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?

I make people laugh a lot, if that's what you mean.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I make people laugh a lot, if that's what you mean.

I can't decide if this is a set up for a joke about your appearance, your success with women, or your job in an undertakers...

My success with women is certainly a joke.
My appearance is certainly an undertaking.

JuliusHMarx wrote:My success with women is certainly a joke.
My appearance is certainly an undertaking.

But surely thats only in the mourning  

Haddie-nuff wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:My success with women is certainly a joke.
My appearance is certainly an undertaking.

But surely thats only in the mourning  

   Very good!