Talent in tennis

[Checkmate]

There is of course an unfortunate tendency to use 'talent' in a way that is synonymous with 'flair' and 'panache' or to describe a mercurial player whose performance frequently swings from the dazzling to the appalling.

But at the same time I think there is a very understandable reason why people are drawn to and fascinated by these perceived-to-be talented players. I think people do correctly identify that there is a slight gap between potential and actual achievement with some of these players, and this gap is what makes them fascinating. It is hard to identify with the thorough perfection of someone like Djokovic, who possesses innate gifts that we can only dream of but who is also a complete machine who every day strives to perfect his abilities to the utmost, pushing himself to the limits of what is possible. With guys like Safin or Kyrgios, they still possess gifts that are far beyond us mere mortals, but these gifts are combined with a self-destructive, immature, imperfect side that makes them more relatable, complex and captivating. It's hard to identify with hitting a perfect backhand down the line while down a break point, but much easier (for some) to identify with staying up late to have a bit too much fun the night before a grand slam final. And when these self-destructive fools can still paint the occasional masterpiece, it makes that ability seem closer to the grasp of the rest of us who are not obsessive, perfect machines like the likes of Djokovic or Nadal.

I think if Djokovic and Nadal put their mind and soul to freestyling & trick shots, they would outdo Kyrgios in that too.

But obviously Djokovic will never risk losing a rally via a no look between the legs drop shot, so we can never judge his ''talent-level".

 

[Forehanderer]

But that’s exactly what I am saying. Talent alone is not enough. Hard work and natural athleticism are also important. You need to have the right balance of all three to be on the top in any sport.

I would put that into the talent category. You need to have some physical capabilities such as athleticism, height, etc. Training, pracitising, diet are the only things you can change and this is where hard work comes in. Other factors have to be inbuilt.

 

[Forehanderer]

I think if Djokovic and Nadal put their mind and soul to freestyling & trick shots, they would outdo Kyrgios in that too.

But obviously Djokovic will never risk losing a rally via a no look between the legs drop shot, so we can never judge his ''talent-level".

But standing inside the baseline and approaching an incoming missile and reacting quickly and on the rise is certainly talent and Kyrgios has it. The urge to play fancy shots is why he fails and I doubt he can overcome it. Its a mental thing

 

[Sysyphus]

I think if Djokovic and Nadal put their mind and soul to freestyling & trick shots, they would outdo Kyrgios in that too.

But obviously Djokovic will never risk losing a rally via a no look between the leg drop shot, so we can never judge his ''talent-level".

For sure.

A lot of Kyrgios's perceived 'talent' does stem from the fact that he's willing to constantly spam silly circus shots, which the rest of the tour don't bother with but could pull off if they really wanted to.

At the same time, I do believe the big three when they speak with a certain amount of respect of the underutilized talent that Kyrgios does possess. He's not as talented as many make him out to be, but he's capable of more than whatever nonsense he's been up to these last few years as well.

 

[Arak]

For sure.

A lot of Kyrgios's perceived 'talent' does stem from the fact that he's willing to constantly spam silly circus shots, which the rest of the tour don't bother with but could pull off if they really wanted to.

At the same time, I do believe the big three when they speak with a certain amount of respect of the underutilized talent that Kyrgios does possess. He's not as talented as many make him out to be, but he's capable of more than whatever nonsense he's been up to these last few years as well.

He did beat Djokovic and Nadal. I believe they both respect him for doing that.

 

[Checkmate]

For sure.

A lot of Kyrgios's perceived 'talent' does stem from the fact that he's willing to constantly spam silly circus shots, which the rest of the tour don't bother with but could pull off if they really wanted to.

At the same time, I do believe the big three when they speak with a certain amount of respect of the underutilized talent that Kyrgios does possess. He's not as talented as many make him out to be, but he's capable of more than whatever nonsense he's been up to these last few years as well.

Concur. He has a great shot-tolerance when the opponents up the ante on their groundstrokes. Combine that with his whippy serve and he can spring an upset against anyone on any given day. But to think he is a slam-material or some reincarnation of Jesus, is silly, given his below-average movement and a dull backhand.

