The Definition of Talent

First topic message reminder :

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?

Flair is more highly rated by many people because it is more aesthetically pleasing - it produces the unusual, perhaps the astonishing. Some players seem to think of shots that others cannot think of - a creative aspect, although with an end goal of winning, not so the same creativity as art.
Is such creativity part of talent?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Is such creativity part of talent?

Yes.

Creativity suggests something unrehearsed.

Therefore when we divide the success by the practise, we are dividing by a small number, thereby giving a high talent quotient.

My definition is rock solid! It's up there with the laws of thermodynamics and Socal's Maxim.  

Okay - maybe everyone might then agree on who has the greatest flair for tennis (if they can't agree on who has the greatest talent - or even what is meant by talent).

In the sport of boxing it is normally more clear cut - the talented boxers are called boxers, the boxers that base their style on sheer strength are called "fighters". "Boxers" are generally more skilled, have greater ring craft and technique, and have good endurance. "Fighters" are generally less skilled, but are strong, can take a "punch", and aim to wear down then knock out the opponent. It seems to me that in terms of this boxing analogy - Federer is the "boxer" and Nadal is the "fighter".

I remember something else Wilander said (not sure why I'm quoting Wilander all of a sudden) which stuck with me as I found it interesting.

He said, and I paraphrase as I can't recall it word for word: Murray can be the best player in the world. He isn't yet but he has the power game of Nadal, he has the all court game of Djokovic and he has the artistry of Federer. He doesn't do any of those things better than those guys, but he is the only one that has all 3.

I found that interesting. Do I agree? Not sure. But it's an interesting theory.

Danny_1982 wrote:I remember something else Wilander said (not sure why I'm quoting Wilander all of a sudden) which stuck with me as I found it interesting.

He said, and I paraphrase as I can't recall it word for word: Murray can be the best player in the world. He isn't yet but he has the power game of Nadal, he has the all court game of Djokovic and he has the artistry of Federer. He doesn't do any of those things better than those guys, but he is the only one that has all 3.  

I found that interesting. Do I agree? Not sure. But it's an interesting theory.

It's because he's saying nice things about Murray

Danny_1982 wrote:I remember something else Wilander said (not sure why I'm quoting Wilander all of a sudden) which stuck with me as I found it interesting.

He said, and I paraphrase as I can't recall it word for word: Murray can be the best player in the world. He isn't yet but he has the power game of Nadal, he has the all court game of Djokovic and he has the artistry of Federer. He doesn't do any of those things better than those guys, but he is the only one that has all 3.  

I found that interesting. Do I agree? Not sure. But it's an interesting theory.

He has power, he has all court game and he has artistry.

But he doesn't have the power of Nadal, the all court game of Djokovic, the artistry of Federer.

That player would be super human!

Why is Nadal the epitome of power? It's not his greatest strength, nor is he the most powerful player on tour in any way I can envisage the word being used, it's just a lazy stereotype!

ChequeredJersey wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:I remember something else Wilander said (not sure why I'm quoting Wilander all of a sudden) which stuck with me as I found it interesting.

He said, and I paraphrase as I can't recall it word for word: Murray can be the best player in the world. He isn't yet but he has the power game of Nadal, he has the all court game of Djokovic and he has the artistry of Federer. He doesn't do any of those things better than those guys, but he is the only one that has all 3.  

I found that interesting. Do I agree? Not sure. But it's an interesting theory.

It's because he's saying nice things about Murray

Haha, I did say I'm not sure I agree. Specifically the power game of Nadal. I think he's some way from that. He doesn't bully players like Nadal. Nowhere near.

It's a nice quote though. And it's nice to be nice.

3,200 rpm doesn't come from caressing the ball!

But I do agree with your sentiment.

HM Murdoch wrote:3,200 rpm doesn't come from caressing the ball!

But I do agree with your sentiment.

We need a new thread: The definition of caressing

My view? Anything above 3,199 rpm is not caressing.

HM Murdoch wrote:... But he doesn't have the power of Nadal, the all court game of Djokovic, the artistry of Federer.

