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"?

But how often did we hear Murray say, after losing to Djoko or Rafa "I need to get fitter"? Why did he say that - presumably because he wanted to be as fit, or fitter than them?

Racket skills only get you so far before you realise you actually have to run around the court a lot as well.

I do think Julius is right in saying fitness is a key attribute, and tennis has become more athletic than ever so it is very much relevant in this day and age.
However I think it is much harder to be able to play and execute the shots of the top players than get to their fitness levels. Someone like David Ferrer is extremely fit, but because he didn't have huge weapons, he couldn't become a Grand Slam Champion or a ATG. If someone worked really hard they could get close to the fitness level of Nadal/ Djokovic/ Murray... but it would be much harder for them to have a shot as effective as Nadal's forehand or return serve by reflex like Djokovic and Murray.

There are a lot of pro players out there who can't reach the fitness levels of the top players. I disagree that most people could get close to their level, anymore than most people could run a sub-10 second 100 metres.

Murray said it a lot.

However, after years of that soundbite is he fitter than Djokovic and Nadal?

Strangely he still loses to players other than Nadal and Djokovic. Still, least he's fit.

Yeah, I'm sorry Murray had to apologise to a weekend cyclist when he tried to suggest tennis was anywhere near as physically taxing...

JuliusHMarx wrote:There are a lot of pro players out there who can't reach the fitness levels of the top players. I disagree that most people could get close to their level, anymore than most people could run a sub-10 second 100 metres.

We'll agree to disagree, but I do feel that if you look at the world population in general- it would be much easier for them to reach great fitness levels than have the tennis skills of Nadal and Djokovic.

JuliusHMarx wrote:There are a lot of pro players out there who can't reach the fitness levels of the top players. I disagree that most people could get close to their level, anymore than most people could run a sub-10 second 100 metres.

No great sprinters are born, they are not made. We are talking about cardiovascular fitness. Every year for the Iron Man triatholon hundreds of people complete an event that includes swimming several miles in the ocean, running a marathon, and biking 100 miles all in the same day non-stop. No water breaks, no bathroom breaks in between sets, no MTOs. Cardiovascular fitness barring a physical condition takes little or no talent just hard work. At the highest levels there is a talent that separates lets say an olympic medal winning marathon runner and a guy that can compete. But all of those guys, even the last guy to complete the iron man is fitter than Djokovic.

Sprinting is a whole other ball of wax completely. You are born fast, you either are or you are not. All the hardwork in the world will not turn and 11 second hundred meter runner into 10 second hundred meter runner. At most if you train or don't train that hard you could shave a tenth or two tenth off your time. Fitness can be attained become fast really can't.

JuliusHMarx wrote:There are a lot of pro players out there who can't reach the fitness levels of the top players. I disagree that most people could get close to their level, anymore than most people could run a sub-10 second 100 metres.

Pretty much any decent marathon runner would be as fit as the likes of Novak. The top tennis players are fit but not ridiculously so. They just don't need the level of endurance of other sports. Murray, I would say, is at the lower end of natural physical endurance. He has had to work incredibly hard to get himself to an average fitness level and he most definitely does not have greater endurance than most of the tour. In contrast, there are only a handful of guys who can run sub 10 seconds.

How do you know he doesn't have greater endurance than most of the tour? Do you have the results of their tests?

Also, the type of fitness required for marathon runners or iron men is different from that of tennis players.

For example - http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2012/07/tennis-players-fitter-than-f1-drivers-says-top-driver-trainer/
"Tennis, especially the men’s game now, has to be one of the most physically demanding sports in the world"

The idea that any old joe can get as fit as the top tennis players is silly.

With all due respect to the guy... Its a rather strange comparison to make. Completely different sports. It's like asking who's fitter? Shelly Ann Fraser-Pryce or Blanka Vlasic. Tennis does indeed have a fitness component, but I don't think outrageously so.

Caroline Wozniacki ran a marathon this past year, she did in over 3 and a half hours. There are part time weekend warriors who demolish that. With all due respect to her, I'm not sure there is a test of athletic fitness she would dominate.

There is indeed a fitness component to tennis, and without it, winning five setters can be taxing. But I must voice strong doubts about it suddenly being the bad ass it's being painted out to be. The Nishikori example is easy to bring up, I know, but you have to understand how a player who was never renowned for his stamina, who had been injured, beating Djokovic, the gold standard of fitness, having just gone through five... Not really a ringing endorsement on the difficulty to attain tennis fitness.

I think if you took twenty people of reasonable fitness, and asked them to get racquets onto balls for 4 hours (the direction is irrelevant, as that's skill reliant), and let them sit and have a banana or drink for 90 seconds every five minutes. You'd find more than the odd person who could do it

After 3 sets of the USO final a couple of years ago, both Djoko and Rafa were knackered. Gosh, they must be so unfit - anyone of reasonable fitness could have lasted longer than that. They don't train very hard, these tennis players.

