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

TheTruth said:
He also said Cahill was surprised that Federer worked five hours a day on his game. Ergo, Fed's "talent" seems to equate to hard work as well.
Click to expand...
Someone with less talent than Federer can work even harder than Federer but would still not be able to play like Federer. It starts with talent.
 
BreakPoint said:
Why do people blatantly assume Federer has more talent than Nadal?

Because he does, and it's not an assumption.

Just like McEnroe had more talent than Lendl even though Lendl owned McEnroe.
Click to expand...
thats why his the guru!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
THERAFA said:
Rafa has put more uniqueness into his game whereas Federer has just copied past players, so Rafa is the more talented because it takes talent to invent a new way of winning without copying:
Others
Click to expand...


yeah.. lets forget Vilas, Borg, Panata, Wilander and all the players in the past that helped to develop a retrieving baseline power game and pretend Rafael Nadal is also an inventor while making ourselves look like:
fools
 
Fed has more talent than Nadal. But Nadal is a better fighter probably one of the greatest fighters ever, and thats why hes no.1
 
Dumb talented guys don't defeat smart hard-workers, that is the basic logic behind this lopsided rivalry, but don't underestimate the fact that Rafa was a prodigy, while Federer was a relatively late bloomer, so realise that Rafa is doing what comes naturally, he is not just a:
Hard-
Worker
 
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...

You don't "add" talent, you improve on what's already there, that's why I say talent is not nearly the most important in a player. Federer has more natural talent than Nadal, and IMO so do Murray and Djokovic, and it all means absolutley squat, because Nadal owns them all in mental strength, agility, and consistency. Again, Gasquet has huge amounts of talent, not any less than Federer (which is saying a lot), but that talent got him nowhere, because he lacks a lot of things that build a great player, such as fitness, tactics, mental strength, etc. Talent alone is not enough.

Federer can improve sure, he's not perfect, far from it. All I was saying is that because of his natural talent things were a bit easier for him than for Nadal.

TheNatural said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fed never struggled on clay as much as Nada struggled on HCs at first IMO. In fact, Fed reached a clay GS final before Nadal reached a HC GS semi final (despite having two of those). Would Nadal dominate back then? I seriously don't think so.
Roddick and Hewitt are great players. People make Fed's rivales back in the day look weak, but they hardly were. Safin and Nalbandian are IMO more talented than Murray and Djokovic (and Nalby proved he's a tough matchup for Nadal and Federer, and can beat them both when he's on), and the fact Fed has a winning record on them both (in their primes!) is amazing. Of course the same applies to Roddick and Hewitt.
 
Talent is being able to beat the world #1 after being retired for 5 years and hardly picked up a racket in 5 years.

Was that talent or modern technology and modern strings?feds talents can only be compared to guys using the same technology in the same era. Perhaps Sampras would have won a few French Opens with the modern stuff which makes it much easier to play on clay and bridges the gap between the surfaces, and Perhaps Fed would have continued losing early if he didn't have access to the new strings and stuff and had to keep using the 85" racket and old strings.

Sampras did show his clay talent by winning the Davis Cup on clay single handedly v Russia(with his 85" racket) and Fed hasn't even been able to with the modern technology. Mabe if Fed wins some French Opens or davis Cups on clay then your argument will be stronger.




drakulie said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
They assume this because Federer has less trouble beating all the other players compared to Nadal.

The contradiction is of course, that no one (barely) can beat Federer, but Nadal can. Defies logic.
 
TheNatural said:
Sampras did show his clay talent by winning the Davis Cup on clay single handedly v Russia(with his 85" racket) and Fed hasn't even been able to with the modern technology.
Click to expand...
There's really nothing "modern" about Federer's racquet. It's pretty much the same as Sampras' racquet for all intents and purposes. That's why Darren Cahill said on the air during the AO that Federer is using 25-year-old racquet technology.
 
