The Definition of Talent

There was a bit of a debate about which players were talented on another thread but it struck me that it wasn't very clear what everyone's view of talent is. It's a fairly nebulous concept so that's probably understandable but it seemed an interesting debate so I thought I'd create a new thread.

At one end of the scale there is an argument that success equals talent. The aim of the game is winning and no matter how the job gets done the player who wins is by definition the most talented. Their particular mental and physical skill set is what was best required to win and they are therefore the most talented. To avoid offending anyone let's call this the Brad "winning ugly" Gilbert test for talent.

A middle ground might be to remove the mental side of the game. For example, Marat Safin could play exceptional tennis but could also go walk-about for months at a time and lose to anyone. Coria was the best player in the French in 2004 but choked massively. Essentially, this is the "if they weren't a mental midget they would be the best in the world" approach to talent.

The opposite end of the scale is to seek to remove all physical (speed/stamina) or mental gifts a player might have. In the world where every player was the same height, speed, never got tired and never choked who would be the best player? In other words, who has the best "hands". Here, talent has to be measured by ball striking ability, ease with which a range of different shots can be played, touch and feel. The Oli "wish I was a foot taller" Rochus test.

I think my view of "talent" is closest to the latter. I certainly don't consider success to necessarily equal talent (albeit you clearly have to have talent to succeed). A player with a wide range of shots would in my view be more talented than one with a limited though effective shot range even if less successful.

Where I disagree with some of the comments is that style of play itself is measure of talent. A player with a one-handed backhand is not necessarily more talented than one who uses two. It is usually a natural choice one way or the other for a player and just because a player has chosen to use one hand does not make them more talented. Aesthetics alone does not equal talent.

I would also expect talented players to be able to break through early due to their abilities meaning they can compete with older stronger players at a younger age.

How would you define talent and how would the top 10 look on talent alone?

Good article.
I think you are referring to my dimi point.
For instance I felt nalbandian (dh) was more talented than gasquet (sh). Just in that particular example I thought that gave dimi the edge.

1) Feds
2) Tsonga
3/) Gasquet/Wawrinka
5) Murray
6) Djokovic
7) Nadal
8) Delpo
9) Berdych
10) Ferrer

LuvSports! wrote:Good article.
I think you are referring to my dimi point.
For instance I felt nalbandian (dh) was more talented than gasquet (sh). Just in that particular example I thought that gave dimi the edge.

1) Feds
2) Tsonga
3/) Gasquet/Wawrinka
5) Murray
6) Djokovic
7) Nadal
8) Delpo
9) Berdych
100) Ferrer

Fixed for you   

It's aptitude. How much and how hard you have to practise/train to achieve the level you are at.

Someone with greater talent than you can be as good as you without practising/training as much.

Alternatively, someone with greater talent can practise/train exactly as hard as you but be better as a result.

A "formula" could be:

Talent = [Success ÷ Amount of Practise and Training]

Let's say that the optimum height of a tennis player is 6ft 1. Being that height is not considered a talent.
But let's say that the optimum hand-to-eye coordination for a tennis players is 100% (i.e. the maximum). That is considered a talent.
Yet both are simply genetics, which in turn, given that the player has no control over it, is simply luck.
Perhaps there is no such thing as talent.

In HM's equation, which is a reasonable one, height would become part of talent, in that a shorter player would need to practise more.

But any player not practicing pretty much the same as the maximum healthy amount is not exactly being a decent professional athlete, are they?

Yes, height is a component of talent.

The big flaw everyone makes in assessing talent is to look solely at ball striking: "So and so is good ball striker, he's a talented player".

But tennis is not ball striking. It's a game in which ball striking is one component.

To say someone is a talented player just because they hit a ball sweetly is like saying someone is good at running, therefore they are a good triathlete.

ChequeredJersey wrote:But any player not practicing pretty much the same as the maximum healthy amount is not exactly being a decent professional athlete, are they?

No.

See Gulbis, Nalbandian, Safin etc.

