Simon on "Talent"

First topic message reminder :

What is "talent"? Gilles Simon talks about its nature in l'Équipe via Frédéric Bernès.

(In the piece, read talent as "talent" - me)

"Talent, no one knows what it is. They talked about it with me enormously until I was twenty-one, then when I got stronger I went over to the other side. When I qualified for the Australian Open and I'd beaten Berdych(2006), I was a genius. That's what Équipe wrote: 'Genius'. Me, I said: 'I'm 130th. in the world, I'm no genius.' In France, the word talent is associated with three things: having good hands - and as I have zero hands, I have no talent - technique - the impression of fluidity - and attacking. Basically, "flamboyance" is confused with talent. I often hear that Feliciano Lopez has talent and I urine on that. Ah Lopez the attacker ... No, Lopez is a defender. Everyone knows he's a baseliner who serves more than he volleys. He has the image of a gifted serve-and-volleyer. But I find the serve-and-volleyer is very often un-gifted. They guy hits a hard serve and moves up to volley because, for him, it's the easiest way to win a point.

"Me, I have zero hands but I have enormous talent. There are simply different talents, some more obvious than others. What's talent? When Richard (Gasquet) sends a backhand ten miles from the corner of the stands, they say talent. They're right. But when Rafa (Nadal) does the same with a forehand, they say it's strength, it's physical. Everyone agrees on Federer's talent, but Djokovic, pffft, they have trouble ... He has no great shot. Except you serve at him 275 kph and he takes it every time in the middle of the racquet. That's an incredible talent. If you ask Jan (De Witt, his coach) who has the most talent, Roger or Novak, he'll hesitate.

"Television distorts perceptions. People don't see what's so special about Kei Nishikori. He has the best two-handed backhand I've ever seen. He finds incredible angles but that doesn't make an impression. I often use the example of Mika (Llodra). He has an amazing volley and touch but he can't hit a correct forehand. Is he gifted? Safin had a patent on talent all his career, but when it came to hands, he was like me ... Ernests Gulbis, the same. He's talented, full stop. If he loses, it's because he doesn't feel like playing.

"In France, in the beginning, I had the impression that it was better to be less good, but with talent, that a Gulbis who's number 50 is more esteemed than a Ferrer who's 3. Now, I couldn't care less whether people see if I have talent or not ... I usually answer that my talent is my timing. It's weighing 70 kg. and hitting 50 winners against Rafa in Rome (last year). I hope he doesn't take this the wrong way, but when I see that they think that I have less talent than Jo (Tsonga), it's impressive. Jo hammers every shot. It's very forceful. Between us four, the one who has the most talent, it's Gaël (Monfils),"

The forthrightness and temperament of French players has always been amusing.
Don't agree with some of that, but Simon is one of few players whose interviews are worth reading. So, what is "talent"?

Poor Dave like many others Hewitt, Soderling, Del Potro, victims of injuries that had more long standing effects. One of them hasn't even played for years. By all accounts is that lack of fitness or just poor health? IMO Nalbandian and Hewitt lost a step post injuries, Soderling hasn't been seen since mono, we don't know what shape Del Potro will be in when he comes back.

I agree when you say there are varying degrees of fitness. Some people can't push their bodies beyond it's natural limit. However, that's another more messy affair

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's certainly funny that most people agree that Fat Dave lost matches because he was less fit than his opponent, but it's somehow wrong to suggest than Andy Murray has won matches because he was more fit than his opponent.

Correction: he's known as 'Empanada Dave' in the post-Socal era.

On the different types of fitness debate, I'll add an experience.

I swam competitively at a pretty high level in my youth. Although I was more of a sprinter, the training involved covering a lot of distance. I'd regularly swim about 4000m a day before school, so I was very fit.

Eventually I gave up being a swimmer and joined a local football team. Pre-season training for that involved some long distance runs, which my fitness from swimming saw me through pretty comfortably.

But when training switched to lots of short sprints, I really suffered. The type of fitness I had didn't lend itself to lots of short bursts of top speed. I had to really work to develop that kind of fitness.

So I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone with fitness developed for marathons would struggle with the stop-start nature of tennis.

And, bringing it back to talent, I'm pretty sure people have different aptitudes for different types of fitness. Their muscle type, lung capacity, weight-to-strength ratio etc enable them to achieve things that other can't. Or at least achieve them more easily.

Marathon runners are pretty fast though. The winner of the Comrades Marathon runs on average 255m a minute. That's ridiculous pace over six hours

That said I ran 100m and 200m to decent enough level. Once it becomes 400m there's an aerobic component which I could never quite master. Fitness is indeed a relative term.