 

[-NN-]

That is the dictionary definiton of talent, and thus the only valid one: natural aptitude and ease of learning. Otherwise, you are inventing a new meaning for the word. Federer is defintely not more talented than Nadal. Nadal won his first Slam aged 19 and a week, almost 18. Nadal was a teenage tennis prodigy, which is the higher indicator of talent among GOAT candidates. By the time Nadal was 20, he had reached Slam finals on two surfaces (grass and clay). At age 20, Federer had 0 Slam finals. Federer won 0 Slams as a teenager and reached his first Slam final aged 21. Nadal is the younger player ever to achieve the Career Grand Slam (age 24), while Federer had to with till his 27th birthday to achieve the Career Grand Slam.

This definition does not mean that it follows that the one who reaches tennis maturity first is more talented. It's easy to shoot holes in this when comparing the learning paths of people in various pursuits, just look at the history of chess prodigies - nobody calls Karjakin more talented than Carlsen or even particularly close. And I suspect most wouldn't consider Negi as talented as classic late bloomer Korchnoi, and not close to the talent of his far far greater compatriot, Anand.

Nadal's talents were successfully oriented toward winning tennis matches before Djokovic's were. The direction of talent toward a goal may be achieved more quickly by some than others for a variety of reasons that reach much further than suggesting they must have more natural aptitude for achieving the goal. Reasons such as the particular aspects of talent which are blossoming and how they might immediately lend themselves to the task, such as Nadal's physical, raw athletic talents coming to the fore before Federer's sheer variety of shotmaking talents in the construction of a winning game. But none of this means that by definition Nadal was or is more talented than either of his two biggest rivals. Not saying he is or isn't — I think all three are similarly talented. I'm sure many here will suppose that Federer and Djokovic have more talent for 2 of the 3 main surfaces than Nadal does.

Different people take on different and sometimes staggered, non linear rates of performance improvement. We can see that in just a single player even. An easy example is comparing the time it took for Nadal to click on clay vs hardcourts at the highest level. Yet even if we suppose he hit a Slam winning level on HC at a similar time to Federer, he's clearly far less accomplished on the surface, and as far as I'm concerned obviously less talented, even though Nadal's peak performances on HC are a match for Federer and Djokovic.

Eventually, a player is around long enough and has had enough time to prove their talent level, more or less. Sometimes the greatest talents are not the most youthful prodigies who hit their prime the quickest. Natural aptitude does not necessarily equate to the one who achieves in the quickest time as such, and this isn't part of the customary definition. However, when someone does come along who is especially precocious in tennis, it tends to be a slam dunk indicator that he'll have at least an excellent career (so at least Becker, Wilander territory). And many of the greats in sport are early bloomers, though not always the earliest bloomers.

 

[Deleted member 771911]

I think talent is when you have a natural proclivity for something. For example, with tennis, someone talented will already have great athleticism, hand eye coordination, feel for the ball. They pick up a racket and very quickly get the hang of it, maybe even do things you can't teach.
Then comes the hard work. Without that, talent means diddlysquat.

 

[-NN-]

Sometimes, we collectively overthink this stuff and sometimes we underthink it.

To win (besides, at times, having some good fortune) the following are all important ingredients (not in order of priority): athleticism, talent, skill, work ethic, court intelligence. Obviously, these categories are not mutually exclusive and obviously (to me) you don't get to the level of a Federer, Nadal or Djokovic without scoring very high in every area.

If you see one as being so much more athletic or talented or skilled, or having so much more court intelligence or work ethic than the others, I don't see it.

Let's not overthink this, either. Roger is oozing with talent, but he still scores high in every other area. Rafa is an amazing athlete with great mental toughness, and is also phenomenally talented. Novak is incredibly skilled with a great on-court mentality (yes, he has a temper, but that's beside the point) - and he's incredibly talented.

But, we tend to categorize players in all sports as the athletic one or the skilled one, or the hard worker, etc. And sometimes, we miss the big picture.

I won't unlock the riddle of Kyrgios, but in which categories does he rank high? Yes, he's talented, and fairly athletic. He has power and touch and anticipation. But how skilled is he at developing good strokes? How is his work ethic and his mentality on court?

I think of it as making caricatures of players.

It leads to some funny perception. People often buy into it too — so some Fed fans, for example, were genuinely confused when he couldn't solve Nadal back in 2006-2007 or so on clay, and even more so when they saw Nadal triumph over Federer at Wimbledon and the AO. Federer's clearly more talented, no? He must be doing something wrong. How can this dirtbasher be beating TMF on grass and hardcourts? Then they even laid the blame at Federer because they believed he was VASTLY more TALENTED and the tennis genius. They didn't stop to consider that Nadal is perhaps and equal, maybe even perhaps superior, that it's not about Fed's talent, that he was working as hard as he could and fighting with everything he had to stave off Nadal, but couldn't. In a strange sense, Fed fans dehumanised Fed and grossly underestimated his rivals. In hindsight, that all appears delusional.

