The question of talent in tennis

First topic message reminder :

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?

More excuses yet again. You cannot take one part out and say oh if you take out clay. Like I said they've played in slams off clay to help you 4 times. Federer should have taken advantage if he was better.
As for the football part you are confusing yourself and bringing in uncessary information. The ref acted in the rules. Unlucky for VP but then again a Messi goal at the Emirate 1st leg was wrongly ruled offside.

luciusmann wrote:Also, the record on Federer's favourite surface (grass) is 2-1 (in his favour), not 2-2, it's 2-2 on grass/hard court.

2-1 to either player is as close as can be, given and odd number of games have been played and clearly 3 games is not statistically significant. 30-20 on the other hand would be significant.

4-1 to some one and you're getting into the realms of significance, but even then it would only be around a 65-75% confidence interval

It is only natural and expected that Nadal should close the gap, after all he is in his peak years.

Roger is almost 30; it's a little unfair to expect him to play at the same standard he was playing at when he was 24/25.

WRT H2H, lets not forget that Davy leads rafa 6-4, I think it's 6-1 on hardcourt.

Even Novak was at one point 14-4 down against Rafa; It's now 16-11, in other words he's won 7 of the last 9 encounters.

My point is that H2H against just one player is misleading, it varies so much according to surface, age, respective development and of course, matchup.

So all of those people who like to beat Roger with that particular stick, don't for a moment think that Rafa will be immune to the ravages of age and younger, hungrier rivals.

What's laughable is those people who go on and on about it and it's usually Nadal fans. In fact many of those clay court matches have been finals, I'm not sure if you've checked them Tom, but they include 4 RG finals and 6 others finals on the ATP 1000 clay court finals. That's 10 finals, they've met in plenty of of clay court finals, there's no doubt Nadal's better on this surface. They met in 3 Wimbledon finals, so if there were more grass court tournaments, the head to head would be more illuminating. I bet Nadal wouldn't give a toss about the head to head, anywhere near as much as his fans if he could successfully defend all 3 of his grand slam titles from last year.

The question is, if there were also 3 ATP 1000 grass (Federer's favourite surface) court tournaments, how would the head to head look then? Certainly not 2-1, and not the overall 17 - 8. Actually, I disagree, what creates the bias far more is not the clay court issue but the lack of grass court tournaments. I've not, btw, ever said it's biased, so it doesn't help to suggest that or say it's biased because i didn't say it. What I've said is that if you look at how it breaks down, it obviously will favour Nadal, the number of clay court tournaments they've met in is far more, hence Nadal's advantage. As I've said, take away clay, no advantage anymore, let's say we'll be fair, take away grass, again, no advantage anymore. Quite simple, there is only one hard court slam they've played and it's been noted, would be wonderful if they've played more but they haven't.

I've not confused myself on the football, I'm quite correct, saying the ref is right for making a wrong decision is just not acceptable at that level. It's like saying a King says cut everyone's hands off, he has the legal authority to do it, is it right or fair? Er, no, but he has the right to? Er, yes, but it still doesn't make it right (morally) or fair. Simple really. But I haven't taken one part out, I've taken out grass as well (Fed's favourite), read my posts and you'll see their are no excuses, thanks!

Tom_____ wrote:Looking at monfils:
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTVAN7GQzf7CBGALSnlOQ9nrh7sLvyx3D646qbQokAH07h10T9Gzw

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRyYsbXLXvgWYPof09tHv-xvp4eMOUH9yPtNq1DByNFkcpvnQanhQ

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS0WV5CBatGCqKLeJk_auyv9qtkBBscTRTAohP80ze7p-lj_n0_QA

Hes one of the most physically developed looking specimens on tour. Why is he not able to use his physicality to muscle all the top players off the court if that is all Nadal is doing?

That is the point I intended to make. He is not able to use his physicality 'alone' to make any dents. The five-setter with Ferrer (5 ft 9 in) is an example.

Rochus had a winning record against Djokovic at one point in time.