ChequeredJersey wrote:But any player not practicing pretty much the same as the maximum healthy amount is not exactly being a decent professional athlete, are they?

True - and thus even though more talented, would not perhaps deserve to win as much. Might even be less deserving in fact, unless the ability to work hard is also part of genetics, and is also a talent.
On the other hand, if the ability to work hard has been drilled into you by your parents, were you simply luckier than someone who didn't get that benefit?

And only one of those has won a major...

But I meant decent as in doing what the minimum that should be expected of an athlete should be

JuliusHMarx wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:But any player not practicing pretty much the same as the maximum healthy amount is not exactly being a decent professional athlete, are they?

True - and thus even though more talented, would not perhaps deserve to win as much. Might even be less deserving in fact, unless the ability to work hard is also part of genetics, and is also a talent.
On the other hand, if the ability to work hard has been drilled into you by your parents, were you simply luckier than someone who didn't get that benefit?

Life, genetics and the opportunities granted to us are not fair (nor should they be, fair is an artificial and mostly meaningless concept), otherwise we'd just give everyone a tennis trophy when they were born

Ball striking is a factor though, but yes there are many others too.

HM Murdoch wrote:Yes, height is a component of talent.

The big flaw everyone makes in assessing talent is to look solely at ball striking: "So and so is good ball striker, he's a talented player".

But tennis is not ball striking. It's a game in which ball striking is one component.

To say someone is a talented player just because they hit a ball sweetly is like saying someone is good at running, therefore they are a good triathlete.

Yes, tennis is a composite of many talents. It may be that height is the only difference between 2 players, but it would be hard to convince many people that one is more talented simply because he is taller - he would simply be more able, rather than more talented, to most people (me included, probably).

JuliusHMarx wrote:Let's say that the optimum height of a tennis player is 6ft 1. Being that height is not considered a talent.

I think you have got a little mixed up. Don't you mean that 6'1" should be the maximum height for a tennis player if we would rather the more skillful players win. Because any player taller than that has an unfair physical advantage because of their height (height gives a huge advantage in serving that has more to do with simple physics than talent). Any player above 6'1" doesn't require as much skill as shorter players to succeed.

ChequeredJersey wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:But any player not practicing pretty much the same as the maximum healthy amount is not exactly being a decent professional athlete, are they?

True - and thus even though more talented, would not perhaps deserve to win as much. Might even be less deserving in fact, unless the ability to work hard is also part of genetics, and is also a talent.
On the other hand, if the ability to work hard has been drilled into you by your parents, were you simply luckier than someone who didn't get that benefit?

Life, genetics and the opportunities granted to us are not fair (nor should they be, fair is an artificial and mostly meaningless concept), otherwise we'd just give everyone a tennis trophy when they were born

Agreed.
But it is an acceptable argument to say that if a player is the most talented in, say, hand-to-eye coordination, that he is simply lucky to have been born with it. We can admire that player as a 'tennis entity' but no more so than, say, a beautiful sunset.

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Let's say that the optimum height of a tennis player is 6ft 1. Being that height is not considered a talent.

I think you have got a little mixed up. Don't you mean that 6'1" should be the maximum height for a tennis player if we would rather the more skillful players win. Because any player taller than that has an unfair physical advantage because of their height (height gives a huge advantage in serving that has more to do with simple physics than talent). Any player above 6'1" doesn't require as much skill as shorter players to succeed.

If they are too tall then they lose movement almost automatically though

JuliusHMarx wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:But any player not practicing pretty much the same as the maximum healthy amount is not exactly being a decent professional athlete, are they?

True - and thus even though more talented, would not perhaps deserve to win as much. Might even be less deserving in fact, unless the ability to work hard is also part of genetics, and is also a talent.
On the other hand, if the ability to work hard has been drilled into you by your parents, were you simply luckier than someone who didn't get that benefit?

