Why do people blatantly assume Federer has more talent than Nadal?

i think you're referring to 'natural talent' as beginning talent. Then overall Talent is ending talent which equals beginning talent plus improvement. As long as the sum of both is greater for Nadal then it just means that he has more talent due to improving so much and because Fed didn't improve enough even if he began with more 'beginning talent.

Federer could improve his return game, backhand and volleys too through practice and he could possibly become more talented than Nadal, but he needs to work on it. Work and improvement leads to more talent.




P_Agony said:
If you had actually read my posts you should know better. I stated time and time again natural talent is not even close to being the most important thing about a player. A player can have little to no talent and have great results. Of course Federer had to work hard and practice his whole life. However, when he started dominating, everything suddenly looked very easy for him. He could beat anybody on any given day, and without a coach in his corner. Nadal, on the other hand, knew the game he had was not enough to get great results out of clay, so he went and worked on stuff that didn't come naturally to him, such as his serve. Look how easily Fed hits a great serve, and how long it takes Nadal to even prepare for a decent one.
Click to expand...
 
I didn't forget, consistency is a big part of talent and winning.

He used the same talents to lose to Simon,Nadal and Murray and in the last 3 Olympics too. *******s seem to enjoy whining when a player, especially Nadal is too consistent for Fed, but they don't mind when hes too consistent for guys like Berdych or Safin. :)


drakulie said:
I agree. But don't forget the same talents he not only used to beat Berdych and Safin, but also Sampras.
Click to expand...
 
Don't forget how much Fed struggled on clay in the early years.

They're good points, but would Nadal have to work too hard to dominate if Roddick and HEwitt were his biggest rivals for a few years?

You see now That the competition is tougher lead by Nadal (as opposed to the baby Nadal of years ago), Fed must work hard and improve and it's not looking so easy now.

P_Agony said:
Except that those aren't the talents people refer to. I think they refer to natural touch, creativity, etc.. Let me explain: when Fed dominated he didn't have to work very hard most of the time. His game, along with his natural talent, were enough to cover for his mental weakness and get him to the top of every surface (except clay, but even there nobody other than Nadal could beat him consistetnly). He didn't even need a coach most of the time because his game was just so complete it was scary at times. Nadal had to work very hard, he needed to improve his game, to make it more effective outside of clay. He's been at the top of the game (#2 and higher) for quite some time and was never able to shine outside of clay until last year. For that to happen, he had to work on his serve, on his strokes, on his volley, stuff that come very naturally for Federer. You truly have to admire Nadal's will to improve and fight for every win. Federer didn't have to fight most of the time - not because he had weak competitors (like many falsely clame), but because he was just too good. Federer's talent is still there, but his game has declined, and his mental weakness is still there. It's still enough to beat almost everybody, but for the likes of Nadal and Murray he needs to change his game a bit, because the current stuff is not enough.
Click to expand...
 
TheNatural said:
i think you're referring to 'natural talent' as beginning talent. Then overall Talent is ending talent which equals beginning talent plus improvement. As long as the sum of both is greater for Nadal then it just means that he has more talent due to improving so much and because Fed didn't improve enough even if he began with more 'beginning talent.

Federer could improve his return game, backhand and volleys too through practice and he could possibly become more talented than Nadal, but he needs to work on it. Work and improvement leads to more talent.
Click to expand...

???????????????

Fed = better all around and all court game.Older and probably past his prime playing years in comparison to Nadal.

Nadal= better baseliner and retriever and currently in his "prime".

"Talent" is subjectively opinionated.
 
i assume most of us here determine raw talent as "je ne sais quois"

a quality fed truly has like no one before

most tennis stars hit legendary shots once a year

Federer hits them once a match

most players on a good day will hit a shot that takes your breath away

Federer induces asphyxiation every match

most players are gentlemen off court during their interviews

Federer is a true gentleman off and on court, and whenever his quotes are taken out of context he is still respectful even to his haters

Nadal is a top spin monkey with 0 TALENT

he is the best player in the world- but his play style is so ugly, only his fans can say its nice

but a rocket powered drag car might be faster then a ferrarri, doesn't mean it has the same class as a ferrarri
 
Why do people blatantly assume Federer has more talent than Nadal???

Simple... cuz he does!!!!!!!! By how much, we can all debate that, but it seems to me the better question to ask would be.....

Why do people blantantly assume having more talent automativally equates being better???

It's what you do with that talent, how you incorporate, understand strengths and weaknesses. Also ability in making adjustments, mental stat and a myriad of other things.

Look at the greatest in any sport, very talented the were, but therre's more to it than that.
 
