The question of talent in tennis

It's often so easy for a physical specimen like Nadal to be confused as not as talented as some players mostly as a result of opinion and preference but here is what Nadal himself had to say on the issue with talent;

Question: It's easy to see power, physique, and strength in your game. Is your talent forgotten? Living in the era of Federer ....

"Those who forget about it don't know a lot about tennis. Talent is not only hitting the ball beautifully or having a lovely slice backhand and a perfect volley. Talent is a lot of things. Running is a talent. Returning the ball in difficult situations, inside and deep, difficult for the opponent, is talent. I am not going to get into comparisons with Federer. He is the best practically in everything except for movement and tactics. But I have a special talent for many things. "

You hardly see Nadal get this demonstrative in an interview but he is right. What many seem to forgot is tennis or professional sport to speak is not a beauty pagent contest. I'll even add more to Nadal's comment. Having great defensive skills is also talent. The misconception in tennis is if a player hits a beautiful shot, he is more talented than another who hits a less beautiful shot and that is simply wrong in every sense.

Also at the end, Nadal says Federer is best at practically everything but for movement and tactics.

So to conclude, what's talent and how can one judge it without bringing in personal preference or subjective opinion. To the eye i'll say many judge talent on how effortless a player plays but how about those that use whatever ability they have a get the best possible result out of it, are they not as talented?

Fast forward two days, this thread will have 70-100 replies and no one will be any closer to agreement.

Yes Tom why i think it's really hard to make a final conclusion on a players talent in tennis. Do we even really undertstand what natural talent really is?

Simple_Analyst wrote:Yes Tom why i think it's really hard to make a final conclusion on a players talent in tennis. Do we even really undertstand what natural talent really is?

Personally i think talent encompasses almost every aspect of the game, mentality, focus, determination,pressure play, touch, reactions etc etc. However this is one of those divisive topics that people use who have an agenda and therefore i believe this will turn into an argument thread, rather than a debate thread.

Well, I'm not a Nadal fan (but never say never!) but I do think he's talented, you don't win multiple slams without a bit of talent. Nadal's assessment about Federer's movement and tactics seems fair, especially about the tactics. I've always thought Nadal's tactics is one of his strengths and is a key part of his mental advantage (especially with Fed).

I think the fact that Nadal's efforts to go for every point regardless is also part of his tactics (or would you call it strategy), I'm sure he knows that at times he won't get the ball in but he does it to keep the pressure on the other player and most other players would leave it. I see a bit of Agassi in Nadal, not so much in how they play but in how they are honest and are perfectionists and therefore you get them saying they're performances are not that good during tournaments. Look @ Nadal at the French and he said he wasn't playing that well but he still won! Agassi says clearly himself (read his autobiography) that he hates tennis, yet he won 8 slams, including all 4 majors.

Talent often means different things to different people depending on what attributes they judge to be important. Many of the point you make I've made many times before "beauty pagent of shots", etc. This isnt talent - its mere potential to demonstrate true talent.

So what is true talent? I've also said before that my belief is talent at the professional level (i.e. highest level) is ultimately be judged by players being able to achieve the win. Professionals need to find ways to win when they play well and when they dont. Surely that's talent? Finding the way to win.

I believe finding the way to win necessitates the nurturing and crystallsation of ones mental and physical attributes in ways that rise the player consistently above others. Otherwise what use 'talent' if players lose more often than not? Nadal's talent is to win - and he does it by having the ability to bring together, hone/continue to develop and maximise and all the attributes he has (which are obviously considerable) to win those major titles (Masters, Slams). Federer's talent is also winning but using different approaches, similarly Djokovic- so when they all have specific differences in approaching those "wins" how can we specifically define talent other than look at the common thread amongst them - they all know how to win consistently more than the others.

I think the word talent is often confused with two over words

Aptitude and Potential

Definition for all 3 as follows:

Talent:
A marked innate ability; Natural endowment or ability of a superior quality

Potential:
Capable of being but not yet in existence;Having possibility, capability, or power; The inherent ability or capacity for growth, development, or coming into being

Aptitude:
inherent or acquired ability; ease in learning or understanding; intelligence

I think there's a case for applying the word talent in a broad sense, i.e. as any natural facility. But it's true that often people seem to want to use the word to refer to something primarily mental, to do with information processing, spatial awareness, reaction time etc.. I'm not sure why that is. Perhaps it simply doesn't impress to see a strong person demonstrating their strength. . . maybe because there's nothing about it that seems remarkable. Whereas other things seem remarkable; watching Ronnie O Sullivan play his best seems other-worldly, perhaps because we have no comprehension as to where his ability is coming from. It doesn't seem rehearsed. But that's not to say we OUGHT to be impressed by it. . . it just so happens that we are.