Oh, the pace achieved by top marathon runners is incredible.

I wasn't suggesting the two kinds of fitness were "slow and long" and "quick and short".

But, in my experience, there's a huge difference between unbroken activity and broken activity.

After a long period without hard exercise, I can still run a couple of miles at a decent pace but I can barely walk after playing 5-a-side.

kingraf wrote:That said I ran 100m and 200m to decent enough level. Once it becomes 400m there's  an aerobic component which I could never quite master. Fitness is indeed a relative term.

Totally agree.

I found 400m, 800m and 1500m the toughest athletics distances because they seem to exist in that hinterland between 'sprint' and 'distance'.

Too long to just blast out but too short to be built upon aerobic fitness.

HM Murdoch wrote:Oh, the pace achieved by top marathon runners is incredible.

I wasn't suggesting the two kinds of fitness were "slow and long" and "quick and short".

But, in my experience, there's a huge difference between unbroken activity and broken activity.

After a long period without hard exercise, I can still run a couple of miles at a decent pace but I can barely walk after playing 5-a-side.

I think all I would say to this is that the three sports I have competed in reasonably seriously are tennis, football and athletics. Of the three, tennis (to me) is by far the least demanding. Whilst I accept that's not at pro level, its fair to say my play style involves a lot of running and long rallies and I've played against people with world rankings. I can play 2 x 2 hour plus 3 setters in one day and be tired but not exceptionally so - less so than say doing a 10km run. In contrast, if I played two 90 minute football matches in the same day it would probably take me a week to recover.

I did the whole football thing till my knees went the way Paul McGrath's did! Retired at 27 because they could no longer play 90 minutes. Couldn't manage 45 for that matter. Tried keeping my tennis up and eventually my knees gave in to that. If only my local shop sold PRP!

I was a reasonable footballer, never played firsts at school though. Lacked the fitness to do the whole 90 minutes thing. Was an infinitely better b-baller and rugby player, where you can pick your spots for explosive play.

JuliusHMarx wrote:We don't know if he can or can't. What's interesting is that there are people on here who don't think Murray or tennis players in general are of more than reasonable fitness (yet we have a guy who works in F1 training drivers for fitness who says tennis is one of the most physically demanding sports in the world). As I say - that's interesting. It's almost as if some posters don't want to acknowledge the importance of the physical aspect of the modern game.

No everyone acknowledges that fitness is important on success in modern tennis just as in most sports. The problem I see is that people are over estimating how fit you need to be and putting too much influence on how important fitness is to success on the tour. If you aren't fit like Empanada Dave you won't win many slams but the guy was still able to have a number of top 10 seasons and have a good career while really not looking very athletic at least to my view. Most matches the vast majority aren't won on fitness. Most matches are over 90 minutes give or take a few at most two hours. Fitness is secondary and way secondary to having the shots and the ball striking. You claim that the top 4 guys are the fittest on tour, there is no measure for that and no real evidence. Seppi at his peak was a really fit guy, Ferrer at his peak was a super fit guy but they couldn't win slams either. Fitness for me can differentiate in some big matches against players of equal or close to equal games. The fittest guy on tour is not necessarily the best player. I don't think Djokovic is the fittest guy on tour. But then again there really isn't much of away to gauge it.

✔ @RobbieSavage8

When you watch these 2 play tennis it amazes me how modern day footballers complain of tiredness embarresing really !

✔ @themichaelowen
@RobbieSavage8 Studies show only 17.5% of match time in tennis is spent actually playing. 5 hour match equates to 52 mins playing time.


This was a convo I saw during the final, thought its relevant to the fitness debate going on

As Depeche Mode said, Enjoy The Silence.

I couldnt believe it myself, such an ignorant comment

I guess by Owen's definition the only time you actually play in a football match is when you run. Standing, walking and probably light jogging doesn't count. That leaves around 15 mins of actual play by my expert reckoning.



emancipator

Oh and by the way, tennis can be an extremely knackering sport. It all depends on the standard at which you play. If you're a good player (NTRP 4.5 or above) and you play against someone of the same standard or above, and you're playing to win, then you're gonna feel it after a couple of hours.

emancipator wrote:Oh and by the way, tennis can be an extremely knackering sport. It all depends on the standard at which you play. If you're a good player (NTRP 4.5 or above) and you play against someone of the same standard or above, and you're playing to win, then you're gonna feel it after a couple of hours.