That player would be super human!

He has the artistry of Nadal, the power of Federer and the yodelling abilities of Djokovic.

What sort of talent do you need to play poker? I have no idea but it's not just a luck game. Nadal recently beat the number one in the world at this. The number one in the world demanded immediately demanded a re-match as he said Nadal had been dealt a lucky hand.

The point being that it is one thing to play a beautiful topspin FDTL in practice but it takes an entirely different sort of skill to hit one when your reputation may depend on it.

Great article BS.  Talent debates can deteriorate easily but you seem to have found a way to lay out the discussion in a way that somehow prevented that from happening.

I personally do not normally get very attracted to talent debates mostly because I do not care much whether or not a player wins through talent or otherwise.  I am mostly interested in the final product, and not so much in how big a portion of that product comes from talent.

But to the extent I do think of talent, I tend to view tennis talent (a nebulous term obviously) as the innate ability to perform on-court tasks normally associated with tennis success.

So, I tend to exclude hard work (genetically given though it may be) as well as pure physique parameters (such as height) from "talent".  On the other hand, I would tend to include say innate hand-eye coordination.

There are obviously areas that are still a bit murky - even after accepting my own "definition" of talent.  For example, I do not view height as part of "talent" but I would tent to view innate agility as part of talent - even though there clearly is correlation between the former and the latter.

One other complicating facet of talent discussions is the shifting nature of tennis itself.  For example, tennis in the 70s and 80s was quite different from current tennis.  So much so that the set of abilities required to succeed back than was - though still heavily overlapping - quite visibly different from the set of abilities required to succeed nowadays.

How do we compare a player who has talent to succeed in the game as it used to be vs a player who has talent to succeed in the game as it is?  Over time, I have observed two basic "schools of thought" among tennis fans:

The first school holds - at least implicitly - that tennis is really the sport that it was initially meant to be, and to the extent the current tennis has deviated from that, it is not quite tennis.  Consequently, adherents of this school tend to measure talent relative to what would have produced most success in the old days.

The second school holds that tennis evolves over time and with it the requirements to succeed also evolve.  As a result, the disciples of this school tend to measure level of talent relative to what is required to succeed at any given point in time.

hawkeye wrote:What sort of talent do you need to play poker? I have no idea but it's not just a luck game. Nadal recently beat the number one in the world at this. The number one in the world demanded immediately demanded a re-match as he said Nadal had been dealt a lucky hand.

"He came in really solid and he didn't make any mistakes. And then he knew when to make the adjustment, to play more aggressively, and he did,"

That's what Negreanu said about Nadal.

Poker isn't really like tennis. I could step in and beat anyone but also lose to anyone on the same day. Nadal was all-in pre-flop with 55 against 88 and suited A7. He had about a one in seven chance of winning but got lucky - it's the nature of the game. It's the people who can do it time and time again, like Negreanu, that show that there is a large skill element involved. The talent isn't really reading the cards, it's knowing the odds and when they're in your favour. Over a long period of time, those people who can do this end up making money.

Incidently, only going by that one hand, it's Andrey Shevchenko (who had the 88) who should be calling for the rematch, haha.

Danny_1982 wrote:I remember something else Wilander said (not sure why I'm quoting Wilander all of a sudden) which stuck with me as I found it interesting.

He said, and I paraphrase as I can't recall it word for word: Murray can be the best player in the world. He isn't yet but he has the power game of Nadal, he has the all court game of Djokovic and he has the artistry of Federer. He doesn't do any of those things better than those guys, but he is the only one that has all 3.  

I found that interesting. Do I agree? Not sure. But it's an interesting theory.

Surely being told you have the all-court game of Novak is actually being slightly insulted? He's worked on it at lot but, of the many great attributes to Novak's game, his transition from baseline to net isn't one of them.

That said, I get what Wilander is saying. Murray has the ability to serve 140 mph plus, he is acknowledged as one of the great returners in the game, he has concrete solidity in his groundstrokes with excellent touch and flair and he is 6"3 with the movement of a sprinter. If he was the dominant player in the world, it wouldn't be difficult to understand. The fact he isn't is testament to how good the other top guys are and suggests they have more of whatever x-factor makes an all time great.

