What does talent mean in tennis?

M

mindmaster91

New User
When people talk about the most talented tennis players, the conversation often focuses on flashy shots or aesthetically pleasing techniques, like a one-handed backhand. While these aspects are visually impressive, I believe true talent in tennis lies elsewhere. In my view, the greatest markers of talent are tennis intelligence, mental strength, defensive skills, and the ability to maintain high intensity throughout a match.


Take David Ferrer as an example. He was not a naturally gifted player in his junior years; he wasn’t considered one of the best in his age group. Yet through relentless hard work, focus, and a career relatively free of injuries, he climbed to the very top of the rankings. This raises an interesting question: is his extraordinary dedication and discipline itself a form of talent, or is it better described as potential to reach the top?


I tend to think of it like this: natural talent gives a player a head start, but the ability to devote oneself completely to the craft—maintaining focus, pushing through repetitive practice, and enduring setbacks—is an essential component of realizing one’s potential. Ferrer’s career shows that even without innate brilliance, unwavering commitment and mental resilience can elevate a player to the highest levels.


In this sense, perhaps we should expand our definition of “talent” beyond raw ability. True talent in tennis is not only about natural skill—it is also about the combination of intelligence, mental fortitude, defensive mastery, and the capacity to apply oneself consistently and intensely over years.
 
Talent is something you can't work for. Talent is hard to detect as it manifests very early and becomes less relevant than hard work over time. We could say that the big 3, alcaraz, or even florian mayer are talented because we see that they have either impressive results or exceptional game, but we cannot see how hard they worked to get there. I believe Federer said it kind of pissed him off that everybody said he looked so effortless because he put so much work and effort into every shot. In short, unless you truly know that person, you can't say they're talented given my definition.
 
Talent I feel is something you're born with and can't create. But you then need to have determination and perseverance to flourish your talent.

We've seen many naturally talented players not go onto greatness. Kyrgios and Tomic are two great examples. Both could have been slam champions with the right determination, attitude, mindset and dedication but they didn't have that. Meanwhile, I can think of many players who aren't naturally talented but worked hard on their game and achieved great things including Masters titles and top 10 and slam runner ups. Jessica Pegula comes to mind in that category vs someone like Radwanska who had natural talent.
 
mindmaster91 said:
When people talk about the most talented tennis players, the conversation often focuses on flashy shots or aesthetically pleasing techniques, like a one-handed backhand. While these aspects are visually impressive, I believe true talent in tennis lies elsewhere. In my view, the greatest markers of talent are tennis intelligence, mental strength, defensive skills, and the ability to maintain high intensity throughout a match.


Take David Ferrer as an example. He was not a naturally gifted player in his junior years; he wasn’t considered one of the best in his age group. Yet through relentless hard work, focus, and a career relatively free of injuries, he climbed to the very top of the rankings. This raises an interesting question: is his extraordinary dedication and discipline itself a form of talent, or is it better described as potential to reach the top?


I tend to think of it like this: natural talent gives a player a head start, but the ability to devote oneself completely to the craft—maintaining focus, pushing through repetitive practice, and enduring setbacks—is an essential component of realizing one’s potential. Ferrer’s career shows that even without innate brilliance, unwavering commitment and mental resilience can elevate a player to the highest levels.


In this sense, perhaps we should expand our definition of “talent” beyond raw ability. True talent in tennis is not only about natural skill—it is also about the combination of intelligence, mental fortitude, defensive mastery, and the capacity to apply oneself consistently and intensely over years.
Click to expand...

It goes without saying "talent" alone isn't enough. You can't just be talented and a lazy f*ck and expect to be successful.

Most players can be good if they work hard enough and have the proper coaching, systems, etc in place. So you will always have to work hard to keep up.

So while I don't look at dedication and discipline as talent themselves at least not in the typical way they are requirements to be successful. Again talent alone won't cut it.

Many people have made the mistake, and not just in tennis, but in life of just thinking talent alone was enough. They almost always found out differently. The work ethic is a requirement.
 
Another thing is often times what people think of as talent really is the result of hard work. Take Steph Curry and shooting the basketball. The reason he was able to shoot the ball far better than most was while most people was practicing crossover moves and blowing by people because of his small size he knew he couldn't do that. So he was practicing non stop shooting the ball. So what looked like a crazy talent was really just the result of a lot of hard work and dedication.
 