Life, genetics and the opportunities granted to us are not fair (nor should they be, fair is an artificial and mostly meaningless concept), otherwise we'd just give everyone a tennis trophy when they were born

Agreed.
But it is an acceptable argument to say that if a player is the most talented in, say, hand-to-eye coordination, that he is simply lucky to have been born with it. We can admire that player as a 'tennis entity' but no more so than, say, a beautiful sunset.

Eloquently put

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Let's say that the optimum height of a tennis player is 6ft 1. Being that height is not considered a talent.

I think you have got a little mixed up. Don't you mean that 6'1" should be the maximum height for a tennis player if we would rather the more skillful players win. Because any player taller than that has an unfair physical advantage because of their height (height gives a huge advantage in serving that has more to do with simple physics than talent). Any player above 6'1" doesn't require as much skill as shorter players to succeed.

No I don't mean that. Why is being tall any more unfair than being born with extremely good hand-to-eye coordination - both are genetically determined and beyond the control of the player.

In the future I see 128 fit and healthy men submitting their blood for analysis at the start of a slam tournament after the draw is made.  A first screening would detect any dopers and they will be thrown out of the tournament in shame.  The next screening is a DNA assessment after which the winner of the tournament will be declared.

Nore Staat wrote:In the future I see 128 fit and healthy men submitting their blood for analysis at the start of a slam tournament after the draw is made.  A first screening would detect any dopers and they will be thrown out of the tournament in shame.  The next screening is a DNA assessment after which the winner of the tournament will be declared.

That would assume that we are formed entirely by nature and not nurture, which evidence is against. Your parents' DNA cannot be 100% replicated by looking at your own (you'd have to test their DNA too), neither can random experiences like the aid of others etc.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Let's say that the optimum height of a tennis player is 6ft 1. Being that height is not considered a talent.

I think you have got a little mixed up. Don't you mean that 6'1" should be the maximum height for a tennis player if we would rather the more skillful players win. Because any player taller than that has an unfair physical advantage because of their height (height gives a huge advantage in serving that has more to do with simple physics than talent). Any player above 6'1" doesn't require as much skill as shorter players to succeed.

No I don't mean that. Why is being tall any more unfair than being born with extremely good hand-to-eye coordination - both are genetically determined and beyond the control of the player.

If anything one might say that the only thing not determined by genetics is how hard they train - so is Ferrer the most talented then? Or is indeed capacity for hard work itself a part of the genetic make-up?

Nore Staat wrote:In the future I see 128 fit and healthy men submitting their blood for analysis at the start of a slam tournament after the draw is made.  A first screening would detect any dopers and they will be thrown out of the tournament in shame.  The next screening is a DNA assessment after which the winner of the tournament will be declared.

I think it was Lydian (apologies if not) that said the LTA will look at the height of a youngster's parents and if they are too short, they probably won't bother investing in that young player.

Born Slippy wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Let's say that the optimum height of a tennis player is 6ft 1. Being that height is not considered a talent.

I think you have got a little mixed up. Don't you mean that 6'1" should be the maximum height for a tennis player if we would rather the more skillful players win. Because any player taller than that has an unfair physical advantage because of their height (height gives a huge advantage in serving that has more to do with simple physics than talent). Any player above 6'1" doesn't require as much skill as shorter players to succeed.

No I don't mean that. Why is being tall any more unfair than being born with extremely good hand-to-eye coordination - both are genetically determined and beyond the control of the player.

If anything one might say that the only thing not determined by genetics is how hard they train - so is Ferrer the most talented then? Or is indeed capacity for hard work itself a part of the genetic make-up?

 
I made that very point a few posts up

1. Federer
2. Murray
3. Tsonga
4. Djokovic
5. Wawrinka
6. Nadal
7. Gasquet
8. Berdych
9. Del Potro
10. Ferrer

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:In the future I see 128 fit and healthy men submitting their blood for analysis at the start of a slam tournament after the draw is made.  A first screening would detect any dopers and they will be thrown out of the tournament in shame.  The next screening is a DNA assessment after which the winner of the tournament will be declared.

I think it was Lydian (apologies if not) that said the LTA will look at the height of a youngster's parents and if they are too short, they probably won't bother investing in that young player.

