Later Development

by CaledonianCraig Mon 7 Jan 2013 - 11:39

First topic message reminder :

I know there is a thread about the young up and coming players and a lot has been made of the weakness of the new crop of players coming through. Now a few months ago I remember saying players today develop later and I was shouted down for it or at least criticised but I stand by it. As I watched the Brisbane International Final yesterday the ex-pro Australian commentator made the same statement with regards Dimitrov. Basically, nowadays we all know the game is a far more physical and physique-based game and you need those attributes as well as the tennis talent to compete at the highest levels. Now unless the likes of Dimitrov, Tomic, Raonic etc were muscle-building and working on their physique from a very early age (which clearly they weren't) then they will find it hard to make inroads against supreme physical specimens that rule the game just now such as Nadal, Djokovic, Federer and Murray. The youngsters have the talent but in my opinion they have yet to develop other aspects of their game such as their physicality and physique and that takes a good year or so. As for future generations it may differ - if the top players of today rule the roost for another five or so years with no further players coming through to break their monopoly then when they have retired the sport may well see lesser physique-based players come through again to take up the mantle. Just a theory of mines and feel free to give your views.

by User 774433 Wed 9 Jan 2013 - 9:19

Also I think many people get confused between tennis that they think is pretty, and who is 'talented'.

by CaledonianCraig Wed 9 Jan 2013 - 9:26

Of course the mental side of the game is also a key element and I agree with IMBL. However, I would say that lapses/dips in concentration that do crop up for Andy does just put him behind the rest of the top three in that department but he has been catching up in that department but that is for another topic.

Like I said could we see the physicality coupled with physique armed players going to end when Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Federer hang up their rackets. At the moment I would say yes as the youngsters of today who may replace todays top players have yet to go down the avenue of working on their physique.

by User 774433 Wed 9 Jan 2013 - 9:27

CaledonianCraig wrote:Of course the mental side of the game is also a key element and I agree with IMBL. However, I would say that lapses/dips in concentration that do crop up for Andy does just put him behind the rest of the top three in that department but he has been catching up in that department but that is for another topic.

by Guest Wed 9 Jan 2013 - 9:42

Nalbandian talent?

Just because of a BH???

Jeez!!! Some of you really need to suckle on my love sacks!

Nalbandian had poor movement and an average FH. One swallow doesn't make a summer people.

Does Andy move better than Nalby? Yes. Does he have a greater slice FH/BH than Nalby? Yes. The only shot in which Nalby is just ahead of Murray is the BH. So please more talented?

Bow and hug my lovesacks!

by LuvSports! Wed 9 Jan 2013 - 9:45

by Guest Wed 9 Jan 2013 - 9:47

LS I command you to hug them! furious

by CaledonianCraig Wed 9 Jan 2013 - 9:48

Exaxtly lk. Sure he is talented and nobody is denying that but just the bit where he is more talented that players in the top four today.

by CaledonianCraig Wed 9 Jan 2013 - 9:49

Forget love sacks though and keep this topic on track.

by Guest Wed 9 Jan 2013 - 9:50

CC you can hug them too.

by HM Murdock Wed 9 Jan 2013 - 9:50

It Must Be Love wrote:Also I think many people get confused between tennis that they think is pretty, and who is 'talented'.

I agree with this. There often seems to be a view that only attacking aspects of the game are a measure of talent.

So an aesthetically pleasing SHBH is classed as 'talent'.

But getting to a shot that most other players can't reach and doing something productive with it is dismissed as 'retrieving'.

Fitness and strength may enable players to get to a shot. It's talent that causes them to land the return right on the baseline time after time. It's talent that hits it over the high part of the net for a winner.

by LuvSports! Wed 9 Jan 2013 - 9:51

neeeeeeeeeeee!

by CaledonianCraig Wed 9 Jan 2013 - 9:53

HM Murdoch wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Also I think many people get confused between tennis that they think is pretty, and who is 'talented'.
I agree with this. There often seems to be a view that only attacking aspects of the game are a measure of talent.

So an aesthetically pleasing SHBH is classed as 'talent'.

But getting to a shot that most other players can't reach and doing something productive with it is dismissed as 'retrieving'.