I think the case for claiming that Nadal isn't as talented as Federer comes from the idea that without his physique he couldn't play the way he does, it's a necessary part of his game. So if you want to draw a line between external physical characteristics and an ability that's not clearly to do with physicality and regard the latter as the domain of talent then it's consistent to regard Federer as the more talented. A neuroscientist might want to object to that notion on the basis that it's only because we have such a lack of understanding of the brain that we find certain abilities remarkable in an 'other worldly' way, but in fact they're equally based on physical phenomena. Just not the type we can see.

I wonder what difference some extra muscle would make to Federer's game. Murray has had to bulk up to compete with the top players. He doesn't look like a natural athlete, in fact I tend to think that if he stopped training he'd be a wiry, skinny guy. I'd imagine that extra muscle allows one to force shots here and there, to compensate in those moments where one can't generate power from perfect technique. Federer's strokes don't rely on muscle, they rely on perfect timing, perfect synchronisation of the entire body, but that's too much of an ask when he's playing someone with Nadal's ability to get everything back. And attack with brutal force.

But I ask what is a natural talent.?
? Many people can be born with a talent to be or do many things without ever knowing it.
That talent is not a talent unless it is nurtured, used, and trained.
Many people have a naturally good singing voice but many never know that with the right training, they could be the next Pavarotti.
As with a tennis player unless a child is as lucky as Fed or Rafa and have someone who cares enough to put a racket in their hand at 4 yrs old and then coach, train and nurture they will never have the chance to know if they possess such a talent.
We are all talented in something but for the vast majority of us we will never know what that was.

For me talent in tennis would be what you can pull off on the court and I think it is definitely a physical issue rather than a mental one. Therefore I don't think determination and hard work is talent. Imo pulling off a certain shot in a final or 1st round match doesn't make a difference to how talented the player is.

Tom_____ wrote:Fast forward two days, this thread will have 70-100 replies and no one will be any closer to agreement.

Fast backward and this thread has already got a 1000 replies spread in all the previous threads.

There are those who know and those who don't want to know and maybe those who genuinely don't know.

One thing for sure is that those who are not as talented can always work harder to make up for it.

And in that case (if you choose to believe your theory) there are those who have the talent for hard work.

I think it the question I would ask is what is the most important talent in tennis and who has by the bucket loads?

I think obviously the prime examples are Federer and Nadal, but they are so different in so many ways. Federer has the perfect base and is designed in such a way that he has conditioned himself superbly over the years. has superb hand skills and timing and eye co-ordination.

You look at Nadal, his genetics, born into a family of athletes by where his uncle was a tennis pro and his father a footballer. He has the perfect physique and is blessed enough to be Ambidextrous and plays his strokes with more effort than a Federer, but is able to balance himself to enable his footwork to keep him in all points.

droogle wrote:I think there's a case for applying the word talent in a broad sense, i.e. as any natural facility. But it's true that often people seem to want to use the word to refer to something primarily mental, to do with information processing, spatial awareness, reaction time etc.. I'm not sure why that is. Perhaps it simply doesn't impress to see a strong person demonstrating their strength. . . maybe because there's nothing about it that seems remarkable. Whereas other things seem remarkable; watching Ronnie O Sullivan play his best seems other-worldly, perhaps because we have no comprehension as to where his ability is coming from. It doesn't seem rehearsed. But that's not to say we OUGHT to be impressed by it. . . it just so happens that we are.

I think the case for claiming that Nadal isn't as talented as Federer comes from the idea that without his physique he couldn't play the way he does, it's a necessary part of his game. So if you want to draw a line between external physical characteristics and an ability that's not clearly to do with physicality and regard the latter as the domain of talent then it's consistent to regard Federer as the more talented. A neuroscientist might want to object to that notion on the basis that it's only because we have such a lack of understanding of the brain that we find certain abilities remarkable in an 'other worldly' way, but in fact they're equally based on physical phenomena. Just not the type we can see.

