Who's has better natural ability out of Djokovic and Murray ?

Djokovic has achieved more than Murray in his career, but does he have better natural ability ?


Discuss

It really depends on what you mean by "ability" which is a much, and often angrily discussed thing.

A lot of people consider natural ability the talent to play "touch shots" that is low slices, drop shots and the like, as well as the ability to hit big shots with a "clean" strike.

Thing is in tennis, a sport which is all about repeatability, the natural ability to keep your head and your focus high for hours on end, and to be able to keep the ball in court, even when stretched is just as important as the pretty stuff, but it isnt natural ability to some because it isnt clean, its supposedly just a product of physical training.

Murray clearly has the better touch to me, but Novaks defensive ability and ability to keep applying it near endlessly is far better. Ergo I couldn't really say.

In short, some people look like they have better ability because they look fancier, but the gritty stuff is just as impressive, and important

If two players, both of whom are great athletes who train very hard, are almost exactly the same age, it seems a strange argument to claim that the one who has:

- 5 more slams
-11 more Masters
-129 weeks more at #1
- leads the H2H 15-8
- broke the top 100 and top 10 first

is the one who has less natural ability.

Even if we say Murray has better natural ability (and not saying he has) there is a big deficit between the pair in the mental department. Djokovic is generally stronger whereas Murray's concentration wanders, he too often worries himself into precarious positions or doubts himself too much hence the deficit between the pair in slam wins.

I find it hard to discern Murrays natural ability, buried as it was beneath mountains of endurance play and retrieval. I think I remember it being exceptional.

temporary21 wrote:It really depends on what you mean by "ability" which is a much, and often angrily discussed thing.

A lot of people consider natural ability the talent to play "touch shots" that is low slices, drop shots and the like, as well as the ability to hit big shots with a "clean" strike.

Thing is in tennis, a sport which is all about repeatability, the natural ability to keep your head and your focus high for hours on end, and to be able to keep the ball in court, even when stretched is just as important as the pretty stuff, but it isnt natural ability to some because it isnt clean, its supposedly just a product of physical training.

Murray clearly has the better touch to me, but Novaks defensive ability and ability to keep applying it near endlessly is far better. Ergo I couldn't really say.

In short, some people look like they have better ability because they look fancier, but the gritty stuff is just as impressive, and important

By the same token, Ferrer has acquired 'ability' vs natural 'ability'. This comparison route between players negates the uniqueness of each individual on the court, IMVHO.

L Mayer showed more 'ability' vs Federer than what was 'natural' for/to him.

I don't think there's a great deal between them mentally.

Both are their own worst enemy on court and both put themselves into difficult situations.

If there's a difference, it's that Djokovic is better at getting himself out of those situations but Murray sometimes takes himself down with the ship.

I must say though, that I find the definition of natural ability so ethereal as to be virtually meaningless.

If we saw players first ever attempts at hitting a tennis ball, we might be able to judge their "natural" ability.

But we only ever see them after they've spent thousands of hours on a practise court.

laverfan wrote:

temporary21 wrote:It really depends on what you mean by "ability" which is a much, and often angrily discussed thing.

A lot of people consider natural ability the talent to play "touch shots" that is low slices, drop shots and the like, as well as the ability to hit big shots with a "clean" strike.

Thing is in tennis, a sport which is all about repeatability, the natural ability to keep your head and your focus high for hours on end, and to be able to keep the ball in court, even when stretched is just as important as the pretty stuff, but it isnt natural ability to some because it isnt clean, its supposedly just a product of physical training.

Murray clearly has the better touch to me, but Novaks defensive ability and ability to keep applying it near endlessly is far better. Ergo I couldn't really say.

In short, some people look like they have better ability because they look fancier, but the gritty stuff is just as impressive, and important

By the same token, Ferrer has acquired 'ability' vs natural 'ability'. This comparison route between players negates the uniqueness of each individual on the court, IMVHO.

L Mayer showed more 'ability' vs Federer than what was 'natural' for/to him.