Great thread - Can't really add much, except that I'd say the greatest talent in tennis is your ability to adjust and improvise. Serving style, skills at the net, and even movement to a degree, are all a product of your environment... No point learning to volley at your toes in Barcelona, by the same token, the ability to hit 50 fizzing forehands in a row helps you naught in Johannesburg, with no clay courts, 6, 000 feet above sea level. Your skill set is a product of your environment not your talent. Also interesting to note how creativity is regarded as a talent, but mental strength isn't, given that both are a product of the mind... what's the distinction? I'd say mental strength is an even harder aspect of the mind to foster.

It's because people want the players they like nest to be acknowledged as the most talented, so they will focus on the things their players have. It's natural

Sorry, Quins lost ergo I'm in a bad mood

Danny_1982 wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:I remember something else Wilander said (not sure why I'm quoting Wilander all of a sudden) which stuck with me as I found it interesting.

He said, and I paraphrase as I can't recall it word for word: Murray can be the best player in the world. He isn't yet but he has the power game of Nadal, he has the all court game of Djokovic and he has the artistry of Federer. He doesn't do any of those things better than those guys, but he is the only one that has all 3.  

I found that interesting. Do I agree? Not sure. But it's an interesting theory.

It's because he's saying nice things about Murray

Haha, I did say I'm not sure I agree. Specifically the power game of Nadal. I think he's some way from that. He doesn't bully players like Nadal. Nowhere near.

It's a nice quote though. And it's nice to be nice.

Its a  theory  and though I would say I do not  totally agree (but then I seldom agree with Wilander)  certain elements of it are correct.  However what Murray does not have is the mental strength of the other three and I doubt if ever will.

Pokerwise, there's always a sucker at the table. If you cant see one, its you.

Talent seems nothing these days without the Gym, science food, good team management, sponsors, esoteric medical stuff, star wars chambers, etc etc, so a wide mix of things.

Haddie-nuff wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:I remember something else Wilander said (not sure why I'm quoting Wilander all of a sudden) which stuck with me as I found it interesting.

He said, and I paraphrase as I can't recall it word for word: Murray can be the best player in the world. He isn't yet but he has the power game of Nadal, he has the all court game of Djokovic and he has the artistry of Federer. He doesn't do any of those things better than those guys, but he is the only one that has all 3.  

I found that interesting. Do I agree? Not sure. But it's an interesting theory.

It's because he's saying nice things about Murray

Haha, I did say I'm not sure I agree. Specifically the power game of Nadal. I think he's some way from that. He doesn't bully players like Nadal. Nowhere near.

It's a nice quote though. And it's nice to be nice.

Its a  theory  and though I would say I do not  totally agree (but then I seldom agree with Wilander)  certain elements of it are correct.  However what Murray does not have is the mental strength of the other three and I doubt if ever will.

There is a dictionary definition of talent but on 606v2 "talent" is often used as a magical quality ascribed to certain posters "favorite" player. The usual way in tennis to determine who is the best is to get two players to play a match and see who wins or look at a career H2H between players or overall career achievements. But some find it harsh to accept when their "favorite" doesn't measure up using these factors so they invent a new one... "talent". On the talent scale any player can be judged the best and losses can be attributed to any number of things that for any number of reasons don't really matter. Mental weakness, not really wanting to win, physical weakness, "pressure", court speed, heat, cold, wind... the list could go on.

It is also used to explain away the achievements of non "favorite" players. ie player A may have won the match, have a better H2H and better overall achievements than player B but as far as talent goes they are losers.

