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"?

Goffin is another 'talented' player, who fits your profile. He reminds me a lot of Gasquet the teenager taking it to Federer at MC.

Gasquet has worked hard over the last two/three years to try and address fitness issues.

Newly minted slam winners, Cilic and Wawrinka should thank Ivanisevic and Norman, respectively, for being pushed to better fitness levels. In Wawrinka's case, getting fitter made the BH from great to lethal. In Cilic's case, the service became great to lethal under Ivanisevic.

However, when the match seemed beyond the Serb’s reach after Coric broke his serve in the opening game of the third set, it was as if a different Troicki appeared out of nowhere while Coric wilted mentally and physically.

“I played the best tennis of my life in the opening two sets and then, after missing two or three volleys which I shouldn’t have, I just ran out of steam and ideas while Viktor became aggressive and took advantage of my mistakes," said Coric.


“Physical fitness made all the difference in this match as I couldn’t keep up with the high tempo game."

http://www.daviscup.com/en/news/200573.aspx

Who has more talent Coric or Troicki?

laverfan wrote:Who has more talent Coric or Troicki?

What do you think LF?

TheMessi wrote:

laverfan wrote:Who has more talent Coric or Troicki?

What do you think LF?

Coric. (Glad to see you on the Tennis forum).

Thanks LF. But isn't Coric's game based on producing long rallies? To me he lost cause he ran out of steam to play his exhausting game.

TheMessi wrote:Thanks LF. But isn't Coric's game based on producing long rallies? To me he lost cause he ran out of steam to play his exhausting game.

Long rallies do not necessarily mean lack of talent. There are many examples, Simon (from the OP) is very talented, IMO, as is Ferrer. Djokovic v Murray is one of the longest 3-setters, IIRC, in Shanghai (on a relatively fast HC).

Running out of steam is a fitness issue, and elite levels require elite fitness, with very thin margins at the top. Coric is a work-in-progress, but he has places to go.

Goffin played an excellent match v Federer at RG, albeit on Clay.

Talent is a multi-faceted combination of various skills, including fitness.

Why do you think Ferrer is very talented LF?

LuvSports! wrote:Why do you think Ferrer is very talented LF?

Without a single killer shot, he has stayed in Top 20 for 9+ years - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/David-Ferrer.aspx?t=rh. He uses all available resources and skills to do what he does best. My definition of talent is - "Talent is a multi-faceted combination of various skills, including fitness."

Can you name all RG finalists in the last 10 years?

Flamboyance on court should not be confused with talent or lack thereof. Someone said a long time ago, (perhaps Vladimir Horowitz), that Genius is 1% inspiration, and 99% perspiration. Perseverance is also a facet in this gamut of talent.

Yes I can!
I just don't see fitness as a talent but fair enough.
I do agree it is very impressive for a 5'9 guy to have been very successful for many years now.

Ferrer's talent - ability to take the ball early, very good ROS. He stands close to the baseline to return, like Novak. If ROS s part of Novak's talent, then it's also Ferrer's too. Ferrer has good record vs Raonic, one of the biggest server in the game, so I think that's one of the reasons why he could survive in the top ten for so.... long!

Agreed.

I don't believe David Ferrer is particularly talented - he's an outstanding player, who has made the most of his ability through fitness and dogged committment to his technical strengths and the tactics that maximize his technique. But that is not talent, in my opinion. That's not to take anything away from him, because as I said, he's an outstanding player, but his talent is not outstanding.

Goffin is definitely very talented. His ball striking abilities are very good, his footwork is very good, and his court sense is good. To me, he lacks the necessary physical element to be a top player - he just doesn't defend well enough to be as tactical as he is. After all, you can't construct points consistently if you can't defend, and there are just too many players who hit the ball like a ton of bricks to have mediocre defensive skills in modern tennis. But he is, in my opinion, very talented.