4UTRMoutet said:
Talent is something you can't work for. Talent is hard to detect as it manifests very early and becomes less relevant than hard work over time. We could say that the big 3, alcaraz, or even florian mayer are talented because we see that they have either impressive results or exceptional game, but we cannot see how hard they worked to get there. I believe Federer said it kind of pissed him off that everybody said he looked so effortless because he put so much work and effort into every shot. In short, unless you truly know that person, you can't say they're talented given my definition.
Click to expand...
Best post so far. For many, if not most the term: "talent", is in contrast to the term "hard work". If so, then since all Pros work hard, their success can't be definitively described as due to talent, since it could be due their hard work. Rather, talent only has real meaning for beginners who, perhaps haven't worked very hard, yet have success. Of course, others believe that crazy,spontaneous highlight reel shots that no one "works hard" on are a display of talent, but if you're practicing hitting tennis balls all day every day, is hitting yet another tennis ball, albeit in a novel situation unconnected to hard work? I don't think so.
 
Talent should be recognized as a term applying to multiple facets of the game, each important. For all the "no matter how hard Ferrer works, he'll never be as talented as Federer" there's an equal amount of "no matter how hard Federer grits his teeth, he'll never have the mental strength of Djokovic".

The game is bigger than raw ability, and so is talent.
 
Holmes said:
Talent should be recognized as a term applying to multiple facets of the game, each important. For all the "no matter how hard Ferrer works, he'll never be as talented as Federer" there's an equal amount of "no matter how hard Federer grits his teeth, he'll never have the mental strength of Djokovic".

The game is bigger than raw ability, and so is talent.
Click to expand...
No matter how much a troll obsessively posts about a certain player, it's not concerned "talent".
 
Those who play rather than just watch tennis will know what talent looks like on the other side of the net. There are players who just seem to have a better ball strike, to never miss hit, shots that have more zip, and better touch and anticipation than others. It’s less obvious in pro tennis as everyone has talent. Hard work alone will not cut it.
 
TennisXpert@2023 said:
You would have mentioned Federer regardless because your only function on this forum is to carry on these nonsensical fanboy wars.
Click to expand...
You are the only one warring. I made a post involving two players to demonstrate a clear point, you are taking issue not with the point but apparently the use of a particular player to make it. Please shelf your obsessions and get back to the thread. Thanks.
 
Holmes said:
You are the only one warring. I made a post involving two players to demonstrate a clear point, you are taking issue not with the point but apparently the use of a particular player to make it. Please shelf your obsessions and get back to the thread. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Nice try. Did I hurt your feelings by pointing out what your only sole purpose on this forum is?
 
In the English language, and indeed in the Biblical parable, talents are clearly distinguished from hard-work. The two servants who invested their talents (hard-work) are praised, whereas, the servant who buried his talents is rebuked.

Same in tennis and all areas of life. All tennis players good enough to turn pro would have been blessed with great talents, be they power, athleticism, timing etc, and all of them would have had to work hard to make the most of them. Many people quote players like Ferrer or Henman as not being talented and rather just worked-hard, but if you met them you would find they are way more gifted with sporting ability than the vast amount of even semi-pro players. They just matured slowly. Similarly, some people say players like Kyrgios had huge talents that they wasted, but in reality, Kyrgios et al would not be able to get where they did without a lot of hard work too.

The Top 100s, Top 10s, GOATs etc, are all hugely talented and hugely hard-working.
 
Talent is something you're born with. End of.

However, the meaning of the term gets obfuscated because there has been a vocal minority that insists "talent" entails only racquet work and offensive ability which frankly is not true.

Speed, stamina, ability to change directions, flexibility, hand-eye and the coordination skills to be moving fast and still hit the ball on a dime, being tall so that you have a big serve - these are all talent because they are largely determined by genetics. Sure, these things can be worked on, but so can racquet skills with enough repetition. Talent still makes a great difference in all the above areas when two players have done an equal amount of work.
 
mindmaster91 said:
When people talk about the most talented tennis players, the conversation often focuses on flashy shots or aesthetically pleasing techniques, like a one-handed backhand. While these aspects are visually impressive, I believe true talent in tennis lies elsewhere. In my view, the greatest markers of talent are tennis intelligence, mental strength, defensive skills, and the ability to maintain high intensity throughout a match.