P_Agony said:
You don't "add" talent, you improve on what's already there, that's why I say talent is not nearly the most important in a player. Federer has more natural talent than Nadal, and IMO so do Murray and Djokovic, and it all means absolutley squat, because Nadal owns them all in mental strength, agility, and consistency. Again, Gasquet has huge amounts of talent, not any less than Federer (which is saying a lot), but that talent got him nowhere, because he lacks a lot of things that build a great player, such as fitness, tactics, mental strength, etc. Talent alone is not enough.

Federer can improve sure, he's not perfect, far from it. All I was saying is that because of his natural talent things were a bit easier for him than for Nadal.



Fed never struggled on clay as much as Nada struggled on HCs at first IMO. In fact, Fed reached a clay GS final before Nadal reached a HC GS semi final (despite having two of those). Would Nadal dominate back then? I seriously don't think so.
Roddick and Hewitt are great players. People make Fed's rivales back in the day look weak, but they hardly were. Safin and Nalbandian are IMO more talented than Murray and Djokovic (and Nalby proved he's a tough matchup for Nadal and Federer, and can beat them both when he's on), and the fact Fed has a winning record on them both (in their primes!) is amazing. Of course the same applies to Roddick and Hewitt.
Click to expand...

Fed reached FO semi 2005 at age of 24, final 2006 at age of 25 and lost both.
Nadal reached HC semi 2008 (both AO and USO) at age of 22, HC final (AO) 2009 at age of 23 and won it.
When you compare the achievements of Fed and Nadal, please keep in mind they are not the same age. Based on your logic, I can say Pete reached FO semi before Fed did. But it doesn't make any sense.
 
If this is purely a matter of tennis "talent" then no doubt Federer is more talented than Nadal. Federer doesn't rely on how hard he hits the ball. His serves are all about placement, his shots are about point creation looking to win the point. It's not a coincidence that Nadal's matches are always longer.

However if this is a matter of who is more talented at pulling a wedgy then Nadal wins everyday.
 
henryshli said:
If this is purely a matter of tennis "talent" then no doubt Federer is more talented than Nadal. Federer doesn't rely on how hard he hits the ball. His serves are all about placement, his shots are about point creation looking to win the point. It's not a coincidence that Nadal's matches are always longer.

However if this is a matter of who is more talented at pulling a wedgy then Nadal wins everyday.
Click to expand...

Then Hingis is more talented than Serena. Fed definitely would do better than Nadal in billiard, which is not as physically demanding as tennis.
 
080825 said:
Then Hingis is more talented than Serena. Fed definitely would do better than Nadal in billiard, which is not as physically demanding as tennis.
Click to expand...

Hingis was actually my fav female player.......have I just lost all my credibility!! :)

Different people look for different things in a tennis player I guess.
 
slightly off topic.....I would hate to see all the new generation of players playing like Nadal. The game would become boring IMO and it wouldn't be too different from the current WTA.
 
henryshli said:
Hingis was actually my fav female player.......have I just lost all my credibility!! :)

Different people look for different things in a tennis player I guess.
Click to expand...
I like both Hingis and Fed very much and I am trying to learn from them as much as I can.
Intelligence plays a big part in their games. They are the masters of exploiting their talents and capitalizing on opponents' weakness. When they execute their game plans well, it is like they have some kind of magics or they are god-like. However, they will have a big problem, when their opponents start reading their minds and have the shot-making and physical abilities matching or surpassing theirs. For Fed, right now it is very hard. Magic and aura were gone, he is in a brutal fight. IMHO, he was over-confident and missed his opportunity to build up stronger physically during his domination.
 
BreakPoint said:
Why do people blatantly assume Federer has more talent than Nadal?

Because he does, and it's not an assumption.

Just like McEnroe had more talent than Lendl even though Lendl owned McEnroe.
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me, but I think it has more to do with the fact that tennis fans actually listen to what goof nut commentators say.
 
Last edited:
henryshli said:
slightly off topic.....I would hate to see all the new generation of players playing like Nadal. The game would become boring IMO and it wouldn't be too different from the current WTA.
Click to expand...