Fitness and strength may enable players to get to a shot. It's talent that causes them to land the return right on the baseline time after time. It's talent that hits it over the high part of the net for a winner.

Absolutely spot on. That hits the nail on the head.

by Guest Wed 9 Jan 2013 - 9:58

Is it not in dispute that Nalbandian wasn't talented. Poor application and attitude really let the talent down. Yes he was unlucky with injuries, but we can only measure from what we see and yes his BH for a DHBH was crazy in how he was able to hit so flat with it with such an easy follow through on the shot. You can see the area in which he lacked which was movement because once opponents nullified his BH, he became very average. He didn't possess the all round weapons to evolve his game and compete with his rivals. Similar to Davydenko in some ways. Talented, but a poor application and mindset let the talent down.

by LuvSports! Wed 9 Jan 2013 - 10:03

i have seen the error of my ways, i am convinced! praise the lord etc

we shall agree to disagree Smile

i believe i am helping you there cc in getting this thread back on track eh!

by Guest Wed 9 Jan 2013 - 10:05

LuvSports! wrote:i have seen the error of my ways, i am convinced! praise the lord etc

we shall agree to disagree
i believe i am helping you there cc in getting this thread back on track eh!

Now prove your new enlightenment by hugging them! Very Happy

by LuvSports! Wed 9 Jan 2013 - 10:18

i haven't been enlightened and no Smile

anyways so this "later development" thing eh, corrrr, jeeeh whizz, shucks and zing zang spillip

one thing that is a shame imho is that the "youngsters" today it seems have to be like 6ft 5 +

come on goffin and dimi!

by CaledonianCraig Wed 9 Jan 2013 - 10:18

HM Murdoch wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Also I think many people get confused between tennis that they think is pretty, and who is 'talented'.
I agree with this. There often seems to be a view that only attacking aspects of the game are a measure of talent.

So an aesthetically pleasing SHBH is classed as 'talent'.

But getting to a shot that most other players can't reach and doing something productive with it is dismissed as 'retrieving'.

Fitness and strength may enable players to get to a shot. It's talent that causes them to land the return right on the baseline time after time. It's talent that hits it over the high part of the net for a winner.

HM there you answer why physicality and physique is very important in the game today. You need both to cover the court then have the power on reaching the ball to hit either a winner or a telling return. Of course talent is also still needed just as much as it ever was in the sport.

by Guest Wed 9 Jan 2013 - 10:38

Embrace the warmth LS and hug them. Only then will you see the light Smile

by HM Murdock Wed 9 Jan 2013 - 10:57

CaledonianCraig wrote:HM there you answer why physicality and physique is very important in the game today. You need both to cover the court then have the power on reaching the ball to hit either a winner or a telling return. Of course talent is also still needed just as much as it ever was in the sport.

Yes, I wasn't in outright disagreement with your original post (which perhaps I took the wrong point from). Fitness and physicality have an important place in the game.

I just feel that the lack of breakthrough of the younger generation is due more to inferior ability than inferior fitness/strength.

Put another way, if you could grant the fitness and strength of say Murray to Dimitrov, Tomic and Raonic, I still don't think they would be challenging for the big titles. There are too many other issues with their games.

But if they kept the same level of fitness and could be granted Murray's ability, then I think they would be challengers. Maybe not winners because a fit good'un will beat a less fit good'un. But they would be at the business end of tournaments.

Entirely hypothetical of course, but that's how I see it.

by CaledonianCraig Wed 9 Jan 2013 - 11:04

Oh I am not disagreeing with you that they do not have the talent of todays top players but if they at least want to compete and give them their best possible chance of being competitive in matches they need to at least match the physicality and physique to be able to stay in rallies and play winners. For me none of them are at that stage yet either.

by Born Slippy Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 1:06

emancipator wrote:Totally agree with Luvsports.

Nalbandian is a ridiculous talent, Gasquet should not be mentioned in the same breath as him.

Nalby's BH as well as being a thing of beauty is pure destruction when he's on. He can hit every shot in the book. Far more versatile and creative than Murray's or even Djokovic's. His net play and touch around the net is also better. Look at the 2 drubbings he gave Nadal in 2007, totally outplayed him. Nadal only started beating him when Nalby was basically playing on one leg, even then it was only by the skin of his teeth.