I dont see it that way at all talent to me is something you are inately born with something that you find natural where others find difficult or impossible to do. Mental strength is itself a natural talent being able to stay in the moment, focussed, determined and resolute to achieve your goal. Not winning a match but being able to not consider it a failure but purely a stepping stone to the next and determined to do better.
The three players Fed/Nadal/Djoko. have reached the pinnacle of their profession by not only having tennis talent but having the mindset to exploit their talents to the full. Each have their own particular style, and tennis talent but what they have in common is their mindset.
Tennis talent alone is not enough. There are players out there who have tennis talent by the bucket load... it has been proven when they play the top guns how close (or at times beat them). However they cannot maintain that EXTRA that these three guys have. To have the talent to exploit your full ability is in itself a talent (if you follow my drift).
Sorry if that sounds a bit garbled I haven´t expressed it as well as I would like. Only to say that it isn´t all about swinging a racquet at a ball and playing well. These players are far more complex than that and its something that cannot be coached, or taught, you have it or you dont.

What are your guys top 10?

As anyone who reads the cricket forum would know - I abhor top tens, especially the ones which try place players on intangible factors which I feel hold no water. Like I said, the greatest talent in tennis is your ability to adjust and improvise. Federer and Nadal are probably shoulders above in that regard, but in vastly differing ways. A guy like Tsonga was rated as the second most talented player by you, but has ONE Masters title... Even accounting for a lazy attitude, how do you explain the chasm between him and the seventh most talented player? You have Wawrinka tied for third... yet even in the year he put in the most work to his game... He still couldn't take a set off #7... In fact your #3s are a combined 0-23 against Nadal for three sets... That's a lot of laziness... and mental weakness, and adverse conditions, and not training, and lack of confidence, and loss of form, and choking, and possibly fear... but not a lack of talent, Not that.

Mentally fragile, inferior court coverage, fitness and matchups also play their part in this KR, before we even get to 'talent'.

Based on my definition of talent stated above I do not have ten players that I could comfortably fit into that.
         
Federer,                
Nadal
Djoko
Warwrinka,
Delpo
Ferrer, (mentally one of the most talented on tour which though not as talented a player has shown what can be achieved by the mental approach to his game)
Murray ? (when he doesnt give up on himself)

Talented tennis players
Tsonga, Montfils, Gasquet Dimitriov, Gulbis.Berdych
However I do not feel they are mentally talented enough to achieve anything close to those above

It has been demonstrated over and over by Rafa/Djoko/Federer.. how on countless occasions when they have been down and out and not playing at their best they have come back to win matches. Now that is talent

But again, why isn't mental strength seen as a talent? It certainly isn't in abundance, in any walk of life. Inferior court coverage is a lack in talent, such an important aspect of tennis, if you are lacking that, then there is a talent deficiency.

Because for me physical fitness is synonymous with mental strength.
Djoko developed herculean fitness in 2011 and was able to out nadal nadal, making him look mentally weak at times as he was on the same level fitness wise, rafa looked out of options.

Djoko didn't have this mental superiority until his fitness skyrocketed.
Therefore I don't think mental strength is much of a talent.

Same could be said for Fed. He had early losses to Hewitt (who was fitter than him) and Nalby. When he developed and matured physically his mental strength improved.
Instead of pulling the trigger too early against Hewitt which was his downfall early on, he was now able to rally with him and set himself for the winner.

Then LS I dont think their oponents would agree with you. Ive heard it said by many about Novak, and Nadal that mentally they are the hardest players to beat.  That is why Bjorg was so good as was Lendl.. that is why Lendl has been a good influence on Murray.. I totally disagree many sports not just tennis are won and lost in the mind.
Rafa plays poker mainly for the mental aspect of the game. Thats why players like Gasquet, Berdych and Tsonga choke. Get to the big points and they crumble

Did they say that about Novak after '11 right? I think so.
WInning a point against a Nadal/djoko/murray is probably harder than winning one against a gasquet/wawrinka/berdych?

Well - of course getting fitter is great for your confidence, as it allows for greater reserves... But getting fitter doesn't equal better mental strength. Otherwise Ferrer could increase his bicycling from 90 miles a day, to 105 and start converting break points against the big four... Or Grigor Dimitrov would have made his rise already (remember the threads after he beat Nole discussing his new found fitness, and love for training? eight months later... Still no title) Getting fitter and getting mentally stronger aren't mutually inclusive. Nalbandian didn't seem to have problems believing he could beat Federer or Nadal... Similarly, Igor Andreev's physique seems to have increased his strength regarding the ladies ad infinitum, without ever translating to Herculean efforts on court.