I have to be honest, I didn't think much of this Coric kid when I first saw him Basel last year. To me, it looked like Nadal was playing poorly. But I've watched him a couple of times since then, and what impresses me is the variation in ball high, depth and spin - that's not something you see a lot from modern players. Most of them hit the ball the same way every time, but Coric really adjusts the flight of the ball based on where he is in the court, whether his opponent is in a position to attack, and whether his is in a position to dictate. He also has Goffin's physical limitations, but he's taller, quicker and defends better. I don't know how good he'll be, but he's quite a crafty and intelligent tennis player for his age.

Simon is a knowledgeable guy in tennis, but I disagree with is assessment of Monfils. He's extremely athletic, and I suppose that's a talent, but his hands aren't great, as evidenced by his mechanical volleys, no drop shots and an ugly slice. As for Tsonga, it's true that he tends to hit it as hard as he can as often as he can, but he's so much more comfortable with the short game than most players and he doesn't often make mishits. As a matter of fact, if Tsonga's footwork were better, I think he's win a major, because most of the time he's muscleing or hustling the ball it's because he's not in the optimal position - I think that's why he's always hitting the ball off balance and lunging like he does.

MMT1 wrote:I don't believe David Ferrer is particularly talented - he's an outstanding player, who has made the most of his ability through fitness and dogged committment to his technical strengths and the tactics that maximize his technique. But that is not talent, in my opinion. That's not to take anything away from him, because as I said, he's an outstanding player, but his talent is not outstanding.

Many others have done the same. Jordan had talent, but was not as successful at Baseball as he was at Basketball, Deion (Neon) Sanders shined at (American) Football and Baseball, but Jordan v Sanders talent debates can be as fractious as the current one.

MMT1 wrote:I have to be honest, I didn't think much of this Coric kid when I first saw him Basel last year. To me, it looked like Nadal was playing poorly. But I've watched him a couple of times since then, and what impresses me is the variation in ball high, depth and spin - that's not something you see a lot from modern players. Most of them hit the ball the same way every time, but Coric really adjusts the flight of the ball based on where he is in the court, whether his opponent is in a position to attack, and whether his is in a position to dictate.  He also has Goffin's physical limitations, but he's taller, quicker and defends better. I don't know how good he'll be, but he's quite a crafty and intelligent tennis player for his age.

The match in Dubai v Murray exemplifies what he can do and extract errors.

MMT1 wrote:Simon is a knowledgeable guy in tennis, but I disagree with is assessment of Monfils.  He's extremely athletic, and I suppose that's a talent, but his hands aren't great, as evidenced by his mechanical volleys, no drop shots and an ugly slice. As for Tsonga, it's true that he tends to hit it as hard as he can as often as he can, but he's so much more comfortable with the short game than most players and he doesn't often make mishits. As a matter of fact, if Tsonga's footwork were better, I think he's win a major, because most of the time he's muscleing or hustling the ball it's because he's not in the optimal position - I think that's why he's always hitting the ball off balance and lunging like he does.

Monfils' athleticism seems to overshadow his game. He thinks of Tennis as a circus or a media event, he is too mercurial and inconsistent for his own good. Quite a few French players are similar, perhaps due to the larger social structures they grow in. The Monfils v Fognini at RG showed how players with similar foibles play the game. If Seppi::Ferrer then Mofils::Fognini.

Gasquet could have achieved much more if had paid attention to the fitness aspect of the sport. If he had the work ethic of a Ferrer, it would have brought richer dividends.

Wawrinka should be a lesson to many younger players when hard work pays off. Norman also deserves credit for Wawrinka.

One aspect of talent is to channel your skill-set for rewards and overcome/work around limitations.

From field of music, Mozart and Beethoven, both had talent, as did Gogh and Vermeer, but they produced their unique styles and left their marks in their respective works.

Agree that one has to overcome or work around one's limitations.