The top three other than Federer are fantastic players but they DO rely heavily on their physicality. There's nothing wrong in admitting that. It seems some people will only be satisfied when all the top four players are declared equal in terms of shot making and natural talent.

The things which held Nalby back were injuries, poor work ethic/fitness and the mental fragility which ensues from that. His propensity for DF's was also a big hinderance.

But in terms of pure talent and creativity and technical brilliance, only Federer can match him. For me they are pretty much equal in those aspects.

emancipator

I dont really see how 2 wins over Nadal in 2007 is evidence Nalby has more talent than Murray. Murray as a 19 year old kid was able to give Nadal the runaround in Australia that year before his extremely poor physical conditioning at that time let him down. He'd beaten Federer the year before. Heck he'd made Nalbandian himself look like a beginner for 2 sets in 2005. Least we forget, he also smacked Nadal all over the court last time they played for the loss of 4 points in a set. Not to mention, of course, several of his wins over Federer have been totally dominant, in a way no one else has really managed apart from Nadal on clay.

I agree Nalbandian is a talented player but his ball striking is no better than Murray's, his feel and net play were never as good and he doesn't have the flexibility or pure anticipation/understanding of the game of Murray. It's no coincidence that, despite being frankly a gawky teenager, Murray's career progression was above Nalbandian's for all his formative years on tour.

by LuvSports! Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 2:20

if you take away murrays speed, nadal's speed and djokovic's speed i don't think they would be where they are today.
I still think feds would be up there if you gave him the speed of say a berdych, and im not sure the other 3 would, nalbandian would be up there also.

nadal is a brilliant touch player and if you haven't seen that just watch more of his tennis! beautiful drop shots, volleys the lot.
Does flexibility and anticipation make you more talented? i thought it was down to shot making.

by summerblues Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 2:26

CaledonianCraig wrote:Ah right lets run a poll across the tennis globe of who has the most talent - Nalby or Murray and we all know who would come out as the winner in that one and it isn’t Dave. I would just love to hear why this super talented player has been toiling to make his mark in the sport then and dont try the fitness card as he does/has gone fairly deep into tournies before getting beaten. I am presuming the convenient old fitness card will always get played though for ever more with regards Nalby. A talented player yes but he will end up forgotten in the tennis history books due to lack of tangible achievement.

You ask the question of "who is more talented?" and attempt to answer it with "who is more successful". If you take the view that success is the correct yardstick to compare talent, then of course Murray will come out the more talented one.

People who view Nalby as more talented take the view that there are many factors that contribute to success, with talent being one of them, and they would think that Andy more than makes up for it in other factors. You may disagree with that view but you cannot dismiss it just by comparing Andy's and Nalby's achievement.

by LuvSports! Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 2:32

whats your view SB?

by summerblues Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 2:43

LuvSports! wrote:whats your view SB?

Don't have a particularly strong opinion on this one. Definitely think Nalbandian massively underperformed relative to his talent and I think both he and Andy are very talented. If I had to choose, I would go with Nalby but can see that I could be biased because I find his game prettier (his BH is one of very few double handers - perhaps the only one - that I find pleasing to the eye).

by CaledonianCraig Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 8:06

Born Slippy wrote:
emancipator wrote:Totally agree with Luvsports.

Nalbandian is a ridiculous talent, Gasquet should not be mentioned in the same breath as him.

Nalby's BH as well as being a thing of beauty is pure destruction when he's on. He can hit every shot in the book. Far more versatile and creative than Murray's or even Djokovic's. His net play and touch around the net is also better. Look at the 2 drubbings he gave Nadal in 2007, totally outplayed him. Nadal only started beating him when Nalby was basically playing on one leg, even then it was only by the skin of his teeth.

The top three other than Federer are fantastic players but they DO rely heavily on their physicality. There's nothing wrong in admitting that. It seems some people will only be satisfied when all the top four players are declared equal in terms of shot making and natural talent.

The things which held Nalby back were injuries, poor work ethic/fitness and the mental fragility which ensues from that. His propensity for DF's was also a big hinderance.