I do agree here, the higher your level of play the harder it becomes physically. I mean to retrieve these shots at the highest levels is not easy nor is the energy required to hit the ball that hard over and over again and still defend and get back into position. The higher the level the more fitness required in tennis. Tracking down 90 mile an hour forehands for hours on end is different than running down som club duffers forehand.

All sports, well most sports require a rather pronounced level of fitness at the highest level. Table tennis can be ridiculously knackering if you play at a decent level. Even golf needs it's own kind of fitness since the courses became Tiger proof.

I would agree that stamina and fitness play lesser role in tennis than in some other sports, and that no matter how fit you get, you will not get far in tennis without more traditional tennis skills.

But, on the other hand, I also do not think fitness becomes almost irrelevant once you reach certain fitness level. Fitness will not make a poor player into a superstar but it will certainly improve one's chances when two players of relatively comparable skill level meet. It has always been true, and it is even more true in today's tennis.

There is a 'max stamina level' I feel.. sort of a point of saturation... after which the extra stamina is not really needed in 99% of matches (obviously with matches like Isner Mahut... there will be some anomalous matches). However that is not the same with a forehand for example really, the better your forehand gets the better chance you have of winning and I think that correlation continues however good your forehand is.

Not sure I agree with your stamina saturation level. What makes you say that? We have seen Andy and Ferrer - both rather fit guys - cramping in a 3-setter.

My hunch is that - even if the saturation level exists - it is quite far above what a person can reasonably achieve. I would agree that stamina can only compensate so far for any other shortcomings, but I also think that, everything else being equal, better stamina will produce better results, without any obvious plateau at a "saturation level".

Interesting enough hunch - there is a theory in sport science that the body - in order to protect itself - will shut down long before saturation fitness is reached. It's a relatively interesting theory which supposes that no matter how motivated one is mentally for a task, you will, basically, shut down long before critical mass is reached. Now I know Boggy is gonna laugh... but the take away then is that the ability to push your fitness to freak levels requires one of two things

- A greater level of "base" fitness...
- Or a physiological predisposition to pushing yourself to life-shortening levels of fitness.

That is the point the vast majority of matches on tour, even at slams are not decided by fitness. It isn't one guy breaking down, or so scared he is going to break down that he has to redline his game and make more errors than he usually would. I agree with SB, that in a long match at a slam with two guys of similar skill level fitness can decide it. But fitness is less relevant to me in tennis than lets say in football. I am not saying that one sport requires more or less but I think work rate in football is more determinative of end result than in a tennis match. Players who track back and constantly cover a lot of pitch in football (depending) on the position of course make their presence felt more in a match. That is why I would say in football fitness is more valuable than in tennis. In tennis really a small percentage of matches are decided by fitness.

This also explains the Murray quote of after losing in a slam where he said he needed to get fitter. Because of course he believes he has the shots and the game. He is a consistently top 3 or 4 guy, and with the same level players (djoko, fed, Nadal) or similar level rival over 5 sets at a slam his fitness will be tested. So if he wants to win slams he has to train for his most rigorous physical test. IE a 5 setter with Djoko or Nadal. Just for that one round of play that will separate the finalist or semifinalist from the champion. Even then in that matchup not all those matches in fact most of them won't be decided by fitness.

The more interesting debate for me though is why is it when fitness decides such a small percentage of matches have we seen this massive campaign mainly from Federer fans to overemphasize both its import in matches and then number of matches decided by fitness? The reasoning is quite simple, they portray Fed's rivals as being not that talented at hitting a tennis ball and while simultaneously dissing them they also big up Federer. How? Well by claiming that Fed is just older and he can't possibly be as fit that is why he loses, it couldn't possibly be because on that day said rival outplayed him or out skilled him, it has to be because Fed is older and got tired. Interestingly we have seen this excuse over and over again since the start of 08. When Federer was the same age that Murray and Djokovic were last year and this year. That is why we see the near obsession by Tenez and others in making modern tennis be completely about fitness.

socal1976 wrote:The more interesting debate for me though is why is it when fitness decides such a small percentage of matches have we seen this massive campaign mainly from Federer fans to overemphasize both its import in matches and then number of matches decided by fitness? The reasoning is quite simple, they portray Fed's rivals as being not that talented at hitting a tennis ball and while simultaneously dissing them they also big up Federer. How? Well by claiming that Fed is just older and he can't possibly be as fit that is why he loses, it couldn't possibly be because on that day said rival outplayed him or out skilled him, it has to be because Fed is older and got tired. Interestingly we have seen this excuse over and over again since the start of 08. When Federer was the same age that Murray and Djokovic were last year and this year. That is why we see the near obsession by Tenez and others in making modern tennis be completely about fitness.