 

[-NN-]

I think talent is when you have a natural proclivity for something. For example, with tennis, someone talented will already have great athleticism, hand eye coordination, feel for the ball. They pick up a racket and very quickly get the hang of it, maybe even do things you can't teach.
Then comes the hard work. Without that, talent means diddlysquat.

You know what the biggest problem with the whole stigma of talent is? The amount of people who then claim they can't do something because they don't have the talent for it. A lot of people really, really believe in talent to the extent where they lose all perspective of what it is that got people to where they are - hours and hours and hours of application.

A lot of people seem to really believe that you can either do something or you can't, very often in cases where they never give themselves the time or effort to find out. Naturally, different people have different talents, but one can become very very competent and often a legit expert of many trades if they just put the work in, whether that's drawing or programming or playing tennis or whatever. People often don't try stuff because they've made the assumption before even trying it that they won't be able to do it. — Because people often equate even quite ordinary competence to talent over practice.

 

[Arak]

You know what the biggest problem with the whole stigma of talent is? The amount of people who then claim they can't do something because they don't have the talent for it. A lot of people really, really believe in talent to the extent where they lose all perspective of what it is that got people to where they are - hours and hours and hours of application.

A lot of people seem to really believe that you can either do something or you can't, very often in cases where they never give themselves the time or effort to find out. Naturally, different people have different talents, but one can become very very competent and often a legit expert of many trades if they just put the work in, whether that's drawing or programming or playing tennis or whatever. People often don't try stuff because they've made the assumption before even trying it that they won't be able to do it.

True. When I used to teach martial arts, the students who appeared to be most talented, who showed fast and effortless learning abilities, were the first ones to quit or stagnate at advanced stages. It’s the clumsy ones who didn’t have natural predisposition who stayed and worked very hard to improve. It took them longer but they all became better than the talented ones.

 

[NAS]

@Sysyphus , @-NN- , @Checkmate really liked all the arguments of these three, please keep on contributing

 

[-NN-]

True. When I used to teach martial arts, the students who appeared to be most talented, who showed fast and effortless learning abilities, were the first ones to quit or stagnate at advanced stages. It’s the clumsy ones who didn’t have natural predisposition who stayed and worked very hard to improve. It took them longer but they all became better than the talented ones.

This is very interesting to consider. Hikaru Nakamura tells a similar story about him and his brother growing up and learning chess. Initially his bro appeared more naturally talented, and Hikaru suggests that his bro almost found it too easy and thus didn't have the mental fortitude to deal with things when he came up against a wall in improvement. He stagnated and got stuck at a certain level, didn't have the mental attitude to perservere and just fizzled out. Meanwhile Hikaru went on to become a Twitch Overlord (and one of the best chess players in the world). He was used to encountering these stumbling blocks and persevering to break through them.

Obviously it doesn't always go this way, but it is interesting — the sort of mental maps which are formulated depending on the path of growth.

 

[MasterZeb]

Different kinds. You can be talented in terms of your athleticism. And you can be talented in terms of your hand skills and feel for the ball. The latter is the one that’s far more widely perceived as talent. But you’d be hard pressed to find someone not say that monfils has been gifted in the physical regard.

 

[Checkmate]

A lot of people have trouble labelling the term 'talented' to a person having multiple strengths rather than one outstanding skill.

Taufik Hidayat is considered as the most talented Badminton Player of all time because he has the GOAT Backhand but I consider Lin Dan to be the most talented player of all time because he has great movement, great defense, great wrist strength, great smash, great deception.

 

[Dominic & Andrey]

Kyrgios has to be one the most overrated players ever, he's a pusher and a servebot who decides three times in a match to hit good forehands down the line, add maybe to that two tweeners and four dropshots and that's about it. Not better than Gael Monfils

His best points compilations are entertaining to watch for sure, like almost all the players. I have nothing against him but I don't understand how some think he has the potential to even win a single slam, if that's the case then Dolgopolov could have been the GOAT

 

[zagor]

I answered your post already.

