What does talent mean in tennis?

[mindmaster91]

Ivo Karlovic is extremely talented too because he is the tallest player of the tour... Is he the most talented player of the history actually?

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Talent is simply something you are born with which you cannot train. People here always focus to much on shot making ability and beautiful technique, while people with great serves are dismissed as untalented mugs. This is stupid of course, since if a player is born with the talent of a great serve it is way more helpful than some stupid good-looking drop shots.
Anyways, the only way that we could measure talent, is if we could track on the minute how much every player trains. If all players trained the exact same amount of hours since they are born, the one who will become the most successful is the most talented (career-ending injuries of others aside). Whether that guy does it with flashy drop shots, serve-botting, or just endless grinding-down of all opponents with an ugly-looking style doesn’t matter.

Beside flashy drop shots, another thing which is overrated in talent discussions is when players break through early. People seem to believe then, that their development will be linear so if they are already good at teenager age, they will become unstoppable when matured. Talents however develop differently, some players have certain weapons already developed at young age, that work well on the juniors or at lower ATP tournaments, but it is obvious that they will be figured out by top players, and that they lack talent in other departments so that their ceiling is already manifested.
Apart from the big three, I consider guys like Krajicek and Stich very talented. The famous TTW obsessions of Nalby, Mac and Rios I find pretty overrated. Safin in the other hand was talented, but putting him in the same category as big three stretches it.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Ivo Karlovic is extremely talented too because he is the tallest player of the tour... Is he the most talented player of the history actually?

His serve is a talent and a very useful and important one. He was born with that ability it is not that he has the GOAT serve because he practices it more than any other player.

 

[Jav]

Talent is simply something you are born with which you cannot train. People here always focus to much on shot making ability and beautiful technique, while people with great serves are dismissed as untalented mugs. This is stupid of course, since if a player is born with the talent of a great serve it is way more helpful than some stupid good-looking drop shots.

(...)
Beside flashy drop shots, another thing which is overrated in talent discussions is when players break through early.

Brother in Christ, sounds like you're calling someone out there

 

[tennis24x7]

His serve is a talent and a very useful and important one. He was born with that ability it is not that he has the GOAT serve because he practices it more than any other player.

Not necessarily born with a serve. Name one 6'6" or above guy who has a bad serve? If his serve was really that great he would have won atleast one slam or come to finals of a GS.

 

[Musterrific]

Not necessarily born with a serve. Name one 6'6" or above guy who has a bad serve? If his serve was really that great he would have won atleast one slam or come to finals of a GS.

Todd Martin? He had a decent serve, but not on the level of some of his contemporaries, like Krajicek, Stich, or Ivanisevic.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

In the English language, and indeed in the Biblical parable, talents are clearly distinguished from hard-work.

To that end, talent is some innate ability not to be found as a common trait among fellow people. Its an artistic/intellectual mix within the individual which cannot be replicated, and when applied to its peak, is not generally understood by anyone facing it, the latter statement particularly applicable to sports. There's no male tennis player on tour today who fits the definition.

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.

But the comparison / contrast is not with semi-pro players, but their fellow professionals, and its within that natural category where one can easily distinguish true talent from the "hard worker" type of player. Henman and especially Ferrer were not gifted with rare artistic/intellectually mixed abilities. They fell into the "pedestrian category of being in possession of average professional skills.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Not necessarily born with a serve. Name one 6'6" or above guy who has a bad serve? If his serve was really that great he would have won atleast one slam or come to finals of a GS.

He was born with the potential to have one of the best if not the best serve of all times. A guy like Schwartzman or even Fed/Nadal/Djoko could train the serve 24/7 and they would not get such a great serve as Karlovic. That he did not win much is due to the fact that he sucked in many other departments but in serving he had GOAT-level talent.

 

[Slingshot]

Talent is about relative ease of skill development

 

[Shaolin]

Talent is about relative ease of skill development

/thread.

These “what is talent” threads seem to pop up a lot, started by people who don’t know how to use a dictionary.

 

[RSJfan]

 

[Michael Essien]

The way commentators and pundits talk about "talent" in tennis and who they tend to say it about it seems like they just tend to mean players hitting pretty volleys and dropshots.

