The Definition of Talent

First topic message reminder :

There was a bit of a debate about which players were talented on another thread but it struck me that it wasn't very clear what everyone's view of talent is. It's a fairly nebulous concept so that's probably understandable but it seemed an interesting debate so I thought I'd create a new thread.

At one end of the scale there is an argument that success equals talent. The aim of the game is winning and no matter how the job gets done the player who wins is by definition the most talented. Their particular mental and physical skill set is what was best required to win and they are therefore the most talented. To avoid offending anyone let's call this the Brad "winning ugly" Gilbert test for talent.

A middle ground might be to remove the mental side of the game. For example, Marat Safin could play exceptional tennis but could also go walk-about for months at a time and lose to anyone. Coria was the best player in the French in 2004 but choked massively. Essentially, this is the "if they weren't a mental midget they would be the best in the world" approach to talent.

The opposite end of the scale is to seek to remove all physical (speed/stamina) or mental gifts a player might have. In the world where every player was the same height, speed, never got tired and never choked who would be the best player? In other words, who has the best "hands". Here, talent has to be measured by ball striking ability, ease with which a range of different shots can be played, touch and feel. The Oli "wish I was a foot taller" Rochus test.

I think my view of "talent" is closest to the latter. I certainly don't consider success to necessarily equal talent (albeit you clearly have to have talent to succeed). A player with a wide range of shots would in my view be more talented than one with a limited though effective shot range even if less successful.

Where I disagree with some of the comments is that style of play itself is measure of talent. A player with a one-handed backhand is not necessarily more talented than one who uses two. It is usually a natural choice one way or the other for a player and just because a player has chosen to use one hand does not make them more talented. Aesthetics alone does not equal talent.

I would also expect talented players to be able to break through early due to their abilities meaning they can compete with older stronger players at a younger age.

How would you define talent and how would the top 10 look on talent alone?

LuvSports! wrote:Again you don't answer my point re djoko, was that before or after '11? I wonder why...

Of course you don't agree. I could be wrong but you may think I have an agenda against Nadal or even Djoko. I say great fitness is massively linked to mental strength and you disagree as if this were true, rafa may not be the mental giant that he is.

I don't have an agenda as I said Feds (my fave player) massively benefitted from this when his fitness improved and he matured into a dominant force. His talent was never in question but the final jigsaw pieces were still missing before everything slotted into place.

I did answer it LS but I dont know where my post went .. Im not sure..if it was or not so I wont commit myself on that score. It has been said that Novak was not mentally strong then.. I never saw that aspect of Novak and have always thought that he was able to take the pressure mentally.

I'd argue the same about tennis the game in general. Murray's "great hands" are presumably the reason he is rated so highly in the "Talent Scalar".... But given his travails on clay, would he have played the same way had he been born Andreas on the outskirts of Madrid, playing on clay? It seems highly suspicious that talent is purely "talent-based", if you will, given the fact that all Spaniards seem proficient at the inside out forehand... French players seem proficient at all court tennis. Has a study been carried out explaining that Spaniards have slightly longer tennis playing arms? Or more likely, isn't your game a combination of your physical gifts and your environment? Otherwise

Fair enough Haddie. Like so many other things we speak of, agree to disagree

In Murray´s case he is being shown how not to show weakness.. that doesnt mean he has learned how to be strong. Last week after a lay off through injury when he was not performing as well as he though he should some of the old body language showed.  So I wont bother to debate further whether it can be taught.. I dont think so personally I believe its in the individal person´s make-up or not but that is only my opinion

Have to say I thought Novak was a mental rock in 2009-10. With his serve and forehand problems he barely looked a top 10 player yet, match after match, he would play awful tennis yet find a way to win. Immense mental strength needed to remain a top 3 player in those circumstances.

Even now... Djokovic can play quit an awful match, but he does that Serbian Dragon roar a few times, hits a backhand down the line winner, and somehow hits a classic volley having made an ill-advised trip to the net. Next thing you know... Game Set match Djokovic. Can't say he's not a fun watch.