I wonder what difference some extra muscle would make to Federer's game. Murray has had to bulk up to compete with the top players. He doesn't look like a natural athlete, in fact I tend to think that if he stopped training he'd be a wiry, skinny guy. I'd imagine that extra muscle allows one to force shots here and there, to compensate in those moments where one can't generate power from perfect technique. Federer's strokes don't rely on muscle, they rely on perfect timing, perfect synchronisation of the entire body, but that's too much of an ask when he's playing someone with Nadal's ability to get everything back. And attack with brutal force.

Very good post with good opinions

MFC a pm for you

fair enough LK I'll refrain in the future

Thanks

legendkillar wrote:I think it the question I would ask is what is the most important talent in tennis and who has by the bucket loads?

I think obviously the prime examples are Federer and Nadal, but they are so different in so many ways. Federer has the perfect base and is designed in such a way that he has conditioned himself superbly over the years. has superb hand skills and timing and eye co-ordination.

You look at Nadal, his genetics, born into a family of athletes by where his uncle was a tennis pro and his father a footballer. He has the perfect physique and is blessed enough to be Ambidextrous and plays his strokes with more effort than a Federer, but is able to balance himself to enable his footwork to keep him in all points.

Sorry to correct you LK... his father was the only non-athlete... it was his Uncle Angel who played for both Barcelona and Madrid...

Haddie-nuff wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I think it the question I would ask is what is the most important talent in tennis and who has by the bucket loads?

I think obviously the prime examples are Federer and Nadal, but they are so different in so many ways. Federer has the perfect base and is designed in such a way that he has conditioned himself superbly over the years. has superb hand skills and timing and eye co-ordination.

You look at Nadal, his genetics, born into a family of athletes by where his uncle was a tennis pro and his father a footballer. He has the perfect physique and is blessed enough to be Ambidextrous and plays his strokes with more effort than a Federer, but is able to balance himself to enable his footwork to keep him in all points.

Sorry to correct you LK... his father was the only non-athlete... it was his Uncle Angel who played for both Barcelona and Madrid...

Ah I knew it was one of the Nadals! Thanks

Fascinating comment from Nadal. I don't think I've ever seen him talk so candidly about their respective talents.

What I think is interesting is that Nadal has a very precise idea how to play Federer. You don't get into a shotmaking contest because he will have the edge. You play a tactical game. You play in a specific way that plays on Roger's weaknesses and dampens his strengths.

Compare this to the recent quote from Roger:
"It's always me who's going to dictate play & decide how the outcome is going to be. If I play well I will most likely win in the score or beat [Nadal]; if I'm not playing so well, that's when he wins."'

It's all very vague. But, in a way, it agrees with Nadal. Roger also considers himself the better shotmaker and, in making that comment, he also shows himself as weaker tactically!

Simple_Analyst wrote:

droogle wrote:I think there's a case for applying the word talent in a broad sense, i.e. as any natural facility. But it's true that often people seem to want to use the word to refer to something primarily mental, to do with information processing, spatial awareness, reaction time etc.. I'm not sure why that is. Perhaps it simply doesn't impress to see a strong person demonstrating their strength. . . maybe because there's nothing about it that seems remarkable. Whereas other things seem remarkable; watching Ronnie O Sullivan play his best seems other-worldly, perhaps because we have no comprehension as to where his ability is coming from. It doesn't seem rehearsed. But that's not to say we OUGHT to be impressed by it. . . it just so happens that we are.

I think the case for claiming that Nadal isn't as talented as Federer comes from the idea that without his physique he couldn't play the way he does, it's a necessary part of his game. So if you want to draw a line between external physical characteristics and an ability that's not clearly to do with physicality and regard the latter as the domain of talent then it's consistent to regard Federer as the more talented. A neuroscientist might want to object to that notion on the basis that it's only because we have such a lack of understanding of the brain that we find certain abilities remarkable in an 'other worldly' way, but in fact they're equally based on physical phenomena. Just not the type we can see.

