Who are the most TALENTED / UNTALENTED pros??

[Gabs011]

This topic is one that I have put a little bit of thought to recently.

What I am stating here is not something new/innovative - but I am simply interested in peoples' opinions.....I truely believe that 'talent' does not always go hand in hand with a professional players' ATP score/ranking.

I was watching a re-run of a couple of Gasquet matches a few days ago and the guy simply oozes talent - yet in terms of being a tough competitor who can take the pressure - he does not rank very highly. In actual fact he is particularly weak in the mental department at times.

What is tennis talent?

For me (pure) tennis talent is the ability to hit unthinkable shots, the ability to improvise in difficult situations and just beautiful, fluid technique in general. Sometimes I look at a top 30 pro and can obviously tell that they have trained insane amounts, they can read the game and they are good competitors - but in terms of NATURAL tennis ability they are nowhere near the best. A truely talented player in my opinion looks completely at home on a tennis court, and their technique never appears to be forced or mechanical.

Federer and Nadal for me both are unbelievably talented (in different ways of course). But I would say that both are absolute geniuses on the tennis court. They both just look like they were born to do nothing else but play tennis. Same goes for Gasquet in my opinion and Murray as well. However these last two are not that strong between the ears yet. (Take a look at Federer's all time top 10 shots on Youtube. Its simply unbelieveable - he hits a freaking badminton smash type shot from the air against Roddick. This shot does not even exist - I can't even understand how Fed imagined it to be possible. It pretty much redefines what is possible in tennis. - When could you ever imagine someone from the list below hitting that??)

Now on to some players who are highly ranked but are not nearly as nearly as 'talented' as the ones mentioned above. My list is comprised of Roddick, Robredo, Ljubicic, Canas, Chela, Blake, Berdych....and former player - Greg Rusedski. (Please don't take offense at this list - its just personal opinion.)

Don't get me wrong I like watching these guys - they can bring entertainment to the court - but I dont think any of them are as 'gifted' as some other ATP pros.

This leads me to conclude that talent is important only to a certain extent. In my opinion - today on the ATP tour - it can replaced by ridiculous hours of practice, physical conditioning and mental toughness.

What are your thoughts???

 

[Deuce]

Hicham Arazi probably had the most natural ability of any pro I've ever seen.

 

[phoony]

Talking about talented players especially Fed even i dislikes him but i do respecting him on court coz of his good attitudes and he can perform very well on all surfaces. While to Nadal and mostly all the spanish players they only expert in clay and very hard for them to develop on others surfaces. Nadal a gifted player on clay. Besides look at Hewitt and Stepanek too. They're both good in return serve, volley, groundstrokes, backhand with strong mental buildup, focus and confidence on their tactics and games.

Overrated and not as talented as above mentioned - hmmm in my list are: 1) Coria - comes and goes like a wind, what happened to him after his court case
2) Roddick - just good in serving and others than that need a lot of improvement especially comes to NET, should learn from Stepanek in terms of volley

 

[0d1n]

Hicham Arazi probably had the most natural ability of any pro I've ever seen.

Totally agree...the guy was/is amazing from that point of view. I would add Petr Korda in the same category, that guy was the cleanest ball striker EVER...unbelievable timing...the ball would just take off when he hit it.
Stich was up there as well, great all court ability, beautiful ball striking and sweet touch around the net (his volleying ability was way above somebody like Sampras and Rafter...right up there with Edberg around the net. Sampras/Rafter did compensate with great serving, athletic ability and mental toughness though ... this mental side was something Stich, Korda and Arazi couldn't buy enough of unfortunately...Arazi being a headcase even compared with the other two...)

 

[Deuce]

... this mental side was something Stich, Korda and Arazi couldn't buy enough of unfortunately...Arazi being a headcase even compared with the other two...)

A few years ago, as Arazi came off the practice court with his coach, I went up to him and said point blank:
"You have more natural talent than all of these other guys. But you've got to get it together up here, man (as I pointed to my head). That's the problem. If you get it together up here (head), you'll be beating all these guys."
He looked at me, rolled his eyes, half smiled, and shrugged, as if to say "I know."