KR thats what I mean.. you cant be taught to do that.
Maybe the actual tennis shot yes... but the mental strength and ability to be able do it when it really matters is a "talent"

Talent is not directly observable, which makes it difficult to ascertain it accurately. Pretty much everything players do on court comes from a combination of innate ability, learning and other random factors.

McEnroe was not the hardest worker and I am sure his brilliance around the net was heaviily due to his talent. But even then, I am sure if he had first picked up the racquet at 18, he would never have been able to do with his volleys a fraction of what he did in real life. Certain aspects of game are probably easier to acquire via learning and hard work than others, but virtually none of them are pure talent or pure learning/work.

So it is quite hard (and outright impossible to do it accurately) to tease out the info on each player's talent from what we can see of them. It is probably even harder to isolate talent out of the mental strength, which itself is not directly observable.

Now this is slightly off-topic and I hope it will not derail this nice thread but I have a question for those of you who like to look for talent in players:

Why do you care? To many people, it seems to matter a great deal whether or not a player gets where they are through talent. Posters often feel a sense of vindication if they can think their favorite player is more talented than his opponents, even though he may be less successful. Likewise, if a succesful player is accused of having less talent, his fans often get up in arms, defending his talent.

Why does it matter to you? Why is it that you view talent as more desirable than other components of the package? I think I am pretty honest with myself when I think that I personally do not care much one way or another - if a player can produce the type of tennis I enjoy watching, it does not matter much to me if they got there through practice or talent.

summerblues wrote:Now this is slightly off-topic and I hope it will not derail this nice thread but I have a question for those of you who like to look for talent in players:

Why do you care?  To many people, it seems to matter a great deal whether or not a player gets where they are through talent.  Posters often feel a sense of vindication if they can think their favorite player is more talented than his opponents, even though he may be less successful.  Likewise, if a succesful player is accused of having less talent, his fans often get up in arms, defending his talent.

Why does it matter to you?  Why is it that you view talent as more desirable than other components of the package?  I think I am pretty honest with myself when I think that I personally do not care much one way or another - if a player can produce the type of tennis I enjoy watching, it does not matter much to me if they got there through practice or talent.

It's a weird fixation our society has that innate talent should be valued over hard work or vice versa. Some feel strongly in either direction, in all aspects of life. I think in this context it mostly arises from fans reacting to jibes from antifans who try to diminish players by saying they are not talented, which evokes an emotional reaction to defend the player attacked, and as the talent is the target for attack, this is what the emphasis is on to defend

It's also an easy thing for an antifan to use as a target, as it is pretty subjective, relative and unmeasurable, so they pick an argument at which they cannot be proven wrong

That's a very good point SB and it's why I enjoy the debate but am not bothered by the outcome of it.
To some people I guess, it matters a lot more, just as it matters a lot more that 'their player' is the more highly regarded. Is it a sort of vicarious feel good factor, or a comfort/confirmation the decision to support a given player was the 'right' one?
 
I keep thinking about Fabrice Santoro - nick-named the Magician for his talent, yet he never got past a QF at a slam. His height (5' 10) was certainly against him, and possibly not able to achieve the same level of fitness as other players? But certainly he is considered to have more talent than many other more successful players.
 
I'm also wondering why, if mental strength is considered a talent, why physical strength is less so.

On mental strength. IMO Djokovic's results in 2011 had more to do with his mental hold over Nadal during that period than over his ball hitting skills. It was quite remarkable how he managed to gain the upper hand and win all those matches and take the confidence from a player who up until then had the better of him.

I consider physical strength a talent... Although it's application is difficult to quite pin-point. JMDP is rightly credited with having the resident howitzer forehand... But Monfils probably has a bigger one. The difference is Monfils is quite happy to stand 10 feet behind the base and push it until he gets the chance to hit double back flip passing forehand ten feet in the air and six rows into the second tier.