Even then, winning a slam here and there (as you put it) still puts you in a select group talent-wise. A number of players I've seen (let alone looking at the whole history of the game) were slackers and party animals too but still managed a couple of impressive runs and actually proved their potential (so to speak).

A player Kyrgios is most often compared on TTW by far is Safin, a dude who won a slam as a 20 year old beating Pete ***** Sampras in USO final (and in straights!). What the hell has Kyrgios ever done that even remotely compares? Beat Nadal at Wimbledon during a stretch every grass journeyman and their brother was doing the same and getting Novak a few times during the worst period of his career? Please.

 

[Checkmate]

Kyrgios has to be one the most overrated players ever, he's a pusher and a servebot who decides three times in a match to hit good forehands down the line, add maybe to that two tweeners and four dropshots and that's about it. Not better than Gael Monfils

His best points compilations are entertaining to watch for sure, like almost all the players. I have nothing against him but I don't understand how some think he has the potential to even win a single slam, if that's the case then Dolgopolov could have been the GOAT

he does have GOAT Slice

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

Consult Gilles Simon:

Drawing a comparison between compatriot Richard Gasquet and Rafael Nadal, Simon said, 'When Richard Gasquet sends a backhand ten miles from the corner of the stands, they say it's talent. They're right. But when Rafael Nadal does the same with a forehand, they say it's strength and that it's physical. There's complete agreement about Federer's talent, but when it comes to Djokovic, there's doubt. They say he has no great shot. Except that when you serve at him at 275 kph and he takes it every time, in the middle of the racquet. That's incredible talent. If you ask Jan de Witt, who has the most talent, Roger or Novak, he'll hesitate to reply.'

Elaborating further, he said,'Television distorts perceptions. People don't see what's so special about Kei Nishikori. He has the best two-handed backhand I've ever seen. He finds incredible angles but that doesn't make an impression. I often use the example ofMichael Llodra. He had an amazing volley and touch but he couldn't hit a correct forehand. Was he gifted? Safin had a patent on talent his entire career, but when it came to hands, he was like me. Now, Ernests Gulbis is the same. He's talented, full stop. If he loses, it's because he doesn't feel like playing.'

He also mentioned, 'In France, in the beginning, I had the impression that it was better to be less good. With talent that Gulbis who's ranked 50th is more esteemed than a Ferrer who's third. Now, I couldn't care less whether people see if I have talent or not. I usually answer that my talent is my timing. Talent is weighing 70 kg and hitting 50 winners against Rafa in Rome (last year). I hope it doesn't get taken the wrong way, but when I see that they think that I have less talent than Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, it's impressive. Jo hammers every shot. It's very forceful. Between us four, Gael Monfils is the one who has the most talent.'

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/talent.563824/#post-10324044

boring simon is just bitter people prefer to watch other players than having to endure his atrociously unaesthetic game

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/569899043209375744

 

[Dominic & Andrey]

boring simon is just bitter people prefer to watch other players than having to endure his atrociously unaesthetic game

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/569899043209375744

T'as un pseudo français et tu craches sur notre Gillou national ? Pas sympa

 

[BeatlesFan]

What makes a player talented?

Someone who picks up a racket and immediately is able to hit the ball with less effort and work than someone with little talent. You’re born with talent, you either have it or you don’t.

If you can’t see that McEnroe and Fed have more talent than Lendl or Felix there’s something wrong. Talent is effortless, hard workers are clearly easily spotted.

 

[Third Serve]

There is of course an unfortunate tendency to use 'talent' in a way that is synonymous with 'flair' and 'panache' or to describe a mercurial player whose performance frequently swings from the dazzling to the appalling.

But at the same time I think there is a very understandable reason why people are drawn to and fascinated by these perceived-to-be talented players. I think people do correctly identify that there is a slight gap between potential and actual achievement with some of these players, and this gap is what makes them fascinating. It is hard to identify with the thorough perfection of someone like Djokovic, who possesses innate gifts that we can only dream of but who is also a complete machine who every day strives to perfect his abilities to the utmost, pushing himself to the limits of what is possible. With guys like Safin or Kyrgios, they still possess gifts that are far beyond us mere mortals, but these gifts are combined with a self-destructive, immature, imperfect side that makes them more relatable, complex and captivating. It's hard to identify with hitting a perfect backhand down the line while down a break point, but much easier (for some) to identify with staying up late to have a bit too much fun the night before a grand slam final. And when these self-destructive fools can still paint the occasional masterpiece, it makes that ability seem closer to the grasp of the rest of us who are not obsessive, perfect machines like the likes of Djokovic or Nadal.

