What is Talent?

TeamOB

TeamOB

Professional
When talking about tennis, the word "talent" gets thrown around a lot. However, people seem to disagree greatly as to what talent really is. We know it exists, but it is diabolically difficult to define and quantify. How do you define talent? According to your definition, who is the most talented player ever?
 
I think talent has to do with how much better someone gets with a certain amount of training. Someone with more talent than someone else will get better than him with the same amount of training.
It partially has to do with that athletic build that some people have, you always had those kids in gym class who were good at all sports and you had those kids who couldn't do anything.

I guess all top pros are very talented, or else you don't make it that far. Since they're all training pretty much all the time, maybe you could make a case that the better player is also the most talented? Although some player might be affected by their mental strenght as well and that might prevent them from reaching their full potential.

Wrongfully, people often say that the one with the more offensive game and better shot-making is more talented. And much too often your hear that someone is more talented because he has a 1-handed backhand, which of course doesn't make any sense at all.
 
In my opinion, talent is your natural skill and ability. More talent allows a player to "get better faster" with less time than someone with less talent. Players with more talent are able to improve much more and widen the gap between themselves and the player with less talent, because players with more natural skill are focused more upon and therefore have more practice and become better.

However, talents take time to develop. Practice and talent go with each other a lot. Even if someone is very talented, the wrong work ethic will prevent them from capitalizing on that talent (see Bernard Tomic). Sometimes though it isn't the prodigy's fault that they aren't improving. There are a lot of other factors, like parental support, location, religion, etc. IMO, one of the most talented players of today is Tomic. But, he is a prime example of how work ethic plays a large role in growth and development of talent. :twisted:
 
Talent is an ability to EASE through even the most challenging situations. Those with less talent are actually forcing the issue, and tend to develop injuries as a result.
 
In my opinion, you're born with talent. Like how some people are "born to play" in a literal sense.

Like we all see amazing people in classes sportwise, and other people who wouldn't be able to catch a ball to save their lives. So in my opinion, some people are born with an innate ability to play sport and others aren't. That's talent. Talent can be in different sports or in one for example one friend I know can play soccer amazingly, put him elsewhere and he's clueless

I myself and good at most sports, probably Soccer, Cricket and Basketball being my best. I have never played tennis tbh. Meanwhile another guy I know is incredible at everything. Levels of talent vary.
 
Last edited:
What is talent anyway? It can't be proven scientifically.

Fed is said to have the most talent and yet he needed more time to develop as a player. So, can this mean that talent can also be learned?

How do we know if someone has more talent? I mean some people start slow, it seems they have less talent, but then they catch and surpass their peers who start early.

Jordan didn't make high school team, I hear somewhere. Einstein failed classes.

How much is the placebo effect in talent? If you believe you don't have a talent, you will develop less slowly.

What is talent? Usually people mean when you make it look easy and when you learn faster than your peers. But there could be many reasons for that. Belief system. Diet.

Also it takes a lot of work to make things look easy. And studies have been done that most people at the top are those, who are seen as less talented. But they have world class belief system and mental tougness and crazy work ethics. Also great people skills, you need this too to make it.

Is talent a myth? Can it even be proven?

I was known to have bad memory. So, did bad in school. Cuz I believed I can't remember.

Then I read a book about world memory champion. And used his techniques and I could remember 50-100 digit number in less than a minute after applying those. I could remember sequence of cards in the deck.

I remember sometimes I had to repeat one main city of a country 100 times and still couldn't remember. Then I could remember in minutes 100 words in the exact same order.
All you need is the right attitude and practice.

I applied those techniques to average people and it worked for everyone.

When I was a child teachers told me I don't have talent for piano. I didn't agree and it motivated me. Then I learned to play on my own tough peaces and I compose.

So, this talent thing, I don't think it exists by my experience. It's ATTITUDE!!!
 
Last edited:
Sometimes they say Gasquet has too much talent in that he is very good at a number of shots and volleys and therefore has more options than say, Davydenko, whose very talented at a few shots he honed on a ball machine. Too many options is tricky.

In some ways it's better to have fewer shots and a little less talent. Again, all the pros have a natural proclivity for some aspect of the game.
 
Last edited:
heninfan99 said:
Sometimes they say Gasquet has too much talent in that he is very good at a number of shots and volleys and therefore has more options than say, Davydenko, whose very talented at a few shots he honed on a ball machine. Too many options is tricky.

In some ways it's better to have fewer shots and a little less talent. Again, all the pros have a natural proclivity for some aspect of the game.
Click to expand...