Not all Federer fans, people like Silver etc. never do this, but yeah for some I do agree with you.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills

Talent debate turned into a 'fitness' debate. Talent, like humans, come in many sizes, shapes and forms. Ask bolt why he chose short-distance over long-distance running. Ask Nurmi or Bikila why they ran long distance. There is significant subjectivity involved when comparing different types of skills. For example, playing music, painting, sports-in-general require different skill-set.

A combination of skill-sets can, together as a package, be grouped as talent for something 'specific', like Tennis. Talent (or skill-set) for Tennis may be different then say Talent (or skill-set) for Cricket, or Rowing or Swimming, or,...

Anyone playing ProTennis is talented, and has skills required for it. Playing College-level sport is very hard on human body, no matter what sport one chooses, it is tragic to see elite Tennis players being subjected to mud-slinging via their fans.

kingraf wrote:All sports, well most sports require a rather pronounced level of fitness at the highest level. Table tennis can be ridiculously knackering if you play at a decent level. Even golf needs it's own kind of fitness since the courses became Tiger proof.

PS:Chess does too!

socal1976 wrote:The more interesting debate for me though is why is it when fitness decides such a small percentage of matches have we seen this massive campaign mainly from Federer fans to overemphasize both its import in matches and then number of matches decided by fitness? The reasoning is quite simple, they portray Fed's rivals as being not that talented at hitting a tennis ball and while simultaneously dissing them they also big up Federer. How? Well by claiming that Fed is just older and he can't possibly be as fit that is why he loses, it couldn't possibly be because on that day said rival outplayed him or out skilled him, it has to be because Fed is older and got tired. Interestingly we have seen this excuse over and over again since the start of 08. When Federer was the same age that Murray and Djokovic were last year and this year. That is why we see the near obsession by Tenez and others in making modern tennis be completely about fitness.

This is the problem with the debate - total over-reaction, simplification and exaggeration - all in the name of having a dig a Fed fans. Make the whole thing pointless as far as I'm concerned. Why bother?

socal1976 wrote:This also explains the Murray quote of after losing in a slam where he said he needed to get fitter. Because of course he believes he has the shots and the game. He is a consistently top 3 or 4 guy, and with the same level players (djoko, fed, Nadal) or similar level rival over 5 sets at a slam his fitness will be tested. So if he wants to win slams he has to train for his most rigorous physical test. IE a 5 setter with Djoko or Nadal. Just for that one round of play that will separate the finalist or semifinalist from the champion. Even then in that matchup not all those matches in fact most of them won't be decided by fitness.

But what you are saying here is not that far from those who say that fitness does matter. For Andy, that one match against the top players is the most important match.  Even if just a few of those matches end up being decided on fitness it may make a fairly big impact on his overall career.

All I know is it's strange that Wawrinka, who's never been particularly renowned for elite fitness regimes, can push Djokovic to his limits over five, while Murray currently seems to have two good sets in the tank before he collapses in a heap

kingraf wrote: All I know is it's strange that Wawrinka, who's never been particularly renowned for elite fitness regimes, can push Djokovic to his limits over five, while Murray currently seems to have two good sets in the tank before he collapses in a heap

Wawrinka keeps the points shorter than Murray

Stan has weapons with his groundies, imo murray doesn't. Especially against djoko.

kingraf wrote: All I know is it's strange that Wawrinka, who's never been particularly renowned for elite fitness regimes, can push Djokovic to his limits over five, while Murray currently seems to have two good sets in the tank before he collapses in a heap

Is it because he is fitter than Murray?

legendkillarV2 wrote:

kingraf wrote: All I know is it's strange that Wawrinka, who's never been particularly renowned for elite fitness regimes, can push Djokovic to his limits over five, while Murray currently seems to have two good sets in the tank before he collapses in a heap

Is it because he is fitter than Murray?

No, apparently it's because he uses less energy in five hours of tennis than Murray does in less than two hours.

kingraf wrote:No, apparently it's because he uses less energy in five hours of tennis than Murray does in less than two hours.