Just watch Novak, and Nadal next time they are a set point or game point down... and still to some extent Fed (but try to remember the old Federer).
Just watch again the 2008 Wimby final with Rafa and Fed.. if that was 50 percent tennis talent and 50 percent mental battle Ive never seen a match that was.

Really interesting thread and interesting discussion almost all non-partisan.

I agree most with summerblues' statement:
"I tend to view tennis talent (a nebulous term obviously) as the innate ability to perform on-court tasks normally associated with tennis success."

Tennis results, as with results in most walks of life, are made up of innate ability, learned skills and random/chance factors. Learned skills could be things that were imparted by parents as toddlers or that were taught by a coach at age 25 and only embedded through practice.

It seems to me that even what we are calling "mental strength" still includes these 3 factors. HN's view is interesting is that she has Djokovic grouped with Federer & Nadal as mentally strong but I don't think he was perceived that way until 2011 - was the improvement down to learning or random chance? I was say perhaps a bit of both (if France has played a better 2nd player in the 2010 Davis Cup and Serbia hadn't won the trophy or Nadal hadn't got injured in the 2011 AO and beaten Djokovic fairly easily in the final, would he have had the confidence that he took through the rest of 2011?).

In the same way, HN has Ferrer as a mentally strong player and I would agree generally - he seems to play a very game and is very hard to beat. And yet, this year he lost 7 finals. Some of those he was expected to lose, but some he was heavy favourite to win - perhaps it was the physical effects of a long season that led to the defeats, but I can't help seeing a connection with the failed challenge on match point in the Miami final and the heavy defeats at Acapulco and RG and surmising a mental block in finals.

Dimitrov who cramped in the 2nd set tiebreak of a bo3 and 3rd set in another bo3 vs rafa? Great fitness there....
The way I see it is that you have a tennis ability talent that doesn't change much, but mental strength can be improved a lot.
Knowing that you can grind your opponent down instead of having to go for a risky winner as so many of those big 3 don't need to and the opposition does, is a massive factor.
When it gets close, you see what Nalby does vs Rafa and feds, more often than not he gets tight.
Margin for error games also help greatly...

Doesn't Dimtrov have a title now? I thought that was one of Ferrer's losses in finals.

I'm not disagreeing with HN regarding the importance of mental strength in winning matches - I'm simply saying mental strength is not just an innate property and a person's mental strength can vary over time with training and experience. You can see that even with Federer and Nadal.

YvonneT wrote:Doesn't Dimtrov have a title now? I thought that was one of Ferrer's losses in finals.

In fairness Yvonne I take on board what you say about Ferrer but this is where his tennis talent is obviously not as good as the rest but better than many. I think this last year is beginning to take its toll physically on the "little man" he runs more miles on a court than any other player I know. Sadly Daveed came to his peak a bit late in his career.. had he done so earlier who knows. But mentally and physically now I would not be at all surprised to know that he is tiring. He had a wonderful 2012/3 but I fear this year may tell the truth. However I would love to see some of the young uns take a leaf from his book .. his tenacity and determination never to give in is a testimony to him and that again in itself is a talent.

For me Ferrer is a good example of physical fitness aiding his mental strength.
Despite his average ball striking and weight of shots, he can generally beat everyone below the big four (not including feds due to his creativity) through retrieval and his opponent wilting.
When he comes up against djoko and Nadal (less so murray as he also here gets tight mentally vs nadal when he has to be more aggressive and hit through ferrer, not natural to him) his inability to end points quickly, their superior shots and similar/better fitness turn ferrer into a mental midget.
When Djoko was running on empty in wtf '11, ferrer turned the tables due to his superior fitness and retrieval ability, therefore he won comfortably.
Fitness is a huge factor in mental strength imo.

Haddie was that said before '11 re Djoko? I bet not!