That does strike me as a little bit odd if true. How small is the cut off point bearing in mind a lot of kids are bigger than their parents? I know sports like rowing have talent ID programmes based on physical make-up rather than really rowing ability but that's for adults and I wasn't aware they did it at tennis.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:In the future I see 128 fit and healthy men submitting their blood for analysis at the start of a slam tournament after the draw is made.  A first screening would detect any dopers and they will be thrown out of the tournament in shame.  The next screening is a DNA assessment after which the winner of the tournament will be declared.

I think it was Lydian (apologies if not) that said the LTA will look at the height of a youngster's parents and if they are too short, they probably won't bother investing in that young player.

Sometimes they will just check to see if their grandparents won Wimbledon or represented Britain in the Davies Cup. Most of Britain's top tennis players have had older relatives that were themselves at least national level tennis players and / or tennis coaches. It's an extremely small gene pool that gets to the top in Britain.

Nore Staat wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:In the future I see 128 fit and healthy men submitting their blood for analysis at the start of a slam tournament after the draw is made.  A first screening would detect any dopers and they will be thrown out of the tournament in shame.  The next screening is a DNA assessment after which the winner of the tournament will be declared.

I think it was Lydian (apologies if not) that said the LTA will look at the height of a youngster's parents and if they are too short, they probably won't bother investing in that young player.

Sometimes they will just check to see if their grandparents won Wimbledon or represented Britain in the Davies Cup.  Most of Britain's top tennis players have had older relatives that were themselves at least national level tennis players and / or tennis coaches.  It's an extremely small gene pool that gets to the top in Britain.

Admittedly that's because not that many people play tennis, is way down the list of participation sports

Interesting to see people say Murray is more talented than Nadal and Djokovic.

Andy works and trains incredibly hard. He must put in as much effort into training as Rafa and Novak, if not more.

Yet he is considerably less successful.

How do you conclude he is more talented when he has achieved less with the same or more effort?

Or when he has glaring gaps in his game like 2nd serve and clay?

Sorry folks, some of you are getting misty-eyed!

Again you assert that talent = more success. Or perhaps that due to their impressive slam haul, how can they be less talented than someone who has won much less. I really strongly disagree with this.

HM Murdoch wrote:Interesting to see people say Murray is more talented than Nadal and Djokovic.

Andy works and trains incredibly hard. He must put in as much effort into training as Rafa and Novak, if not more.

Yet he is considerably less successful.

How do you conclude he is more talented when he has achieved less with the same or more effort?

Or when he has glaring gaps in his game like 2nd serve and clay?

Sorry folks, some of you are getting misty-eyed!

Strongly agreed. Though mostly I reckon people are looking at a mix of not including mental strength under talent (fair enough, this is an area at which Nadal and Novak are ahead of Murray), overrating his variety (I don't think the other 2 have any less in reality. They just know their gameplans will win over 99% of opponents and focus on using those rather than using every shot in their arsenal) and under estimate Rafa and Djokovic's talent. Both can make plays that nobody else in tennis ever, with any training, could make (including each other), and do. But people don't like their style and think that has some link to talent.

ChequeredJersey wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:Interesting to see people say Murray is more talented than Nadal and Djokovic.

Andy works and trains incredibly hard. He must put in as much effort into training as Rafa and Novak, if not more.

Yet he is considerably less successful.

How do you conclude he is more talented when he has achieved less with the same or more effort?

Or when he has glaring gaps in his game like 2nd serve and clay?

Sorry folks, some of you are getting misty-eyed!

Strongly agreed. Though mostly I reckon people are looking at a mix of not including mental strength under talent (fair enough, this is an area at which Nadal and Novak are ahead of Murray), overrating his variety (I don't think the other 2 have any less in reality. They just know their gameplans will win over 99% of opponents and focus on using those rather than using every shot in their arsenal) and under estimate Rafa and Djokovic's talent. Both can make plays that nobody else in tennis ever, with any training, could make (including each other), and do. But people don't like their style and think that has some link to talent.