Nothing we can do. Tennis evolves as technology improves and human being becomes stronger and faster. Players get less margin for errors as they start hitting the ball harder and harder. Meanwhile, the harder you hit, the less geometry you can exploit on tennis court. Spin is the only way to go. It creates more angles and actions with the court. And it allows you to not only maximize two dimensions on the tennis court but also attack the third dimension, the vertical hitting zone of the opponents. No matter it is to generate or counter spin, you need a lot of explosive power and great core strength. This is why I feel Nadal and Verdasco will enjoy more success barring injuries.
Anyway, I think men's tennis is getting more exciting. Tennis starts to give me more "WOW" moments to admire the physical abilities of human beings like other sports. And at the same time, intelligence, skill and finesse will play big parts in it like always.
 
080825 said:
Fed reached FO semi 2005 at age of 24, final 2006 at age of 25 and lost both.
Nadal reached HC semi 2008 (both AO and USO) at age of 22, HC final (AO) 2009 at age of 23 and won it.
When you compare the achievements of Fed and Nadal, please keep in mind they are not the same age. Based on your logic, I can say Pete reached FO semi before Fed did. But it doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

exactly. The same logic should note that nadal made the finals of grass at age 20 and won hard court masters at 19. Overall there is no real evidence to say that federer has had an easier time on his least favored surfaced than nadal; unfortunately for federer, he has stalled on his least favorite surface, while nadal keeps improving on his. That's bad news for federer.
 
Cesc Fabregas said:
Yup even his backhand is overrated drops it short all the time. Has an average serve, poor defender and a poor forehand can't believe some people think he gonna win a major.
Click to expand...

Yeah that is pretty much what I see when I see him play too. Even his backhand isnt nearly as scary as say Nalbandian, Safin, Djokovic, or even Murray. Those guys have more than a backhand of course, but they can beat anyone on that shot alone on a great day even if the big gun is playing well, especialy Nalbandian or Djokovic today. Gasquet cant do this with his backhand. The only way he would ever win is a major is if everyone suddenly starts to boycott the Australian Open like the 70s and he has a Chris O Neill type moment.
 
Nadal wins through sheer willpower and being in better physical shape than his opponents. These have nothing to do with raw, natural tennis talent. I mean a marathon runner also has willpower and is in great physical shape but that doesn't mean he has any tennis talent.
 
BreakPoint said:
I played for 3 hours today and I'll play for 3 hours tomorrow. How much more do you want me to play? I'm not a junior nor am I a pro.
Click to expand...

I was just picking on ya for having a TT Guru title. I'm jealous ;)
(Then again that probably happens when you've been around longer than a few months, eh?)
 
BreakPoint said:
Nadal wins through sheer willpower and being in better physical shape than his opponents. These have nothing to do with raw, natural tennis talent. I mean a marathon runner also has willpower and is in great physical shape but that doesn't mean he has any tennis talent.
Click to expand...

Excellent rationale which means that "sheer willpower and being in better physical shape" doesn't make a tennis player, and especially a tennis champion. In controversy with yourself, eh?
 
Gen said:
Excellent rationale which means that "sheer willpower and being in better physical shape" doesn't make a tennis player, and especially a tennis champion. In controversy with yourself, eh?
Click to expand...
Huh? Of course it does! Nadal is proof of that. But it doesn't make you talented.
 
Gen said:
Excellent rationale which means that "sheer willpower and being in better physical shape" doesn't make a tennis player, and especially a tennis champion. In controversy with yourself, eh?
Click to expand...

of course it does....in fact i would have to say that the most important weapon in tennis is ones mind....thats why they don't allow coaching.

Tennis is like boxing....its mano a mano!! When Muhammad Ali pulled the "rope a dope" on Foreman that was pure genius!! Ali's strategy and superior intellect is what won it for him!

Same in tennis...Borgs mental willpower was his strongest asset. Borg did not have the worlds greatest serve, backhand, or forehand.....but he may have just had the greatest tennis mind the world has ever seen.