Reading this with the Lew avatar right next to it was pretty perplexing.

 

[Forehanderer]

Even then, winning a slam here and there (as you put it) still puts you in a select group talent-wise. A number of players I've seen (let alone looking at the whole history of the game) were slackers and party animals too but still managed a couple of impressive runs and actually proved their potential (so to speak).

A player Kyrgios is most often compared on TTW by far is Safin, a dude who won a slam as a 20 year old beating Pete ***** Sampras in USO final (and in straights!). What the hell has Kyrgios ever done that even remotely compares? Beat Nadal at Wimbledon during a stretch every grass journeyman and their brother was doing the same and getting Novak a few times during the worst period of his career? Please.

Lol I haven't seen such comparisons between Kyrgios and Safin. I'm only saying he has the unearthed talent recognized by the big 3 themselves but won't live up to it because his mind is screwed up. Lets say he has the opportunity for a winner but shoots himself by playing a shot between his legs which the opponent takes advantage of. He lacks the common sense to do the simple things right. He did the aforementioned thing in the third set v Thiem and lost momentum. It was an easy win if he played normally without playing trickshots.
Someone like Hewitt could have made him a great player although Nick is not the type to listen when someone is talking. Millman with his work ethic has done more for tennis than Kyrgios. Hewitt and Millman would have slayed if he had the talent that Kyrgios has. Paul Annacone who coached Sampras and Federer once claimed that Kyrgios is the most talented player since Roger. I'm more inclined to take his opinion over some TTW armchair tennis experts and by that I don't mean you but certain trolls who type not more than a few words to get a reaction.

 

[Street]

Someone who picks up a racket and immediately is able to hit the ball with less effort and work than someone with little talent. You’re born with talent, you either have it or you don’t.

If you can’t see that McEnroe and Fed have more talent than Lendl or Felix there’s something wrong. Talent is effortless, hard workers are clearly easily spotted.

Well, yeah, that's the thing, how do you know that Mcenroe and Fed were able to hit the ball with less effort when they picked up the racquet than some other top players like Nadal or even Lendl, that you mentioned? By watching them play in their 20s and 30s?
Then you say, talent is effortless which is pretty vague imo. In the end, i think your point of view is that it does come to aesthetics (judging by the effortless comment) which is a valid opinion, of course. I think that all of the top players put great effort into their shots at the top level so it is really hard to say how much effort somebody actually puts into a shot.

 

[PETEhammer]

Once upon a time in Washington DC...

What...what the hell is on that plate?

 

[canta_Brian]

That is the dictionary definiton of talent, and thus the only valid one: natural aptitude and ease of learning. Otherwise, you are inventing a new meaning for the word. Federer is defintely not more talented than Nadal. Nadal won his first Slam aged 19 and a week, almost 18. Nadal was a teenage tennis prodigy, which is the higher indicator of talent among GOAT candidates. By the time Nadal was 20, he had reached Slam finals on two surfaces (grass and clay). At age 20, Federer had 0 Slam finals. Federer won 0 Slams as a teenager and reached his first Slam final aged 21. Nadal is the younger player ever to achieve the Career Grand Slam (age 24), while Federer had to with till his 27th birthday to achieve the Career Grand Slam.

On the basis of your Nadal at 19 example you don’t seem to understand what you said in your first two sentences.

If Nadal had not picked up a racquet until the age of 20 would he have less talent? That’s what your chippy anti Fed comment means.

 

[zagor]

Lol I haven't seen such comparisons between Kyrgios and Safin. I'm only saying he has the unearthed talent recognized by the big 3 themselves but won't live up to it because his mind is screwed up. Lets say he has the opportunity for a winner but shoots himself by playing a shot between his legs which the opponent takes advantage of. He lacks the common sense to do the simple things right. He did the aforementioned thing in the third set v Thiem and lost momentum. It was an easy win if he played normally without playing trickshots.
Someone like Hewitt could have made him a great player although Nick is not the type to listen when someone is talking. Millman with his work ethic has done more for tennis than Kyrgios. Hewitt and Millman would have slayed if he had the talent that Kyrgios has. Paul Annacone who coached Sampras and Federer once claimed that Kyrgios is the most talented player since Roger. I'm more inclined to take his opinion over some TTW armchair tennis experts and by that I don't mean you but certain trolls who type not more than a few words to get a reaction.