Talent ??? bottom line for me is (whether it be tennis or anything else)
I stand back and marvel at it.. and say HOW DOES HE/SHE DO THAT.. HOW REMARKABLE...incredible because there are so few who can do whatever they do. Whether it be through mental, or physical strength. Pure genius or beauty. Something that makes me wonder how they can do that and I cant.  That they were blessed with being so clever, so beautiful, or having something recognised as being out of the ordinary.

Would you also do that for the world's tallest/shortest man, or would it have to be something they do, rather than just something they are? Would e.g. physical strength be more admirable than physical height?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Would you also do that for the world's tallest/shortest man, or would it have to be something they do, rather than just something they are? Would e.g. physical strength be more admirable than physical height?

Yes of course.. Ive seen some pretty wonderful and unusual sights in my life JM. I have been fortunate to travel all over the world... but what you are using as an example has nothing to do with an individual´s talent. It is the abilities, of the individual, rather than being physically different in appearance, that sets them apart achieving that which is considered to be extraordinary.

I don't know, youre beginning to ask existential questions now. I admire physical strength over height. But that's because you can work on and improve strength no matter how tall you are. My eleven year old sister can squat 200lbs already. I think that's a greater achievement than the 6'6 13-year old who doesn't even need to try out to make the basketball team.

Now your little sister sounds pretty impressive to me KR

hawkeye wrote:On mental strength. IMO Djokovic's results in 2011 had more to do with his mental hold over Nadal during that period than over his ball hitting skills. It was quite remarkable how he managed to gain the upper hand and win all those matches and take the confidence from a player who up until then had the better of him.

How did he get that mental strength HE?
Because of his new gluten free diet that meant he could go toe-to-toe physically with Rafa?
Look at the difference from their us open '10 & '11 finals. Rafa was dead on his feet in the 4th set, which is almost unimaginable! Djoko outlasted him.

She is mightily impressive. Pity she wants to become a singer, or something to that effect.

It's still a woolly area though, given that not everyone has the same physical strength potential.
In tennis we can marvel more at Federer than Olivier Rochus, but Rochus could potentially have slightly better hand to eye coordination, slightly better foot movement and work slightly harder. But at 5 foot 5 he's never going to produce the wow factor that Fed can produce. Thus we are, in effect, marvelling more at Fed because, for the most part, he is taller/stronger than Rochus.

The strange thing with talent is that generally we are sceptical about inherited gifts.

Elevating a good looking person over a plain or ugly person is seen as wrong.

Advantaging academically gifted children gets certain people hot and bothered.

Inherited wealth is often lampooned but "hard working families" is constantly on politicians' lips.

And yet with sport, people often want their favourites to have the inherited advantage of talent. They want them to have a free gift that elevates them above those that simply work hard.

It seems particularly strongly manifest in tennis too. In football and rugby for instance, players who aren't that gifted but work hard and give their best every game can often be fan favourites.

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's still a woolly area though, given that not everyone has the same physical strength potential.
In tennis we can marvel more at Federer than Olivier Rochus, but Rochus could potentially have slightly better hand to eye coordination, slightly better foot movement and work slightly harder. But at 5 foot 5 he's never going to produce the wow factor that Fed can produce. Thus we are, in effect, marvelling more at Fed because, for the most part, he is taller/stronger than Rochus.

Why? Of course he can still produce the wow factor, just perhaps not through power shots.
He can still hit a wonderful shbh winning passing shot, have great reactions at the net etc.

Quite right, Julius. Boxing tends to overcome this issue by creating the mythical pound for pound ratings. Problem is, pound for pound ratings are biased towards smaller fighters, as they throw more punches, hit better combinations, and generally look smoother. Problem with this reckoning is that it ignores the fact that if a 250lbs man gets into the ring with a 147lbs man, there's only one winner. Tennis of course, doesn't have weight classes, so the problem is reversed. But does that mean Federer is better at silky movement than the Rochus brothers?

Also, we value talent more when it is aesthetically pleasing. Everyone has their favourite talented artist, but few have their favourite talented civil engineer.