Bjorn Borg was called the "Iceman" for a reason....he had "ice" running through his veins and he just kept on fighting no matter what!
 
rubberduckies said:
Nadal is way more talented than Federer. Here's why:

Federer left school at 12 to train at a tennis academy. He received the best coaching and devoted his entire time to honing his skills.
Nadal shunned the academies and learned to play on an island being coached by a family member with no other coaching credentials.

Because of this, Nadal never learned proper technique and now hits forehands with his off hand. He was forced to invent his own array of strokes while Federer copied his from Cliff Notes. He has succeeded with a very weak serve. If Nadal had any semblance of the kind of serve you would expect from a 6'1" top-10 player, I would have been unbeatable awhile ago. Serving is the opposite of talent. Look at Andy Roddick.

With talent alone, Federer was able to reach the top 10. His talent wasn't enough to crack the glass ceiling. He needed more help and more time to reach the top.
With talent alone, Nadal crushed the tour and crushed Federer. He straight-setted prime Fed in 2004. Only now, after reaching the top spot, is he beginning to refine his game and make the same adjustments that Fed had to make.
Click to expand...
This has more to do with the mental aspect of the game. It just took Federer more time to be able to put it together. He has more aspects of his game. Nadal was hitting with Moya when he was like 14, I'm pretty sure his conditions for training were at least as good as Federer's. Many kids go to academies but you don't see them having amazing technique. Look at Sharapova's forehand.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Because in those activities, rising to the top depends on the arbitrary opinion of other people (music listeners, art audiences, employee promotion policies). The success of a musician doesn't depend on how good his music is, but if the people wants to buy his music or not. And most people don't have enough musical knowdlege to truly appreciate quality. The most successful musician is not the better but the most liked.

...most people don't even like J.S.Bach.

In sports there is an advantadge: no room for "opinion". You win or you lose.

In tennis, you have two men doing a task. The one who does the task better, is the one who wins the match. No opinions there; just the ball going in most times or the ball going out most times. Winning more games than the rival. The audience may like or not, but can't do nothing about who plays better and wins.

If people's opinion had anything to do with a player success, maybe Kournikova would have won 30 GS titles.

But she didn't.

See the difference?
 
You cant measure tennis talent!!! Nadal may do some things better than Federer but Federer also does some things better than Nadal. Both are incredibly talented players. Let us just enjoy the tennis.
 
BreakPoint said:
Also read what Uncle Toni said:

"The greatest of all is Rod Laver, after that the best is Federer," Toni Nadal told French reporters. "Federer is better than Rafa, better than any player. Rafa is a good player, winning this trophy and five other [Slams]. But there is still a big gap."

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/aus09/columns/story?columnist=tandon_kamakshi&id=3876885
Click to expand...

All that says to me is that Uncle Toni is smarter than you.
Did Mr. Miagy tell Daniel-san "you're the best" just because he caught a fly with chopsticks on his first try?
Uncle Toni will never say his true feelings about Rafa until it's over.
 
I dont think anyone can conclude anything yet. Tennis is different from other sports in that many players improve with experience and visa versa. Nadal is amazing right now no question about it but what makes fed great is the longevity of his success. If nadal continues to dominate for the next 3-4 years than I think he can contend for a spot among the greatest.

As for the offhand thing . . . People make too big of a deal of this. He chose to use that hand for a reason. Its not like his uncle told him to use his offhand just to make his life harder. He could have changed hands anytime he wanted.
 
this boils down to opinions. you can argue numbers all you want but we all know different players peak at different times in their career. perhaps nadal is just getting started and will be the greatest ever or perhaps he has peaked and will only decline in the game in years to come. compare boris beckers career to andre aggassi. they blossomed almost 10 years apart in age. right now at this point in time nadal is tough to beat.. but you cant make the comparison til the careers are over or virtually over.

I have my tennis favorites that are chosen by attitude not skill, afterall all top 10 players are skilled. The thing is Fed Djok roddick these names are well liked, non controversial and overall "happy" people. Nadal on the other hand is cold and unspoken which doesnt go over well for the fans. Plus he REALLY doesnt interview well at all!! I know its a language barrier but he just seems dumb when interviewed to me..

personally i think murray or Djok will be the future of tennis in the next 3-5 years but i could be as wrong as the rest when making observations.
 
