Nalbandian vs Tsonga vs Shapovalov: Who has the greatest raw talent?

[skaj]

It's crazy to think the difference between 17+ time Slam champions and 0 time Slam champions is purely mental.

It's not, if you don't want it badly, you don't work hard on it, and don't have the nerves, you will not get it, no matter what skills you have.

 

[zagor]

It's why I think people think too highly of Nalbandian sometimes, like a guy who could be one of Fed's biggest rivals.

Nalbandian was good and a problematic match-up for Fed, but with that serving, he wouldn't have been one of Fed's biggest rivals, not even close. At best, he would have taken 1-2 slams away from Fed and that's assuming Fed would have also been in lousy form on those occasions.

Nalbandian is like Rios, a gifted ballstriker with great feel for the ball but a lot of things have to fall in place for them to make a great run. In full flight, Nalbo is awesome to watch with his angles and placement, transition to the net etc. but there's always a danger of him just being plain overpowered/outgunned from the baseline and he also has a pedestrian serve.

Now Tsonga is someone who actually has reliable weapons and could have won a slam IMO if he had better coaching, didn't have start of his career beset by injuries, had more luck with the draw etc. for me talent is having weapons that can relatively easily translate to success on the big stages. Just focusing on touch, highlight reel shots and similar is a narrow minded view of tennis talent IMO.

 

[zagor]

Their main weaknesses are their heads. There are plenty of players with more technical weaknesses who achieved more. The greatest players have weaknesses, even Federer(backhand) and Nadal(serve).

The vast majority of players on tour have quite a bit of trouble teeing off of Nadal's serve, I have a hard time seeing it as a weakness.

 

[Red Rick]

It's not, if you don't want it badly, you don't work hard on it, and don't have the nerves, you will not get it, no matter what skills you have.

So there are 97 guys in the top 100 who looked at the Big 3 and thought "I could have that but nevermind I wanna go home early"

 

[skaj]

So there are 97 guys in the top 100 who looked at the Big 3 and thought "I could have that but nevermind I wanna go home early"

No, you have to have both - talent and dedication.

 

[Mainad]

Not really, not all the time. David Ferrer has a slam final and a masters title to his credit. Gasquet has never gone beyond an SF and has never won a Masters. This isn't about Ferrer lucking out at the Masters, he's reached more Masters finals as well and the surfaces/conditions vary from clay to slow HC (Miami) to fast HC (Shanghai) to indoors (Paris). Is Ferrer really that much more talented than Gasquet? If so, at which exact shot is he more talented than Gasquet? I might take Ferrer's forehand over Gasquet's but Gasquet's backhand is far better, he has a better slice, better net game. But Gasquet is just mentally fragile. That's not about skill but about how determined and/or courageous you are.

We are talking about talent. Working hard, being ambitious, dedicated, healthy, not to mention lucky(which is a factor sometimes), are not talents.

Gasquet might hit some shots better than Ferrer but, overall, Ferrer has had the skill to get more out of his game. Sorry if you disagree but that's how I see it.

 

[flutzingitaway]

Gasquet might be slightly more talented than Ferrer, but I think someone like Ferrer's talent is underrated while Gasquet's is overrated. Gasquet's backhand is probably better I agree, but it is also a highly overrated backhand. Like most one handers, even the very good ones, it has limitations and is consistently vurnerable to pace and depth, and is also vurnerable to effective slice. Like many of the very pretty one handers it is overrated in its effectiveness purely for aesthetics. Ferrer's backhand is more durable and can stand up more easily to any type of shot coming at it, even if it is much less of an outright weapon and has less variety.

Ferrer is a far better mover and defender than Gasquet which is a big part of the game, especialy for two players who are predominantly baseliners (yes Ferrer has some all court skills, but he is still mainly a baseliner).

Ferrer is also a better returner clearly.