Even aesthetically, it becomes even muddier. I find Picasso a poor artist who painted nothing more than cheap knockoffs of African art... But I know a few people who cry "You can't say that about the great Pablo"

JuliusHMarx wrote:Also, we value talent more when it is aesthetically pleasing. Everyone has their favourite talented artist, but few have their favourite talented civil engineer.

Isambard Kingdom Brunel. He didn't need Nike to hype him up!

My least favourite is Osama Bin Laden.

my favorite engineer is Hearmann Tilke.

kingraf wrote:my favorite engineer is Hearmann Tilke.

He's a weak era engineer. His game depends on technology.

Brunel was far more versatile.
 

You Luddite!!

Besides, Brunel is English and Tilke is German. The superior engineer shouldn't even be in question

LuvSports! wrote:

hawkeye wrote:On mental strength. IMO Djokovic's results in 2011 had more to do with his mental hold over Nadal during that period than over his ball hitting skills. It was quite remarkable how he managed to gain the upper hand and win all those matches and take the confidence from a player who up until then had the better of him.

How did he get that mental strength HE?
Because of his new gluten free diet that meant he could go toe-to-toe physically with Rafa?
Look at the difference from their us open '10 & '11 finals. Rafa was dead on his feet in the 4th set, which is almost unimaginable! Djoko outlasted him.

When Djokovic beat Nadal in Rome and Madrid he didn't play a physical game as they were short straight set matches. Nor did Djokovic play exeptionally well (for him) but Nadal played scared (maybe something to do with their matches in Indian Wells and Miami were Nadal had a lead and would usually from such a lead be expected to win).  After that beating Nadal at Wimbledon was like taking candy from a baby and it was not much more difficult at the US Open that year and neither of these matches was physical. The AO in 2012 was something different it was the beginning of Nadal's fight back. Djokovic won that match and it is remembered for it's brutality. But really something more interesting was being played out. Nadal was freed from the mental hold that Djokovic had over him. Nadal's press conference after the match was surprising. Instead of being gutted after what should have been another loss in heartbreaking circumstances... he looked pleased and said how much he had enjoyed the match and also how he felt he had turned a corner in their rivalry. If he hadn't been proved right this would in hindsight have looked delusional. Nadal still refers to this match as one of his favorites.

How did Djokovic get this mental strength over Nadal and how did Nadal regain his? I'm not entirely sure but the evidence that this happened looks clear to me. My guess is that jumping on cars in Madrid may have had something to do with it. I'm not sure if it would have had the same effect but maybe Novak was hoping that dancing with a smiley tennis ball after hopefully beating Nadal in Canada might have unsettled Nadal too. But I am not sure such things would work second time round even if Djokovic had been able to put this plan to the test.

hawkeye wrote:How did Djokovic get this mental strength over Nadal and how did Nadal regain his? I'm not entirely sure but the evidence that this happened looks clear to me. My guess is that jumping on cars in Madrid may have had something to do with it. I'm not sure if it would have had the same effect but maybe Novak was hoping that dancing with a smiley tennis ball after hopefully beating Nadal in Canada might have unsettled Nadal too. But I am not sure such things would work second time round even if Djokovic had been able to put this plan to the test.

This is one of the funniest things I've ever read on this forum! Genuinely laughing out loud.

HE, if this was a joke, I tip my hat to you.

If it wasn't a joke, I urge you to seek help

You didn't answer my point about the gluten free diet.

Djoko's confidence was sky high. the Madrid-Rome back to back masters was djoko's first ever wins over Nadal on clay.
The foundations had been laid in IW & M for djoko. The old tried and tested Rafa routine was not bringing him joy. He seems powerless to stop Djoko at times, who completely had his number. This is where I think Nadal looked mentally weak against Djoko. Like Feds does at times when he plays rafa.
He didn't have a plan b, he does now, but then he was not the mental giant we were used to seeing. You don't give Djoko enough credit for how he downed one of the greats consistently.

Nadal was out on his feet at the US open '11, due to the brutal rallies and in particular that 3rd set where he won it. I'm surprised you do not know how physical this match was. To refresh your memory here are some highlights. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsNGXnNIAak
This was absolutely brutal. A much higher standard compared to their aus match a few months later imo.