 

[lonestar]

Now on to some players who are highly ranked but are not nearly as nearly as 'talented' as the ones mentioned above. My list is comprised of Roddick, Robredo, Ljubicic, Canas, Chela, Blake, Berdych....and former player - Greg Rusedski. (Please don't take offense at this list - its just personal opinion.)

Berdych is pretty talented but lacks consistency IMO.

 

[David L]

As mentioned, players like Arazi, Rios, Stich and Federer have really impressed me with their natural ball striking ability and incredible, instinctive hands. All the players out there have talent, but none that I can think of at the moment match this level. The jury is still out on Gulbis and Young. I think there is more parity below this level and who succeeds is often determined by who works the hardest and who is better mentally/tactically. It's very hard to separate who is the most talented unless it is glaringly obvious.

 

[robinho17]

A few years ago, as Arazi came off the practice court with his coach, I went up to him and said point blank:
"You have more natural talent than all of these other guys. But you've got to get it together up here, man (as I pointed to my head). That's the problem. If you get it together up here (head), you'll be beating all these guys."
He looked at me, rolled his eyes, half smiled, and shrugged, as if to say "I know."

I can agree with all you said...i enjoyed so much watching Arazi at the Aus Open..Rebound Ace really seemed to suit his style. shot maker,Clean ball strikes,winners from anywhere,beautiful angles same way as Rios but with a one handed backhand.The later he would of course have his all famous juggling tricks. Arazi,Rios,Safin all have the talent just lack the mental strength and consistency throughout a whole tournament to play there best tennis which is a shame. When there head was turned on..they were such joy to watch..in same way Federer is on a regular basis.Korda when his was on fire toyed with Sampras.

 

[kimizz]

I think Nieminen(rank #25,best #13) has a lot of talent. But he seems to choke too often. If he would have the mental strength like Nadal he would be in the top 6!

 

[robinho17]

I think Nieminen(rank #25,best #13) has a lot of talent. But he seems to choke too often. If he would have the mental strength like Nadal he would be in the top 6!

Well there is a saying also that if Safin with all his talent was to have the mental strength of a Lleyton Hewitt, he would be a very tough proposition for Federer to beat.

 

[ericsson]

i was always surprised with Rios, for me he's the magician. Hit so easy without spilling too much energy, add quick hands and lots of touch and you have Marcelo, damn i miss that guy...

 

[SiLvErX]

Djokovic... Talent everywhere.. but his game starting to go to that practice level recently .. I guess he figured it out.. that talent is just not enough to win big names...

If you look to some of his older matches you will find some extraordinary points...

 

[pabloJD]

Miloslav Mecir was awesome! such a pleasure to watch him play

 

[theballboy]

From the sentiment of this thread, a lot of people don't consider serving a "talent".

Serving is just like pitching, or a quarterback making a forward pass: they're all skills that you use to win a game.

Roddick has the muscle memory, hand eye coordination, reflxes, timing, etc. to serve at 150mph. That's talent to me.

 

[127mph]

Talented tennis players:
Roger Federer, Marat Safin, Marcelo Rios, Richard Gasquet, Tomas Berdych, Fernando Verdasco, Hicham Arazi, Andre Agassi, Ilie Nastase.

pretty much in that order for me

 

[MEAC_ALLAMERICAN]

Fabrice Santoro, Hicham Arazi, Marcelo Rios, Rodger Federer, Martina Hingis, Justine Henin, Leander Paes(Doubles)....

 

[Dimonator133]

Santoro and Nieminen????!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!


I think we need to spend this entire day defining the words "athlete" and "talent," and the MAYBE after that we can start discussing the two threads in question.

 

[feyya]

FABRICE!

 

[tennispro11]

Santoro and Nieminen????!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!


I think we need to spend this entire day defining the words "athlete" and "talent," and the MAYBE after that we can start discussing the two threads in question.

I get Nieminen, but questioning Santoro talented, that I don't understand? Is he talented as a tennis player? Most definitely!!!! He does some amazing things on a tennis court that most people or players for that matter only dream of doing. This thread is about talent, plain and simple.

