nadal was the reason, why Nadal didn't evolve into a more versatile player earlier in his career (which would have revealed his talent and feel for the game for more people). Yes, Nadal is underachiever in that area.
 

Bjorn99

Hall of Fame
I think Federer would have Sampras' serve, net skills, forehand and mental toughness if Federer was from God. The only edge Federer has over Sampras is on clay.

I loved Sampras' game, thought he was the most stylish player I had ever seen, then Federer came along at 19 and crushed Sampras at Wimbledon, Petes home turf. And if you watch the match, you would realize that Federer has the best service return of all time.

Watch Federer versus the best serves. He handles them with ease. So Pete, Kraijeck, Roddick etc.... are handled with ease by him.

Sampras was great, Federer is sublime.
 

Leto

Semi-Pro
I loved Sampras' game, thought he was the most stylish player I had ever seen, then Federer came along at 19 and crushed Sampras at Wimbledon, Petes home turf. And if you watch the match, you would realize that Federer has the best service return of all time.

Watch Federer versus the best serves. He handles them with ease. So Pete, Kraijeck, Roddick etc.... are handled with ease by him.

Sampras was great, Federer is sublime.

The Fed return of serve will always be underrated because all he does is get back into play, in a boring fashion. But this is in cases where other players would just feel lucky if they could even touch the ball, and avoid being aced.

I think Fed used to return a lot more dangerously during a brief time in his heyday, but nowadays, just getting the ball back continues to be an important weapon in his arsenal.

Rafa also deserves some credit in this regard! I would love to see some stats as to how often Rafa actually gets aced!

Neither Rafa or Fed will ever be at the top of a GOAT Returner list, but it`s an element of their games that is exceptional enough, that contributes them getting to the very top.
 
Of course, I'm not saying that "talent" is completely meaningless. Some people have better, say, anticipation that others. Others can change direction easily, or have good feel at the net. But can we agree on what constitutes "tennis talent"? No, because tennis isn't about just about hitting the ball, yet people act as though that's all there is to talent. If Fed were slower than Karlovic piggybacking Serena Williams on his back on clay, would he still have 16 slams? What if he were prone to cramps? What if he lacked fortitude and physical strength/stamina to last long enough to close out tough, long matches? To rule out a player's talent because his game is physical is pretty idiotic considering that we are ultimately talking about a sport here, which is de facto physical.

You're not talking about Clarky here are you ? Because he does make so many idiotic posts. Just checking.
 

tistrapukcipeht

Professional
I don't know why people still insist in comparing Nadal's talent to Federer's.

If it takes John MacEnroe, Rod Laver, Borg, Marat Safin and many people that play against Federer and they all tell the same thing why you guys that have never stepped on a court for a professional match, people that never won anything in tennis, in fact most can't play a 6.0 level still keep arguing about this issue.

Federer is the most talented play to ever play tennis, some others have talents as well but not as much as Federer when it comes down to just play tennis.

Nadal is very talented in terms of mental fortitudem the guy just never gives up, but He is no Federer, his game is very physical, if it wasn't for his hard working (and He knows He needs to work very hard to play the way He does) He wouldn't be a top 10. Thanks to his hard work and physical talent He is who He is, but no way compared to Federer's natural talent.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
I think Federer would have Sampras' serve, net skills, forehand and mental toughness if Federer was from God.

Right that makes a lot of sense. Federer would rather have skills that the guy who won 14 slams had, instead of his own skills which allowed him to win 16 slams. :rolleyes:

Your hero Nadal stated in his book that Federer was a blessed freak of nature in the talent department. Surely you believe your God Nadal and his opinion about Federer since you believe Nadal with respect to everything else he says right?
 
who cares about talent? yeah, federer is a more talented tennis player. but what does that mean? Ever heard of David Nalbandian? That guy has as much talent as roger federer but not the dedication. The reason nadal has a winning record over federer is because of his will and determination. talent means nothing
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Well, it depends on what surface. Fed may be more talented on hard court but Nadal sure is more talented on clay. It's not just work, he has a real feel and instinct for that surface and how to play on it.
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
Talent is subjective. How do you define talent? Ability to learn quickly? If that is the case, a 16 year old Nadal would be the most talented player of all time. It's just useless to discuss about talent when in the end it is only results that matter, and Federer has plenty of results.
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
I think Federer would have Sampras' serve, net skills, forehand and mental toughness if Federer was from God. The only edge Federer has over Sampras is on clay.

Why don't you just make Sampras' serve, McEnroe's net skills, Nadal's forehand and mental toughness, Agassi's return, Djokovic's backhand all in one. :)
 

Spin Doctor

Professional
I think the talent vs. hard work thing is a bit overstated in regards to these two. Fed actually does work hard and Nadal also has more natural talent than the media makes out. Nadal has great hands and touch at the net (when he actually gets there) it is not just physicality that he brings to the table.
 

wings56

Hall of Fame
Actually, since noone knows exactly how much both players work outside their official matches, it is pretty difficult to say that one of them works harder than the other. I bet that most people's views on the amount of work, they put, are directly influenced from their estimate about the talent of the respective player. Which is rather difficult to quantify.

As far as talent is concerned, I prefer to view this matter in the light of their respective game styles. Fed's talent was chanelled to the more classical style, which made it more recognizable. Nadal's talent was channeled into a highly specialized area. I still regret the fact, that Nadal did not work with more competent coach than Tio Toni. I am convinced, that Tony Nadal was the reason, why Nadal didn't evolve into a more versatile player earlier in his career (which would have revealed his talent and feel for the game for more people). Yes, Nadal is underachiever in that area.

exactly. we can now end this discussion.
 
Top