But that is not based on any scientific evidence. That is just personal feelings of people.

In reality talent can't be proven.

I hear a lot of people to saying results are reflection of talent and that Rafa is more talented than most guys, except for Fed.
 
Talent is what you're born with. Skill is what you acquire through the degree to which you utilize your talent.
 
Talent is an innate tendency to understand and apply things quicker. Federer is called talented because of his quick thinking and improvisation, which is something you cannot teach, hence talent.
 
Mr.Lob said:
Talent is what you're born with. Skill is what you acquire through the degree to which you utilize your talent.
Click to expand...

Talent can't be proven. How can you measure talent anyway?

People say Fed has great technique. But, what if Fed was lucky to have a great coach? Peter Carter taught him that technique.

What if you put Roddick in the same conditions as young Fed growing up.
How can anyone prove, Roddick wouldn't be the same player as Fed today, only with a different face?

Nobody can prove that.
 
When working with kids, the ones who can get the most shots back are the most talented. It's pretty much the same at the higher level. The great players can get the really difficult balls back.

'Talent' isn't AS big a factor these days as it was before, because the baseline grinding (with heavy topspin) style favors people willing to work very hard.
 
jg153040 said:
Jordan didn't make high school team, I hear somewhere. Einstein failed classes.
Click to expand...

Both of these are urban legends but the main point of your argument is sound.

OP: Talent is the your highest threshold of play; if two people are playing at 100%, whoever is playing better is more "talented" than the other.
 
jg153040 said:
Talent can't be proven. How can you measure talent anyway?

People say Fed has great technique. But, what if Fed was lucky to have a great coach? Peter Carter taught him that technique.

What if you put Roddick in the same conditions as young Fed growing up.
How can anyone prove, Roddick wouldn't be the same player as Fed today, only with a different face?

Nobody can prove that.
Click to expand...

Speed, balance, hand eye coordination, all can be measured.But, what does measuring talent have to do with anything? Quite obvious some people are born more athletically gifted than others.
 
When you watch Murray vs Djokovic you realise you're not watching two great talents. Santoro vs Federer you are watching two great talents. It's about flair over structure.
 
I disagree. If you feed people all kinds of balls for an hour you can see which shots they can do, which go in, at what pace and consistency and so forth. AND over time who picks things up more quickly and easily.
jg153040 said:
But that is not based on any scientific evidence. That is just personal feelings of people.

In reality talent can't be proven.

I hear a lot of people to saying results are reflection of talent and that Rafa is more talented than most guys, except for Fed.
Click to expand...
 
TeamOB said:
When talking about tennis, the word "talent" gets thrown around a lot. However, people seem to disagree greatly as to what talent really is. We know it exists, but it is diabolically difficult to define and quantify. How do you define talent? According to your definition, who is the most talented player ever?
Click to expand...

Talent - ability to win

Federer. after novak/nadal/murray's injuries, u know he's special.

all of the atp 1000 ranked players are talented. look at stan wawrinka, no one said he's so "talented" until he won the AO.
 
Last edited:
heninfan99 said:
Hard work is not talent according to the dictionary
Click to expand...

Appeal to authority, but having the ability to work hard and for an extended period of time can be a talent in itself.

The definition you gave, "a special ability that allows someone to do something well" doesn't exclude someone's intrinsic capacity to furnish hard work as a talent... in that sense, that person's talent would be to do just that, easier and better than others.

A greatest example of that in my opinion is certainly the pianist Yundi Li. He never had any natural predetermined skills for music and piano for a start in comparion to the Martha Agerich or Valentina Lisitsa but his talent resided in his capacity to work really hard, alone, to the extreme and for such an incredible extended period of time... that he became so talented in playing the keyboard that he ended up winning the great "International Chopin Piano Competition" in 2000.

I think talent for a start is something somebody is just good at doing naturally without no specific external intervention from other people -; and then, because of the fact of living in a society, that talent is polished... by the those who believe that there's a possibility to make something (great) out of it. Actually, most productions (I don't really have another word that comes in mind right now) that comes from a human being can be a talent for a specific individual.

Where talent becomes quickly overrated is when people attribute or perceive greater elements to the actual true level that it should be in a given individual -; in tennis, God knows how many players have gone through that phase where a small group of people taught they had seen something, sold the merchandise to a bigger group, only for them to realize (anyways a majority) that the person was simply just no that good.

I suspect however that the media, because of their role to continuously sell, talk about players etc. do bring people (who are generally not aware about the overall technical and else elements of the game) to see things in certain players (over a very few amount of matches) that do not exist enough on a longer period of time to state that the person in question is a tennis talent ; but that's another debate.
 