Muster is one of the most physical players and made no progress at Wimbledon despite four attempts.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Mu/T/Thomas-Muster.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=540#

Listen, at the end of the day, McEnroe will always be remembered for his talent and genius. Wilander won't be.

Same will apply between Federer and Nadal. Federer is the "obvious" talent. Nadal is the obvious hard worker.

Like it or not. That's how it is.

Federer may be 29 years old but he's never played better on clay than during this years FO. The ATP tour is changing, I believe players peaks are moving upwards as fitness levels, nutrition and looking after themselves generally improves. Not only moving up in age but also the peak level is being sustained for longer. Look at Agassi, Ferrer, Melzer and many others...they're peaking and staying at peak later. So I dont buy this peak at 23/24 and then fall off a cliff discussion. Even Henman was getting to FO semi's at 30 yo.

Look at 100m sprinters...again many of them peak into their 30s. So if they can compete at that esoteric level then surely tennis players can. And Agassi is the best proof of that in recent times. I expect to see alot more Agassi's in years to come.

Re: Nadal/Federer, I dont buy Federer's supremacy on grass over Nadal. The first time they met Nadal pushed him close as a rookie on the surface. In 2008 he really should have won in straights. Fed hasnt beaten him in a slam since 2007, and only beaten him 2 times in total since 2008 (9-2 H2H), and you can argue Madrid 2009 was due to Nadal being completely knackered after playing Nole for 4 hours less than 24 hrs beforehand. Its not even really a rivalry anymore...but who knows maybe Fed surprises us with his tutelage under Annacone and improved serve/aggression. Or maybe Nadal's 100% form returns...or maybe they both get knocked out in the 1st week next week!

emancipator wrote:It is only natural and expected that Nadal should close the gap, after all he is in his peak years.

Roger is almost 30; it's a little unfair to expect him to play at the same standard he was playing at when he was 24/25.

WRT H2H, lets not forget that Davy leads rafa 6-4, I think it's 6-1 on hardcourt.

Even Novak was at one point 14-4 down against Rafa; It's now 16-11, in other words he's won 7 of the last 9 encounters.

My point is that H2H against just one player is misleading, it varies so much according to surface, age, respective development and of course, matchup.

So all of those people who like to beat Roger with that particular stick, don't for a moment think that Rafa will be immune to the ravages of age and younger, hungrier rivals.

No one was beating Fed with the H2H stick. People were using the clay bias argument - did you read the posts?

However the age thing holds no water. When a young player rises up through the rankings the older player who is at peak has the advantage and so the H2H usually starts off with the older player in ascendancy. Then as the older player ages and the younger player comes to peak the ascendancy switches.

for example Look at Connors and Mac:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=C044&oId=M047

14-21 in Macs favour over all (one W/O so i think the stats say 20-14). Connors is 6 years the senior.

up to 1980 Connors leads 6-3.
From 1983 on Mac wins 12 to 3

The period in between this was 6-5 to Mac and therefore very close

for Nadal and Fed, Federer never managed to get that early career H2H lead over Nadal and therefore the H2H is only likely to get more tipped towards Nadal as the two age.

Tenez wrote:Listen, at the end of the day, McEnroe will always be remembered for his talent and genius. Wilander won't be.

Same will apply between Federer and Nadal. Federer is the "obvious" talent. Nadal is the obvious hard worker.

Like it or not. That's how it is.

No Mac will be remembered for that Borg TB he lost, screaming at umpires, underachieving vs. his talent, being routinely beat by Lendl inc. THAT French Open final, and then quitting the tour due to pressure. Who really cares about Wilander? He was never a great tennis personality that people remember.

Federer will be remembered as a talent no doubt, Nadal likewise.
But Federer will also be remembered because of Nadal, largely for their great finals and for being routinely beaten by him...thats just how it is.