This shouldn't even be a big issue as long as people respects others interpretation of what the criteria they think talent is for a tennis player.

My interpretation and please dont try to convince me honestly just take it and accept like i accept yours. Fed IMO has more tennis 'talent' in terms of options and variety, style, shot making and serve.

Nadal is more 'talented' in fitness, mental strength which IMO is one of the most important aspects, baseline rallies and the ability to chase down every ball that is played in court.

Both players have different talents that makes them superior/inferior to the other its how they utilize their talents that separates them. and currently Nadal is the better of the two at utilizing it so my opinion Nadal is more talented overall due to the fact that he makes the most of the talents he has as opposed to Federer
 
I think the greatest measure of talent is being able to play dropshots on crucial points like breakpoints and deuce, and nobody on planet earth does that better than:
Rafa
 
Dilettante said:
Because in those activities, rising to the top depends on the arbitrary opinion of other people (music listeners, art audiences, employee promotion policies). The success of a musician doesn't depend on how good his music is, but if the people wants to buy his music or not. And most people don't have enough musical knowdlege to truly appreciate quality. The most successful musician is not the better but the most liked.

...most people don't even like J.S.Bach.

In sports there is an advantadge: no room for "opinion". You win or you lose.

In tennis, you have two men doing a task. The one who does the task better, is the one who wins the match. No opinions there; just the ball going in most times or the ball going out most times. Winning more games than the rival. The audience may like or not, but can't do nothing about who plays better and wins.

If people's opinion had anything to do with a player success, maybe Kournikova would have won 30 GS titles.

But she didn't.

See the difference?
Click to expand...
Yes, the one who is better does win the match. But the one who wins the match is not necessarily the most talented.

See the difference?
 
BreakPoint said:
Yes, the one who is better does win the match. But the one who wins the match is not necessarily the most talented.

See the difference?
Click to expand...

When it happens once, maybe.

But when it happens repeatedly, how can you say the player that lose more times is more talented? Specially when the player who beats him also gets better results against many other players.

I wouldn't say Nadal or Federer are more talented than the other. I say that both are more talented than the rest. But their talents are shown in different areas and are hard to compare. Their achievements are similar IF you consider that Nadal is younger (of course, overall career wise, Fed's achievemente are much bigger).

But, to be honest, some years ago I thought Federer was much more talented than Nadal. I was blind. Now I think Nadal is equally talented although there are certain things that Federer will always do better (and viceversa). I still like Fed's style better, but I don't dare to say any more that Federer is more talented.
 
One need only look at the current status in tennis with advancements in strings, racquets, and fitness to see why people (correctly) assume Fed is more talented.

Yes Rafa is clearly one of the sports best physical specimens, his game gives him a huge safety net when it comes to his shots not to mention the size and weight of his racquet. Fed uses one of the smallest heads to date As I recall was never labeled a specialist on any surface.
 
Nadal is going to be the greatest player of all time, I guarentee it. I have never seen a tennis player THAT good. Because when you see him play, it's just impossible not to say, holy #@$%.
 
Dilettante said:
When it happens once, maybe.

But when it happens repeatedly, how can you say the player that lose more times is more talented? Specially when the player who beats him also gets better results against many other players.

I wouldn't say Nadal or Federer are more talented than the other. I say that both are more talented than the rest. But their talents are shown in different areas and are hard to compare. Their achievements are similar IF you consider that Nadal is younger (of course, overall career wise, Fed's achievemente are much bigger).

But, to be honest, some years ago I thought Federer was much more talented than Nadal. I was blind. Now I think Nadal is equally talented although there are certain things that Federer will always do better (and viceversa). I still like Fed's style better, but I don't dare to say any more that Federer is more talented.
Click to expand...


good post, it's difficult to say who is more talented. Federer's smoother, but as we see with gasquet's smooth/pretty backhand, it sometimes confuses more than it helps in evaluating abilities.
 
Last edited:
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
86K
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
24K
Deleted member 307496
D
Back
Top