 

[Devilito]

Talent used to mean something when you could drink beer and smoke on the court and still be a winner. That's the definition of talent. Where physicality isn't all that matters. 50s, 60s, and 70s and part of the 80s might include the "talent era". Ivan and Martina were one of the first to take physical fitness seriously while also having massive talent. Andre didn't realize his full potential until late 1994/1995 when he took fitness seriously.

Talent means almost nothing in modern tennis when modern tennis is pretty much 90% physical and 10% skill. There is little skill in swinging a Pure Aero 98 with full poly as hard you can and keeping the ball in the court. Try doing this with an 80sqinch wood racquet and syngut. The ball will fly and spin is limited. I know top level club players that hit shots only seen in Fed highlights. They're still loser players because tennis doesn't value single shots and talent. It's not like boxing where an amazing shot/punch can produce a KO. Tennis requires consistency and grinding and great points/shots mean nothing. There are no KOs in tennis.

This also leads to a boring game where everyone plays the same and shot making is just ball bashing. Tennis made a big mistake not doing what baseball did and sticking to wood and limiting tech. I would love to see modern players have to play with wooden racquets limited to 80sq" head size. This would actually make me interested in tennis again.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Talent is about relative ease of skill development

Talent is not commonplace skill anyone can possess and develop. There are individuals who are born with the artistic/intellectual mix for any ability or task they choose to pursue, while others are mere workmen, who are limited to the view and training of the individual, but they have no innate ability to go beyond their simple workman thought, which is common to most in tennis.

Talent means almost nothing in modern tennis when modern tennis is pretty much 90% physical and 10% skill. There is little skill in swinging a Pure Aero 98 with full poly as hard you can and keeping the ball in the court.

True; most players just stand behind the baseline, trading near-endless shots and waiting for the opponent to fail. True tennis strategy is largely dead, replaced by a field of workman types without even a particle of true talent.

They're still loser players because tennis doesn't value single shots and talent. It's not like boxing where an amazing shot/punch can produce a KO. Tennis requires consistency and grinding and great points/shots mean nothing. There are no KOs in tennis.

This also leads to a boring game where everyone plays the same and shot making is just ball bashing.

Ah, the one-dimensional net-ignorant, baseline game so aggressively sold to three generations of players to create a neverending, strategy-challenged bore-fest

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Brother in Christ, sounds like you're calling someone out there

Only certain TTW users who are misled here and therefore criminally overrate certain players.

 

[ionut.jianu]

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.

 

[ionut.jianu]

Ivo Karlovic is extremely talented too because he is the tallest player of the tour... Is he the most talented player of the history actually?

The best no 5 in history David!

 

[Jav]

Only certain TTW users who are misled here and therefore criminally overrate certain players.

Who are these users and players? It's for a friend

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Who are these users and players? It's for a friend

Nalbandian, Safin, Rios.

 

[Jav]

Nalbandian, Safin, Rios.

I see. Can't see Safin dropshoting much though. In fact he's more in line with your average serve bot and your point about that being underrated.

Safin in the other hand was talented, but putting him in the same category as big three stretches it.

Never seen such thing. Been here only a couple months though.

I disagree with some of your general points:

Talent is simply something you are born with which you cannot train. People here always focus to much on shot making ability and beautiful technique, while people with great serves are dismissed as untalented mugs.

That's because they're mostly serve bots and rely too much in that sole aspect of their game. They're usually no Sampras or Fed, and when they're then they're definitely rated accordingly.

But the Isner, Karlovic, Perricard, Opelka etc are pretty one-dimensional let's be honest. Hence their limited success.

It's like Fonseca with his FH. When he's so limited in other aspects (especially a liability such as his movement) you can't rate him so high either.

There's also talent aspects related to natural, physiological parts of yourself (that is, your body) more so than others. It's clear if you're extra tall you have much serve potential (or NBA's if you want), and it's much tougher if you're just average or even short.

Shot technique though, finesse, the pure ball hitting is not only worked on, but developed since the very early stages. And it's arguably spread among all types of bodies. That's more mental and comes with coordination and early handling / exposure to the game. If it's acquired or purely genetic too Idk, but I think that's as "talent-related" as it gets. I'll develope that below.

This is stupid of course, since if a player is born with the talent of a great serve it is way more helpful than some stupid good-looking drop shots.