Well, except apparently now Rafa on grass, who can be beaten by anyone one recent form!

OK LS, what's the rationale? What are we assessing when we conclude Andy has greater talent?

If he has he greater talent and trains as hard as he does, what is the reason for him having less success? 11 slams less success compared to Nadal! It's a chasm.

I've heard what it is wrong to judge talent on. What is it RIGHT to judge talent on and how does Andy beat Rafa and Novak in that regard?

http://cogprints.org/656/1/innate.htm - section 1.1

There's a healthy reading list at the end if we really want to get into the subject

I think they are realistic and play a style that is the most effective. Therefore they could be more talented than they are letting on. Murray's talent and variety could only get him so far (he thought), so he went down the extreme physical route to get results.
Djoko has won 5 more slams on the back of working hard to gain herculean fitness. Nadal is now the fittest and strongest there is. If he overtakes Feds in slams does that make him more talented?
Likewise for Murray if he overtook djoko, or djoko overtaking nadal?

Btw Murdoch I don't feel with this tenebrous topic there is a right or wrong. It is just my take on it. I won't say you are wrong, I will just say agree to disagree.

It's like people who think Nadal can't hit a flat forehand. He can and very occasionally does, and used to all the time. The issue is that it's not the right thing to do, so why do it? If a footballer can score shots from the halfway line, should he? Does one who does do this, rather than try and create a better chance, actually have more talent than the one who probably can but takes the more sensible option? Or just worse game management?

And is taking the sensible option a talent?

LS, I'm in agreement that greater success doesn't equal greater talent. But I think it has to be factor in conjunction with effort/training.

For instance, exaggerated example, but if a player only ever made QFs but only trained for an hour a week, I'd say he was massively talented. The achievement relative to the effort/training would be huge! That's how I see talent.

So do we have to work out how many training hours a certain player has accumulated to work out how talented they are bruce?

HM Murdoch wrote:Interesting to see people say Murray is more talented than Nadal and Djokovic.

Andy works and trains incredibly hard. He must put in as much effort into training as Rafa and Novak, if not more.

Yet he is considerably less successful.

How do you conclude he is more talented when he has achieved less with the same or more effort?

Or when he has glaring gaps in his game like 2nd serve and clay?

Sorry folks, some of you are getting misty-eyed!

Mental strength primarily. I assume we aren't seriously saying he lacks the talent to hit his second serve faster than 70 mph so therefore there must be a physical or mental reason why he is rolling it in. Clay is clearly a movement issue.

I'd rate Murray higher on pure talent because I think he can play a greater range of shots, has excellent hand skills and should be capable of playing any style of tennis.

Born Slippy wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:Interesting to see people say Murray is more talented than Nadal and Djokovic.

Andy works and trains incredibly hard. He must put in as much effort into training as Rafa and Novak, if not more.

Yet he is considerably less successful.

How do you conclude he is more talented when he has achieved less with the same or more effort?

Or when he has glaring gaps in his game like 2nd serve and clay?

Sorry folks, some of you are getting misty-eyed!

Mental strength primarily. I assume we aren't seriously saying he lacks the talent to hit his second serve faster than 70 mph so therefore there must be a physical or mental reason why he is rolling it in. Clay is clearly a movement issue.

I'd rate Murray higher on pure talent because I think he can play a greater range of shots, has excellent hand skills and should be capable of playing any style of tennis.

Many would argue that every single thing you have stated is true of Rafa and Novak too

Sure it's all a matter of opinions of course!

LS - pretty much!

"Working on the court, till you get your back burned
Working in the gym, till you get your facts learned"

That said, I'm not sure anyone would think Novak has better hand-skills than Andy (I.e. Touch around the net, reflex volleys). That's probably the weakest part of Novak's game. Of course, how much of that is nature and how much nurture (ie. Andy probably grew up playing on much faster surfaces) we don't know.