I wonder what difference some extra muscle would make to Federer's game. Murray has had to bulk up to compete with the top players. He doesn't look like a natural athlete, in fact I tend to think that if he stopped training he'd be a wiry, skinny guy. I'd imagine that extra muscle allows one to force shots here and there, to compensate in those moments where one can't generate power from perfect technique. Federer's strokes don't rely on muscle, they rely on perfect timing, perfect synchronisation of the entire body, but that's too much of an ask when he's playing someone with Nadal's ability to get everything back. And attack with brutal force.

Very good post with good opinions

I agree. very well put.

I'll argue briefly with your imaginary Neuroscientist though. I would simply argue that in the eye of nature everything is not equal and nature itself goes through a natural selection process and tends to preserve what is economically efficient.

A dinosaur might be stronger than Federer and Nadal united but they were not economically friendly. In other words, nature did not find them talented enough and got rid of them.

Likewise, though there is a dinosaur race in tennis and sport in general about becoming stronger, bigger, fitter, only the more talented, those energy efficient, will pass the test of time.

HM Murdoch wrote:Fascinating comment from Nadal. I don't think I've ever seen him talk so candidly about their respective talents.

What I think is interesting is that Nadal has a very precise idea how to play Federer. You don't get into a shotmaking contest because he will have the edge. You play a tactical game. You play in a specific way that plays on Roger's weaknesses and dampens his strengths.

Compare this to the recent quote from Roger:
"It's always me who's going to dictate play & decide how the outcome is going to be. If I play well I will most likely win in the score or beat [Nadal]; if I'm not playing so well, that's when he wins."'

It's all very vague. But, in a way, it agrees with Nadal. Roger also considers himself the better shotmaker and, in making that comment, he also shows himself as weaker tactically!

Very strange comment from Federer and a bit sour grapes for me. What if Nadal plays well? What if they both playing well? He played the best he could against him at RG and lost so i don't think his comment hold unless he believes he played bad on 17 occassions Nadal has beaten him.
I think a better way to have said it will be that when he plays Nadal, he has to take the initiative more when they play.

I think Nadal has uncle Toni to thank for the tactics and there's no doubt about it, tactics wise, Nadal is one of the best and Fed is no challenge, at least for now.

In defense of Fed, he might think he just needs minor adjustments to get on top of Nadal, which is what his comments seem to be getting at. I'm not sure that will be enough, he needs to develop more effective tactics, hopefully Anncone can work with him on that.

Definitely agree on that Simple Analyst, taking those opportunities when he gets them will do the trick for Fed, Fed just fluffs one too many of those key points. The drop shot of the first set is the one which will stick in my head, yet throughout the rest of the match (@ the French), he executed it perfectly well!

legendkillar wrote:You look at Nadal, his genetics, born into a family of athletes by where his uncle was a tennis pro and his father a footballer. He has the perfect physique and is blessed enough to be Ambidextrous and plays his strokes with more effort than a Federer, but is able to balance himself to enable his footwork to keep him in all points.

But you have to at least agree that he was also helped by modern medecine who first managed to build the right soles to make up for a career threatening foot injury, then PRP treatment arriving just on time (sept 09) to save his knees and all other modern nutritional benefits. And of course Toni telling him before he himself understood why to play with his left arm and alsotold him to topspin crazy like h is also tellig where to serve on MPs.

Nadal's success much more than Federer's is a team work effort, very much F1-like. Federer and Nadal cases as the perfect example how talent can win over hard word or vice versa (depending on surfaces here). A bit like the chess game between Big blue v Kasparov.

How has foot injuries or some treatment has anything to do with the talent of a player. Like someone said above, even hard work is talent, lol.

I'm not sure Nadal is great tactician, I think he has just perfected the art of how to play Federer.
I thought Djokovic's recent run raised big questions about Nadal's tactical astuteness, particularly in Madrid and Rome. It was clear early on in both of those matches that Nadal wasn't going to get anywhere just by pounding Djokovic's backhand (a tactic that often works against Federer). But he was completely unable to change his approach. Once his main weapon had been negated, he seemed at a loss of what to do.

HM Murdoch wrote:I'm not sure Nadal is great tactician, I think he has just perfected the art of how to play Federer.
I thought Djokovic's recent run raised big questions about Nadal's tactical astuteness, particularly in Madrid and Rome. It was clear early on in both of those matches that Nadal wasn't going to get anywhere just by pounding Djokovic's backhand (a tactic that often works against Federer). But he was completely unable to change his approach. Once his main weapon had been negated, he seemed at a loss of what to do.