Listen, at the end of the day, McEnroe will always be remembered for his talent and genius. Wilander won't be


Why do you use Wilander for your argument... is it because he was a clay court player..... if so why not use Borg..you are going to tell us he had no talent either I presume. Tenez you are as transparant as a plate glass window

Actually, there are some who keep on going on and on about the head to head, as I've said in my previous posts, it's tilted, fairly or unfairly to Nadal because there are 4 major clay court events and 1 grass, of course the head to head will reflect Nadal is better and guess what, that's exactly what the head to head shows.

As Tom said, when you are comparing numbers of 2-1 it's not very useful, I completely agree, when your getting to 5-1 or more, then it's useful. Well we can't get into those sort of figures on grass because we haven't got the same number of high ranking grass court tournaments as clay. That's not Nadal's fault, nor Federer's fault, it's just the reality and I think it's perfectly correct to point that out and say that's a big part why the head to head is so lopsided, not because of some vaulted Nadal 'domination'. As Nadal has entered his peak years, he had done that bit better to beat Federer, but it doesn't amount to 'domination'. If it does, I'll like to see Nadal beat Fed in straight sets in Wimbledon this year (if they both get through). I bet you he doesn't, I'll bet you on it too. Routinely beaten? Maybe on clay, but until they play more matches elsewhere, I disagree and always will until I see them play more on other surfaces.

Lydian,

100m sprinting requires running a race for 10 secs.

Tennis is completely different and requires both speed, endurance, power, etc, etc for much longer. Basically, they are completely different sports and thus incomparable.

As for tennis players peaking later and sustaining it longer, I think you need more than a handful of examples to substantiate this claim. A few exceptions do not make the rule. Tennis has always been a young man's sport. Besides, we are talking about the very elite in this sport i.e multiple slam winners. Pray tell me how many multiple slam winners there have been after the age of say 28? And then compare this to how many multiple slam winners achieved those slams before that age. I think that will give you a clue as to when peak performance in tennis usually lies.

Finally, we are discussing one player in particular - Roger Federer. Anyone who has followed Federer over the years can see that he is no longer consistently the same player that he was 5-6 years ago.

Sure, TMF may show up for a match (or rather for a a few games or a set here and there) or even for a week, ala this years french open or the WTF last year, but are you seriously telling me that Roger is consistently playing at the same level that he was playing at when he was dominating the tour?

Just to give an example, I just watched highlights of the USO match between Fed and Lopez in '07. They showed his UE stats at the end of the 3rd set (he was leading 2-1) - 8 unforced errors, yes that's right, just 8 UE's in three sets, and that was just another routine match for Roger in those days. Today, you'd expect him to make AT LEAST 8 UE's in just one set.

The point is that Roger is clearly not as good as he was; he's a step slower, less explosive, and makes more errors. But this is all to be expected considering how many miles he has on his legs. Remember, this guy has been the most dominant player of the open era, of course he can't be expected to maintain that insane level on the verge of 30 yrs old.

It'll be interesting to see how well rafa does at the same age. Perhaps he'll still be in his peak, no?

Haddie-nuff wrote:Listen, at the end of the day, McEnroe will always be remembered for his talent and genius. Wilander won't be


Why do you use Wilander for your argument... is it because he was a clay court player..... if so why not use Borg..you are going to tell us he had no talent either I presume. Tenez you are as transparant as a plate glass window

Borg will not be remembered for his shot making ability really but for being a great athlete at a time natural athletic skills meant something. His footwork was genius....very similar to Federer's actually.

Oh And I used Wilander essentially cause he has 7 slams like McEnroe....but noone calls Wilander a genius. Noone calls nadal a genius..bar you Haddie...maybe.

Great post Emancipator, you make the case well, I still think Fed would be able to give Nadal more than a chase for the Wimbledon title this year.

Tenez, you might want to include lydian and simple analyst in that list too!

luciusmann wrote:Great post Emancipator, you make the case well, I still think Fed would be able to give Nadal more than a chase for the Wimbledon title this year.