 

[Dimonator133]

I get Nieminen, but questioning Santoro talented, that I don't understand? Is he talented as a tennis player? Most definitely!!!! He does some amazing things on a tennis court that most people or players for that matter only dream of doing. This thread is about talent, plain and simple.

Santoro is shockingly talented in his own, unique way.

But I think he makes up for a LACK of what you would typically refer to as "talent" with his kind of talent - guts, guile, etc.

 

[BackHander22]

Berdych is pretty talented but lacks consistency IMO.

The same can also be said of Gasquet. This kid needs to work on his mental game.

 

[tuk]

From the sentiment of this thread, a lot of people don't consider serving a "talent".

Serving is just like pitching, or a quarterback making a forward pass: they're all skills that you use to win a game.

Roddick has the muscle memory, hand eye coordination, reflxes, timing, etc. to serve at 150mph. That's talent to me.

my thoughts exactly....people seem to be only qualifying as talent "the natural ball striking ability and instinctive hands" (in the words of other poster)...but speed, endurance, explosiveness, mental strength, etc, are talents as well...for example I would rather have Roddick's natural talents than Arazi's natural talents...they are both talented but in different areas and going by results Rodicks talent's are proven to be more effective....
in conclusion tennis talent should be measured as the highest combination of all natural habilities...to put another example Arazi may have "better hands" than let's say Robredo but overall Robredo is the more talented player between them and their results show that....

 

[tennispro11]

Santoro is shockingly talented in his own, unique way.

But I think he makes up for a LACK of what you would typically refer to as "talent" with his kind of talent - guts, guile, etc.

Yeah I understand that part, but again, name off two or more players that can do what he does with a racquet. I can't think of any, you might be able to. I will have to disagree with you on the whole talent thing.

 

[tennispro11]

my thoughts exactly....people seem to be only qualifying as talent "the natural ball striking ability and instinctive hands" (in the words of other poster)...but speed, endurance, explosiveness, mental strength, etc, are talents as well...for example I would rather have Roddick's natural talents than Arazi's natural talents...they are both talented but in different areas and going by results Rodicks talent's are proven to be more effective....
in conclusion tennis talent should be measured as the highest combination of all natural habilities...to put another example Arazi may have "better hands" than let's say Robredo but overall Robredo is the more talented player between them and their results show that....

So results preside over talent? I don't understand this line of thinking at all. We are talking about guys that have pure talent. Is Andy Roddick talented? Yes he is. Is he as talented as say Roger or Rafa or even Andre? No, not by a long shot. It shows too. Robredo more talented than Arazi. I don't think so. As Deuce said, Arazi had some of the best natural ability in the game. He just couldn't harness it to put it to good use on the tennis court.

 

[jmsx521]

i was always surprised with Rios, for me he's the magician. Hit so easy without spilling too much energy, add quick hands and lots of touch and you have Marcelo, damn i miss that guy...

I pick Rios as well. If one couldn't believe it by watching him on TV, then one only had to see the guy LIVE, 5-7 years ago, and see how he played other top ATP players with ease. But that's only about his ball-striking ability: His mental toughness was obviously a weakness.

As for the most untalented ATP player... that's like asking, what is the shortest river or mountain in the world. Go to the end of the ATP rankings... and somewhere there is your answer.

 

[David L]

my thoughts exactly....people seem to be only qualifying as talent "the natural ball striking ability and instinctive hands" (in the words of other poster)...but speed, endurance, explosiveness, mental strength, etc, are talents as well...for example I would rather have Roddick's natural talents than Arazi's natural talents...they are both talented but in different areas and going by results Rodicks talent's are proven to be more effective....
in conclusion tennis talent should be measured as the highest combination of all natural habilities...to put another example Arazi may have "better hands" than let's say Robredo but overall Robredo is the more talented player between them and their results show that....

This is what the original poster wanted to get away from. He was interested in the most naturally talented tennis player, not the person with the best results. In life generally, talent alone is no way near enough to succeed. So many other factors are required.