But you are wrong there. Can't think of any better tactician on tour than Nadal now who can change tactics in a game. Nadal's recent games with Djokovic was what i think a lack of depth in his shot and therefore hitting too many shot balls which Djokovic totally dismantled. But then again, this is just an isolated game but when it comes to tactics and execution of it, no one comes close to Nadal.

HM Murdoch wrote:I'm not sure Nadal is great tactician, I think he has just perfected the art of how to play Federer.
I thought Djokovic's recent run raised big questions about Nadal's tactical astuteness, particularly in Madrid and Rome. It was clear early on in both of those matches that Nadal wasn't going to get anywhere just by pounding Djokovic's backhand (a tactic that often works against Federer). But he was completely unable to change his approach. Once his main weapon had been negated, he seemed at a loss of what to do.

Exactly. Nadal plays always the same. His luck is that his power is enough to take the edge out of Federer's BH. Very much like Becker and Sampras had enough power to break McEnroe's touch game. McEnroe could handle the balls send by players of his generation but would struggle applying his touch game v guys who had learnt how to whack the ball with a big frame.

Now that a player can stay physically with Nadal, his lack of tactic and frankly imagination was obvious to see. More so that I believe Djoko was not even 100% fit in that last clay final they played.

We'll have to see how Nadal does against Djokovic when they play again (now that Djokovic's streak is over), which could be at Wimbledon but more likely to be in a series 1000 match or the USO.

Also, you can't just look at his matches against Djokovic but also the rest of the tour players, a lot of posters look at the top players (usually the top 4) but Nadal has to play a lot of other players on his way to the finals and those tactics work very effectively against the rest most of the time.

luciusmann wrote:Also, you can't just look at his matches against Djokovic but also the rest of the tour players, a lot of posters look at the top players (usually the top 4) but Nadal has to play a lot of other players on his way to the finals and those tactics work very effectively against the rest most of the time.

The opposite. I think Nadal often struggles more on his way to finals....essentiallly saved when comes the 4th and/or 5th set...He is certainly the only one standing at the end, thanks to his "talented" stamina!

I would differentiate between general sporting talent and talent specific to a particular sport.

Thus the definition of talent can vary according to the endeavour.

WRT tennis, I would offer the following as one definition:

The ability to execute all aspects of the game, with the minimal amount of strain i.e high efficiency.

This requires the ability to technically produce each shot to the highest degree, on each surface.

This in itself requires an innate ability to adapt and execute with minimal preparation (in comparison to peers).

However, having said this, of course it is a subjective realm. Nevertheless, I think in the minds of many people, talent is a certain 'je ne sais quois'; a quality that can be seen and recognised collectively by the majority (or at least those with expertise in the said field), but yet is difficult to define.

Tenez wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:I'm not sure Nadal is great tactician, I think he has just perfected the art of how to play Federer.
I thought Djokovic's recent run raised big questions about Nadal's tactical astuteness, particularly in Madrid and Rome. It was clear early on in both of those matches that Nadal wasn't going to get anywhere just by pounding Djokovic's backhand (a tactic that often works against Federer). But he was completely unable to change his approach. Once his main weapon had been negated, he seemed at a loss of what to do.

Exactly. Nadal plays always the same. His luck is that his power is enough to take the edge out of Federer's BH. Very much like Becker and Sampras had enough power to break McEnroe's touch game. McEnroe could handle the balls send by players of his generation but would struggle applying his touch game v guys who had learnt how to whack the ball with a big frame.

Now that a player can stay physically with Nadal, his lack of tactic and frankly imagination was obvious to see. More so that I believe Djoko was not even 100% fit in that last clay final they played.

I think we have heard enough of this theory of yours Tenez... you repeat it adnausium.. Rafa is not the only physically fit and strong player on tour .,.. but the inference you make is that there is some other reason for it. Is he the only player that has had medicine help him with some of his injuries .. is he the only player that has a nutritional diet .. is he the only player that trains to keep himself physically fit. Because unless he is Im not sure what you are inferring. But whatever, do you think you could now give Nadal a rest and try talking about another player it would be most refreshing.