Well he was close to beat nadal in 3 on claya couple of weeks ago...down to a point there and then, so surely he can do that on grass...Problem is grass is not quite grass anylonger.

luciusmann wrote:What's laughable is those people who go on and on about it and it's usually Nadal fans. In fact many of those clay court matches have been finals, I'm not sure if you've checked them Tom, but they include 4 RG finals and 6 others finals on the ATP 1000 clay court finals. That's 10 finals, they've met in plenty of of clay court finals, there's no doubt Nadal's better on this surface. They met in 3 Wimbledon finals, so if there were more grass court tournaments, the head to head would be more illuminating. I bet Nadal wouldn't give a toss about the head to head, anywhere near as much as his fans if he could successfully defend all 3 of his grand slam titles from last year.

The question is, if there were also 3 ATP 1000 grass (Federer's favourite surface) court tournaments, how would the head to head look then? Certainly not 2-1, and not the overall 17 - 8. Actually, I disagree, what creates the bias far more is not the clay court issue but the lack of grass court tournaments. I've not, btw, ever said it's biased, so it doesn't help to suggest that or say it's biased because i didn't say it. What I've said is that if you look at how it breaks down, it obviously will favour Nadal, the number of clay court tournaments they've met in is far more, hence Nadal's advantage. As I've said, take away clay, no advantage anymore, let's say we'll be fair, take away grass, again, no advantage anymore. Quite simple, there is only one hard court slam they've played and it's been noted, would be wonderful if they've played more but they haven't.

I've not confused myself on the football, I'm quite correct, saying the ref is right for making a wrong decision is just not acceptable at that level. It's like saying a King says cut everyone's hands off, he has the legal authority to do it, is it right or fair? Er, no, but he has the right to? Er, yes, but it still doesn't make it right (morally) or fair. Simple really. But I haven't taken one part out, I've taken out grass as well (Fed's favourite), read my posts and you'll see their are no excuses, thanks!

firstly i'm not a Nadal Fan, i only really find myself defending Nadal so often because he appears to come under unnecessary attack in my view. I'm a fan of Tennis. I love watching when Nadal and Fed play, its an absolute treat. You'd find me defending Fed if he was attacked for no good reason - same with any other player.


Secondly making up fictional scenarios where there are more grass tournaments is irrelevant, as the ATP circuit is what it is. The players train to be as successful as possible on the tour as a whole. Some are better at clay, some are better off clay, but fictionally changing the proportion of tournaments would also mean from a young age players would be training towards being competitive on the different surfaces. E.g If there were only 2 clay tournament all year, few would bother specialise on clay from an early age. Hence the (eons ago) previous argument that it is now easier to dominate on grass compared to clay, as there are now far fewer grass specialists on tour compared to clay. My point is that all things are in fact equal and so their H2H is in perfect balance with the relative strengths of the two players. Hence Nadal is much stronger against Fed on his best Surface than Federer is against Nadal on his best surfaces.

If you start going fictional you could make a case for Federer potentially being as good if not better on clay than the other surfaces - For example how many people have beaten Federer at RG since he first won wimbledon in 2003? - 3, Kuerten, Nadal, Sod
How many players have beaten him at wimbledon since 2003? - 2, Berdych, Nadal
How many players have beaten him at Aus since wimbers 2003? 3, Safin, Djoko, Nadal
How many players have beaten him at the USO since wimbers 2003? - 3, Nalb, Djoko, Del P

Potentially Federer would have 5 RG titles and 6 more clay masters titles if it were not for Nadal, hence clay isn't obviously Federer worst surface, as bar Nadal his achievements on clay may well parallel his other achievements. So therefore again, the H2H between the two is in perfect balance, because the two are meeting on collectively their best surface most often.

Thanks Luciusmann

Tom_____ wrote:firstly i'm not a Nadal Fan, i only really find myself defending Nadal so often because he appears to come under unnecessary attack in my view. I'm a fan of Tennis. I love watching when Nadal and Fed play, its an absolute treat. You'd find me defending Fed if he was attacked for no good reason - same with any other player.