Also, Roddick is a bad advert for the talent in the game. Naturally, he has some talent otherwise he would'nt be a pro, but he's not amongst the most talented out there. On the serve, I don't see any parallels with someone like a pitcher. One can find any number of hacks who can serve big but come up short in other areas of the game. Rusedski, Karlovic, Guccione etc. The serve is a small, albeit important part of the game. We are talking about overall talent. Roddick also uses a widebody racquet, like the women, which gives him that extra speed. Would be interesting to see what his serve would look like with a conventional racquet like Federer's.

 

[tuk]

So results preside over talent? I don't understand this line of thinking at all. We are talking about guys that have pure talent. Is Andy Roddick talented? Yes he is. Is he as talented as say Roger or Rafa or even Andre? No, not by a long shot. It shows too. Robredo more talented than Arazi. I don't think so. As Deuce said, Arazi had some of the best natural ability in the game. He just couldn't harness it to put it to good use on the tennis court.

How would you measure talent then?......so, if Arazi had the best natural ability in the game, why didn't he get better results?...he must have lacked of hability or natural talent in some departments (mental or physical) otherwise he would have been the greatest player ever...
Robredo on the other hand (just as an example) may not SEEM as talented as Arazi but his results show that he is in fact a better player than Arazi ...so he (Robredo) may not have the same degree of talent as Arazi in the "good hands" department but OVERALL....yes!!!... Robredo has more tennis talent than Arazi...and what other way to measure it if not by results?...tennis is about winning matches so if Robredo has had a better career than Arazi then yes he is overall more talented...
now if you were to say that Arazi has more talent in terms of shoot making hability or wathever than Robredo, that's a different story...but (sorry to say it again) OVERALL Robredo is more talented, and what other way to measure it if not by Results?...
but that's just my opinion...

 

[Sliceboy2]

I pick Hingis at her peak for tennis, Djokovic for comedy, and Michael Chang for winning the FO with an underhand serve.

 

[tennispro11]

How would you measure talent then?......so, if Arazi had the best natural ability in the game, why didn't he get better results?...he must have lacked of hability or natural talent in some departments (mental or physical) otherwise he would have been the greatest player ever...
Robredo on the other hand (just as an example) may not SEEM as talented as Arazi but his results show that he is in fact a better player than Arazi ...so he (Robredo) may not have the same degree of talent as Arazi in the "good hands" department but OVERALL....yes!!!... Robredo has more tennis talent than Arazi...and what other way to measure it if not by results?...tennis is about winning matches so if Robredo has had a better career than Arazi then yes he is overall more talented...
now if you were to say that Arazi has more talent in terms of shoot making hability or wathever than Robredo, that's a different story...but (sorry to say it again) OVERALL Robredo is more talented, and what other way to measure it if not by Results?...
but that's just my opinion...

I would measure talent by how the OP described it: (pure) tennis talent is the ability to hit unthinkable shots, the ability to improvise in difficult situations and just beautiful, fluid technique in general. I am not saying that Arazi was a better player, you are mixing up my words. I said talent, you are saying player. More talent doesn't equal better player as I have explained. Was Arazi more talented than most guys on the tour? Yes. Was he a better player? No. As the OP suggested less-talented players can make up for that by hours and hours of training and hitting. Yes that is what I am trying to say. Arazi had more talent than Robredo in terms of shot making ability. Do you understand what I am trying to say. Results do matter but not in a discussion in terms of talent, especially when the OP set some good guidelines for the discussion.

 

[Dimonator133]

Yeah I understand that part, but again, name off two or more players that can do what he does with a racquet. I can't think of any, you might be able to. I will have to disagree with you on the whole talent thing.

i'm close to certain not ONE player can do what Santoro does.

So you're saying that means he's more talented than Federer because he can do something Federer can't? Makes no sense.

 

[bluetrain4]

I agree with all of the choices, but I wouldn't even call it "talent", just beautiful shots, or shotmaking ability. Ugly strokes/work ethic/mental toughness is also talent to me.

But, I see the term "talent" get used a lot to describe exactly what you guys are talking about - fluidness, instinct, improvisation, variety, good hands, etc., so I guess that's the popular usage of the word.

 

[Shaolin]

Federer, Rios, Santoro, Gasquet

 

[Dimonator133]

anyone want to make for the debut of the blog chat room on this matter?