Are you sure the facts support that? I haven't looked at all his quarter and semi final performances but in the final matches of the 3 grand slams he reached (in 2010) he dropped just one set and that was at the last final @ the USO, I think Fed would settle for those sort of straight forward wins in most years.

In 2010 Nadal dropped 4 sets at the Australian (which he lost), none @ the French, 4 @ Wimbledon and only one of them at the finals (quarters, semis & final) and 2 @ the US Open with 1 of them in the finals matches. The stats for this year are: 3 @ the Australian Open (where he fell at the quarters, all 3 of them in that match) and 3 @ the French, with just 1 in the finals.

2010 is not the best year to check cause all top players were off form.

But just look at the FO 11 or AO 11 (v Tomic nber 200+)!

All his Wimbledons have had 5 and 4 setters. Last year v Petzchner and Haase!!!

Even his Wimby 2008 had a 4 setter v Shuttler!

Nadal doesn't make it look easy.

Talent = an aptitude to make things look easy!

Luciusman, he only actually dropped 1 set at the USO in the finals.,

Talent = an aptitude to make things look easy!



Then as sure as God made little green apples we havent got many talented tennis players have we.. and over recent months (until his match against Djoko) even Federer hasn´t made it look easy either... in fact he has made bliddy hard work of it

How is dropping a set no making it easy and therefore not an

How is dropping a set no making it easy and therefore not an aptitude for talent? Nadal has won more slams without dropping a set than any player in history except Borg. What happened to other players who make it look easy and supposedly have talent then? s

Overlooked the USO, they all read pretty similar except for Wimbledon in 2010, thanks for spotting that. I'm not so sure you can cherry pick your years as it suits you Tenez.

Yes, there usually are matches which go to 4/5 sets @ Wimbledon for him, but he has usually gone up a gear by the finals, which doesn't suggest he struggles as he gets to the finals.

Tomic who? Some player from Australia who was hyped up (because they were playing in Australia), the guy didn't even take a set off Nadal. The French Open started off tricky, but again, he dropped just one set in the finals and he played Murray, who is no push over and he had to grind the sets out and even then he won in str8 sets.

Lucius
Fancy using facts against a good argument!

Clearly Nadal is an exceptionally good tennis player - if he did not have good skill and coordination and was solely an athlete then he'd probably be doing track and field or something similar.

The argument over 'what is talent?' is actually quite a complex question when you are dealing with a skilled athletic sport such as tennis or football - it's much easier to define talent for an athlete, cyclist or rower (where it is predominantly athletic capabilities, and skill / technique is of secondary importance), or for technical sports such as golf or snooker, where it is the skill that matters and the athletic side is nearly irrelevant.

For tennis, the requirement is a bundle of skills including a good outright sprint speed, recovery and aerobic fitness, good balance and nimbleness, judgement (including tactics), coordination and timing, plus the mentality to be both driven to hours of hard effort in training and in having the determination to win. All the top players have all of these in abundance, although as some posters have mentioned, no-one is (or probably has ever been) the complete package and so some players may have greater athletic talent, others greater shotmaking talents, but one of the fascinations of the game is watching how players of contrasting (relative) strengths shape up.

Facts, what are facts dummy_half?!

I'm not sure it is a good argument (or maybe I don't get the joke), Nadal typically grinds out his wins, I don't think that means he's devoid of talent and actually, he finishes off many of his matches in less than 4/5 sets, typically str8 sets, just like Fed often does.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:You look at Nadal, his genetics, born into a family of athletes by where his uncle was a tennis pro and his father a footballer. He has the perfect physique and is blessed enough to be Ambidextrous and plays his strokes with more effort than a Federer, but is able to balance himself to enable his footwork to keep him in all points.

But you have to at least agree that he was also helped by modern medecine who first managed to build the right soles to make up for a career threatening foot injury, then PRP treatment arriving just on time (sept 09) to save his knees and all other modern nutritional benefits. And of course Toni telling him before he himself understood why to play with his left arm and alsotold him to topspin crazy like h is also tellig where to serve on MPs.

Nadal's success much more than Federer's is a team work effort, very much F1-like. Federer and Nadal cases as the perfect example how talent can win over hard word or vice versa (depending on surfaces here). A bit like the chess game between Big blue v Kasparov.

Didn't you have a moan up at someone on another thread for mentioning chess in a tennis debate?