Have we got to the point where someone says "working really, really hard is a type of talent" yet? I always love that stage in this discussion. It's a "mission accomplished" moment for fans of limited artisans who, having achieved a kind of post-modern relativism on the subject and effectively rendered the word meaningless can sigh with relief at having protected their favourite grinder from exposure as the boring threshing machine they really are.

Could someone pm me when we get there, then I can check whether they've matched the record. I once saw it achieved inside three pages!

Did anyone say working hard is a sign of talent ?

Fitness route or power route?
Soderling delpo etc the latter murray djoko former imo.

I would always go power. A winner beats a UE hands down.

How different would the landscape have been had Soderling and Del Potro stayed healthy? I know we don't like doing coulda woulda shoulda, but those 2 certainly were knocking on the door of the top 4. Both even broke into it.

Maybe those who don't have that power go down the fitness route which is more important that ever.

bogbrush wrote:Have we got to the point where someone says "working really, really hard is a type of talent" yet? I always love that stage in this discussion. It's a "mission accomplished" moment for fans of limited artisans who, having achieved a kind of post-modern relativism on the subject and effectively rendered the word meaningless can sigh with relief at having protected their favourite grinder from exposure as the boring threshing machine they really are.

Could someone pm me when we get there, then I can check whether they've matched the record. I once saw it achieved inside three pages!

LOL.

Brilliant.

Encapsulates the insecurity of fans of certain grinders who spend post after post convincing others about how 'talented' their favourite grinder is.

Talent in order:
1a) emancipator
1b) Federer, Mac, Laver et al ....
2) lots of other good players
3) Boring grinders who wouldn't have been half as successful if the conditions had been a bit more divergent.



emancipator

It's just yet another straw man, no one here even said that working hard makes you talented.

In fact if you actually paid attention, what myself, Kingraf, and Socal were saying is that it is more likely that many fit athletes, if they worked hard, could reach the fitness levels of the top level on the tour- far more so than those who would be able to replicate the tennis skills of someone like Nadal or Djokovic. So if not anything what we were saying was the opposite to 'bigging up' the skills of endurance and stamina.

You consider yourself so talented Emancipator, a shame perusal isn't one of your esteemed skills.

Ah a perfect case in point

Of your lack of reading skills ?

I personally think its takes amazing talent to hit the ball so hard as Tsonga, Del Potro or Soderling do/did and still keep it in the court! At the end of the day if you can finish the point right away why wouldn't you? If it takes you longer to do so why is that perceived as better?

I'll stick up for Tsonga who can hit the ball extremely hard but also hit the ball like a feather at the net. If thats not incredible ability I don't know what is!

I think if you're a big hitter at under 6'2, that's very impressive.
I remember Blake and gonzo outhitting the likes of delpo and cilic.

Regarding Soderling, the conditions must be right for him to hit hard without missing, at least on clay. I remembered how he beat Fed at FO 2010 when the conditions turned heavy after the rain break and he was hitting without missing and so beat Fed. The next match vs Berdych was on a sunny day, and both hit as hsrd as possible and the ball started flying over the baseline often, ie they're overhitting. If I remember correctly, Sod performed well under perfect conditions, ie Indoors; no wonder he won that Paris Masters in 2010 on a quick HC. He also won at Rotterdam Inddor HCs twice too, back to back,

Tsonga? Tsonga seemed to have lost his deft touches at the net, after WTF final vs Fed in 2011. His game is now moving backwards, he's never strong at the baseline and now his net game is also moving backwards!

I think it's even more amazing what the big four could do, ie they could hit the ball as hard as possible but with precision, at the same time could play with varieties mixing in good offence and defence. They don't have to go for broke, but all are capable of playing good attacking games, and that's why they're the big four!

My only issue on this thread really is this idea by Julius that physical fitness that Nadal and Djoko have are somehow this prohibitive bar to other athletes to attain. Most matchs even 5 set grandslam matches that I watch are not as a result of a player breaking down physically. Lets remember that 80 percent of the matches these guys play are over three sets and a great number of the victories are two sets and a little over and hour to an hour and half. So in the vast majority of matches fitness doesn't play a role. I don't think Murray lost this last final due to fatigue and if he played a little better in the 3rd set and closed it out he probably would have won. At the end it comes down to execution and he didn't do it. It wasn't because he was so fatigued he couldn't get it done.

I find Giles Simon is more of an intelligent player than a talented one, its not about hands in my mind its being able to do lots of things well. Federer can hit a monster forehand but can stroke a ball on the half volley just as well. Djokovic will grind out an opponent a lot, they might not seem tired but I think its the realisation during the match you would have to win long rallies for next 3\4 hours to beat him and that takes its toll.