Maybe because Nadals camp has denied talent has anything to do with it, Nadal knows hes worked his ass off all his life, he practices more then anybody, his uncle tony has proven Nadal's hardwork has payed off moreso than talent. Whilst in federers case NO ONE on this planet can deny federer of his talent, hes been regarded by tennis legends as the best there ever is. But you also cannot deny nadal, but talent wise...Federer takes it. The end.
 
Some of the smarter people here have already mentioned this and the less
knowledgeable people should listen. Both Fed and Nadal have natural talent
and have worked VERY, VERY HARD to achieve their accomplishments. I think either one of them would be insulted if you told them that they were more talented than xyz player because they know how much work it took to get there. Yes you do need some talent but it's the work wthic that takes you
to the top. This should be obvious. That's why no one who picks up the sport
at 20 years of age could have a succesful Tennis carreer. It's too late. They
haven't put in the 10 to 15 years of work that other 20 year old players have. I have never seen one player inside the top 100 that isn't both
talented and hard working. Even players like Nalbandian and Safin who so many claim are all talent and no work ethic put in many hours during
their youth to get to were they are at. The harder you work the more talented you will appear.
 
The difference between the two seems that Nadal is making attempts to tweak his game and become that multi surface player going down in history as one of the few that could pull off the calendar or career slam. Now we can debate that due to the death of the serve-volley tennis and the slowing of the wimbeldon surface, Nadal has it easier. Which he does IMO. But it is a great feat nonetheless what Nadal is doing.

Nadal is showing us that even on your weakest surface (HC) a great player can tweak his game and overcome his rival. Fed has not been able to do that in regards to Nadal on clay. Thats a big difference. Nadal is becoming a great all surface player and does not have the stubborness that Fed has. All these years it seems like Fed thinks he is too good to improve and tweak his game in certain areas. Even too good to hire a coach that can help him make the necessary improvements in his game to somehow overcome Nadal
 
there's a big difference between talent and hard worker

federer has a lot more talent than nadal

nadal is the harder worker

of course nadal still has to have a tremendous amount of talent to get where he is today...

talent is something that you CAN NOT acquire, it comes naturally and you're born with it..

look at roddick.. he's not a natural volleyer like someone say edberg. (granted they both played in two different eras) but roddick's making the best of what he's born with.

Nadal is using his quickness and speed (natural) to overcome his lack of offensive skills (serves)

Federer's overall game is solid.. he's great at everything, you can't deny that. you wanna say his backhand is his weakness? okay it is, but look how many beautiful backhand winners he's able to generate?

bottom line is.. Federer has more talent. Nadal is the harder worker.
 
It takes more talent to play an all-court game and to take the ball on the rise than it does to stand 10 feet behind the baseline all day and bash the ball once it has slowed down and dropping.
 
Federer does have more talent and I'll take Nadal's own words that he has to work extra hard because he knows he's not as talented as Federer
 
TheNatural said:
I didn't forget, consistency is a big part of talent and winning.

He used the same talents to lose to Simon,Nadal and Murray and in the last 3 Olympics too.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes. Great post. He also used this same talent to get much further than Sampras at the French, and he reminds of this talent every year by making it to the final, where as Sampras also reminded us of his lack of talent by never making it to the final.
 
BreakPoint said:
It takes more talent to play an all-court game and to take the ball on the rise than it does to stand 10 feet behind the baseline all day and bash the ball once it has slowed down and dropping.
Click to expand...

The only thing that takes more talent is winning twice as many majors as your rival by the same age of 22.
 
P_Agony said:
Nadal is doesn't have a lot of natural talent. Out of the top 4, Nadal is the least talented player. You have to understand that natural talent has very little to do with results. Look at Gasquet, the guy has tons of talent, but he's doing nothing with it. Talent is about 10% of how good a player is, and while Nadal doesn't have a lot of natural talent, he has agility, mental toughness, movement, and consistency that many dream of, thus he is the best in the world today.
Click to expand...


He's more talented than Murray and Djokovic as a tennis player. Otherwise he wouldn't have surpassed them both at such an early age. Do realize he won his first HC title when he was like 18/19, and that Nadal was never really one dimensional to begin with.
 
Federer's tennis looks more effortless, he's also had more years at the top. If Nadal continues winning slams in the next few years, people will competely forget that they ever said Nadal was less talented than... They will be all over him the same way they've been with Fed during his prime years.
 
veroniquem said:
Federer's tennis looks more effortless, he's also had more years at the top. If Nadal continues winning slams in the next few years, people will competely forget that they ever said Nadal was less talented than... They will be all over him the same way they've been with Fed during his prime years.
Click to expand...