Exactly ditto for me too

lydian wrote:

Tom_____ wrote:firstly i'm not a Nadal Fan, i only really find myself defending Nadal so often because he appears to come under unnecessary attack in my view. I'm a fan of Tennis. I love watching when Nadal and Fed play, its an absolute treat. You'd find me defending Fed if he was attacked for no good reason - same with any other player.

Exactly ditto for me too

Come on Lydian, you coulda fooled me; you're about as transparent as a glass of water.

As to Rafa coming under unnecessary attack, it seems to me that there are far more Rafa fans on this board than there are Roger fans. Just take a look at the Rafa-lite thread

Admittedly, it may have been different on 606.

Anyway, I have more pressing needs to attend to.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO where for art thou oh BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Cooooooooooome baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack,

Thou isest forgivenest

Hang on Tom, where have I made up fictional scenarios? I've simply stated the fact there are more clay court tournaments than grass (not hard, there's only 1 major grass court tournament) and that offers a good explanation for why Nadal's head to head is superior, that's not an attack, that's just a reasonable thing to say, as grass is Fed's favourite surface (best results) and clay is Nadal's.

a) I have not attacked Nadal, my posts have simply looked at those clay court tournaments which have helped build a large part of his superior head to head. I've not complained about the lack of grass court tournaments or the fact there's 4 major clay court tournaments, but there are more, and that's just a fact.
b) I have not come up with fictional scenarios. It doesn't balance each other out in fact, you've said it's all balanced, er no. Just because things are as they are doesn't change the fact that as a % there are far less grass court tournaments 4-1 in fact in terms of proportions to clay. The head to head only reflects how often they have actually met, that much is correct but it doesn't reflect Federer's strength on grass because there arn't as many tournaments, that's a fair and valid observation.

Lydian, I feel the same way, in fact neither Nadal or Fed are among my top 5 favorite players. I will say that as a Djokovic fan I do have a little bit more hurt feelings towards fed because of the fact that their rivalry has a little bit more animosity. But that doesn't mean I don't appreciate Fed's ability or what he has brought to the sport. i honestly don't see a single Rafa fan come out and claim that fed isn't talented or is overrated. But I find a lot of unreasonable attacks on Rafa from some fed fans. Look maybe the guy is just better, and you have to deal with that. Fed's game is more asthetically pleasing and he is a good guy, but there is someone out there who clearly has had his number.

You don't need to defend Nadal, I don't attack him, I may not be a Nadal fan but I have plenty of respect for him and my posts give him all he is due (for the most part) but I don't buy into this Rafa 'domination' I think he would be bemused and amazed if he heard some of the things his so called 'fans' say. 'domination being far from the strangest I've read on here so far.

Indeed socal - in defending Nadal on these boards you get labelled a fanatic by implication from the Federer Triad.

Anyone for Tenez

Tenez wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:Listen, at the end of the day, McEnroe will always be remembered for his talent and genius. Wilander won't be


Why do you use Wilander for your argument... is it because he was a clay court player..... if so why not use Borg..you are going to tell us he had no talent either I presume. Tenez you are as transparant as a plate glass window

Borg will not be remembered for his shot making ability really but for being a great athlete at a time natural athletic skills meant something. His footwork was genius....very similar to Federer's actually.

Oh And I used Wilander essentially cause he has 7 slams like McEnroe....but noone calls Wilander a genius. Noone calls nadal a genius..bar you Haddie...maybe.