I don't know man, there's definitely some untapped potential in Kyrgios but "most talented since Fed" just sounds like crazy hyperbole to me, even if Annacone said it. Coaches/former pros make outlandish statements at times, doesn't mean they're infallible just because they played the game at such a high level. Just recently, a number of posters here made a fair more accurate prediction of the 2020 FO final outcome than Ivanisevic. He's very talented in certain dimensions of the game obviously but as the whole package, I just don't see his potential being that absurdly high.

We'll very likely never know obviously, dude just won't take the game seriously.

 

[BeatlesFan]

I don't know man, there's definitely some untapped potential in Kyrgios but "most talented since Fed" just sounds like crazy hyperbole to me, even if Annacone said it.

It's not just Annacone. McEnroe, Becker and Edberg have also said it. The very fact Nick trains little yet can bring enormous results when he feels motivated proves his talent. Do you think players like Felix, RBA or Diego just wake up, roll out of bed and beat Nadal? They work their asses off because they have to since none have anywhere close to Nick's talent. It's a never-ending saga here. If people can't see Krygios' talent then they don't understand what talent is.

https://www.eurosport.com/tennis/au...-i-ve-seen-in-a-decade_sto7080167/story.shtml

 

[zagor]

It's not just Annacone. McEnroe, Becker and Edberg have also said it. The very fact Nick trains little yet can bring enormous results when he feels motivated proves his talent. Do you think players like Felix, RBA or Diego just wake up, roll out of bed and beat Nadal? They work their asses off because they have to since none have anywhere close to Nick's talent. It's a never-ending saga here. If people can't see Krygios' talent then they don't understand what talent is.

https://www.eurosport.com/tennis/au...-i-ve-seen-in-a-decade_sto7080167/story.shtml

Same John McEnroe who said Donald Young has as good as hands as he himself does? The guy turned out journeyman. I can see/understand Nick's talent, I just don't think ultimately he's as talented as someone like Safin, let alone ATGs or GOAT candidates like Novak and Nadal. I find the notion ridiculous, don't give a damn who says it.

 

[CYGS]

It's not just Annacone. McEnroe, Becker and Edberg have also said it. The very fact Nick trains little yet can bring enormous results when he feels motivated proves his talent. Do you think players like Felix, RBA or Diego just wake up, roll out of bed and beat Nadal? They work their asses off because they have to since none have anywhere close to Nick's talent. It's a never-ending saga here. If people can't see Krygios' talent then they don't understand what talent is.

https://www.eurosport.com/tennis/au...-i-ve-seen-in-a-decade_sto7080167/story.shtml

Wilander also said Federer got no balls. I guess we’ll have to take his word for it.

 

[mike danny]

This definition does not mean that it follows that the one who reaches tennis maturity first is more talented. It's easy to shoot holes in this when comparing the learning paths of people in various pursuits, just look at the history of chess prodigies - nobody calls Karjakin more talented than Carlsen or even particularly close. And I suspect most wouldn't consider Negi as talented as classic late bloomer Korchnoi, and not close to the talent of his far far greater compatriot, Anand.

Nadal's talents were successfully oriented toward winning tennis matches before Djokovic's were. The direction of talent toward a goal may be achieved more quickly by some than others for a variety of reasons that reach much further than suggesting they must have more natural aptitude for achieving the goal. Reasons such as the particular aspects of talent which are blossoming and how they might immediately lend themselves to the task, such as Nadal's physical, raw athletic talents coming to the fore before Federer's sheer variety of shotmaking talents in the construction of a winning game. But none of this means that by definition Nadal was or is more talented than either of his two biggest rivals. Not saying he is or isn't — I think all three are similarly talented. I'm sure many here will suppose that Federer and Djokovic have more talent for 2 of the 3 main surfaces than Nadal does.

Different people take on different and sometimes staggered, non linear rates of performance improvement. We can see that in just a single player even. An easy example is comparing the time it took for Nadal to click on clay vs hardcourts at the highest level. Yet even if we suppose he hit a Slam winning level on HC at a similar time to Federer, he's clearly far less accomplished on the surface, and as far as I'm concerned obviously less talented, even though Nadal's peak performances on HC are a match for Federer and Djokovic.