I agree. Anyways this entire argument over whose more talented is pointless. Both are talented and both are great champions. We should just enjoy it.
 
hewittboy said:
Well Federer won his 3rd major while still 22, so for now it is 2 times, not 3 timkes. Actually since Nadal turns 22 during the French I believe it will remain 2 times as many no matter what.
Click to expand...
But at this point in time (22 + 9 months) it's still 3 times more. I'll be happy with twice more in the end though. Who wouldn't be happy with 26 slams? :p (j/k)
 
this just in: Chang won at the "tender" age of 17... wow... that's a lot of talent...

oh...

wait...

no it isnt...
 
veroniquem said:
But at this point in time (22 + 9 months) it's still 3 times more. I'll be happy with twice more in the end though. Who wouldn't be happy with 26 slams? :p (j/k)
Click to expand...

Federer will probably win a couple more atleast and reach 15 so that would be more likely 30 slams in your hypothetical.
 
icedevil0289 said:
I agree. Anyways this entire argument over whose more talented is pointless. Both are talented and both are great champions. We should just enjoy it.
Click to expand...
I agree, and what's more, they're talented in different ways which makes it all the more enjoyable. One player cannot be EVERYTHING. For instance Sampras won the most slams but it's Agassi who did the career grand slam. Contrast and complementarity, that's what we need. I personally don't believe in 1 person who could break every single record.
 
Gorecki said:
this just in: Chang won at the "tender" age of 17... wow... that's a lot of talent...

oh...

wait...

no it isnt...
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that's the only thing he did (kind of a freak accident!), although in non slam events Chang was pretty successful.
 
P_Agony said:
Nadal is doesn't have a lot of natural talent. Out of the top 4, Nadal is the least talented player. You have to understand that natural talent has very little to do with results. Look at Gasquet, the guy has tons of talent, but he's doing nothing with it. Talent is about 10% of how good a player is, and while Nadal doesn't have a lot of natural talent, he has agility, mental toughness, movement, and consistency that many dream of, thus he is the best in the world today.
Click to expand...

Ill give you Federer and maybe Djoker has a case (Although I think Nadal is more talented) but Murray more talented than Nadal that is laughable, the same Andy Murray that can only win on fast surfaces with no forehand and always pushers his backhand, Nadal is far more talented than Murray.
 
BreakPoint said:
It takes more talent to play an all-court game and to take the ball on the rise than it does to stand 10 feet behind the baseline all day and bash the ball once it has slowed down and dropping.
Click to expand...


So why is it no one even comes remotely close to hitting like Nadal?
 
iamke55 said:
The only thing that takes more talent is winning twice as many majors as your rival by the same age of 22.
Click to expand...
You confuse talent with winning. The most talented musician doesn't necessarily have the most hit records. The most talented artist isn't necessarily the richest. The most talented employee isn't necessarily the CEO.

Lendl had relatively little talent but yet he dominated just about everyone. How? He worked harder than everyone else. Same with Nadal.
 
BreakPoint said:
You confuse talent with winning. The most talented musician doesn't necessarily have the most hit records. The most talented artist isn't necessarily the richest. The most talented employee isn't necessarily the CEO.

Lendl had relatively little talent but yet he dominated just about everyone. How? He worked harder than everyone else. Same with Nadal.
Click to expand...

Lendl had little talent:confused: the guy had one of the best forehands of all time and a great top spin 1 hander.
 
BreakPoint said:
You confuse talent with winning. The most talented musician doesn't necessarily have the most hit records. The most talented artist isn't necessarily the richest. The most talented employee isn't necessarily the CEO.

Lendl had relatively little talent but yet he dominated just about everyone. How? He worked harder than everyone else. Same with Nadal.
Click to expand...


Yup, Lendl has no talent at all. I guess you're more talented than Lendl huh?
 
Cesc Fabregas said:
Ill give you Federer and maybe Djoker has a case (Although I think Nadal is more talented) but Murray more talented than Nadal that is laughable, the same Andy Murray that can only win on fast surfaces with no forehand and always pushers his backhand, Nadal is far more talented than Murray.
Click to expand...
Totally disagree! Murray has more talent in his little finger than Nadal has in his entire body. And are you joking when you say that Murray always "pushes" his backhand? Yeah, that's why he hits screaming down-the-line backhand winners all the time against Nadal and Federer and everyone else. :-?
 
BreakPoint said:
You confuse talent with winning. The most talented musician doesn't necessarily have the most hit records. The most talented artist isn't necessarily the richest. The most talented employee isn't necessarily the CEO.

Lendl had relatively little talent but yet he dominated just about everyone. How? He worked harder than everyone else. Same with Nadal.
Click to expand...