After winning a 30 stroke rally to get 15-0 and knowing thats what you are in for all match, that must be quite daunting. However, Djokovic is also capable of going on the attack, he sits too close to the baseline to be a full on grinder. When Djokovic plays Nadal he is more often than not the more aggressive one. Like Sion says, how he connects with the ball sometimes is unbelievable.

But I would also say that Rafa beats Novak when Rafa is playing more aggressive tennis, just like at the FOs, Montreal and USO2013. I think in BO3, Novak beats Rafa more often by playing aggressive tennis, but in BO5, it's Rafa who could sustain the aggressive tennis longer than Novak could and so Rafa came out the winner more often. Rafa had beaten Novak four times at the slams after AO2012, and notice that in all of those four matches, Rafa was the one who came out all guns blazing. In 2011, Novak was the one who was aggressive from the get go even at the slams, and so he gained the upper hand before Rafa could even react, the AO2012 was the turning point for Rafa even though he lost in five sets, as he tried to be aggressive and won the first set. At the three subsequent matches between them in 2012, all on clay, Rafa was the one who took the initiative to be aggressive and so he won those matches. I think both of them know that they have to be aggressive when facing each other, it's a matter of can they do so on the day.

It Must Be Love wrote:Of your lack of reading skills ?

Ironic that this is posted by someone who in response to my post said nobody had said that yet.

My posts was asking whether anyone had got there.

I also think Rafa has gone into their last 4 matches extremely confident, Novak should have won their 2013 FO match in my opinion.

The difference I find with Novak and Rafa (going slightly off topic) is Novak can find himself in slam finals without playing that well. 2013 US Open his confidence was definitely knocked after the French Open, losing to Murray in the final of Wimbledon I never saw him being able to turn that round and then beat Rafa a few months later.

Rafa playing not so great will often be beaten along the way, however that being said when he does find his best form he is almost unbeatable.

Off the top of my head I think Rafa has only lost 3 slam semi finals out of 20. Which means when he's 'on' he is incredible. Novak when he is off, still manages to find himself in semi finals and finals when if you think about it, has played quite poorly leading up to it and during the tournament.

socal1976 wrote:My only issue on this thread really is this idea by Julius that physical fitness that Nadal and Djoko have are somehow this prohibitive bar to other athletes to attain.

That's not exactly what I said, so I guess you have no issue with the thread.

There was a bit of fanfare about Goffin being so talented and one even thinking he'll knock on the top 10 door this year. Can't even beat past peak Baghdatis! I think can safely cross lack of lungs off the list as reason for that defeat.

Yes the tour is dominated by grinders, but with brutal honesty, the execution of talent is not there. It's amazing how weak mentally most tennis players are these days.

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Of your lack of reading skills ?

Ironic that this is posted by someone who in response to my post said nobody had said that yet.

My posts was asking whether anyone had got there.

I was referring to Eman not you; his post clearly indicated that someone had said such a thing. Hence his blatant referral to Socal, me and Kingraf.

And find an example of someone having said before that hard work is a talent ? I can't remember a thread where that's been said, certainly not by me, Socal, or KR.

I don't think Rafa when playing not so well would be beaten in the earlier rounds of slams, except Wimbledon. Rafa wasn't playing well during early rounds of AO2014 when he had his palm blisters, still he was able to beat Monfils, Kei, Dimi and Fed to reach the final. I won't take AO2015 into consideration, as he was just back from injury break. Rafa had made the finals of AO and USO the last few times he played there, and I won't say he didn't have bad days in the earlier rounds (eg vs Golubev and vs Nalby at USO2011). Oh, even at FO, his 2011 first round vs Isner wasn't one of his good days, still he came through in five sets. It's only at Wimbledon that he suffered some early round losses, and I suspect as he grows older, he won't do well at both FO and Wimbledon back to back, as he has to concentrate his efforts on one, which is the FO. During his younger days, he made the FO/Wimbledon back to back finals five times!

He played great against Monfils, well against Kei and Dimi and very well against Feds as per.

emancipator wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Have we got to the point where someone says "working really, really hard is a type of talent" yet? I always love that stage in this discussion. It's a "mission accomplished" moment for fans of limited artisans who, having achieved a kind of post-modern relativism on the subject and effectively rendered the word meaningless can sigh with relief at having protected their favourite grinder from exposure as the boring threshing machine they really are.

Could someone pm me when we get there, then I can check whether they've matched the record. I once saw it achieved inside three pages!

LOL.

Brilliant.

Encapsulates the insecurity of fans of certain grinders who spend post after post convincing others about how 'talented' their favourite grinder is.