But in terms of pure talent and creativity and technical brilliance, only Federer can match him. For me they are pretty much equal in those aspects.

emancipator

I dont really see how 2 wins over Nadal in 2007 is evidence Nalby has more talent than Murray. Murray as a 19 year old kid was able to give Nadal the runaround in Australia that year before his extremely poor physical conditioning at that time let him down. He'd beaten Federer the year before. Heck he'd made Nalbandian himself look like a beginner for 2 sets in 2005. Least we forget, he also smacked Nadal all over the court last time they played for the loss of 4 points in a set. Not to mention, of course, several of his wins over Federer have been totally dominant, in a way no one else has really managed apart from Nadal on clay.

I agree Nalbandian is a talented player but his ball striking is no better than Murray's, his feel and net play were never as good and he doesn't have the flexibility or pure anticipation/understanding of the game of Murray. It's no coincidence that, despite being frankly a gawky teenager, Murray's career progression was above Nalbandian's for all his formative years on tour.

Spot on.

by Guest Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 8:40

LuvSports! wrote:if you take away murrays speed, nadal's speed and djokovic's speed i don't think they would be where they are today.
I still think feds would be up there if you gave him the speed of say a berdych, and im not sure the other 3 would, nalbandian would be up there also.

nadal is a brilliant touch player and if you haven't seen that just watch more of his tennis! beautiful drop shots, volleys the lot.
Does flexibility and anticipation make you more talented? i thought it was down to shot making.

Quite frankly I can't ever recall Nalbandian hitting a winner from a stationary position to which has led me to believe that in any way is of higher quality than Murray, Djokovic or Nadal which is what your suggesting by taking away speed. Volleying and dropshots from what I remember are part of shotmaking Headscratch

It is all good having a beautiful BH, but if you haven't anything else to go with it, quite frankly your not that talented.

by lydian Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 8:53

LuvSports! wrote:if you take away murrays speed, nadal's speed and djokovic's speed i don't think they would be where they are today.
I still think feds would be up there if you gave him the speed of say a berdych, and im not sure the other 3 would, nalbandian would be up there also.

nadal is a brilliant touch player and if you haven't seen that just watch more of his tennis! beautiful drop shots, volleys the lot.
Does flexibility and anticipation make you more talented? i thought it was down to shot making.

If you take away speed? That's a ridiculous thing to say. The key thing in tennis is movement...its all about movement...a tennis court is relatively large and a ball relatively small. Might as well say what if you took Cristiano Ronaldo's speed away...or Pele's...or Messi's. All the very top physical sportsman are also the best movers. Even Berdych will be an amazing mover compared to your average good level tennis player...there are no short cuts to being a top 10 player.

You watch kids from 8 years upwards and you'll see it's the most talented movers who can also strike a ball well, but not necessarily the best, who achieve most. The LTA Talent ID criteria places a lot of importance on various movement parameters to spot those who may go on to receive coaching funding, etc. It's by no coincidence that many of the great tennis players, and certainly the current Top4, were also very good footballers at a young age...many had to chose between the two sports.

Also, watch any of the top4 in practice hitting and you'll see they're ALL amazing ball strikers...every one of them. You simply don't get to the upper tier of tennis otherwise. The top4 are simply good at everything.

by carrieg4 Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 9:31

lydian wrote:
LuvSports! wrote:if you take away murrays speed, nadal's speed and djokovic's speed i don't think they would be where they are today.
I still think feds would be up there if you gave him the speed of say a berdych, and im not sure the other 3 would, nalbandian would be up there also.

nadal is a brilliant touch player and if you haven't seen that just watch more of his tennis! beautiful drop shots, volleys the lot.
Does flexibility and anticipation make you more talented? i thought it was down to shot making.

If you take away speed? That's a ridiculous thing to say. The key thing in tennis is movement...its all about movement...a tennis court is relatively large and a ball relatively small. Might as well say what if you took Cristiano Ronaldo's speed away...or Pele's...or Messi's. All the very top physical sportsman are also the best movers. Even Berdych will be an amazing mover compared to your average good level tennis player...there are no short cuts to being a top 10 player.