Well here comes the crux.
Is what Ferrer does actually an acquired ability? Or is he naturally gifted with his dexterity and his mental concentration to keep himself going? Physical fitness is vital to both sides of the spectrum, no way could Murray or Dimitrov do what they do if they were overweight or weak, but Ferrers ability to keep himself going is helped by good conditioning, but its his natural gift that lets him keep doing it soo well. After all Ferrer doesnt just roll the ball, he can whack it on the full strech constantly.

Good question and may be author's idea is to indirectly use it as a convincing proof to say Nadal is more talented than Fed if the verdict of the thread here is Murray. Cheeky IMBL.

To answer this question several factors have to be thought

1]Who can play the most variety of shots? Murray [Hands down]
2]Who can play the one most shot to perfection? Djokovic
3]Who can play the best shot on the big points better? Djokovic
4]Who can adapt to different surfaces better? Djokovic [Murray still struggles on clay, comparison Djoko already won 2 GS on his weakest surface grass]
5]Who is more entertaining to watch ? Murray at his best certainly more fun to watch when he doesn't play defensive[ which is very rare], but Djoko is better to watch on most days as he has the right mix of attack and defense based on the requirements.

Overall Naturally Talented Murray, but effective utilization of Natural talent is Djoko, a natural talent is wasted if you cannot maximize it.

If I Had a choice to pick one of them to represent my team, I would pick Djoko coz he is more effective, so natural talent doesn't come into question mark there.

Did anybody watch Berna Coric vs Corna Bustea yesterday? Coric was more naturally talented and it shined in few parts of the match but Bustea was very effective and won the match convincingly.

Well, Murdoch... You would know very well that despite having by 2007, more slams, Masters, and weeks in top 3 than Nalbandian, Nadal will never be a patch on his talent.

On topic, what is talent. People say you see it, but this isn't rhythmic gymnastics. At this level, these guys hit so clean on the move, at pace... to pretend anyone is more talented is merely an aesthetic decision. The film and book Moneyball, although about baseball is a good insight into this from a raw data perspective.

I strongly disagree. If you told me all you needed to do was get a guy strong and make him practice hard and you could create a copy of Nadal and his shots, I would never believe you. Noone can hit the ball as accurately, and with the same spin as him because only he has the ability to pull it off that way, if it required soo little ability, everyone would do it.

That being said, we should probably go back to comparing Murray and Novak

So which part are you disagreeing with?

That Nadal hasn't got the talent or ability of Nalbandian. Nalbandian was a great flat hitter of a ball and exceptionally talented at changing its direction. He didnt have nearly the the ability of hitting it on the run as Rafa though. He also didnt have anywhere close to the ability to replicate his ability time after time either, a skill that, to me comes from more than just practice.

They both have great ability, but to different facets of the game. In any case I dont think were gonna come to an agreement on this, i'd rather let the topic get back to comparing Muzz and Novak

I hope Djokovic doesn't see this thread he would be spitting mad. He is already mad that he isn't compared to FEDAL

I was being facetious... I apparently suck at it, given the fact that I've had to explain it two days in a row.

kingraf wrote:I was being facetious... I apparently suck at it, given the fact that I've had to explain it two days in a row.

Apologies, I cant say I see the humorous part... but such is the problem not talking face to face I guess.

kingraf wrote:Well, Murdoch... You would know very well that despite having by 2007, more slams, Masters, and weeks in top 3 than Nalbandian, Nadal will never be a patch on his talent.

I agree with KingRaf here

Djoko has earned more then twice aswell money.

So sadly this Djoko is twice better then Andy, also has a 1,5 times better looking wife.

B@stardo!!

It was more to Murdoch, who's comment about how it's possible that such vastly differing career achievements can mean two players are apparently roughly equal, with the lesser player in fact being more talented, and that such notions aren't without prior in 606.

This is an old forum now, with a very established user base, nothing is without potential prior .
anyway can we either make a new topic on this, or get back to the relevant one?

Jahu wrote:

So sadly this Djoko is twice better then Andy, also has a 1,5 times better looking wife.