Where did you get these "five" and "less than two" hour numbers?

summerblues wrote:

socal1976 wrote:This also explains the Murray quote of after losing in a slam where he said he needed to get fitter. Because of course he believes he has the shots and the game. He is a consistently top 3 or 4 guy, and with the same level players (djoko, fed, Nadal) or similar level rival over 5 sets at a slam his fitness will be tested. So if he wants to win slams he has to train for his most rigorous physical test. IE a 5 setter with Djoko or Nadal. Just for that one round of play that will separate the finalist or semifinalist from the champion. Even then in that matchup not all those matches in fact most of them won't be decided by fitness.

But what you are saying here is not that far from those who say that fitness does matter. For Andy, that one match against the top players is the most important match.  Even if just a few of those matches end up being decided on fitness it may make a fairly big impact on his overall career.

No not really, I think at best fitness decides a very small percentage of matches over 3 sets. And even over 5 sets a relatively small percentage of matches as well. How many matchups between Fed, Djoko, Nadal, and Murray at slams are decided by one player breaking down physically at one of the slams. Very, very few. At best a small percentage even when Djoko and Nadal play. Most matchups even among the top 4 at slams are decided by who executes better that day. I mean did Murray lose to Djokovic at the AO because he lacked fitness or did he not play well and lose his focus? Did Djokovic lose his french opens to Nadal because he got tired or he got frustrated? I mean one of those FOs was played over two days. You have to train for the most demanding circumstances but it isn't going to win you a lot of matches when faced against a top player who is executing better than you.

I plucked them out of thin air. Not the length if time Wawrinka has pushed Djokovic for before, or the length of time it takes for the average two sets of Murray-Djokovic to complete, before Murray apparently dies out

kingraf wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

kingraf wrote: All I know is it's strange that Wawrinka, who's never been particularly renowned for elite fitness regimes, can push Djokovic to his limits over five, while Murray currently seems to have two good sets in the tank before he collapses in a heap

Is it because he is fitter than Murray?

No, apparently it's because he uses less energy in five hours of tennis than Murray does in less than two hours.

So is there numbers to back up the energy consumption?

People see 4-5 winners by a player and automatically we assume they will go for their 'shots' and exhume less energy. Though in some quarters going for your shots is knackering.

Let me juice up so I can keep up with this

"To be honest, I prefer to play Federer than to play Nadal or Djokovic," Luxembourg's Gilles Muller said a couple of years ago, when Federer was still very close to his prime. "Because they make you suffer on the court. They make you physically suffer on the court. And Roger's more the guy who hits winners. So it's not as hard physically to play him."

They made him suffer on the court because they made him rally. Fed OTOH used his serve to win cheap points or to set up his next shot for a winner. Going for winners doesn't mean it has to be one two punch, it can be after a few exchanges before hitting a winner, and I suppose hitting winners after rallying should be more physically exhausting than hitting a one two punch winner.

Safin acknowledges Federer should be looked upon that way in their matchup.

"I'm playing semifinals, but that doesn't mean that I have a chance there, because the guy has won how many times already here?" Safin said after beating No. 31 Feliciano Lopez 3-6, 7-5, 7-6 (1), 6-3. "To beat Federer you need to be Nadal and run around like a rabbit and hit winners from all over the place. ... It's just a little bit too difficult for me to beat him."

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/wimbledon08/news/story?id=3470869

kingraf wrote:I plucked them out of thin air.

Makes sense. That is what it sounded like.

socal1976 wrote:I think at best fitness decides a very small percentage of matches over 3 sets. And even over 5 sets a relatively small percentage of matches as well. How many matchups between Fed, Djoko, Nadal, and Murray at slams are decided by one player breaking down physically at one of the slams.

But it is not as simple as to look for the matches where a player breaks down physically. Players pace themselves to some extent during the match. They do make decision as to which balls to chase and which to give up on, when to pull the trigger, etc. And they make those decisions based on their understanding of what their body can handle - and those with better fitness will have a few extra options relative to their less fit opponents. The cases where a player literally runs out steam are not the only ones where fitness matters.

Extra fitness is not enough to win a match alone against a significantly better player, but it is one of the facets of the game that add up to the whole performance. It was always part of the package, and is more important now than in the past.

To add to SB's comment, an example is Djokovic v Federer USO 2010 - 5-7, 6-1, 5-7, 6-2, 7-5.

laverfan wrote:To add to SB's comment, an example is Djokovic v Federer USO 2010 - 5-7, 6-1, 5-7, 6-2, 7-5.

I don't think that result had much to do with fitness.

Federer lost his composure, not his legs.

HM Murdoch wrote:

laverfan wrote:To add to SB's comment, an example is Djokovic v Federer USO 2010 - 5-7, 6-1, 5-7, 6-2, 7-5.