Talent in order:
1a) emancipator
1b) Federer, Mac, Laver et al ....
2) lots of other good players
3) Boring grinders who wouldn't have been half as successful if the conditions had been a bit more divergent.



emancipator

Always love certain Federer fan who posture like being fans of Federer makes them some kind of martyrs. It's entertaining to watch the smug sanctimony.

JuliusHMarx wrote:How do you know he doesn't have greater endurance than most of the tour? Do you have the results of their tests?

Also, the type of fitness required for marathon runners or iron men is different from that of tennis players.

For example - http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2012/07/tennis-players-fitter-than-f1-drivers-says-top-driver-trainer/
"Tennis, especially the men’s game now, has to be one of the most physically demanding sports in the world"

The idea that any old joe can get as fit as the top tennis players is silly.

What do you mean by any old joe? If you mean some 60 year old off the street then I agree
they would struggle. If you mean a 25 year old with decent athletic ability then I think that they could get to a similar level. Obviously I don't have test results for Murray. The only stat I have seen is that he does 400m at something like 57 seconds when fresh, which isn't special. However, its primarily based on my own eyes. He started from a position where he was cramping in 3 set matches. He has got himself to a level where he can maintain a decent level of performance for 5 sets, through intense training, but I struggle to recall a match he has won on fitness grounds. Its not like Agassi in his wins in Oz c. 2000 - he would grind opponents down and they would be toast against him after 2 sets.

Murray vs Ferrer for me in Miami 2013 was a match I felt his fitness saw him win that one.

Never ran the 400, but 57 seconds doesn't sound particularly impressive, even for a high school meet. If he can run sub minute 400s for seven or eight laps... That's clearly more impressive.

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.

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 one has said that. You clearly need to be extremely fit - although in my view not as fit as a top marathon runner or cyclist. The point people were taking issue with was the suggestion that a few of the top guys were so fit that other players in the top 100 could not possibly match them.

I think it was Lydian who said that it was no coincidence that the 'Big 4' were the 4 fittest players (or along those lines). IMHO there are definitely many players in the top 100 who simply can never get as fit, others who lack physical attributes such as optimum height, and others who look at the amount of effort involved and would rather not do it and just get by making a decent living.

Remember that the fitness required for other sports is a different kind of fitness, so a comparison between a tennis player and marathon runner is almost apples and oranges.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Of your lack of reading skills ?

Ironic that this is posted by someone who in response to my post said nobody had said that yet.

My posts was asking whether anyone had got there.

I was referring to Eman not you; his post clearly indicated that someone had said such a thing. Hence his blatant referral to Socal, me and Kingraf.

And find an example of someone having said before that hard work is a talent ? I can't remember a thread where that's been said, certainly not by me, Socal, or KR.

Fair enough.

It's been said, many times. Can't really be bothered scouring the forum archives, but I'm fairly certain Craig has gone to that well.

So effectively we have reached the conclusion that if Nadal, Djokovic or Murray win, it's fitness. Is that correct?

So every UE forced by these players is a result of fitness and not poor execution on the other player's part?

Just wow

Gee, yes, that's exactly the conclusion we've reached

Double

JuliusHMarx wrote:Gee, yes, that's exactly the conclusion we've reached

Double

There you go.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I think it was Lydian who said that it was no coincidence that the 'Big 4' were the 4 fittest players (or along those lines). IMHO there are definitely many players in the top 100 who simply can never get as fit, others who lack physical attributes such as optimum height, and others who look at the amount of effort involved and would rather not do it and just get by making a decent living.

Remember that the fitness required for other sports is a different kind of fitness, so a comparison between a tennis player and marathon runner is almost apples and oranges.

I have seen it said that the big 4 are the best movers or best defensive players, which is a bit different. I can see an argument there that say Oli Rochus, would always be at a disadvantage in movement terms and, similarly, everyone will have different limits in terms of endurance. I think the debate here is how close to the limit of human endurance playing 5 sets of tennis is compared to running a marathon.

As for the "different kind of fitness" argument, yes, there is different movement and strain will be applied on other joints than would be the case for a marathon runner. However, it cannot surely be your position that a top marathon runner would struggle with the physical effort of a 5 set tennis match? If so, I fundamentally disagree.

I find it strange that tennis to marathon runners is apples to oranges, but tennis to formula one is somehow equitable

You may have a point there kr.

Would a marathon runner struggle with the physical effort of a tennis match? Quite possibly, given the stop-start running, sprinting, turning, upper body strength required etc.
I'm not talking about any old 5 setter against the likes of me, I mean could they cope at the very top level of tennis, any more than they could reach Olympic final level at 200 metres?

Even if they could - how many people can become 'top' marathon runners?

Funny isn't it.

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.