B@stardo!!

I would take a date with Kim Sears any day over Djoko's wife, kim is more naturally pleasing and beautiful , I can't say the quiet on Djoko's wife without make up, if you date back to 6 years Djoko's wife then the GF was not even half close to her current beauty.

Kim edges t for me because of her accent. A posh smooth British accent is rather alluring.

Novak, by some distance. Kind of glad to see a few others think the same, a few years back it wouldn't have been the case. I wonder if the extra slams have helped Djok's cause? The surface argument is one that I'd never really considered before either, for whatever reason. I suppose that we're all used to the top players dominating on all surfaces in the last decade.

Better timing of the ball and has incredible control on the stretch, his body positioning is also better. His hands have also improved a lot over the years, although I'd still say he's more reliant on racquet tech than Andy.

Not that Andy's a bad player, far from it...he's much better at the touch shots, and he almost certainly has more shots in his locker to boot. Interesting that neither of them can hit a decent overhead to save their lives, though!

kingraf wrote:Well, Murdoch... You would know very well that despite having by 2007, more slams, Masters, and weeks in top 3 than Nalbandian, Nadal will never be a patch on his talent.

Second day in a row, you're on form KR

I thought so... But I keep having to explain my statements. Maybe it's an age thing

kingraf wrote:It was more to Murdoch, who's comment about how it's possible that such vastly differing career achievements can mean two players are apparently roughly equal, with the lesser player in fact being more talented, and that such notions aren't without prior in 606.

I was never part of the Nalbandian love-in.

Good player, struck a ball sweetly but that doesn't trump a rather empty CV, in my opinion.

So a few here are beauty racist?

Gimme Berdys GF then

Jokes are funnier when you explain them.

Up to 2011 I used to think Andy was the more talented. Then it became pretty clear that Novak has more in his locker. Andy has a few attributes which are better. Softer hands, bit more imaginative, better slice (although that's a lot closer than it used to be) but Novak wins pretty much every other battle. Andy can beat him of course, if he brings his best, but Novak is more likely to bring his best.

I also think he has what Craig stated earlier, Novak is way stronger mentally. It took Andy up until his 4th slam final to have the mental courage to attack.

Murray has definitely way under achieved given his gifts, in my opinion, but Novak is the better player.

HM Murdoch wrote:
I was never part of the Nalbandian love-in.

Good player, struck a ball sweetly but that doesn't trump a rather empty CV, in my opinion.

Nalbandian's back to back Masters in 2007 is the stuff of legonds...

Madrid (Indoors)

R64 Arnaud Clement W 5-7, 6-2, 6-4
R32 Tomas Berdych  W 4-6, 6-4, 7-6(2)
R16 Juan Martin Del Potro W 6-2, 6-4
Q Rafael Nadal W 6-1, 6-2
S Novak Djokovic W 6-4, 7-6(4)
W Roger Federer W 1-6, 6-3, 6-3

Followed by Paris (Indoors)

R64 Nicolas Almagro W 6-4, 6-4
R32 Carlos Moya W 6-4, 6-4
R16 Roger Federer W 6-4, 7-6(3)
Q David Ferrer W 7-6(3), 6-7(3), 6-2
S Richard Gasquet W 6-2, 6-4
W Rafael Nadal W 6-4, 6-0

How quickly people forget   All is not equal in the tennis world. Those back to back wins played on consecutive days could, would or should add up to a couple of slams. Nalbandian didn't even have byes in the first rounds. If my memory serves me well they were all high quality wins. Nalbandian was just way too good. Nalbandian also had an exceptional stand out shot. His backhand was a thing of beauty.

I don't think that contradicts HM's point though.

I don't think I've ever agreed more with you HE.
That bh was the best dh I've ever seen.

Marvellous run from Nalbandian, but should "add up to a couple of slams".... Ridiculous! I remember a time when individuals who had 'only' won masters were derided. Funny how only masters are suddenly all the rage to back up your point!

Wow for once I agree with the gist of HE's post.