I don't think that result had much to do with fitness.

Federer lost his composure, not his legs.

Watch the two MPs at 4-5 15-40. He stops chasing the ball.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqmFDWQwVyc

He stopped chasing the ball because he wasn't going to get there, not because his legs had gone. In fact, he moved exceptionally well in the 15-40 point.

One other issue regarding fitness is that fatigue is well known to cause a decrease in concentration, therefore the fitter you are (and as has already been discussed, for tennis this primarily means anaerobic fitness and rapid recovery from exertion) the more likely you are to hit the ball properly. The argument therefore is less that fitness per se will win you matches (by being fitter than your opponent) but that a fitter player will play closer to their optimum for longer than a less fit one.

With regard to Murray's apparently obsessive pursuit of physical fitness, remember when he started on the ATP tour as a teenager - clearly had shot making talent and good movement on the court, but would cramp up and lose matches because of this (which was mainly physical conditioning, but may have been impacted by diet / hydration and the fact that he was still growing at the time). No doubt that he is now a match in the physical fitness stakes for any of the top players. Just needs to work on concentration, mental strength and having a couple of 'go to' shots to win points quickly - for me, the issue against Djoko in the AO final was that he gave his all for the first 2.5 sets and found himself behind, and cracked mentally rather than physically.

Going back to the original discussion about 'talent', I prefer the distinction between a 'natural' player and a 'made' player. That is the difference between the player whose more natural attributes are primarily related to the skills of playing tennis (i.e. the tactical and technical elements of hitting a ball back and forth) and one who is more an athlete and all-round sportsman who is coached to be a good tennis player. Natural players would clearly include the likes of Federer, Agassi, McEnroe, Hingis, Radwanska while the made players would be guys like Courier, Raonic (and 2/3rds of the WTA).

Obviously, there is no such thing as a purely 'natural' player or a purely 'made' one. Everyone who can make a decent living as a pro tennis player is undoubtedly much more talented than us hacks, but there clearly are some differences between say Gasquet and Ferrer in the balance between how much is 'natural' ability and how much comes from hard work, dedication etc. This does though raise the question of why do many of us (an I know I'm one) tend to celebrate the naturally more gifted under-achiever than the slightly less natural guy who has achieved more through the more admirable qualities of hard graft?

Sorry, just realised you said 2010, not 2011!

I'll say "maybe" on that one.

But in both cases, I find it hard to accept that a player fit enough to get to match point in the 5th, is not fit enough to fully compete in the final 4 games.

dummy_half wrote:This does though raise the question of why do many of us (an I know I'm one) tend to celebrate the naturally more gifted under-achiever than the slightly less natural guy who has achieved more through the more admirable qualities of hard graft?

Especially as in most walks of life, we celebrate those who have had to work hard for success and not those for whom it comes more easily.

Society can be rather sneering toward those who are born to rich parents, go to the best schools and are given every possible advantage to be successful.

And yet we give adulation to sportsmen who won the genetic lottery and less respect to the less gifted ones who have to work harder for the same success.

I don't make it a hard & fast rule, but in the end it's the talent I admire more than the person possessing it.

I watch sport to be amazed & impressed. I can find grafting admirable but hardly inspiring.

I know I'm VERY late to this game, but I love this topic. To me talent is the extent to which a player naturally does those things that technique facilitates - namely to make the best contact with the ball possible. I agree with Simon that Feliciano Lopez is not particularly talented, but I think Simon is a little defensive because the French are so particular about what the like to see in a tennis player, and he is not it. I think he's a fantastic tennis player, very talented. He's just not an attacking player, which the French don't particularly like.

I think one thing that obscures talent (as I've defined it) is athleticism. A player who is particularly athletic may draw all your attention to his athleticism but may be no less talented than the waif who is obviously relying on talent more than athleticism. To me Lopez is very athletic, but not very talented - I mean the way the guy hits the ball every stroke looks like a fight between himself and the ball.

I was watching a match at Indian Wells last year between Fognini and Ryan Harrison, and the commentators were saying how much easier Fognini was on the ball, that Harrison appeared to be fighting the ball and Fognini just massaging it left and right. I think it's clear which one is more talented between these two and to me is as useful in defining talent as anything.

Personally, I feel the most talented French player is Gasquet, but the combination of athleticism and talent makes Tsonga the one with the greatest potential. Tsonga has great hands, and he can jump out of his pants, but I've never felt he's ever found his maximum tactical approach. If he had, he'd have been #1 in the world by now.