As isolated in a vacuum moves, yes. The problem is, serve translates maybe to volleying capacity and that's it. A good drop shot though is usually a sign of good slices, drop volleys, lobs, even short angles etc

Anyways, the only way that we could measure talent, is if we could track on the minute how much every player trains. If all players trained the exact same amount of hours since they are born, the one who will become the most successful is the most talented (career-ending injuries of others aside). Whether that guy does it with flashy drop shots, serve-botting, or just endless grinding-down of all opponents with an ugly-looking style doesn’t matter.

Agree. And since we're in the most "homogenized era" (that is, not only surfaces but equal opportunities from all around the world, at least more so than ever: democratized training regimes, knowledge of the game everywhere on the internet, pretty much the same competitive fitness and focus on any full time professional player, etc), those more successful tend just to be the most talented and it's mostly the only difference you could make at these stages.

I'm a 1700 FIDE player and I know all that separates me from a 1600 or 1800 rated ones are experience and hours put in chess (either studying or playing), maybe age if you're 1600 and, Idk, 15. Rarely talent, at least that we know of at our level. If I try to approach ~2000 though? I'll find natural limits, as with everyone. The more diminishing returns of work, the closer you get to raw talent differences.

Top ATP is as close to that as it gets.

Beside flashy drop shots, another thing which is overrated in talent discussions is when players break through early.

And here we disagree again. It's not a warranty, but pretty much a good symptom. Hence why we usually distinguish performances or rate players primes by their age.

The best metric for future performances you got are past performances. The best ATG predictor you got are early bloomers. If a teen is able to battle through hardened full grown adults you can only expect an even better adult out of him.

There's also great late bloomers, see Novak. They're usually the exception as long as ATGs go.

People seem to believe then, that their development will be linear so if they are already good at teenager age, they will become unstoppable when matured. Talents however develop differently, some players have certain weapons already developed at young age, that work well on the juniors or at lower ATP tournaments, but it is obvious that they will be figured out by top players, and that they lack talent in other departments so that their ceiling is already manifested.

That could be the case too.

Depending on these weapons you can figure out if he'll be easily figured out (redundancy there) by ATP players.

If it's only a pure physical aspect of the game, he probably will be, since you can only grow so far and maybe you did so early.

But when you see guys like Yamal in football, you instantly know he's special. It's more technique related and yes, it translates well and he even can work further on that when at the very top.

 

[Smecz]

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.

Ken Rosewall,Bilie Jean King,Amanda Coetzer,Bryan Grant,Oliver Rochus etc...

Normal people gave up on playing at a professional world level, but they were so steadfast and stubborn that they overcame their weaknesses...

If these are not pure talents, then I don't know how to define talent...

True talents cannot be measured by any yardstick.!!!

 

[Aabye5]

Ivo Karlovic is extremely talented too because he is the tallest player of the tour... Is he the most talented player of the history actually?

Who was/is more talented Ivo Karlovic, John Isner, or GMP?

 

[Poisoned Slice]

It means Nick Kyrgios' pinky is filled with pure, unadulterated talent. The type of talent usually reserved for people like the good lord above.

 

[Wurm]

There's also great late bloomers, see Novak. They're usually the exception as long as ATGs go.

I would argue that the first significant milestone that is indicative of a potential ATG player is reaching a slam final before turning 21. Whether the player wins it or not probably depends on if they're facing a 10+ slam living legend (e.g. Bjorn Borg) or someone who may never make a slam final again.

Novak had 10 ATP titles to his name, including 4 Masters and the Australian Open all before he turned 21. I can speculate a number of reasons why it maybe seems like Novak was a late bloomer but I feel like he had a pretty typical career trajectory for an ATG up until the age of 30, after which he's added way more to his CV than is normal.

 

[tennnisfanatic]

I would argue that the first significant milestone that is indicative of a potential ATG player is reaching a slam final before turning 21. Whether the player wins it or not probably depends on if they're facing a 10+ slam living legend (e.g. Bjorn Borg) or someone who may never make a slam final again.

Novak had 10 ATP titles to his name, including 4 Masters and the Australian Open all before he turned 21. I can speculate a number of reasons why it maybe seems like Novak was a late bloomer but I feel like he had a pretty typical career trajectory for an ATG up until the age of 30, after which he's added way more to his CV than is normal.

Yeah I agree. Just because he wasn't an early bloomer like Nadal & Alcaraz doesnt't mean he was a late bloomer. I don't think Federer was a late bloomer as well. 21 y/o is still pretty young in tennis terms. A late bloomer is someone who starts breaking out at like 25 y/o or something.