I'm there if anyone does and we can have it out.

 

[David L]

How would you measure talent then?......so, if Arazi had the best natural ability in the game, why didn't he get better results?...he must have lacked of hability or natural talent in some departments (mental or physical) otherwise he would have been the greatest player ever...
Robredo on the other hand (just as an example) may not SEEM as talented as Arazi but his results show that he is in fact a better player than Arazi ...so he (Robredo) may not have the same degree of talent as Arazi in the "good hands" department but OVERALL....yes!!!... Robredo has more tennis talent than Arazi...and what other way to measure it if not by results?...tennis is about winning matches so if Robredo has had a better career than Arazi then yes he is overall more talented...
now if you were to say that Arazi has more talent in terms of shoot making hability or wathever than Robredo, that's a different story...but (sorry to say it again) OVERALL Robredo is more talented, and what other way to measure it if not by Results?...
but that's just my opinion...

The comparative talent between two pros can be hard to judge unless the disparity is very big. When you do see enormous talent, it's hard to put you finger on it but I would just describe it as a player's natural flow. The aspects about their game which cannot be taught, but which have you awestruck. You look at a player like Rios or some of the others mentioned and it's just obvious to me they are more talented than a Robredo or Courier. As I said, talent is not enough to succeed.

 

[tennispro11]

i'm close to certain not ONE player can do what Santoro does.

So you're saying that means he's more talented than Federer because he can do something Federer can't? Makes no sense.

No I never said that he was more talented than Federer. When did I say that? But here is what I am trying to say. Fabrice is talented, because of the fact that he can do what nobody else can do on the tour today. Plain and simple. Now Federer on the other, has invented shots, and can pull off the most amazing shots. He is talented too. More so than Fabrice in my opinion, but that doesn't matter because I disagreed with you saying that Santoro wasn't talented, which to anyone with eyes to see, is easy to recognize.

 

[Dimonator133]

No I never said that he was more talented than Federer. When did I say that? But here is what I am trying to say. Fabrice is talented, because of the fact that he can do what nobody else can do on the tour today. Plain and simple. Now Federer on the other, has invented shots, and can pull off the most amazing shots. He is talented too. More so than Fabrice in my opinion, but that doesn't matter because I disagreed with you saying that Santoro wasn't talented, which to anyone with eyes to see, is easy to recognize.

the mere prospect of me saying Santoro isn't talented is simply laughable

 

[David L]

i'm close to certain not ONE player can do what Santoro does.

So you're saying that means he's more talented than Federer because he can do something Federer can't? Makes no sense.

I think Federer could have developed his game to emulate Santoro's had he wanted, but chose not to play the game this way. His own game is more effective.

 

[tennispro11]

Santoro and Nieminen????!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!


I think we need to spend this entire day defining the words "athlete" and "talent," and the MAYBE after that we can start discussing the two threads in question.

Dimonator, you said this. Maybe I misinterpreted what you were saying, but it seems to me you are saying that Fabrice is not talented. That is how it came across. So laugh at this if you want.

 

[tennispro11]

the mere prospect of me saying Santoro isn't talented is simply laughable

Great reply btw. Way to add to the good discussion we were having.

 

[Dimonator133]

Dimonator, you said this. Maybe I misinterpreted what you were saying, but it seems to me you are saying that Fabrice is not talented. That is how it came across. So laugh at this if you want.

In case you don' know, here's a difference between me saying Santoro isn't talented and me laughing at the ridiculous suggestion that he is the most talented player on the planet.

Great reply btw. Way to add to the good discussion we were having.

come again? It advanced the discussion by clearing up a COMPLETELY out-of-line claim by you. Whereas the nonsense that you just spewed above did nothing for our message board.

 

[tennispro11]

Well in case you didn't know, nobody in this thread said that he was the most talented player in the world. I think you need to take a step back, take a chill pill, and pull your panties out of a bunch. Now as for the discussion at hand I wrote a reply explaining something, I wrote something that didn't add anything to the board. LOL! Out of line claim by me, where? You are a great joker, Dimonator. You make me laugh. Thank you.