If Nadal works so much harder than Federer, then why didn't Federer simply decide to work just as hard and win the calendar slam? How hard you work is something you control, but talent isn't. I doubt an athlete of Federer's caliber simply decided not to work as hard as Nadal for 4 years, so it must be Nadal's talent that lets him beat Federer on surface match-ups that don't favor him.
 
BreakPoint said:
Totally disagree! Murray has more talent in his little finger than Nadal has in his entire body. And are you joking when you say that Murray always "pushes" his backhand? Yeah, that's why he hits screaming down-the-line backhand winners all the time against Nadal and Federer and everyone else. :-?
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree here.

Nadal has powerful weapons: his movement and both groundstrokes. This makes him a very formidable opponent. But with Murray you can see him working the points out in his head. Nadal is more of a 'see ball, hit ball' type, which is fine, cause it works for him, very well actually. Nadal is also very mentally strong. He's focused, doesn't get angry, and almost never gets nervous.

Nadal is just a very good match up for Federer. They play a lot on Nadal's best and Federer's worst surface. Nadal's strength works right into Federer's weakness. Nadal is definitely capitalizing on a lack of confidence in Federer's game as well.
 
BreakPoint said:
Totally disagree! Murray has more talent in his little finger than Nadal has in his entire body. And are you joking when you say that Murray always "pushes" his backhand? Yeah, that's why he hits screaming down-the-line backhand winners all the time against Nadal and Federer and everyone else. :-?
Click to expand...

The only think Murray does better Nadal is serve.
 
iamke55 said:
If Nadal works so much harder than Federer, then why didn't Federer simply decide to work just as hard and win the calendar slam? How hard you work is something you control, but talent isn't. I doubt an athlete of Federer's caliber simply decided not to work as hard as Nadal for 4 years, so it must be Nadal's talent that lets him beat Federer on surface match-ups that don't favor him.
Click to expand...
When you have so much talent, you feel you can get by on just your talent alone so you don't need to work as hard. McEnroe was the same way. That's why Federer rarely feels he even needs a coach.

Nadal has admitted the reason he has to work so hard is because he doesn't have as much natural talent as Federer.
 
The only players who arguably have more talent than Nadal are Federer, Safin, and Nalbandian. That is it. He is definitely one of the most talented players in the game.
 
Cesc Fabregas said:
Yep Federer's forehand just came from talent he didn't have to work on it at all.
Click to expand...

You're thinking in absolutes, black and white, right and wrong. There's a lot of gray in this topic. Federer obviously had to work hard for his forehand, but not as hard as someone less talented, i.e. Nadal.
 
Justin Gimelstob just said on the air during the Federer-Gonzales match that - "Watching Roger Federer play is like watching Picasso paint, while watching Rafael Nadal play is like watching a power lifter lift weights." (that is, painful). :shock: :)
 
BreakPoint said:
When you have so much talent, you feel you can get by on just your talent alone so you don't need to work as hard. McEnroe was the same way. That's why Federer rarely feels he even needs a coach.

Nadal has admitted the reason he has to work so hard is because he doesn't have as much natural talent as Federer.
Click to expand...

Source please?

He's admitted Federer is one of the greatest players of tennis on several occasions but I haven't heard that bolded one.

Let me take that a step further actually.

I've head Nadal talking about Federer's success and how great his game has been. I can even recall (vaguely) Nadal mentioning Federer's talent. Lastly, I have heard on a couple of occasions Nadal admitting his hard work paying off. However, I have never heard/read any explicit mention of Nadal attributing his hard work to a lack of natural talent as compared to Fed.
 
Last edited:
Federer has more talent, you can just tell by watching them move and play. The only thing Nadal has is that damn racquet that gives him the insane topspin that a giraffe couldn't handle. and the legs of a horse which is pretty much all he needs to keep going. Another thing is that Nadal is definitely more of a physical player, he has the never die mentality that suits his physical game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Is Djokovic More Talented Than Nadal?
2 3 4
Replies
167
Views
13K
MrBen
M
T
  • Poll Poll
More Talent. Federer or Nadal?
21 22 23
Replies
1K
Views
88K
BobbyOne
B
Backspin1183
How many slams would Nadal win with Federer's talent?
Replies
47
Views
4K
Deleted member 307496
D
ARIARAIDEN
Who do you think is/was more talented than Federer?
2 3
Replies
139
Views
20K
Fabresque
Fabresque
Backspin1183
Marat Safin: Nadal more impressive than Federer
2 3 4
Replies
188
Views
25K
Deleted member 307496
D
Back
Top