I'm sorry but you can't claim players conditioned to play five set tennis choke in the second set of a match because of a lack of fitness. Look at Michael Spinks could have trained for six years in the build up to the Tyson fight... Wouldn't have changed the fact that he was scared to death, and didn't even want to come out of the locker before the fight. Can't claim a lack of fitness is the reason a guy who went five hours vs Djokovic isn't mentally well enough to beat Nadal.

*Just checked, yes - Yvonne - Grigor does have a title, not sure if it's over Ferrer, but if so, doesn't really harm my argument.

YvonneT wrote:I'm not disagreeing with HN regarding the importance of mental strength in winning matches - I'm simply saying mental strength is not just an innate property and a person's mental strength can vary over time with training and experience. You can see that even with Federer and Nadal.

Im not so sure that you can be trained to be honest.. if so why are so many of the top players mental midgets.
I think so much of ones mental strength comes from a belief in yourself. Not to give in under pressure. A resilience that you have or you dont. You can be trained not to show weakness but that does not mean you have strength.
Andy is obviously being trained by Lendl not to show his feelings on court, as did Borg and he himself actually.
Allowing your oponent to believe your are mentally strong.  But in Fed/Rafa and maybe once he didn´t now Novak
They have mental strength imo. Being able to soak up the pressure and still come out fighting.

kingraf wrote:*Just checked, yes - Yvonne - Grigor does have a title, not sure if it's over Ferrer, but if so, doesn't really harm my argument.

Indeed, I agree with your point - but poor Dimitrov seems to get so much criticism here that it didn't seem fair to not point out his title!

Did I say it was entirely down to fitness? I said it helped massively. You are putting words in my mouth.
Look at my point re Nalby, same could apply here for Stan. Re-read my arguments.

So how do you explain the amount of "mental midgets" in the game? Guys who are oppressed by the conditions, Strings, balls, and gym?

I cannot but I am not trying to either.
I am merely saying mental strength is massively aided by fitness.
I did also say that mental strength is a talent, be it a much smaller one than someone's tennis playing ability.

[quote="LuvSports!"]I cannot but I am not trying to either.
I am merely saying mental strength is massively aided by fitness.
I did also say that mental strength is a talent, be it a much smaller one than someone's tennis playing ability.

For what is worth and it isnt worth much I know I couldn´t disagree more    sorry
Gasquet is just one example of that

Again you don't answer my point re djoko, was that before or after '11? I wonder why...

Of course you don't agree. I could be wrong but you may think I have an agenda against Nadal or even Djoko. I say great fitness is massively linked to mental strength and you disagree as if this were true, rafa may not be the mental giant that he is.

I don't have an agenda as I said Feds (my fave player) massively benefitted from this when his fitness improved and he matured into a dominant force. His talent was never in question but the final jigsaw pieces were still missing before everything slotted into place.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Im not so sure that you can be trained to be honest.. if so why are so many of the top players mental midgets.

First off, I really don't like to call any player a "mental midget" - LS just used it in reference to Ferrer and I think that's very harsh, but even, say, Gasquet, Tsonga, Monfils would not have got to where they are without a decent amount of mental strength.

My main point is that I think mental strength is a combination of things - innate ability, learned skills and random/chance factors (mainly our experiences). If we look at what different aspects we might call mental strength in terms of a tennis match:

• staying in the moment (something Rafa is particularly good at and Murray used to be terrible at) - can be improved by learning/coaching (as can speaking Japanese - doesn't mean it's simple to learn!)  
  
• nerves (the type Murray describes when trying to serve for the title at Wimb: shaking, legs not responding etc) - can probably be improved only by experience
  
• freezing (like Lisicki at Wimb) - not sure if this is just an extension of nerves or not
  
• continuing maximum effort even in a seemingly lost cause - I thought this might be an extension of staying in the moment, but Murray's always been pretty good at this - maybe this is not an ability as such, more just how you apply yourself.
  

In no expert in this (obviously!) but it just doesn't seem as simple to me as something you have or you don't.

Very good post Yvonne.