Take David Ferrer as an example. He was not a naturally gifted player in his junior years; he wasn’t considered one of the best in his age group. Yet through relentless hard work, focus, and a career relatively free of injuries, he climbed to the very top of the rankings. This raises an interesting question: is his extraordinary dedication and discipline itself a form of talent, or is it better described as potential to reach the top?


I tend to think of it like this: natural talent gives a player a head start, but the ability to devote oneself completely to the craft—maintaining focus, pushing through repetitive practice, and enduring setbacks—is an essential component of realizing one’s potential. Ferrer’s career shows that even without innate brilliance, unwavering commitment and mental resilience can elevate a player to the highest levels.


In this sense, perhaps we should expand our definition of “talent” beyond raw ability. True talent in tennis is not only about natural skill—it is also about the combination of intelligence, mental fortitude, defensive mastery, and the capacity to apply oneself consistently and intensely over years.
Click to expand...
agree its the same thing with careers and success. How many times have u seen the smartest most brightest person just never move up in their career only to be outdone by someone who had more grit and hustle.
 
Grafil Injection said:
In the English language, and indeed in the Biblical parable, talents are clearly distinguished from hard-work. The two servants who invested their talents (hard-work) are praised, whereas, the servant who buried his talents is rebuked.

Same in tennis and all areas of life. All tennis players good enough to turn pro would have been blessed with great talents, be they power, athleticism, timing etc, and all of them would have had to work hard to make the most of them. Many people quote players like Ferrer or Henman as not being talented and rather just worked-hard, but if you met them you would find they are way more gifted with sporting ability than the vast amount of even semi-pro players. They just matured slowly. Similarly, some people say players like Kyrgios had huge talents that they wasted, but in reality, Kyrgios et al would not be able to get where they did without a lot of hard work too.

The Top 100s, Top 10s, GOATs etc, are all hugely talented and hugely hard-working.
Click to expand...
Except Ferrer and Henman didn't have the talent Kyrgios had. If it weren't for his tanking, he would have gone far...

I don't know if talent is:
skills stored in DNA, body functions, or predispositions to a given activity, etc.?!?!...


Give Ferrer Kyrgios' height, and Kyrgios Ferrer's height, Ferrer wins a Grand Slam or Grand Slams, but Kyrgios, I don't know if he would have made it into the ATP 100...

Do you understand what I mean?!...
 
Or Federer has great talent, but his forehand is an improved version of Borg's forehand.
If he were born in a different decade, would he play differently?!?!

How can we build this specific talent if we only have other resources or knowledge for the current period...?!
 
Aussie Darcy said:
Talent I feel is something you're born with and can't create. But you then need to have determination and perseverance to flourish your talent.

We've seen many naturally talented players not go onto greatness. Kyrgios and Tomic are two great examples. Both could have been slam champions with the right determination, attitude, mindset and dedication but they didn't have that. Meanwhile, I can think of many players who aren't naturally talented but worked hard on their game and achieved great things including Masters titles and top 10 and slam runner ups. Jessica Pegula comes to mind in that category vs someone like Radwanska who had natural talent.
Click to expand...
Highly disagree with Nick’s talent. He has a great toss and serve, but he lacks the ability to take the ball early and has zero feel for return. Same with someone like Monfils as far as ball striking is concerned AND he doesn’t have a great serve commensurate with height.

Even though there probably is no definition accepted by all, for people who have played, “talent” usually equates with racket skills and feel and doing what others cannot no matter how hard they work on their games.
 
Smecz said:
Except Ferrer and Henman didn't have the talent Kyrgios had. If it weren't for his tanking, he would have gone far...

I don't know if talent is:
skills stored in DNA, body functions, or predispositions to a given activity, etc.?!?!...


Give Ferrer Kyrgios' height, and Kyrgios Ferrer's height, Ferrer wins a Grand Slam or Grand Slams, but Kyrgios, I don't know if he would have made it into the ATP 100...

