Beauty And The Beast

Talent.

Certainly for some a very over used and generous praise on those who might not fit the bill. Over-indulgent. Sometimes what we see can be explained by other virtues.

History in tennis has had those moments. Matches where talent has shone through in buckets, and despite that it never overcomes the forces of sheer nature. 1981. A certain John McEnroe wanted to slay Bjorn Borg. Despite defeating him at the US Open on surface Borg was quite un-familiar unable to dominate, for McEnroe to surpass Borg required a victory at Wimbledon. Like their previous encounter 12 months earlier, it was going to be a close affair. Borg despite his velvet precision at the net to move McEnroe around the court, McEnroe just kept hanging in there and hanging in there. Now I am not saying McEnroe was not talented, because he was. Just compared to Borg he was a long way off. Their 1981 encounter was phenominal. No matter what Borg threw at Macca, the ball kept coming back and the BH passes by Macca were just sublime. Borg used every ounce of his talent to succeed and unfortunately for him Macca was a ruthless running machine that day. He literally grinded Borg into the ground and despite many wanting a 6th Wimbledon success for Borg, it wasn't to be.

Roll the clocks forward and a very similar situation presented itself. 2005 it was hard to look past the Fed express. Despite defeat at the AO that year to the inspired enigma that was Safin, Roger seemed alone at the top. A bottom picking teenager Rafael Nadal was about to change that. 2005-2006 saw Rafa seal back to back FO titles. He then replaced Roddick as the second best player on tour and also a new threat at Wimbledon. In 2007 Nadal ran Federer close. To this day to some Nadal is not talented as many of his counterparts on the tour. Yes there maybe better ball strikers, for me however it seems in today's market the talent out there does not have the self belief behind it. Something Rafa would epitomise to some that wanted to join the party at the top of the mens game. 2008 saw Rafa seal a 3rd FO title. Despatching Federer in a very ruthless manner. Wimbledon. Federer was the new king of Grass. He had equalled Borg's record set 27 years earlier. The final again was to be contested between Federer and Nadal. 3rd time lucky would prove to be the charm for Nadal. Despite Roger throwing everything back and playing some amazing shots, Nadal was a fortress. Forced and forced Federer onto the back foot and asked him to play that one more shot. This isn't talent. But wait a second. Guts and mental strength can be a talent. To be able to say to yourself, yes the guy opposite me is the better player, but I can win takes immense mental and physical strength. Nadal despite all the support for Federer and I was one of them wanted to see Roger win. Sadly the Fed Express ran on empty and Nadal denied Roger history, but also set his own by winnig the FO and Wimbledon back to back for the first time since that man Borg again.

2013 Melbourne. Wawrinka no longer with Lundgren decided maybe his inspired tennis lay ahead without a coach. Look at Tsonga and what he could do without a coach and a brain. Novak Djokovic aiming for his own stab at history. 3 consecutive AO titles, a first in the open era. Age had caught up with Federer. Nadal, the future remains unclear. Djokovic to some is a hybrid of Federer and Nadal. Some talent and lungs would normally equate to the perfect player. Well not today. What I saw today despite the match not being a final, was reminiscent of those days gone by. Here I was. Willing Wawrinka on like I did with Federer in 2008 and Borg in 1981. Wawrinka without question played the match of his life and dictated the play on his racquet. All that talent. Did it come down to lungs? No it didn't. What it came down to was that warrior mindset. McEnroe had it. Nadal has it. The ability to turn a match when your outgunned into a victory. Sometimes hanging in there can be the difference maker. To take those small moments when they present themselves and win those mini battles. McEnroe on the tiebreakers in 81. Nadal on the return of serve deep into the 5th set in 08. Djokovic jumped on those opportunities where Wawrinka blinked.

Talent. Today's match like many others proved one thing. The talent today doesn't lack breathing capacity. What it lacks is belief. We hear things like oh Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are not talented and by and large that might seem correct. It does to me. I saw Murray struggle against a Berankis that when in control of rallies and points made Murray look ordinary. What Wawrinka did like Berankis was when near the finish line, could not deliver a killer blow. If on your serve you give a Nadal, Djokovic or Murray 3 points, you can bet they will take the 1 point needed to turn the momentum and match around. Again history. Your Davydenko's, Ljubicic's and Nalbandians's. Superb ball strikers. Yet unlike great champions, instead of listening to themselves and taking stock of any winning situation they have been in and maybe play each point on it's merit, still go for broke when the moment requires a less extravagent course of action. You only have to look at another sporting sensation story to see how far talent goes. The 1986 Masters. Without question Norman and Ballesteros at that time the most talented players in golf. Nicklaus was written off by many, but still a relentless winning machine. Jack made his move on the back 9 and shot 30. On the 18th he didn't go for broke. He took his par and led the field by one stroke. Ballesteros faltered on the 15th and hit the drink and his charge with it ended. Norman however hit 4 birdies in a row to tie Jack with 1 hole to play. As Brent Musburger was in attendance that day for CBS summed up the 18th and Norman's implosion. "Instead of doing what Jack did and saying to himself, I will settle to get this 46 year old man into a playoff. I will take that chance. But oh no not swashbuckling Greg. He was thinking birdie."

Now I know some of you don't like golf, but what that demonstrated was that talent does not contain the most important thing in success. Thinking. Rational mindset. Wawrinka should've taken the 2nd set and didn't. Djokovic made him play and Wawrinka played his best chance of victory out of the match by again going too aggressive. Instead of saying right I will make Djokovic play. I will force him to take that incentive. But no. He gave Djokovic a chance and as the match wore on, Djokovic became favourite and started playing like it to because he knew that as the match wore on his consistency levels would stay the same and Wawrinka's won't.