You watch kids from 8 years upwards and you'll see it's the most talented movers who can also strike a ball well, but not necessarily the best, who achieve most. The LTA Talent ID criteria places a lot of importance on various movement parameters to spot those who may go on to receive coaching funding, etc. It's by no coincidence that many of the great tennis players, and certainly the current Top4, were also very good footballers at a young age...many had to chose between the two sports.

Also, watch any of the top4 in practice hitting and you'll see they're ALL amazing ball strikers...every one of them. You simply don't get to the upper tier of tennis otherwise. The top4 are simply good at everything.

Lydian

by Mad for Chelsea Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 9:47

I honestly think the word "talent" is used quite a lot by some Fed fans (some, not all) as a sort of reassuring thing to fall back on as the younger generation comes through: "oh they may beat Fed on occasions, but they simply aren't as talented, it's only due to their physical fitness". They then state things like "Nalbandian is the only one comparable with Federer on a talent plane", because Nalby is a nice, safe comparison to make from the era where Fed was completely dominant. Unfortunately, they can't really explain why or in what way Nalbandian can be considered to be more talented than Murray.

My question is: why the insecurity? Unless something extraordinary happens Federer will be remembered when he retires as the greatest player to have picked up a racquet, so why do they need to demean the most (only?) meaningful competition he's had? Why the constant excuse making for any defeat (a stick they also use to beat up Nadal fans)? Just don't get it.

by LuvSports! Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 10:01

mfc, i never said feds can't get outplayed, i said when he is at his best nalby's best is the closest to him imo.

you only say murray is more talented because he has won more. I said before why I think he is. I'm not saying murray isn't talented i just think nalby is more talented, stop being so condescending.

lydian how is that a ridiculous comment. If you take away a players greatest strength would they still be a force to be reckoned with? If that is their speed and fitness, then imo the retrievers wouldn't be where they are in the rankings. whatevs im done

by CaledonianCraig Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 10:08

The fact Murray has won more is not the sole reason as there are stacks load of other evidence. Why is it Murray has a superior head-to-head against super talented Roger Federer than Nalbandian does for example. Murray has the whole gambit of shots in his locker but all we hear Nalby supporters carp on about is his one shot. You put the ball anywhere on the court with the opponent at the net and I would back Murray more times than Nalby as well to hit a winner. I await the retort.

by Guest Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 10:09

LuvSports! wrote:mfc, i never said feds can't get outplayed, i said when he is at his best nalby's best is the closest to him imo.

you only say murray is more talented because he has won more. I said before why I think he is. I'm not saying murray isn't talented i just think nalby is more talented, stop being so condescending.

lydian how is that a ridiculous comment. If you take away a players greatest strength would they still be a force to be reckoned with? If that is their speed and fitness, then imo the retrievers wouldn't be where they are in the rankings. whatevs im done

Oh come on LS give it some boxing

by LuvSports! Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 10:26

CaledonianCraig wrote:The fact Murray has won more is not the sole reason as there are stacks load of other evidence. Why is it Murray has a superior head-to-head against super talented Roger Federer than Nalbandian does for example. Murray has the whole gambit of shots in his locker but all we hear Nalby supporters carp on about is his one shot. You put the ball anywhere on the court with the opponent at the net and I would back Murray more times than Nalby as well to hit a winner. I await the retort.

nadal says federer is more talented, but look at their head to head.

Yes so i just take your word for it and that counts as evidence whereas if i say the same thing it doesn't, how is that proof?
Its because its such a brilliant shot that people "carp" on about it just youtube some of their matches.
Generally nalby will hit more winners (as well as UE's) in a match than murray, so why would murray be more likely to hit a winner?

any other stacks of evidence?

by Guest Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 10:34

I think the only evidence would be for someone taking on the painstaking journey of looking back on their careers and formulating an average winners per match stat. Sad

by CaledonianCraig Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 10:39

Sorry but is it any more brilliant than other players. No in my opinion. You are kidding yourself if you think Nalby can pull off the impossible shots that I have seen Murray pull-off such as yards outside the tramlines and still able to hit a winner or running back across country and fashioning from an impossible angle a down the line winner, like hitting a drop shot winner from almost anywhere on court, like winning points from positions that other players would not have been able to stay in the rally such as Nalby. I hate to break it to you but that all takes great talent as well.

by LuvSports! Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 10:43

haha agreed lk, i guess we are done here cc, but i don't think im kidding myself Smile

by CaledonianCraig Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 10:52

Show me the video evidence of these miracle shots that Nalby has pulled off then and with a variety of shots please.

by Mad for Chelsea Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 10:57

well certainly in the last two Murray-Nalbandian matches I watched (Paris 2010 and Toronto (?) in 2011) Murray hit more winners than Nalbandian, so I don't think I buy that one. CC and I have given many examples of shots Murray can play which Nalbandian can't, while Nalby fans still can't explain why Nalby is more talented. Sorry, but where's the justification? So far we've had a youtube compilation of very fine BHs...