I don't think it is fair to put emphasis on shoes being integral to Nadal's success. You still need to be able to have sufficient treatments available or even sport technologies that help professional sportsmen/women. At the end of the day all of these options are available to all players. Andy Murray with his Ankle support, Djokovic has had well documented Nasal surgery to help him breathe easier, all factors just to help them.

Nadal's style of play has always been the subject of debate in terms of the effect it has on his body and only Rafa knows the extent and impact his style of play has on his body.

There is no dispute that Nadal's development was helped massively by that his uncles were athletes, but all players have different ways of developing in ways that benefit them.

lucius
Sorry, wasn't the clearest wording I've ever come up with. The stats you highlighted were the clearest argument possible against Tenez's obsession that Nadal only wins because he is fit and his opponent tires.

Just looking at the ATP records, Nadal and Federer* have remarkably similar records both for career winning % (82.7% Nadal and 81% for Federer), and for the number of matches that go to the deciding set (22.4% for Nadal, 23.7% for Federer) - indeed, from that it's clear that Nadal wins slightly more of his matches in straight sets than does the great front-runner Federer.

OK, Rafa also has a slightly better record at winning final sets than Roger, although not as high a proportion as you might expect (70% v 65% for Federer) - the only area that Rafa is miles ahead on that would support Tenez's argument is their respective 5 set records.

*Was not looking to turn this into another Fedal discussion, but Roger was the obvious player to compare the stats with as they are so close in overall win %, and well ahead of the rest.

luciusmann wrote:Overlooked the USO, they all read pretty similar except for Wimbledon in 2010, thanks for spotting that. I'm not so sure you can cherry pick your years as it suits you Tenez.

Likewise, I coudl say you are cherry picking your year. In fact I am mentioning all the other years and you have only picked one. The one where Davydenko, Delpotro, Murray, Federer were injured at som stages in slams. The year where Djoko was completely off form and the year Djoko and Fed played an epic semi to come nackered in the final.

Tomic who? Some player from Australia who was hyped up (because they were playing in Australia), the guy didn't even take a set off Nadal. The French Open started off tricky, but again, he dropped just one set in the finals and he played Murray, who is no push over and he had to grind the sets out and even then he won in str8 sets. .

But that's not the point what he does in teh later stage as you original post was that Nadal's game was efficient across all player inthe earlier rounds. I am just pointing ou that Nadal struggles more on the way to finals than let;s say Federer.

Why would any sensible person mention Davydenko as a factor in a slam lol, he is irrelevant.

But that's not the point what he does in teh later stage as you original post was that Nadal's game was efficient across all player inthe earlier rounds. I am just pointing ou that Nadal struggles more on the way to finals than let;s say Federer

.....................

Has nothing to do with the draw of course... Just couldn´t be that Nadal has a more difficult draw... like in the FO his first round was Isner... but that you have to compare Nadal to Federer... why not compare Nadal to A.N.Other.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Why would any sensible person mention Davydenko as a factor in a slam lol, he is irrelevant.

Ask Nadal...lost his last 4 encunters against Davy, exhausting him no end in the process by sending him in all corners. Naal may thank his luck not to have ever met him in a slam. Federer had to do the hard work on many occasions.

We are going off topic.

Please stay on topic or I will lock the thread.

Thanks

Tenez wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:Why would any sensible person mention Davydenko as a factor in a slam lol, he is irrelevant.

Ask Nadal...lost his last 4 encunters against Davy, exhausting him no end in the process by sending him in all corners. Naal may thank his luck not to have ever met him in a slam. Federer had to do the hard work on many occasions.

Three cheers for Roger

Well a very good debate simple analyst, I go back to what lydian has said, some people view talent in a subjective manner, they look at what they prefer to see in a tennis player, (ie one handed backhand, big serve) and they deem that as talent. In the end ball striking is talent, speed is talent, power is talent; but for me as a tennis fan although I enjoy watching Gasquet's elegant backhand, and Fed's smooth forehand; what really gets me excited is wins. Results, are what count, period. Talent without results is subjective, results are objective. I may not enjoy watching David ferrer or mats wilander before him, but they were able to maximize the talent that they possesed. When it comes down to it talent is great can make for great shots and highlight reel plays. But a player is judged by results, grandslams; period end of story.