And the forehand is not maybe Ferrer, Ferrer's forehand is better by a pretty wide margin. Actually come to think of it I am not even sure if Gasquet is more talented at all, particularly when factoring in the mental side of the game which contrary to what some think is largely something you are born with. Yeah overrated Gasquet and his flashy pretty game with style and Ferrer is not a very good example of this.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Gasquet might be slightly more talented than Ferrer, but I think someone like Ferrer's talent is underrated while Gasquet's is overrated. Gasquet's backhand is probably better I agree, but it is also a highly overrated backhand. Like most one handers, even the very good ones, it has limitations and is consistently vurnerable to pace and depth, and is also vurnerable to effective slice. Like many of the very pretty one handers it is overrated in its effectiveness purely for aesthetics. Ferrer's backhand is more durable and can stand up more easily to any type of shot coming at it, even if it is much less of an outright weapon and has less variety.

Ferrer is a far better mover and defender than Gasquet which is a big part of the game, especialy for two players who are predominantly baseliners (yes Ferrer has some all court skills, but he is still mainly a baseliner).

Ferrer is also a better returner clearly.

And the forehand is not maybe Ferrer, Ferrer's forehand is better by a pretty wide margin. Actually come to think of it I am not even sure if Gasquet is more talented at all, particularly when factoring in the mental side of the game which contrary to what some think is largely something you are born with. Yeah overrated Gasquet and his flashy pretty game with style and Ferrer is not a very good example of this.

I don't agree at all about Gasquet's backhand. It is one of the few one handers so good that he would rather run around and hit a one hander, so that doesn't sound like a vulnerable shot to me. I also don't think the ceiling of Ferrer's forehand is much higher than Gasquet's, more consistent, yes. Gasquet is also not slower, certainly not in a significant way, than Ferrer. What Ferrer does have is infinitely greater patience to soak up the offense from the other side and wait either for the error or the right moment to strike. But if we get it down to tactics and attitude, the more determined ones will always be the more 'talented' ones. It doesn't matter if Gasquet is flashy. He has a lot of upside on his strokes that hasn't amounted to much because he never figured out how to make a winning package out of it.

 

[flutzingitaway]

I don't agree at all about Gasquet's backhand. It is one of the few one handers so good that he would rather run around and hit a one hander, so that doesn't sound like a vulnerable shot to me. I also don't think the ceiling of Ferrer's forehand is much higher than Gasquet's, more consistent, yes. Gasquet is also not slower, certainly not in a significant way, than Ferrer. What Ferrer does have is infinitely greater patience to soak up the offense from the other side and wait either for the error or the right moment to strike. But if we get it down to tactics and attitude, the more determined ones will always be the more 'talented' ones. It doesn't matter if Gasquet is flashy. He has a lot of upside on his strokes that hasn't amounted to much because he never figured out how to make a winning package out of it.

I think Gasquet's talents and game are overrated period. I think you have surmising he has a lot more talent than he really does, and that he is just not putting it together. I agree he did not fully put together all the talent he does have, but I don't think he ever has as much there as many people like to think. I will leave it at that.

 

[Red Rick]

Gasquet might be slightly more talented than Ferrer, but I think someone like Ferrer's talent is underrated while Gasquet's is overrated. Gasquet's backhand is probably better I agree, but it is also a highly overrated backhand. Like most one handers, even the very good ones, it has limitations and is consistently vurnerable to pace and depth, and is also vurnerable to effective slice. Like many of the very pretty one handers it is overrated in its effectiveness purely for aesthetics. Ferrer's backhand is more durable and can stand up more easily to any type of shot coming at it, even if it is much less of an outright weapon and has less variety.

Ferrer is a far better mover and defender than Gasquet which is a big part of the game, especialy for two players who are predominantly baseliners (yes Ferrer has some all court skills, but he is still mainly a baseliner).

Ferrer is also a better returner clearly.