 

[Dimonator133]

your welcome.

but i'm sorry you can't keep up with me in a discussion of pro tennis and have to resort to making humorous comments so that the rest of the people think you are a funny person since it's pretty obvious they all know you know nothing about tennis.

good work!

 

[tuk]

I would measure talent by how the OP described it: (pure) tennis talent is the ability to hit unthinkable shots, the ability to improvise in difficult situations and just beautiful, fluid technique in general. I am not saying that Arazi was a better player, you are mixing up my words. I said talent, you are saying player. More talent doesn't equal better player as I have explained. Was Arazi more talented than most guys on the tour? Yes. Was he a better player? No. As the OP suggested less-talented players can make up for that by hours and hours of training and hitting. Yes that is what I am trying to say. Arazi had more talent than Robredo in terms of shot making ability. Do you understand what I am trying to say. Results do matter but not in a discussion in terms of talent, especially when the OP set some good guidelines for the discussion.

Ok, Ok...I understand everything you just said...so I guess what I was trying to say is that the OP should not just measure tennis talent by "the ability to hit unthinkable shots, the ability to improvise in difficult situations and just beautiful, fluid technique in general" because that's not all there is to tennis, there is also fitness, mental strength, etc...and those are also natural talents...for example no matter how hard some player, let's say Gonzales, trains he would never be as fast as let's say Ferrer because speed is Ferrer's natural talent...

 

[tennispro11]

Ok, Ok...I understand everything you just said...so I guess what I was trying to say is that the OP should not just measure tennis talent by "the ability to hit unthinkable shots, the ability to improvise in difficult situations and just beautiful, fluid technique in general" because that's not all there is to tennis, there is also fitness, mental strength, etc...and those are also natural talents...for example no matter how hard some player, let's say Gonzales, trains he would never be as fast as let's say Ferrer because speed is Ferrer's natural talent...

I agree with this. I understand your point of view as well.

 

[Verilious]

Fernando Verdasco w/o a doubt.

 

[tennispro11]

your welcome.

but i'm sorry you can't keep up with me in a discussion of pro tennis and have to resort to making humorous comments so that the rest of the people think you are a funny person since it's pretty obvious they all know you know nothing about tennis.

good work!

Oh I can keep up with you, it is just that I don't understand your line of thinking. You say I made a completely out of line claim, where? You inspire me with your absurdity. I don't know anything about tennis, coming from a guy who talks out of his *ss. I will take that as a compliment.

 

[Dimonator133]

Oh I can keep up with you, it is just that I don't understand your line of thinking. You say I made a completely out of line claim, where? You inspire me with your absurdity. I don't know anything about tennis, coming from a guy who talks out of his *ss. I will take that as a compliment.

lol!!!!

TEN CHARACTERS

 

[Dimonator133]

Oh I can keep up with you, it is just that I don't understand your line of thinking. You say I made a completely out of line claim, where? You inspire me with your absurdity. I don't know anything about tennis, coming from a guy who talks out of his *ss. I will take that as a compliment.

this is one of the many:

"Great reply btw. Way to add to the good discussion we were having."

what's ironic is that was the first comment from either one us that did not add to the tennis discussion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hahaha.

 

[tennispro11]

this is one of the many:

"Great reply btw. Way to add to the good discussion we were having."

what's ironic is that was the first comment from either one us that did not add to the tennis discussion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hahaha.

Well I have been having a good time reading your off the wall reasoning. This comment didn't add anything to the discussion "the mere prospect of me saying Santoro isn't talented is simply laughable" when you clearly stated that he wasn't talented. LOL! Keep up the good work.

Santoro and Nieminen????!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!


I think we need to spend this entire day defining the words "athlete" and "talent," and the MAYBE after that we can start discussing the two threads in question.

 

[Dimonator133]

to the rest of the board, i apologize for myself and especially for tennispro11 for getting into this argument, but as I'm sure you understand I'm not about to let tennispro11 get off talking all this tennis and non-tennis BS without paying the price

but at this point I will let TP11 contact me via PM if he desires to continue this discussion and I'll refrain from polluting the board with more non-tennis responses. Let's hope TP11 chooses to do the same.

thanks.