Eventually, a player is around long enough and has had enough time to prove their talent level, more or less. Sometimes the greatest talents are not the most youthful prodigies who hit their prime the quickest. Natural aptitude does not necessarily equate to the one who achieves in the quickest time as such, and this isn't part of the customary definition. However, when someone does come along who is especially precocious in tennis, it tends to be a slam dunk indicator that he'll have at least an excellent career (so at least Becker, Wilander territory). And many of the greats in sport are early bloomers, though not always the earliest bloomers.

Chang won a slam age wise 2 years before Sampras. I don't think anyone would be saying he is more talented.

And for what it's worth, Fed was considered a late bloomer by the standards of those days, but by today's standards he is exceptional as no one can win slams at 22 these days.

 

[tonylg]

Chang won a slam age wise 2 years before Sampras. I don't think anyone would be saying he is more talented.

Chang won on the surface that requires the least talent. Sampras the most.

 

[game..set..match]

when i see a player rip a 1hbh winner cross court, that screams talent to me.

i think it depends on how impressive a player's shots are.

 

[Gary Duane]

You know what the biggest problem with the whole stigma of talent is? The amount of people who then claim they can't do something because they don't have the talent for it. A lot of people really, really believe in talent to the extent where they lose all perspective of what it is that got people to where they are - hours and hours and hours of application.

A lot of people seem to really believe that you can either do something or you can't, very often in cases where they never give themselves the time or effort to find out. Naturally, different people have different talents, but one can become very very competent and often a legit expert of many trades if they just put the work in, whether that's drawing or programming or playing tennis or whatever. People often don't try stuff because they've made the assumption before even trying it that they won't be able to do it. — Because people often equate even quite ordinary competence to talent over practice.

Yikes. I wasn't even going to weigh in here.

When I was 19, at a party, someone mentioned that love can't be defined. I then piped up: "I can!" Whenever I think I'm fairly smart, I remember those words. I'm not sure it is the dumbest thing I've ever said, but it's right up there!

I suppose no one doubts that love exists, but we just can't define it. It's a slippery word. Perhaps at times we agree that a word really means something, out of some kind of faith.

I do talk about talent when teaching, but mostly I use it for people I think have the potential to play really well - music. The problem, I think, is when weighing people like Mozart and Beethoven. They had wildly different paths. Who was most talented? I don't know.

Perhaps when most of us talk of talent we are thinking of how easily person A and B gets to level X or Y. Some people seem to take off like a shot, as if they were born with prior knowledge or skills, and getting to a high level just looks so easy. But what happens when someone we think is very talented quickly gets to a fairly high level but can't rise above that? What about someone else who seems to struggle more, but then somehow that person just keeps climbing and climbing?

I suppose that if 100 people attain the same level, and one of them does it in 1/3 the time, or with 1/3 the effort, that must mean something. But things in real life just aren't that simple, or clear.

For tennis it seems like the best in the world work hard, train hard, try hard, and they do it for many years. I can't see that any of the Big 3, for instance, is more talented than the others - however we define the word. For other lesser players, those who will never make it to the top, perhaps it would just be better to pick players with the same results re winning and then find out whether any of them attained that same level with far less effort - if that is even possible.

 

[The Green Mile]

Paire hovering around the top 20-30 everytime I look at the damn rankings, now that's talent. Many, many years.

 

[Third Serve]

Paire hovering around the top 20-30 everytime I look at the damn rankings, now that's talent. Many, many years.

Kohlschreiber did something similar for awhile, too.

 

[Jason Swerve]

Obviously the most talented player is the one who is proficient at the most strokes. The ability to take the ball early or make reflex volleys also shows good hands .. which points to talent more than retrieving from miles behind the baseline.

In today's era of poly and slow high bouncing courts, players are winning with massive deficiencies in some strokes. They are disciplined, well drilled and show good endurance, more so than talent.

Now is this good or bad is the question. The playing field has been equalized, but that takes away from those players who could've succeeded on particular surfaces in the past where we (mostly) had less one-note games than what we're seeing today. Those one-off, serve and volleying showman we're seeing on the GS highlight reels might've actually been slam contenders in the '80s and '90s.

 

[The Green Mile]

Kohlschreiber did something similar for awhile, too.

Yeah, but I rate Kohli a bit higher than the infamous tanker. Kohli was a headcase though, sure....

 

[Third Serve]

Yeah, but I rate Kohli a bit higher than the infamous tanker. Kohli was a headcase though, sure....