Nalby was a special talent. He could hit patches of form to rival any great player. A beautiful shotmaker. That BH is the best offensive BH I've seen. Period. Crazy angles, power and precision and a thing of beauty. The FH wasn't bad either. Just let himself down with his conditioning but was actually a beautiful mover on the court. Mentally also wasn't up to the task. But for natural talent he was up there.

Ah Natural Ability.

If I am honest I don't think either player is blessed with an abundance of natural ability. When I think of natural ability, I tend to think of it as something that comes with general ease compared with others. I think Djokovic and Murray especially have had to work extremely hard with their games to really over-maximise on their respective abilities.

Murray has a great touch and feel for the ball, but so does Djokovic. People marvel on the Murray drop shot, but Djokovic's at times borderlines the ridiculous in the tightness he gets to the net with ball when playing it. I couldn't call it respective of achievements of either of them.

Natural players tend to have a flair about them. Federer has it, Fognini has it and Dolgopolov has it. Those kind of players tennis have a wow factor in their game. They can pull of the kind of shots with real ease and their movement is so intwined with their shotmaking abilities. Give the latter some fortitude and brains and they could easily be at the top of the game.

When I look at Djokovic and Murray, they don't really present themselves as players with natural ability. Great players without a doubt, but for me more from real hard graft.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Natural players tend to have a flair about them.

This is the crux of it.

My objection to all the talk of natural talent is that what we see is the result of loads of practice.

Nalbandian's backhand rightly gets lots of plaudits but he spent a lifetime honing that shot. How can we use it as a marker of natural talent?

I think the best marker of natural talent is the ability to improvise. The ability to execute a shot when you can't call on muscle memory and preparation. You simply have to rely on hand-eye, imagination and feel for the ball.

Federer has this in abundance.

Getting back to the OP, I think it's pretty close between Andy and Novak. Their improvisations are of a different style.

Andy is much more adept at something deft around the net (he switched to his left hand the other day! That was quite impressive).

Novak though, can be at full stretch, almost doing the splits and still find the angle to hit a BHDTL or a FH around the post.

Andy's improvisations are more pleasing to the eye but can be executed by other similarly gifted players. Novak's improvisations end up looking a bit functional and yet I can't think of another player ever able to execute them.

(Note: I realise this is a different conclusion to what I posted earlier. Such is the joy of discussion!)

HM Murdoch wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Natural players tend to have a flair about them.

This is the crux of it.

My objection to all the talk of natural talent is that what we see is the result of loads of practice.
Nalbandian's backhand rightly gets lots of plaudits but he spent a lifetime honing that shot. How can we use it as a marker of natural talent?

I think the best marker of natural talent is the ability to improvise. The ability to execute a shot when you can't call on muscle memory and preparation. You simply have to rely on hand-eye, imagination and feel for the ball.

Federer has this in abundance.

Getting back to the OP, I think it's pretty close between Andy and Novak. Their improvisations are of a different style.

Andy is much more adept at something deft around the net (he switched to his left hand the other day! That was quite impressive).

Novak though, can be at full stretch, almost doing the splits and still find the angle to hit a BHDTL or a FH around the post.

Andy's improvisations are more pleasing to the eye but can be executed by other similarly gifted players. Novak's improvisations end up looking a bit functional and yet I can't think of another player ever able to execute them.

(Note: I realise this is a different conclusion to what I posted earlier. Such is the joy of discussion!)

That's exactly it isn't it?

You practice and train and anyone who has picked up a racquet knows that with lots of court time you get to judge the weight of a shot, watch the ball all the way through and work on movement. For me natural ability is when you call on something as you say isn't the result of endless hours of practice.

Yes spot on HM Murdoch. 

It would be akin to putting two people who have never held a tennis racquet in their life at any age onto a tennis court and hitting a tennis ball at them and see how they adapt and deal with it. One may not get a racquet on it whilst the other may be able to get it back over the net. That is natural talent as it is something that hasn't been coached.