I see these top players as talented, it's a matter of being talented of varying degree and in varying aspects of their game. Ferrer may not have the talent of Fed or Rafa,but he certainly has talent, so much so that together with hard work, he could beat players not named 'the big four' regularly despite they having bigger weapons than he does. The big four are the big four, they could vary their game, their shots, their pace, spin or whatever, to deal with different opponents. Ferrer makes up the 'deficiency' in talent (relatively speaking) with his good speed and footwork, unrelenting running and retrieving, improving his game by adding in new elements (like net rushing when necessary), taking the initiative to be more attacking and taking the ball early. It's no wonder he has good H2H vs non big four players.

Regarding Coric, I do feel he plays a bit like Rafa and also Novak. He himself think that when he's playing well he plays like Novak, but his court position behind the baseline is more of a clay courter, and his retrieving reminds me of a young Rafa, except that Rafa has more weapons in his big FH and his topspins, and also his incredible speed and footwork. Coric has a good DHBH, which I think that's why he feels he plays like Novak. It's still early days for Coric, we'll see how well his career and his game progresses.

I remember a young Tomic, whose game reminds me of young Murray,when they played with varying paces mixing in lots of slices. Tomic also reached the QF of Wimbledon in 2011, age 18 or 19, but things didn't work for him since, not helped by his own attitude and private life. Dolgo is another one, older, but with lots of talent, hand and racket skills, but has fallen off the radar, due to injuries I believe?

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Regarding Coric,  I do feel he plays a bit like Rafa and also Novak.   

They have practiced together in the past.

Yep, I know. I've been following news and info about Rafa closely. Coric said it's tough practicing with Rafa, in fact any junior who has a chance to practice with Rafa would say so.

laverfan wrote:

TheMessi wrote:Thanks LF. But isn't Coric's game based on producing long rallies? To me he lost cause he ran out of steam to play his exhausting game.

Long rallies do not necessarily mean lack of talent. There are many examples, Simon (from the OP) is very talented, IMO, as is Ferrer. Djokovic v Murray is one of the longest 3-setters, IIRC, in Shanghai (on a relatively fast HC).

Running out of steam is a fitness issue, and elite levels require elite fitness, with very thin margins at the top. Coric is a work-in-progress, but he has places to go.

Goffin played an excellent match v Federer at RG, albeit on Clay.

Talent is a multi-faceted combination of various skills, including fitness.

But it looked to me that Coric was covering more ground than Troicki and this is why he got tired at the end. Whereas you seem to say Coric is more talented cause he was winning until Troicki outlasted him.

I don;t know much about tennis but from what I saw Troicki was unable to hit past Coric at first...cause Coric was extremly athletic/physical....whereas when Coric got tired covering so much court, he did not have the shots to hurt Troicki.

I would think that a talented player would be able to win points thanks to good shots....with minimum effort.

So what talent do you see in Coric?

His ability to lift weights for one.....

https://challengertennis.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/coric-weightlifting.jpg

IMO, I would simply coin someone "talented" when they can reach a level of perfomance with less effort / more ease than the normal guy. (although arguably, in that respect, about 100% of the Top100 has talent... one doesn't start a tennis career without some special skills in that field). You probably all know that to whom you show how to do something once (be it hitting a ball, or playing a note on a piano) and he almost immediately get it right - that's talent for me, I'll put it as a synonym of being gifted.

Then it's all about what you do with your talent or gift. And noone is spared from hardworking if they want to be the best.
Ferrer is, I'm 100% sure, very talented naturally, but he's also visibly hard working (Federer is hard working too, no question, but less visibly) because it is required by his style of play and his smaller physic in a tall tour.

I'll try a comparison with Happy Gilmore (so it's not all about having the perfect orthodox game like the "Mozart" Gasquet back-hand): Happy is a very talented golfer - and although it's effortless for him, he still needs to put some work on his putt because he'd be average without it...

Ive always wondered if certain players' talent would be rewarded more in other eras, e.g. LLodra born 10-20 years earlier.
In an era less dependent on fitness would a Ferrer be viewed as having more talent with smaller tennis balls, sweet spot and being 5'9?