Also, in the Paris match I mentioned above Murray beat Nalby by serve & volleying behind both first and second serves. Can you genuinely see Nalby beating Murray playing that way? I can't. This surely shows that Murray just has many more options than Nalby, another reason I see him as vastly more talented. Like I said, more to talent than hitting some nice (OK lovely) BHs.

by User 774433 Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 11:27

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I honestly think the word "talent" is used quite a lot by some Fed fans (some, not all) as a sort of reassuring thing to fall back on as the younger generation comes through: "oh they may beat Fed on occasions, but they simply aren't as talented, it's only due to their physical fitness". They then state things like "Nalbandian is the only one comparable with Federer on a talent plane", because Nalby is a nice, safe comparison to make from the era where Fed was completely dominant. Unfortunately, they can't really explain why or in what way Nalbandian can be considered to be more talented than Murray.

My question is: why the insecurity? Unless something extraordinary happens Federer will be remembered when he retires as the greatest player to have picked up a racquet, so why do they need to demean the most (only?) meaningful competition he's had? Why the constant excuse making for any defeat (a stick they also use to beat up Nadal fans)? Just don't get it.

Spot on.

by LuvSports! Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 11:34

this is my last post, need to do work after this, sorry if i don't reply.

"not in the book" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8kkpDzlX7M

showed this one before (imho better than murray's ones as it was a pacier shot coming at him) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_I2Gy90OdM

You probs won't think this is amazing but i still think wow (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrO_9eZoIKE&NR=1&feature=endscreen)

no3 at around 30 seconds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Soi_oMI4Duc (not as gd as murrays but still impressive)

quite a few of these but here goes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydJpjQOK0_I (you will probs not think these are that great)

ahh well. here are some responses to you guys. each to their own.

MFC, karlovic could do that so what does that prove?

I think talent is partly making something look easy and that is something imho nalbandian has in spades over murray, who is very talented but is able to pull off the miraculous because of his outstanding physique, combined with a lot of talent.
I think djoko is more talented than murray in some regards and not others (i.e. net play and touch) but i feel novak has the ability to take the ball earlier (more difficult and risky) than murray and i think nalby can do this further still.

ok gd debate, must go now, disso is calling

by CaledonianCraig Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 11:46

First up through the legs shots we have seen all that from Murray before and your shot round the net we saw one from Murray and Nalbandian in that but I know Murray has hit at least one more V Gasquet at Wimbledon has Nalbandian? As for all the rest I still never saw any shots there that Murray hasn't played dozens of times.

by Guest Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 12:02

All nice links LS.

Thing is has he actually done it match in and match out?

For me nice shots are all a bit flash in the pan. Take Fognini. Highly respected as one of the best ball strikers on tour and yet massively under-achieves.

Consistency is maximising one's talent and I don't think Nalbandian has done enough to warrant being rated ahead of Murray in the talent department.

by CaledonianCraig Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 12:15

What I find odd now that this topic has deviated off the original subject is that tennis is not all about talent. To reach the very top you need more than just talent. Evidence of that is that as LuvSports points out about Nalby's talent which I am not disagreeing with and say Fabrice Santoro (nicknamed 'The Magician') is that talent is not all it takes to reach the top. You need great movement, speed, power, mental strength and consistency of the highest order and that is where Nalby and Santoro fall short. As all-round tennis players they just don't match up to the very best in all departments.

by Mad for Chelsea Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 12:16

LuvSports! wrote:
MFC, karlovic could do that so what does that prove?