Do you understand what I mean?!...
Click to expand...
Kyrgios’ talent is overstated—great mechanics on serve that gives him a very high floor, but his ball striking and racket skills are lacking, which means he would need other greats to falter in order to beat them in best of 5 regularly.
 
ghostofMecir said:
Kyrgios’ talent is overstated—great mechanics on serve that gives him a very high floor, but his ball striking and racket skills are lacking, which means he would need other greats to falter in order to beat them in best of 5 regularly.
Click to expand...
Well,not quite,the ease with which he reached the Wimbledon final still amazes me...

Those funny games with the ball, so relaxed and playing on the grass, clearly a lack of mental strentgh.!!!(Tanking)
 
Talent is possessing natural abilities that cannot be taught or learned through practice or repetition. The Federer-Ferrer comparison is apt - they both worked equally hard on developing and maximizing their abilities while on tour in the same era, yet one's achievements absolutely dwarf those of the other. That's the difference a large gap in innate natural talent makes.
 
Musterrific said:
Talent is possessing natural abilities that cannot be taught or learned through practice or repetition. The Federer-Ferrer comparison is apt - they both worked equally hard on developing and maximizing their abilities while on tour in the same era, yet one's achievements absolutely dwarf those of the other. That's the difference a large gap in innate natural talent makes.
Click to expand...
I think a better comparison would be to Rod Laver, where Rod has 173 cm and David has 175 cm, but Federer is 10 cm taller...

Surely it's better to compare someone of similar height?!.
 
Talent is what makes some players Big3 while others journeymen, although they put in the same amount of work.

Its often misunderstood though. Noone can play a guitar just by looking at it, or kick a ball great when youve never done it before. Hard work is always probably 95%, but talent is what make some of the hard workers better than others.
 
Jonas78 said:
Talent is what makes some players Big3 while others journeymen, although they put in the same amount of work.

Its often misunderstood though. Noone can play a guitar just by looking at it, or kick a ball great when youve never done it before. Hard work is always probably 95%, but talent is what make some of the hard workers better than others.
Click to expand...
Yeah,good answer,but is talent a person with more fast-twitch muscles? Or is talent a person who is practically identically built and works hard, and one is better than the other because they have a talent for tennis?

It's common knowledge that you have to be exceptionally gifted in a given field to have talent, but people who are 160 cm tall will not still reach the top of tennis no matter how hard they try!!!

Does true talent consist of exceptionally gifted individuals, or people who, despite lacking predispositions, fall quite far, like Oliver Rochus, Rod Laver, or Diego Schwartzman?!
 
Last edited:
Smecz said:
Yeah,good answer,but is talent a person with more fast-twitch muscles? Or is talent a person who is practically identically built and works hard, and one is better than the other because they have a talent for tennis?

It's common knowledge that you have to be exceptionally gifted in a given field to have talent, but people who are 160 cm tall will still reach the top of tennis no matter how hard they try!!!

Does true talent consist of exceptionally gifted individuals, or people who, despite lacking predispositions, fall quite far, like Oliver Rochus, Rod Laver, or Diego Schwartzman?!
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree tennis is complicated. You can have talent for speed like Usain Bolt, or talent for stamina like Pogacar.

Tennis is a combination of many things imo. And interestingly a feature is positive in some ways, but negative in others. For example tall big players have the best serves, but being too tall impairs movement.

Many of the greatest players have been between 5'11" and 6'2", interestingly Sinner and Raz are now pushing that in opposite ends.
 
Last edited:
talent is innate ability, not learned or acquired.. kyrgios is a talented server. not to say he didn’t work on it but he says it comes very natural to him. to me agassi is talented becuz he won ‘92 Wimbledon with no grass court practice beforehand. Also becuz he took pete to 5 sets in the ‘93 W qtrs even he was at least 25lbs over weight, and a half serve… the big 3 are talented obviously becuz you just can’t get to that level without being hugely talented. Other especially talented players I find are McEnroe, nastase, leconte, noah, rios, korda..

Usually the most flashy players are the most talented. Most players that depend more on hard work play more steady games
 
Lleytonstation said:
I've seen it once. He had the glasses of a god. Istomin.
Click to expand...