TeamOB said:
When talking about tennis, the word "talent" gets thrown around a lot. However, people seem to disagree greatly as to what talent really is. We know it exists, but it is diabolically difficult to define and quantify. How do you define talent? According to your definition, who is the most talented player ever?
Click to expand...

Once the ball is served and returned, both players start moving around to get the ball back to the other half of the court where (s)he thinks can embarrass his(er) component the most, going beyond his(er) reach, going behind, going into the body, you name it...

The quality of the returned balls (placement, pace, spin etc) is determined by a "court image updating process" in which two inputs need to be included in the player's mind for calculating how the ball will be returned (1) the constantly changing court geometry as the ball is traveling back and forth (2) his(er) opponent's playing style, i.e. how (s)he typically moves/reacts to a returned ball of specific placement, pace, and spin etc.

Such a regulating mechanism can be gained by training (and is ensured by physical fitness), given that a set of skills to execute it is provided. Yet those whose game comes out naturally with it is called talent. To me, Roger is a live example...
 
Talent is what the dictionary say it is. What people seems to have a problem with is in understanding that tennis (and pretty much any kind of complex job) requires a number of skills, and excelling in each one of them is having an individual talent for every skill.
Tennis requires lots of skills: speed, coordination, balance, precision, focus, short-term prediction, planning, adaptability, analysis, etc, etc.

So, what does it mean to be "talented in tennis"? Easy, to have the set of talents that allow you to play better than the average player. Not just one talent, but several, obviously, and not just one set, but can be a lot of different sets.

However, I don't think some "talents" are something attainable just for some people by the divine gifts of our genetics, there's hard work and science. Hard work allows us to attain talents that some people have naturally or with less effort. Science allows people to think faster and better, deeper and wider, it also allows us to run faster and longer.
 
Last edited:
I also consider 'hard work' as talent.

It's not easy to push yourself to the limit, chase another ball back, hit another one back, stay in the rally, push your opponent back or get him to the net etc.
 
It's tough to accurately define "talent", because I think it's just that, impossible to clearly define. Best I can tell, talent is something you either have (born with), or you don't. You can take two individuals, who both never touched a tennis racket in they're life and coach them. After 1 hour, one will still struggle to hit the ball while the other will be able to hit it properly, so one could say one of the 2 is more "talented" than the other. I don't think talent alone makes a tennis player because at the tour level, there's many more factors that will determine whether or not you'll become a top guy such as mental toughness, stamina etc...

reaper said:
When you watch Murray vs Djokovic you realise you're not watching two great talents.
Click to expand...

Murray, sure. Djokovic? People seem to think he's not talented because he's defensive/human backboard, but he's actually very talented. You can't really teach the hand-eye coordination nor the quick reflexes to pull out the kind of serve returns he produces. Heck even Murray is talented to a certain degree. The best example of hard work over raw talent is David Ferrer in my opinion.
 
"Talent" is really simple actually. It's an intangible grasp of something displayed by someone who hasn't had to be "taught" that ability. Because it's instinctual, it will always be better than anyone who works to develop what someone else does via talent due to the ability for the one with talent to simply just do what needs to be done without any thought, and hence no delay and far lesser of a chance to become "unsynced".

Just because someone has talent doesn't mean that they have all that they need to succeed. Federer was a late bloomer according to some yet how many slams does he have? Einstein failed physics yet how many who passed physics went on to make the contributions he did? Jordan....who cares that he didn't make the high school team. All this goes to show is just how superior talent therefore is to hard work, that one can "fail" and still end up passing by all the hard workers.
 
Last edited:
McEnroe & Nastase - talents that achieved.

Rios - wasted talent.

And they were all headcases, it's almost a requirement when you have that much talent.
 
Petrus said:
mac plays like a club player

look at those backhands....man
Click to expand...

That backhand tore Lendl up.

Doesn't look like Mac could generate much pace with that backhand... doesn't really follow thru. But he got a lot of power with a loosely strung raquet, still had the talent to place accurate volleys. Got the job done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MichaelNadal
Talent?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Russeljones
Russeljones
pc1
The Definition of Tennis Talent
Replies
46
Views
5K
sarmpas
S
S
natural talent - your definition
2
Replies
72
Views
5K
HazBeen18
HazBeen18
clayman2000
Talent vs Inconsistency
Replies
8
Views
1K
Ripster
Ripster
M
The Unconventional Talents that Redefine Tennis: Beyond the Usual:
Replies
11
Views
483
mindmaster
M
Back
Top