What The 72nd Ranked Player Says

First topic message reminder :

We're always hearing what Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have to say (Murray has a lot to say too... ) but we don't often get to hear what an elite player ranked a little lower thinks about some of the talking points in todays tennis.

From a very interesting interview with Sergiy Stakhovsky (rank 72)

Talking about the difference in earnings between players at the very top and the rest

"And the higher-ranked players can afford themselves everything they need – a coach, a fitness trainer or a physiotherapist. However, the majority of players, who are just trying to make the top-100, don’t have that possibility.

I’m in the negative after the IW and Miami Masters. About five thousand [Note: probably $US, but it’s not definite – Anna]. And that’s while reaching the second round
in Indian Wells."

Getting the best court speed.

"Actually, the courts used to be too fast, and they decided to slow it down to make the game more colorful. But they overdid it. And nobody really liked the final in Australia, which lasted 6 hours."

What Stathovsky thinks of Djokovics style of play

"That’s an example of systematic percentage tennis – a game without errors. Djokovic, in fact, is playing like a wall.
He just does on the court whatever allows him to win. You won’t earn more by playing a beautiful game."


Federer or Nadal?

"Federer plays a less physical tennis. Someone has more God-given talent; someone has more of something else. For me, Nadal is more talented in terms of discipline and hard work. Thanks to that he became the No.1 player at the time. But Federer – that’s a tennis player from God, a talent which found “his own” sports field. One reached success through hard work; the other achieved more, while spending less efforts."

Federer and Nadal on the player council

"He’s a good person (Federer), but too neutral for my taste. He’s too Swiss. He wants to keep out of any bad stories too much. When players want to change something, he looks at it too passively, because it can harm his image.



I respect Nadal more in that context, because he openly supports the players’ interests."

On why he thought Nadal left the player council

"In fact, Nadal didn’t leave because of Federer, and the players’ council, for the most part, doesn’t decide anything. It’s a consulting body. But there are three people who represent the players in the ATP. And Rafa thought that they didn’t defend the players’ interests in the extent that they should. And about certain things, I’m prepared to agree with him."

http://letsecondserve.blogspot.ca/2012/04/translated-interview-with-sergiy.html?m=1

It's an interesting interview. I've just picked out a few things but it's worth reading the whole thing...

bogbrush wrote:It is meant in the tautological sense. Clearly many of them are complete tossers.

Well I guess then fair enough though not many people mean the same when they talk about "deserving" things.

bogbrush wrote:And Lydians point isn't a tautology, it's just wrong. Nadal deserves his Slams because he won them. It doesn't prove anything about talent.

I was not talking about "deserving" here. What I mean about Lydian is that he tends to include so many qualities under "talent" that almost tautologically he does not leave room for arguments of the form "player A is more successful but player B is more talented". Sort of like you not leaving room for arguments "person A gets paid more but person B would deserve more".

Indeed!

time please wrote:Unless I had a complete out of body experience, I am sure that you can't mean my post????? and if this is so, could I please ask why the responding problem posts can't be removed and the original piece brought back - unless of course the mods do have a problem with my article, in which case I would be very grateful if you could unconfuse me forthwith

Your article and your comments are not the issue. It was bickering between two posters which degenerated into name calling. I will read each comment carefully and consult with Gav and JHM and try to bring it back.

bogbrush wrote:It is meant in the tautological sense. Clearly many of them are complete tossers.

And Lydians point isn't a tautology, it's just wrong. Nadal deserves his Slams because he won them. It doesn't prove anything about talent.

Yes, but the real question is: does Nadal really deserve all of his slams, or wouldn't it be more appropriate if he'd won a little less of them? .

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

bogbrush wrote:It is meant in the tautological sense. Clearly many of them are complete tossers.

And Lydians point isn't a tautology, it's just wrong. Nadal deserves his Slams because he won them. It doesn't prove anything about talent.

Yes, but the real question is: does Nadal really deserve all of his slams, or wouldn't it be more appropriate if he'd won a little less of them? .

JK, Slams are not deserved. Slams are won. Slams are earned. No one deserves a slam. There is no point in asking what would be more appropriate. Any player will always try to win, now how far can they go in their attempt, it depends on the player. If a player doesn't have one skill, he will try to make it up with something else. Players have won slams annoying and playing trick on their opponent. Players finding loopholes in tennis rules to win tournaments. Players taking PED to improve their results. These all can be seen differently by different viewers. But in the end if a player has won a slam, he has won a slam. Whether it was is tennis skills or his stamina or his tricks or his gamesmanship etc, wouldn't count one iota. We viewers can talk and discuss about it, debate about it and thats all.

That's pretty much what's meant with the CEO's talking to Southern Californian.

The 72nd ranked player Sergiy Stakhovsky (now 71st) lost in the qualifying round at MC to Alessandro Gianessi (ATP #135) 2-6, 7-6(4), 0-6.

Does the #71/#72 need help to break even after his hotel/business airfare by earning more than a 1000 Euro?

...or...

Is he earning what he deserves?

So by inference the counterpoint by guys here like BB, summerblues and others must be that Nadal has won 10 slams across all surfaces, not just clay, without being super-talented? Or perhaps not super-talented in their view of what talent is...and what is that view? That the only acceptable definition of it is flat shots hit into corners from an early ball? Or conversely, Nadal's "brand" of tennis isnt talented because it can be done by anyone given his style 'is only based on lungs and muscles'? In that case, its kind of amazing that guys like Ferrer, Verdasco and other uber-fit players dont have countless slams between them...
Summerblues...yes, talent does comes in many shapes and forms...you try and define it? Trying to define talent is like trying to nail jelly to a wall given this is a sport where there is so much that goes into hitting a tennis ball at top pro level (technique aspects, physical aspects, mental aspects, strategy/tactical aspects, surface adaptation, ability to learn, etc). I've never said that Nadal is a player like Federer, Sampras or McEnroe who make/made the game look easy...Nadal has a different style of play, and clearly its a style of play that brings in his physical attributes but it needs more than "mere" physique to win 10 slams otherwise any strong/fit guy could do it. Except they cant...they cant "even" win 1 slam...could it be that the missing ingredient on top of the obvious physical attributes (which all the top guys have) is talent? Oooh fancy that...it just wouldnt be right ascribing Nadal with any great level of talent would it...what would I be thinking saying that if he's not constantly hitting clean flat winners into the corners after taking the ball early?