Then this should come as a surprise to you who seemingly idolises one player (Lord knows what you will do when he retires) but I dont call ANYONE A GENIUS... no NOT EVEN your precious Federer... no one is that good Tenez .. Nadal is a talented player and nothing you can say will change that fact.. and to say otherwise rather belittles your man... who after all has one hell of a job to beat him...So stop embarassing yourself

Lucius, frankly when you look at their head to head in grandslams Rafa has dominated. On his best surface Fed has never beaten him in a grandslam. And on Fed's better surfaces grass and hardcourt Rafa is even with Fed. If anything the age difference is in Fed's favor. Fed isn't really that far past winning two grandslams in 09. While Rafa was a teenager coming onto the tour and far from his best when Fed was at his absolute peak and he still beat Fed more often than not. If Fed had a winning record at grandslams off of the clay against Rafa, I would agree with your comment. But even before his prime he held his own against fed on the non-clay events while completely mauling him on clay.

luciusmann wrote:Hang on Tom, where have I made up fictional scenarios? I've simply stated the fact there are more clay court tournaments than grass (not hard, there's only 1 major grass court tournament) and that offers a good explanation for why Nadal's head to head is superior, that's not an attack, that's just a reasonable thing to say, as grass is Fed's favourite surface (best results) and clay is Nadal's.

a) I have not attacked Nadal, my posts have simply looked at those clay court tournaments which have helped build a large part of his superior head to head. I've not complained about the lack of grass court tournaments or the fact there's 4 major clay court tournaments, but there are more, and that's just a fact.
b) I have not come up with fictional scenarios. It doesn't balance each other out in fact, you've said it's all balanced, er no. Just because things are as they are doesn't change the fact that as a % there are far less grass court tournaments 4-1 in fact in terms of proportions to clay. The head to head only reflects how often they have actually met, that much is correct but it doesn't reflect Federer's strength on grass because there arn't as many tournaments, that's a fair and valid observation.

Yours was a 'what if' argument Lucius, quite obviously, hence fictional. My reply in part was a reflective 'what if' argument to illustrate its irrelevance. My point about grass is 'if' there were many more grass tournaments, you could equally argue there 'would be' many more grass specialised players out there. Clearly at the minute their are far more HC specialised players, then clay, then grass last of all.

I didn't say you attacked Nadal.

Well there's a difference from defending, I'm not sure how you're defending him by asserting that's he's 'dominating' or thinking my posts are attacking him? My posts certainly don't (certainly not intentionally, if they ever are)!

Like many Fed fans, I'd like to see more of these Nadal wins on grass and hard court against Fed in the slams and you know what? When I have seen them, I'll put my hands down and pay homage to the tennis god that will then be Nadal, the giant slayer. Till that happens, you won't be defending so much as asserting something which isn't proven as far as I'm concerned.

Well Tom, I added 'if' as a comparison, it isn't the gist of my argument, the gist of it is the head to head is skewed because there are more clay court tournaments and not many grass court tournaments, simply true. The what 'if' was added in to explain how it could have the changed the head to head, it doesn't undermine what I've said at all. Not at all, my whole argument isn't fictional, it helps to know what it is first and it isn't about the scenario I added in by way of comparison.

luciusmann wrote:Well there's a difference from defending, I'm not sure how you're defending him by asserting that's he's 'dominating' or thinking my posts are attacking him? My posts certainly don't (certainly not intentionally, if they ever are)!

Like many Fed fans, I'd like to see more of these Nadal wins on grass and hard court against Fed in the slams and you know what? When I have seen them, I'll put my hands down and pay homage to the tennis god that will then be Nadal, the giant slayer. Till that happens, you won't be defending so much as asserting something which isn't proven as far as I'm concerned.

are you referring to me? where have i said anything about domination?

Lucius, Nadal is 2-2 against Roger in non clay slams. So if Rafa is equal to roger on hardcourt and grass, and then completely dominates him on clay then what does that tell you?

I wasn't referring to you Tom with the comment about domination.

I'm unconvinced for now if Rafa is equal to Fed on grass, I want to see him beat Fed before I will concede that. Call me old fashioned but when the head to head on grass is 2-2, then yes, it is.

That tells me Nadal is better than Fed, which is is right now, that may well change, we'll see, that's the great thing, we got Wimbledon next week and I'm getting excited already!

Right guys things are getting heated and little snipes are being directed left right and centre. So I am locking the thread so you can take a time out.