Of course!

 

[ewiewp]

What makes a player talented? Why is Kyrgios always hailed as being extremely talented? Is it just because he hits hard? What makes him more talented than say Medvedev who isn't really called talented too often?

Federer is another player who is always referred to as talented while Nadal's and Djokovic's success is usually attributed to their hard work. What is the reason for that? Is it just because Federer's game is prettier?

Based on what I have observed last a few decades, it all comes down to athleticism and/or reflexes.

 

[Keizer]

I've seen posts on here trashing the eye-test, but I find that it is useful to identify elements of a player's game that 1) the average pro might find impossible to emulate even with training and/or 2) contribute sufficiently to success, especially when the player is peaking. I think that falls under the umbrella of what I would call "talent" in tennis.

In my opinion, Kyrgios is very talented. I personally think he has the best "height-adjusted" serve in the game (Fed would be the only other contender). His close results and competitive matches against Big 3, even with his low percentage style of play, is evidence enough that he has the raw tools to produce results even though he barely practices. I have been at one of his practice sessions at the USO that literally lasted five minutes. Alexander Bublik is someone who clearly wants to play like Kyrgios, but would never be able to touch Big 3 using a similar style.

Another talented player when peaking was Nalbandian. Some people love him, and others think he is hopelessly overrated, but the reason I think he is talented is not only that he could beat Big 3/top players at his peak, but also how he beat them. It seemed as if even the best players in the world were simply unable to impose themselves in points against him -- it seemed as if every point he played was going according to his plan. He would move players around, redirect pace from close to the baseline, and could play basically every shot at least reasonably well. This was how he was able to achieve those insane scores in finals against Nadal, even though his physical conditioning was always suspect.

Then there are other players that are talented for different reasons. Beyond his oft-cited return game, Djokovic seems to be able to hit a deep groundstroke no matter the depth/pace/spin on the incoming ball. This is something I haven't seen any player do before at a similar level. Heck, I think people are selling Simon short in this thread -- his backhand looks unorthodox, but he always seems to be able to middle it, it is definitely one of my favorite backhands of this century. I don't see another player being able to replicate his backhand mechanics to that level of efficiency.

 

[Checkmate]

. I personally think he has the best "height-adjusted" serve in the game (Fed would be the only other contender).

Andy Roddick, hands down! Don't forget Kyrigos has 6 cm on Roddick.

 

[Keizer]

Andy Roddick, hands down! Don't forget Kyrigos has 6 cm on Roddick.

Well, Roddick is long gone. If we're looking at retired players it's tough to look beyond Pete.

 

[GoldenMasters]

There is a narrative with Kyrgios that he is extremely talented and would win many Slams if he tried and trained as hard as the big 3, but that he is too cool to care to train. This is the narrative Kyrgios wants people to think.

 

[MadariKatu]

Some very interesting posts here. I'd say it's difficult to assess someones talent unless you're teaching them something. On the other hand, if anyone believes that without talent one can get to be among the best 100 in the world in a highly popular sport, they're being delusional.
You need hard work and you need talent. I taught sports to kids several years, and even though the quality of the teacher is of relevance, some of them are just absolutely untrainable, others have no coordination at all.

As to why is Federer regarded as highly talented? For one, the apparent effortlessness. The beauty of his game as some call it (myself included) is just a reflection of nearly perfect technique in most if not all of his strokes. There are some shots of improvisation that are insane, and what comes to mind is "you can't train that", hence talent is the remaining explanation for some of those.

Why is Kyrgios called talented? He doesn't train much, and still is in the top50, and can present a tough battle to top players. You can take his serve for example: Nadal is a great person, but he'd murder to have a serve like that. It's a serve that is not relying solely on height as those of Isner, Karlovic etc. Is a stroke that Kyrgios hits with apparent ease, one can say without effort, or that to him that is a natural shot (as the banana shot is natural to Nadal), or that he has a talent for that shot at least. He's probably not that talented in other areas, otherwise his footwork wouldn't be that bad, or with hard work he could take that talent for a physical sport and try to apply it to basketball, which seems to be his passion.

Having a wider variety of shots might mean that one needed less time to master each of them, and thus having more talent, but it doesn't have to be. I'd say that Tsitsipas is more talented than Thiem, but the austrian worked harder to reach his level. I could be completely wrong.

Any ATG is extremely talented plus has worked very hard. There is no other way to become an ATG.