Talent vs Inconsistency

[clayman2000]

It seems on this board that everyone things talent refers to a player who can hit winners, but makes a lot of UE's.

Let me clear that up. That is not talent, that is inconsistency

When I grew up, talent refered to being able to pick up a raquet, or ball, for the first time and play the sport way better then the guy next to him

People assume players like Safin, and now Gulbis are more talented then the Roddick's and Hewitts of the world, but really they do not even know what talent is.

For example, I love how Roddick is considered an overachiever. Can anyone name me a player shorter than 6'9 who has a more powerful serve, with spin than Roddick. If Roddick wasnt as talented as Hewitt, than by logic, then Hewitt should be able serve like Roddick


As for Rafa Nadal, who only wins points becuase he hustles all the way, how can you not call this guy one of the top 2 talented players in the world. Here is my argument. Anyone with will, determination and fast feet can stick a raquet on a ball 1 foot above the ground like Rafa. However, only Rafa can scoop up the ball, hit it with topspin pass the opponent at net, and keep it in the court --- hitting the ball from in some cases inches above the ground (maybe a bit of an exaggeration)

My point is talent is not measured in ball striking ability. For all we know, Ernests Gulbis could be the hardest working player out there, who plays best using an all out agressive style.

My point here is that none of us can measure talent, unless we have personally seen the daily habbits of all the players in the top 50.

So for pets sake stopp calling Gulbis the most talented young gun, stop calling Roddick the "big serving" overachiever, stop calling Nadal pong, and please for the love of tennis stop saying Safin had the potential to be GOAT

 

[sheets]

A very interesting point.

 

[charliefedererer]

You obviously have writing talent, and your reasoning is very consistant.

 

[Polaris]

It seems on this board that everyone things talent refers to a player who can hit winners, but makes a lot of UE's.

No. For most people, talent is expressed in the way in which winners are hit. It is true that different people have different kinds of talent. Roddick has the talent for a great serve, Hewitt and Nadal for great movement, and so on.

My point here is that none of us can measure talent, unless we have personally seen the daily habbits of all the players in the top 50.

Sure, but why should we stop expressing respect for someone we consider to be talented?

please for the love of tennis stop saying Safin had the potential to be GOAT

Well, for the love of tennis, Safin actually did have the potential to be GOAT. He just couldn't be bothered.

 

[nfor304]

I consider Hewitt to be a way bigger overachiever than Roddick. Hewitts game is basically the best example of pushing I can think of....

 

[chrisdaniel]

...

to the poster above me......... There are many ways to win a tennis match.

 

[MT319]

It seems on this board that everyone things talent refers to a player who can hit winners, but makes a lot of UE's.

Let me clear that up. That is not talent, that is inconsistency

.....and please for the love of tennis stop saying Safin had the potential to be GOAT

“Talent” and “consistency” are two separate entities. Accordingly someone can easily be the most talented individual on tour, yet least consistent and least successful. In order to possess a “supreme level of talent” that talent only has to be validated at some point through intentionally and consistently performing that specific skill/set of skills for only a very brief period of time…as a result that same “talent”, after it’s validation, is in no way dependent on “consistency” from that point forward to validate it’s existence (since again it’s already been validated that this individuals possession of a comparatively “extremely high level of talent” does in fact exist). For instance if Soderling (assuming he intentionally was aiming for the areas in which he placed his shots) never again after the French Open 09’ plays to that same level of skill(s)/“talent” that he showcased during that tournament he will still possess let’s call it “top 10 level talent” again regardless of whether or not he manages to match that same level of skill at any point in the future or never wins another tennis match for the rest of his life…underlying point here being “talent” (once validated) exists independently from “consistency” and “success”. An individuals “talent” is their personal capacity to perform a skill at a specific level and only has to be validated at some point (even if only for a very short period of time) through the intentional consistent execution of that skill/set of skills meaning someone who is then “extremely talented” is able to perform a specific skill/set of skills intentionally at an extremely high level, with their “extremely high level of talent” no longer dependent on “success” or “consistency” for its existence at any point after its validation. So long story short it’s completely reasonable that someone like Safin (although I obviously disagree) or Gasquet playing at their peak personal capacity could have been the most “talented” player on tour (assuming that talents’ existence was validated at some point) regardless of how consistent, “inconsistent”, or successful that player is on tour from that point forward.

 

[Blinkism]

I agree with all of the OP's points except for Safin.

Sorry, the guy had GOAT potential.

Also, I think when people talk about talent they meant natural tennis talent, rather than just overall athletic talent. So hard working players who move well might be just as talented in Soccer/Football or Hockey or something like that, but ball striking is unique to Tennis and is a good way to measure tennis-specific talent.

On that note, I think Nadal has superb tennis-specific talents and his forehand is very, very, under-rated. In fact, the only thing he does that looks like he had to struggle to learn is his serve. It's a great serve, but the movement looks very robotic and unnatural. Otherwise, the guy's got a lot of talent.

 

[Ripster]

Another one of these talent threads....lol

Talent - "a person who possesses unusual innate ability in some field or activity"

The game comes more naturally to certain players and it's evident in their strokes, movement, etc. Federer comes to mind as the ultimate in tennis talent (Nadal is very talented as well). Gulbis and Safin are very talented but don't have the mental game to hang with the Fed's and Nadal's so instead they make unforced errors because they over-think or get tight in certain situations. That's it.