Watch Nadal in the 4th set, he is visibly shattered and in the end loses the final set 6-1 as he cannot run everything down anymore and Djoko's more killer shots see him through despite him rolling his serve in due to an apparent shoulder injury.

Now I think Nadal is fitter than Djoko again but has also tried to mix things up a bit.

Two comments in the last two days have made me genuinely laugh. The first was a theory that Begging is only illegal because the government can't tax it on the OT section (I actually spilled my drink reading that). The second was HE's last post. I also found myself curious as to whether she would get a bite

HM. Well it sort of is and it sort of isn't    How do you switch things round and become top dog when you have been an underdog? Don't tell me Djokovic suddenly became a super version 2 of his old self because looking at his actual play he didn't. But whatever was going on between the two something changed and Nadal looked spooked even before they had hit any balls in their matches. Like I said I don't know how exactly but somehow Djokovic gained a mental edge and then something changed and he lost it. Now I think things are re set to how they were prior to 2011. ie Nadal will win some of their matches and Djokovic will too.

LS - but Fed doesn't look mentally weak against Rafa for physical reasons but because he has no answer to Rafa's game-style. Was that not what also happened to Rafa in 2011?

HE, I think it is because for the first time ever, Rafa had a good opponent over whom he did not have a match up advantage.

For the first time his usual patterns weren't working.

I think this rocked him and he didn't get back on track until he worked out the approach to take with Djokovic.

I think Novak felt similar this year. He had trouble with Rafa's adjusted court positioning and approach and looked lost at times. HIS patterns were now not working.

I think they are probably at equilibrium now, I don't think either is particularly in the other's head.

Although part of me does hope that dancing with the tennis ball was a kind of psychological warfare! 

LuvSports! wrote: You don't give Djoko enough credit for how he downed one of the greats consistently.

Huh! I am in awe. What he did in 2011 is seldom seen in sport. He switched a rivalry and gained the mental edge from an opponent who had won all their important matches. Not only that but the opponent he completely spooked was one who was known for his mental strength. In fact some cited Nadal's mental strength as one of the chief reasons for his success. Djokovic's 2011 season was nothing short of amazing.

Is that enough credit?

Fair enough HE.
It's just when you said it was like taking candy from a baby, it makes it seem as if Nadal gifted it to him. That's why i put that remark.

Good point BS and I will try to respond to that after me and my pawwpppa finish watching the godfather II .

Let' forget for a minute what has been said on the thread and try to dig out a few players of the past who have been universally linked to talent, irrespectively of their achievements. Gonzales, Laver, McEnroe, Edberg, Sampras, Agassi for example. What do they have in common?

- The Wow factor first.
- all great shotmakers
- an aggressive game style.
- great at the net.
- elegance and nealy flawless technique at least in some departments or so personal to indicate genius.

The combination of these factors is what I believe to be relevant to identify tennis talent, much more than the analysis of the pseudo physics of  tennis motions.

didn't know measuring rpms was pseudo physics... Its not like anyone has said Ferrer generates enough torque in his left leg to kill a mountain lion, or that the force Nadal uses to violently upper cut on the forehand is enough to lift a normal human being six inches in the air.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Let' forget for a minute what has been said on the thread and try to dig out a few players of the past who have been universally linked to talent, irrespectively of their achievements. Gonzales, Laver, McEnroe, Edberg, Sampras, Agassi for example. What do they have in common?

- The Wow factor first.
- all great shotmakers
- an aggressive game style.
- great at the net.
- elegance and nealy flawless technique at least in some departments or so personal to indicate genius.
- generate the highest possible volume of rpms

The combination of these factors is what I believe to be relevant to identify tennis talent, much more than the analysis of the pseudo physics of  tennis motions.

Right.....fixed for kr  

Thank you JK. It's the little things...