LOL Lydian,

No need to get so argumentative. I suspect you and I sort of agree on substance here and it is mostly semantics where we differ.

Agree that talent cannot be easily pinned down. However, the word is still being used and I think it best to try to use it with as mainstream a meaning as possible. For example, most people would agree that work ethic is important to success but would not include work ethic among tennis talents - hence they will talk about someone making up for the lack of talent through hard work. Do not have the article in front of me but I am pretty sure I saw you arguing back on the old 606 that work ethic is part of the overall talent.

Why not go with the standard definition, exclude work ethic from the definition of talent, and point out that it is very important and talent alone is not enough? Otherwise you end up arguing semantics with people who may even agree with you on substance. Sort of like BB with his pimps and drug lords "deserving" money thay make.

Going back to Nadal, clearly he is very talented on any reasonable definition of talent. Agree though that some of the traits that bring him success do not fall into what I classify as talent. But even so, so what? We can still agree that on my definition of talent, he may not be the most talented guy out there but makes up for it by other traits that may be just as important, or even more so. No shame in that. Quite frankly, not clear to me why between talent and work ethic one should feel that talent is the more admirable quality. I sure hope that Federer got a lot of what he got because he was willing to work hard on his game.

Good points summerblues and yes I suspect we agree on alot of substance.

You'll find on this forum, if you havent already, that "talents" such as hard work, physical attributes and other non-stroke aspects, dont constitute talent at all. And if you try to argue mental "talents" then you just get told these are only dervied from physical attributes...a nice way of trying to always label Nadal as nothing more than a fitness mahcine. Talent on this forum has to be purely about the ability to take the ball early...why, because Federer can. But there is no tennis manual that says you can only win slams by taking the ball early and making the game look affortless.

Yes we can take the average view in defining talent but why bother when success in the game is clearly based on so many attributes coming together. What constitutes talent is also relative - and linked - to the prevailing conditions of the day/era. My ultimate observation is generally that the greatest talent is in winning...finding the formula to win in the prevailing conditions...I know thats a nebulous concept but the ability to WIN is a talent in itself because winning is kind of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. Guys like Nadal, Federer and Djokovic have that certain something you cant quite pinpoint...Murray doesnt have it...its an innate ability to win...and for me the platform is a rock solid mental base, the ability to stay focused and produce "the goods" under the most extreme pressure...thats what separates the players at the highest level. Arguments about specific differences in technique are irrelevant because they count for nothing if the player cannot actually win using their "advanced" strokes. Winning is the outcome/realisation of talent (or the ability to produce the outcome)...often the way "talent" on here is described is as mere promise, that if it wasnt for x, y and z then this player with "talent" would win. Where x, y and z are discounted as talents (whatever they may be). Anyway, this has been done to death but my take is that Nadal is not simply lungs and muscles despite the way he is painted on here...infact, if anyone knows something about the game then I would ask them to try to reproduce Nadal's forehand (which is technically very similar to Federer's....shock horror!) and not realise what a stroke of talent it is. Ask any coach who really knows the game about the prodigous talent of Nadal's FH...but hey on here its just reduced down to him having a large bicep.

Hawkeye

Great article (for once )

lydian wrote:if anyone knows something about the game then I would ask them to try to reproduce Nadal's forehand (which is technically very similar to Federer's....shock horror!) and not realise what a stroke of talent it is. Ask any coach who really knows the game about the prodigous talent of Nadal's FH...but hey on here its just reduced down to him having a large bicep.

During the AO 2012 on-court interviews, Jim Courier had asked both Nadal and Federer, if they had a choice to take one specific stroke from the other's arsenal, what would it be. Both chose each other's FH.

I will need to find the interviews clips.

PS: Found it. http://tennistube.com/watch/12f06fe9638b99f6c66e/-HD-720p--Federer-beats-Karlovic--Interview-with-Jim-Courier--Australian-Open-2012-R3-

Cheers LF...no wonder they said that as both have amazingly flexible and killer FHs, Federer's is a different grip (SW vs W) but the multisegment parts are very similar and they both use SSC technique to the max.

laverfan wrote:

time please wrote:Unless I had a complete out of body experience, I am sure that you can't mean my post????? and if this is so, could I please ask why the responding problem posts can't be removed and the original piece brought back - unless of course the mods do have a problem with my article, in which case I would be very grateful if you could unconfuse me forthwith

Your article and your comments are not the issue. It was bickering between two posters which degenerated into name calling. I will read each comment carefully and consult with Gav and JHM and try to bring it back.

Don't worry laver because the discussion on this thread has moved on, so it wouldn't bring anything relevant to the mix. I just wanted to make the point for everyone who writes an article in the future because it doesn't seem right that destructive posts from other contributors can result in the original article (which was only meant to bring a bit of current news to the board to debate!) being banned.

It seems to defeat the object to remove a perfectly harmless article. Especially when everyone had been moaning that the only things on this board ever discussed are the 'Fedal debates'.

Rant over

TP... next time, if deletions of 'bad' posts keep the articles visible, I will try and do that.