Murray probably has more natural ability. Certainly when he was coming through he had the wow factor in that you could usually guarantee a couple of shots a match which would amaze. Lendl knocked that out of him to a large extent with the focus very much being on the bread and butter style game. Hopefully, we may start seeing it again this year. Even on the routine shots I would say he is probably Novak's equal.

Where he has always lagged behind Novak is the physical and mental side. He has had to work hard to make himself a decent athlete but it is not as natural as Novak. Novak moves better and has greater endurance - even after all Andy's training.

An answer to this might be found away from tennis.

As HMM and LV2 have pointed out - with tennis they've had so much coaching and practice in drills and routines natural ability is quite hard to pick out.

So, are Djokovic or Murray any good at any other sports - or show promise as a youngster before tennis took over? Especially racquet ones. Squash, badminton, table tennis or even snooker or cricket etc.

All naturally talented sports people tend to be good at more than one sport. As they have the required hand eye coordination. (I purposely leave out football - every man and his dog has had "trials" for someone at some point in time). Alas I know neither one of them well enough to answer my own question.

Wasn't Murray on Rangers books as a youngster?

legendkillarV2 wrote:Wasn't Murray on Rangers books as a youngster?

He was indeed but jj wants football kept out of this.

HM Murdoch wrote:If two players, both of whom are great athletes who train very hard, are almost exactly the same age, it seems a strange argument to claim that the one who has:

- 5 more slams
-11 more Masters
-129 weeks more at #1
- leads the H2H 15-8
- broke the top 100 and top 10 first

is the one who has less natural ability.

I pretty much agree with this. I think Murray has better hands but I think Djokovic is a better ball striker from the back of the court. Both guys seem pretty committed to their careers so it isn't like a lack of commitment ala Gulbis can be claimed for either. They came up together and pretty much at every stage except for a little period in 2009 and early 2010 Djokovic has been better.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Wasn't Murray on Rangers books as a youngster?

He was indeed but jj wants football kept out of this.

Well Nadal is a keen golfer, not sure what his handicap is though. Lendl is a good golfer from what I hear. didn't Kafelnikov turn pro?

Does that qualify?

Henman's a scratch golfer these days. There's a big correlation between the two sports, even among amateurs.

Reading socal's post it strikes me just how fine the margins are at the very top of the game. A few different decisions here and there from either camp, and could Murray and Djokovic have ended up on a similar number of slams? Who knows.

I'm happy for football to be thrown in!!! Just you hear so many tales of x,y and z being "on the books" somewhere when in fact they just had one trial when they were U12! (which in England generally just means you are bigger than everyone else!).

I'd say golf qualifies as a good measure of natural ability. Sobers (different sport I know) for example plays off scratch without any formal golf tuition. And as Silver says..big correlation. then again..neither Murray or Djokovic might play which makes it a moot point!

Just thought it would be another way of looking at who has the better "natural ability" anywho.

That's a fair point, there are some transferable skills between all the sports, especially the racket sports which share a lot in common.

My answer to the question in this OP would probably be Djokovic; but I can't be certain because I'm not sure about this: to what extent can we separate natural ability from what you've improved from practicing ?

Johnyjeep wrote:I'm happy for football to be thrown in!!! Just you hear so many tales of x,y and z being "on the books" somewhere when in fact they just had one trial when they were U12! (which in England generally just means you are bigger than everyone else!).

I'd say golf qualifies as a good measure of natural ability. Sobers (different sport I know) for example plays off scratch  without any formal golf tuition. And as Silver says..big correlation. then again..neither Murray or Djokovic might play which makes it a moot point!

Just thought it would be another way of looking at who has the better "natural ability" anywho.

Football trials are often overblown. The vast majority of people use it as to say they made the grade so to speak. My Dad way back in the early 60's actually turned a trial down at Crystal Palace in favour of working with his dad. Sadly the scouting system nowadays is rubbish. More emphasis is on finding talent abroad which has been partially developed. Enough on that one.

It's hard to gauge if tennis skills are transferable. Badminton/Squash/Table Tennis. Makes you wonder who would come out on top in formats of racquet sport.