Funny side story.

I almost always stay at the Indian Wells Resort for IW, and one year I was down having breakfast and right behind me was a tall tennis player. For the life of me I could not place his face. As we sat there, he finished, grabbed his tennis bags, and put on his glasses...and I was, like, AhhHAAAA!. I simply comments "Good luck today Denis" and he smiled and said thank you. lol.

Iconic eye wear FTW.
 
4UTRMoutet said:
Talent is something you can't work for. Talent is hard to detect as it manifests very early and becomes less relevant than hard work over time. We could say that the big 3, alcaraz, or even florian mayer are talented because we see that they have either impressive results or exceptional game, but we cannot see how hard they worked to get there. I believe Federer said it kind of pissed him off that everybody said he looked so effortless because he put so much work and effort into every shot. In short, unless you truly know that person, you can't say they're talented given my definition.
Click to expand...
listen what ljuba said about it:

 
Jonas78 said:
Yeah I agree tennis is complicated. You can have talent for speed like Usain Bolt, or talent for stamina like Pogacar.

Tennis is a combination of many things imo. And interestingly a feature is positive in some ways, but negative in others. For example tall big players have the best serves, but being too tall impairs movement.

Many of the greatest players have been between 5'11" and 6'2", interestingly Sinner and Raz are now pushing that in opposite ends.
Click to expand...
Hmm, what I mean is that without the right physical condition, you can't have natural talent; you just have to make up for it, work hard...

After all, the ideal height for a tennis player is 185 cm, which Roge and Pete had.

Not everyone can have talent because their body doesn't allow it. It's not easy to judge how much of it is due to ability (talent) and how much to the body, its flexibility and suppleness, and other attributes...

Justine Henin and Chris Evert had talent, or maybe their true talent was cunning and tennis like a fox...?!

In fact, true talent is going against the grain:
- Schwartzman beating Anderson at Roland Garros 2018

- Federer playing 90-point headers when he could easily have increased it to 95

- Justine Henin, who was short and petite but won the slams

- Borg, who started playing more top-spin forehands, etc., by modifying his grip

and many other stories!!!

And so I see true talent!!!
 
Hard work is necessary for everyone, but not sufficient. Without hard work you will not achieve anything. However, some will always achieve much better results with the same amount of hard work. It's not like anyone can potentially become a player of the same level as the big 3.

That's not just about tennis, this applies to almost everything in life.
 
Unfortunately, talent is tennis is often equated with the ability to hit unconventional shots, finesse shots etc. while it is rarely used to talk about players who hit the ball harder than others with more consistency because they have perfect footwork and technique. Junkballers and those that pull off trick shots, drop shots etc. are generally seen as more talented compared to power servers and power baseliners. So someone like Kyrgios who had the worst footwork when he was in the top 50 is considered talented while players like Nadal, Djokovic are rarely talked about using that word to describe them. If you play tennis very well especially from a young age doing much better than your age group peers, you are super-talented irrespective of what your style of play is.
 
Last edited:
ghostofMecir said:
Kyrgios’ talent is overstated—great mechanics on serve that gives him a very high floor, but his ball striking and racket skills are lacking, which means he would need other greats to falter in order to beat them in best of 5 regularly.
Click to expand...

His footwork and return game are pretty bad too (for pro standards).

I never saw this ATG potential people yap about when it comes to Kyrgios. ATGs with crappy return game don't exist.
 
Hitting tweeners for no reason makes player supremely talented I guess. It doesn't matter how well they do if they are just entertaining for most people.
 
I think Rafael Nadal is the most talented player because he can play every point even in a 5 hour match with perfect concentration. He is like a zen master of tennis. This form of talent is very underrated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
what does it mean to have talent?
Replies
39
Views
3K
127mph
1
George Turner
defining "talent"
2
Replies
73
Views
6K
roysid
roysid
TeamOB
What is Talent?
Replies
33
Views
4K
Mr.Lob
Mr.Lob
M
The Illusion of Effortless Talent: A Mental Game Analysis of Nick Kyrgios
Replies
47
Views
3K
JeMar
JeMar
MichaelNadal
Talent?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Russeljones
Russeljones
Back
Top