I think safin is a bit overhyped. no offense or anything, but i don't find anything special about his game. also, he's been out first round for like all three other slams.POGO said:Safin is such an incredible player. If he can only get his head straight, I believe he can be Federer's only Nemesis. Safin's win over Federer at the Australian Open was a classic.
Thats not true. He has not lost in the first round of any slam this year.timmyboy said:I think safin is a bit overhyped. no offense or anything, but i don't find anything special about his game. also, he's been out first round for like all three other slams.
This is interesting because Connor's had a whole different kind of natural talent. First off, I heard that he was the hardest hitter on tour early in his career, like in the early and mid 70's. But the natural talent that set him apart IMO is his ability to play the right shots at the right time. By the time of his amazing run to the semi's of the US Open, his groundstrokes were probably slightly below average in terms of pace amongst the top 100, and his serve was probably one of the very slowest on tour. But he beat people by playing the right shots and employing the right tactics at the right time, which is an incredible natural talent. It's not like Agassi where he was simply playing the percentages; Connors was progressive rock out there, changing time signature, tempo, and key all over the place.cadfael_tex said:I liked to watch Conners but he was more heart than talent - not that he didn't have talent. I'd call him a scrapper.
Kevin Patrick said:Re Agassi's talent:
He won '92 Wimbledon by practicing on hardcourts of Vegas the week before(& was in a pretty bad slump that year as well)
Made the finals of '90 & '91 French, arrived at event day before it started. Hardly played on clay in preparation as well.
Won US Open as unseeded player in '94.
Dropped to #141 in '97 at the age of 27. No one gave him any shot at coming back, he was too old, too many big servers in the game, etc. He finished '98 in the top 8 & '99 at #1.
Won '99 French. Played only one clay event in preparation. Considered withdrawing due to shoulder injury.
What other player could do all this? Mac never recovered from his break of '86. Borg retired at 26. Sampras dropped considerably in late 20s.
random1 said:John McEnroe
AndrewD said:Just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons, in a recent interview Ivan Lendl said that there were many kinds of talent. Among the types he listed were 'willingness to work hard'.
If you accept that and say that the greatest pure talent was also the most driven to succeed (which includes their desire for off-court work) then it excludes quite a number of the players we've mentioned earlier and all of the ones I suggested -Mandlikova, Mecir, Goolagong, McEnroe. It also elevates players like Federer, Laver, Hoad, Navratilova and Agassi (in his later years) who left, or are leaving, no stone unturned in their drive to succeed.
Don't have time to look up specifics, but I suppose partying till 5 AM before finals doesn't necessarily preclude a willingness to work hard.AndrewD said:Just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons, in a recent interview Ivan Lendl said that there were many kinds of talent. Among the types he listed were 'willingness to work hard'.
If you accept that and say that the greatest pure talent was also the most driven to succeed (which includes their desire for off-court work) then it excludes quite a number of the players we've mentioned earlier and all of the ones I suggested -Mandlikova, Mecir, Goolagong, McEnroe. It also elevates players like Federer, Laver, Hoad, Navratilova and Agassi (in his later years) who left, or are leaving, no stone unturned in their drive to succeed.
donnyz89 said:but... another thing. HOW MANY OF THESE player are not talents?
we all play tennis, we all get lessons, we all know the steps. some players fail some players succeed, there are players who was great as a junior but did not make it. great instructions? lack of talent? maybe, i think ANYONE who made it to the ATP and was wellknown should deserve the talented award.
even if not, he didn't make it very far. at all. i haven't heard of him since australia.monfils said:Thats not true. He has not lost in the first round of any slam this year.
prostaff1 said:SE- the man from Sweden.
I consider Lendl a great player and I don't think he had great hands. Heart/will also separates the good from the great.killer said:'Hands' will always separate the good from the great; court geometry allows those who have a muscular understanding of physics to excel where others hope to succeed through force of will.
This is sort of related: I've always thought inconsistent players were too often automatically labeled talented in sort of the same way eccentric people are often mislabeled as being exceptionally intelligent.killer said:I fully agree with you, 35ft6...heart and will and marks of a champion in any sport. You can't succeed without them. I also think that Lendl's talent for the game is underrated too. But this thread is about pure talent, not the other ingredients that make for a superior player...perhaps I'm splitting hairs here though...
killer said:Federer, Edberg, Grosjean et al owe John McEnroe much credit; without his style of play there would never be room for people who believe that this lovely game we love so much is not about power and muscles, but rather about the hands.
Cheers.
Vilas was probably the least talented player at that time. He compensated it with hard training and mentallity.Aeropro joe said:wat about borg vilas and connors and sampras?