Some interesting discussions -

For me, 'talent' is the inherent abilities a player has. Hand to eye coordination, and so the ability to improvise a shot, is one oe the key ones for a successful tennis player, as is speed of court coverage, and to a certain extent the ability to 'read the game' and play the right shot at the right time.

Obviously, all the top players are extremely talented by comparison with the normal population, so the differences between (say) Federer and Nadal are miniscule compared to how good they overall.

The question of mental strength is an interesting one - I don't think there are many players who are inherently superior to the rest in this area; Connors and perhaps Nadal being the exceptions based on how hard they are prepared to fight for every single point. Other players (I'm thinking of the likes of Federer and Djokovic) have spells during their career when they appear to have great mental strength, but it is based on growing self-confidence on the back of a string of good results. Djokovic 2011 was the prime example of this - played some outstanding tennis over the first 3 months or so, but then his level of performance inevitably dropped a bit yet he was still able to win a lot of matches based on his confidence of winning (and his opponent's natural belief that they were not going to beat this unbeatable version of Djokovic).

Ferrer is an interesting case - often claimed to be a great fighter and mentally strong, but his record against Federer, Nadal and Djokovic is pretty dreadful (combined 10 wins to 46 losses, with 3 of those wins being by 2007 against Djokovic). Often the defeats are pretty spectacular thumpings as well. He simply doesn't have the belief that his game, no matter how well he plays, will beat these guys playing to a reasonable level. Does this mean he is mentally weak? Of course not, but it does show that mental strength /mental weakness is a more complex issue than is sometimes made out.

If "talent" can be isolated, my view is that, funnily enough, "talent" may be more easy to spot and identify in patchy players like Gasquet (or pre-2003 Federer) than it is in more consistent performers like the "big 4" in the last few years.
 
You can see Gasquet's 'talent' even when he's otherwise having a bit of a bummer and in particular you can see how it doesn't get him out of jail on its own; the likes of Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Murray are all ridiculously talented in their ways, but their consistency means that they have very rarely treated one to a match when it's only their 'talent' that's functioning so it's less easy to isolate compared to the rest of their game.
 
Anyway, I for one am dubious about whether it is sensible to talk too much about naturally talented players, one might really be talking about 'patchy' players for the above reasons (Gulbis anyone?). As Jim Courier famously said in response to Agassi's suggestion that he did not have much natural ability to fall back on, and after gubbing Agassi 6-3 6-2 6-2 at RG 1992, "There are many different talents besides hitting a tennis ball. Having guts on the court is a talent; having desire is a talent; having courage to go for a shot when you are love-40 down is a talent. I may not hit the ball as cleanly as anybody out there, but I have got a few talents that are just as good as anybody else's".
 
If pushed, I'd say that the following are signs of pure talent:
 
(a) the ability to use effectively and consistently a game plan or style of play which depends upon finer margins, touch, and timing
 
(b) soft hands
 
(c) the ability when under pressure to produce effective improvisation and/or produce winners from what seem like impossible defensive situations (any reliance on improvisation must be a balance, since over-reliance on improvisation is lazy - I'm really looking at rare but effective clutch improvisation when there isn't much else to do for a top player)
 
Federer is obviously a good example of all of these, Nadal and Murray excel on (b) and part of (c), Djokovic just a bit behind them on (b), and probably ahead of them on (a) - he's a great line-painter, although I'd argue that all three of them adopt a slightly lower-risk method of play than Federer although not by a chasm.

This is quite interesting it compares the "talent" of Federer, Nadal and Gasquet. It does have subtitles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8Kxah6Derk

That's an interesting one - talent is simply the whole package - the ability to win. Talent, in that guy's view, includes height, health, physique, mentality etc as well as shot-making, creativity.

The difference between Fed and Nadal would then be mainly the aesthetic - how they express that overall talent.

However talent clearly doesn't include the ability to actually look into damn camera.

I saw it more as height, health and physique are a given and they will affect how talent is expressed ie style. But yes the difference between Federer and Nadal is seen as aesthetic and not a difference in talent.

Julius. In real life do you always add a little snark to everything you say?