And the forehand is not maybe Ferrer, Ferrer's forehand is better by a pretty wide margin. Actually come to think of it I am not even sure if Gasquet is more talented at all, particularly when factoring in the mental side of the game which contrary to what some think is largely something you are born with. Yeah overrated Gasquet and his flashy pretty game with style and Ferrer is not a very good example of this.

Ferrer is more talented than Gasquet and it's not that close. Gasquet is just a solid top 20 player with insane flashiness.

 

[King No1e]

I don't agree at all about Gasquet's backhand. It is one of the few one handers so good that he would rather run around and hit a one hander, so that doesn't sound like a vulnerable shot to me. I also don't think the ceiling of Ferrer's forehand is much higher than Gasquet's, more consistent, yes. Gasquet is also not slower, certainly not in a significant way, than Ferrer. What Ferrer does have is infinitely greater patience to soak up the offense from the other side and wait either for the error or the right moment to strike. But if we get it down to tactics and attitude, the more determined ones will always be the more 'talented' ones. It doesn't matter if Gasquet is flashy. He has a lot of upside on his strokes that hasn't amounted to much because he never figured out how to make a winning package out of it.

The reason he would run around to hit a BH is not just because his BH is good, but also because his FH is a major weakness.

 

[skaj]

Gasquet might hit some shots better than Ferrer but, overall, Ferrer has had the skill to get more out of his game. Sorry if you disagree but that's how I see it.

It's not so much that I disagree, as much as you don't understand the point. The topic is raw talent. Talent is one thing, hard work and what you do with your talent is another thing. Ferrer got the maximum out of his talent, I wouldn't call that a skill, and it's certainly not tennis talent.

 

[OldschoolKIaus]

Gilles Simon.

 

[Mainad]

It's not so much that I disagree, as much as you don't understand the point. The topic is raw talent. Talent is one thing, hard work and what you do with your talent is another thing. Ferrer got the maximum out of his talent, I wouldn't call that a skill, and it's certainly not tennis talent.

But I do understand your point, I just don't see it as relevant when set against results and I flatly disagree that just becomes someone doesn't execute certain shots as well as others that they are untalented or lack skill despite winning more titles. It takes skill to win titles. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves or has an overly narrow perspective on what constitutes skill and talent.

 

[King No1e]

But I do understand your point, I just don't see it as relevant when set against results and I flatly disagree that just becomes someone doesn't execute certain shots as well as others that they are untalented or lack skill despite winning more titles. It takes skill to win titles. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves or has an overly narrow perspective on what constitutes skill and talent.

Skill and talent are different IMO. Talent is your natural aptitude at mastering a skill, and skill is your overall mastery of it. Ferrer was a very skilled player who got the most out of his talent and won several titles, but Shapovalov is a very talented player with great potential who hasn't developed the necessary skills (mental strength, shot selection, etc) to be the next big thing.

 

[bhpower]

Exactly, an underrated serve.
High first serve percentage, very few double faults, its lefty spinny is difficult to return, plus he can flat out some ones to get some free points.

The vast majority of players on tour have quite a bit of trouble teeing off of Nadal's serve, I have a hard time seeing it as a weakness.

 

[Red Rick]

The vast majority of players on tour have quite a bit of trouble teeing off of Nadal's serve, I have a hard time seeing it as a weakness.

Statistically, Nadal's 1st serve is a much bigger disaster than Murray's 2nd serve. It's also far less understandable. Murray's serve is just technically bad to hit a kicker. Nadal's always been able to hit good serves but deliberately sliced the first in for years while not being top 70 in that stat.

 

[flutzingitaway]

But I do understand your point, I just don't see it as relevant when set against results and I flatly disagree that just becomes someone doesn't execute certain shots as well as others that they are untalented or lack skill despite winning more titles. It takes skill to win titles. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves or has an overly narrow perspective on what constitutes skill and talent.

People find Ferrer boring (which he kind of is) which misleads some to think he isn't talented. I agree he isn't one of the greatest talents and probably overachieved some, but he obviously had some talent to be top 5-ish so long in the game. You can't do that with hard work and mental strength alone, and he gets tight under pressure in big matches so he isn't even impeccable mentally either.