I think talent is partly making something look easy and that is something imho nalbandian has in spades over murray.

well, Karlovic has never beaten Nalbandian so not sure about that anyway. Watched the Paris match again the other day, which is why it's still fresh in my mind. The way Murray read Nalbandian's attempted passing shots and was able to put away the reflex volleys was very impressive, something I don't think anyone on tour could have done.

I disagree with the second sentence: for me "making something look easy" is essentially a question of aesthetic value, and that was my initial point, that too many people confuse a player with a pleasant looking game (e.g. Gasquet, Nalbandian) with a talented one.

I actually thought the stop half-volley to save the first MP vs Hewitt was probably the best shot out of those vids TBH, and it was a great shot, no doubt about that. I'm not disputing that Nalby is a talented player, but there's nothing he does that Murray can't do, and lots that Murray does that he can't for me...

by User 774433 Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 12:53

I think a lot rests on how you actually define talent.
It's very easy to fabricate a definition to fit the skill set of your particular player- I've done it before with Nadal and I can do it again if I want. It doesn't prove much.
One thing I think is correct whatever your player preference is what Legendkiller mentioned- I think one talent is actually maximising the effectiveness of your skill set.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 13:47

Mad for Chelsea wrote:My question is: why the insecurity? Unless something extraordinary happens Federer will be remembered when he retires as the greatest player to have picked up a racquet, so why do they need to demean the most (only?) meaningful competition he's had? Why the constant excuse making for any defeat (a stick they also use to beat up Nadal fans)? Just don't get it.

Yeah, but I see the same from as many Nadal fans as Fed fans, and (to a lesser extent) Djoko fans. Why do Nadal fans have constant excuse making? Why the insecurity? I don't get it either. It's like being 13 years old and wanting Justin Bieber to be No 1 in the charts.

by CaledonianCraig Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 14:26

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:My question is: why the insecurity? Unless something extraordinary happens Federer will be remembered when he retires as the greatest player to have picked up a racquet, so why do they need to demean the most (only?) meaningful competition he's had? Why the constant excuse making for any defeat (a stick they also use to beat up Nadal fans)? Just don't get it.

Yeah, but I see the same from as many Nadal fans as Fed fans, and (to a lesser extent) Djoko fans. Why do Nadal fans have constant excuse making? Why the insecurity? I don't get it either. It's like being 13 years old and wanting Justin Bieber to be No 1 in the charts.

I disagree. In my experiences of forums it is more Federer fans that have the holier than thou attitude. I have read far more posts from Fed fans excusing their man's defeats away instead of them just holding their hands up and being man enough to admit he was beaten by the better player. That is not to say all Fed fans are like that by any means. Nadal fans I generally don't have such problems but that may be because I am a Murray fan if you see what I mean and with Djoko fans I can relate to them as their man often struggles to be accepted by a body of people as does Murray. These are just my views of course.

by HM Murdock Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 14:36

I'd say that talent can be measured by how skilled or 'good' you are relative to how hard you had to work to achieve that skill. In other words, 'talent' to me means 'aptitude'.

That is why I would say that Federer is the most talented player. He can produce things off the cuff that he most likely has never practised but executes them brilliantly. In a sense he hasn't "worked" to achieve those shots, it's like they arrive to him fully formed. When you couple that level of aptitude with the hard work that he chooses to put in then you get the kind of ridiculous results he achieved in his prime.

That's also why I would say that Andy is the least talented of the big 4. I doubt there is anyone on the tour who works harder than him, yet he has only very recently started to win the very biggest prizes. Has Djokovic won five slams to Andy's one because he works much harder? No, both players work exceptionally hard but I think Djokovic has the greater talent/aptitude which has meant his work has been better rewarded.

The key thing though is that it is not the talent that makes the great player but the skill.

So ultimately it's irrelevant if, hypothetically, Andy had to work three times as hard as Nalbandian in order to be twice as good. The end result is that he is twice as good.

by hawkeye Thu 10 Jan 2013 - 14:41

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Yeah, but I see the same from as many Nadal fans as Fed fans, and (to a lesser extent) Djoko fans. Why do Nadal fans have constant excuse making? Why the insecurity? I don't get it either. It's like being 13 years old and wanting Justin Bieber to be No 1 in the charts.

Pftt! Who are you calling Justin Beiber?

by Sponsored content