What does Murray do better than the other two? Well - rather than use the often brought out word of 'variety' I will try and elaborate a little.... He's a bit craftier in his problem solving (Wilander used this sentence the other day, and I like it) and uses more of a mix of pace and spins than they do.

However that could be argued that it's because the other two choose not to use a mix of pace, as opposed to Murray being better at it. You could argue maybe Murray is wrong to do this, is that talent or just bad choice? Very subjective. His slice is better, Rafa's is very good but I'd argue Murray's is the best in the game. Outside of all things physical, I can't say Murray does much else better than the other two.

What do they do better than him? Outside of anything that could be rated as physical, both have a better serve (if you include first AND second serve) Novak has at least as good a return, on either side. Rafa a better forehand, Novak an at least as good backhand... Rafa a good smash, Novak and Andy equally terrible... Both mentally tougher than Andy. Less so nowadays, but before 2012 the gap was huge.

To conclude, I see why some people may equate the mix in Murray's game as more talented, but I'm not sure I agree. No matter what your particular view of talent is. Unless it's "who is a craftier problem silver".....

I've confused myself. I need to lay down.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Let's say that the optimum height of a tennis player is 6ft 1. Being that height is not considered a talent.

I think you have got a little mixed up. Don't you mean that 6'1" should be the maximum height for a tennis player if we would rather the more skillful players win. Because any player taller than that has an unfair physical advantage because of their height (height gives a huge advantage in serving that has more to do with simple physics than talent). Any player above 6'1" doesn't require as much skill as shorter players to succeed.

No I don't mean that. Why is being tall any more unfair than being born with extremely good hand-to-eye coordination - both are genetically determined and beyond the control of the player.

I have never heard anyone described as skillfully tall...

HM Murdoch wrote:Interesting to see people say Murray is more talented than Nadal and Djokovic.

Andy works and trains incredibly hard. He must put in as much effort into training as Rafa and Novak, if not more.

Yet he is considerably less successful.

How do you conclude he is more talented when he has achieved less with the same or more effort?

Or when he has glaring gaps in his game like 2nd serve and clay?

Sorry folks, some of you are getting misty-eyed!

Misty-eyed? No it is simply that he is their favorite  

I used to prefer Murray to Djokovic. But in their aus open final, if murray wasn't a brit i would have routed for djoko.
He went for it more.

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Let's say that the optimum height of a tennis player is 6ft 1. Being that height is not considered a talent.

I think you have got a little mixed up. Don't you mean that 6'1" should be the maximum height for a tennis player if we would rather the more skillful players win. Because any player taller than that has an unfair physical advantage because of their height (height gives a huge advantage in serving that has more to do with simple physics than talent). Any player above 6'1" doesn't require as much skill as shorter players to succeed.

No I don't mean that. Why is being tall any more unfair than being born with extremely good hand-to-eye coordination - both are genetically determined and beyond the control of the player.

I have never heard anyone described as skillfully tall...

I think you're missing my point.

My question is that if height is a product of genetics and hand to eye coordination is a product of genetics, explain why one is a talent and one isn't and one is to be admired but he other isn't. Is it that the end product of good h2e is more aesthetically pleasing to us, thus we value it more highly, despite it's identical origin?

Further, if a person happens to be the optimum height for tennis, surely that is down to the luck of his genetics i.e. the luck. Surely it follows that if a person happens to have the optimum h2e for tennis, that is also down to the luck of his genetics. So again, why admire one more than the other, as a talent?

Most people are talented naturally.  But if they have too much talent then people will say they are unnaturally talented.

And what about flair and giftiness?  Which player has the greatest flair for tennis and who is the most gifted?  And what is the relationship between flair and giftiness to talent?  Is flair and giftiness and talent related to tallness.  If such a relationship exists would it be linear or curved (peaking at 6' 1'')?  Nadal clearly has an unnatural knack for tennis but his knees are unusually knackered.

Danny - superb post.

I agree that Andy is more gifted than the other two in certain areas.

I have to rate the "whole package" as less though.

I'd rate him above everyone else in the top ten though. You can't achieve that much more and be less talented.