Gasquet had a lot of hype and showed a ton of promise as a youngster, and he is pleasing and interesting to watch, which makes some believe he is more talented than he really is. He did underachieve, but he also was not as talented as it looked like he would wind up being as a 15/16 year old. Some just develop their games sooner, Capriati being another example (although she is much more talented than Gasquet per gender).

 

[Clay lover]

People find Ferrer boring (which he kind of is) which misleads some to think he isn't talented. I agree he isn't one of the greatest talents and probably overachieved some, but he obviously had some talent to be top 5-ish so long in the game. You can't do that with hard work and mental strength alone, and he gets tight under pressure in big matches so he isn't even impeccable mentally either.

Gasquet had a lot of hype and showed a ton of promise as a youngster, and he is pleasing and interesting to watch, which makes some believe he is more talented than he really is. He did underachieve, but he also was not as talented as it looked like he would wind up being as a 15/16 year old. Some just develop their games sooner, Capriati being another example (although she is much more talented than Gasquet per gender).

Completely agree. People often confuse beauty with talent on no objective basis. Really you could even say the opposite could be true -- if you could still have an effective game with super unfluid strokes aren't you insanely talented physically?

Also strange is the insistence on separating fitness and shotmaking, or possession of shots and execution. I think fitness and speed are even more dependent on heredity than shots. Also, even if you have ALL the shots, if you can't capitalize on them due to your mentality or physicality, how talented are you? We don't call a weekend hack who hits like Federer against a coach and stinks in real matches "talented". Execution is part of the talent.

Ferrer is insanely talented and much more so than Gasquet and other pretty shots guys without results hyped up here.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

The reason he would run around to hit a BH is not just because his BH is good, but also because his FH is a major weakness.

Wait what, Gasquet's backhand is not GOOD? Now this is just recency effect kicking in, which is understandable given how **** he has become last couple of years. But I could have sworn that in 2015, this board voted Gasquet-Wawrinka as one of the best Wimbledon matches of that year's tournament. The 2013 RG Stan-Rick match was also brilliant, with Stan edging him this time.

 

[King No1e]

Wait what, Gasquet's backhand is not GOOD? Now this is just recency effect kicking in, which is understandable given how **** he has become last couple of years. But I could have sworn that in 2015, this board voted Gasquet-Wawrinka as one of the best Wimbledon matches of that year's tournament. The 2013 RG Stan-Rick match was also brilliant, with Stan edging him this time.

"Not just because his backhand is good." I meant his backhand being good wasn't the only reason he runs around it - rather because his forehand is bad.

 

[megamind]

Kyrgios got more talent than Tsonga and Hipbaldian combined

 

[Dolgopolov85]

"Not just because his backhand is good." I meant his backhand being good wasn't the only reason he runs around it - rather because his forehand is bad.

Ah, got you now. I agree with that but I don't think a player runs around his forehand unless the BH is really, really good. Sometimes, especially on clay, Djokovic and Murray too take it on the BH side when they are on the right side of the centre line. You could bet anything Nadal and Fed would hit a forehand even from the left of the center line. Andy and Nole just have more confidence in their backhand.

 

[skaj]

But I do understand your point, I just don't see it as relevant when set against results and I flatly disagree that just becomes someone doesn't execute certain shots as well as others that they are untalented or lack skill despite winning more titles. It takes skill to win titles. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves or has an overly narrow perspective on what constitutes skill and talent.

I don't think you do. Relevant for what? It takes skill, nobody said it doesn't, but it takes more than just skill - some people can have mediocre skill(talent) and are hard workers and driven players, other have remarkable skill(talent) but are not dedicated to the sport as much. The first ones can and usually do accomplish more. Excluding hard work and dedication from what constitutes skill and talent is not narrow perspective.