See Federer is beauty and the beast. He is able when the situation calls for it to adjust himself to the situation. Despite his overwhelming talent, he has the ability to play the situation. Wimbledon 2012 proved that. In the final against Murray. Yes Murray played his best GS final to date, but what Federer knew and what many watching knew too was that Andy eventually would need to take incentive to command a winning position. What he done so well was hold serve and defended on the Murray serve because he knew that Andy could not sustain attacking play when the moment requires it. Federer when at 6-5 in the 2nd saw the opportunity, he took it and the rest is history.

Talent in tennis needs to go further. It needs to acquire the beast if it is the overcome the resistance of self belief winning machines at the top.

I'm waiting for the highlights.

Very good article

bogbrush wrote:I'm waiting for the highlights.

It was a thrilling match. Djokovic for the most part was on the ropes and Stan grrrrrr you have to say, had the match and couldn't see it home. He played his best match to date and his BH was just like syrup on a spoon. Smooth.

He's talking about the article highlights.
BB doesn't read articles more than 100 words for some reason

So if Djokovic,Nadal and Murray aren't "talented" who the hell are? all three are primarily counter punchers, they can play offensively vary well but can win in a variety of ways. Wawrinka strikes the ball great but like a number of his compatriots is a mental midget, so while he might pull off beautiful backhands and winners in general you are hardly ever going to play that well and he still didn't win..

well it's a snow day so anything can happen

monty junior wrote:So if Djokovic,Nadal and Murray aren't "talented" who the hell are? all three are primarily counter punchers, they can play offensively vary well but can win in a variety of ways. Wawrinka strikes the ball great but like a number of his compatriots is a mental midget, so while he might pull off beautiful backhands and winners in general you are hardly ever going to play that well and he still didn't win..

Mental fortitude isn't strictly speaking tennis talent. You could argue this is a skill important, generally, in most sports, and it would be fair enough.

And as regards to the Swiss being mental midget, wasn't Roger Federer Swiss as well? I would say to you to go back to your forum if I only had an idea of which forum are you from......

I expected Stan the Man to raise his game but didn't expect he would run the Nole express this close, I haven't seen the match yet as it was way too early in the morning here, lemme check for the highlights in AO page.

Btw very good article.

IC those short highlights wont do it justice, you need barreee long highlights for this one, was a cracker!

It Must Be Love wrote:He's talking about the article highlights.
BB doesn't read articles more than 100 words for some reason

I'm the MD of a company. In my job you either get everyone to write succinctly or you choke to death on detail.

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:He's talking about the article highlights.
BB doesn't read articles more than 100 words for some reason

I'm the MD of a company. In my job you either get everyone to write succinctly or you choke to death on detail.

Fair enough

BB, you should read the Leveson Report- that was edge of your seat stuff.

LuvSports! wrote:IC those short highlights wont do it justice, you need barreee long highlights for this one, was a cracker!

No idea when I could spot the highlights in youtube, if somebody spots on anytime pls post it.

LuvSports! wrote:IC those short highlights wont do it justice, you need barreee long highlights for this one, was a cracker!

LS
Fully agree it was a great match.
Shame anyone had to lose, both played great tennis

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

monty junior wrote:So if Djokovic,Nadal and Murray aren't "talented" who the hell are? all three are primarily counter punchers, they can play offensively vary well but can win in a variety of ways. Wawrinka strikes the ball great but like a number of his compatriots is a mental midget, so while he might pull off beautiful backhands and winners in general you are hardly ever going to play that well and he still didn't win..

Mental fortitude isn't strictly speaking tennis talent. You could argue this is a skill important, generally, in most sports, and it would be fair enough.

And as regards to the Swiss being mental midget, wasn't Roger Federer Swiss as well? I would say to you to go back to your forum if I only had an idea of which forum are you from......

I've got to be honest, i used compatriots in completely the wrong context. Federer certainly isn't it was meant to bracket Stan with guys of similar ranking with similar mental frailties, the likes of Gasquet, Verdasco etc..

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:He's talking about the article highlights.
BB doesn't read articles more than 100 words for some reason

I'm the MD of a company. In my job you either get everyone to write succinctly or you choke to death on detail.

Have a good choke

monty junior wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

monty junior wrote:So if Djokovic,Nadal and Murray aren't "talented" who the hell are? all three are primarily counter punchers, they can play offensively vary well but can win in a variety of ways. Wawrinka strikes the ball great but like a number of his compatriots is a mental midget, so while he might pull off beautiful backhands and winners in general you are hardly ever going to play that well and he still didn't win..

Mental fortitude isn't strictly speaking tennis talent. You could argue this is a skill important, generally, in most sports, and it would be fair enough.

And as regards to the Swiss being mental midget, wasn't Roger Federer Swiss as well? I would say to you to go back to your forum if I only had an idea of which forum are you from......

I've got to be honest, i used compatriots in completely the wrong context. Federer certainly isn't it was meant to bracket Stan with guys of similar ranking with similar mental frailties, the likes of Gasquet, Verdasco etc..

I promise to myself never to engage in debate with wums or idiots like that, so apologies if I will cut this debate a little short. I just disagree that Wawrinka is a mental midget but I am open to the idea of a number of mental midgets living in Switzerland. I am glad you reckon Federer is not one of them though. Looking forward to know the full list of all the countries which are totally mental midgets free.

I told you in the previous post i didn't mean to use the word compatriots in terms of countrymen of Stan. I was referring to guys of similar ranking, with some shot making ability and talent but with a long history of bottling matches, like Gasquet and Verdasco. If you are trying to portray me as a wum or idiot for a simple mistake then that's unfortunate.