Having watched tennis for a number of years never before have we had a bunch of guys like we have now where there is so much talent.But is talent an overrated factor that commentators and the media hype and overrate?

Very few players actually convert that talent onto the court and become huge successess.Lets look at the examples we have in front of us.The highest one on top of the list is Richard Gasquet.This boy is hugely talented in every aspect of the game but is such an underachiever.The common excuse is he is young.I feel like he is a veteran on tour and have given up on waiting for him to come to the party and fear it may never happen.Marcos Bagdhatis,immensly talented but somehow sliding the Gasquet way.Berdych is a power talent but has a weak mind many a time.He seems to have found some form now.David Nalbandian,one of few players to wield a racquet like a magic wand but alas,he has been gripped by donuts!Florian Meyer,the young german,started off great and then what happened!Mario Ancic huge talent but what is he waiting for?

Lets look at the guys that I think are talentless.The number one on my list is weaponless workhorse Davydenko.Just a grinder and yet he makes number 3 in the world by playing everywhere and everything,nothing to do with talent.Ivan Ljubicic another one dimension big serving hitting forehand player.He also makes number 3 in the world.Theres not much talent there.Andy Roddick is a mere serve like I said before and he makes number 1 in the world.Not much talent here.James Blake,a blugeoner of the ball and he made top 5.Radek Stephanek,a player that possesses no pace,pushes the ball and makes top 10.The list is endless of now and over the years and generations.

Yet a very limited few transform their gifts.Roger Federer is a prime Example.Marat Aafin hugely talented got his slams just his mind gets the better of him but he did achieve more.Pete Sampras has got to be the ultimate followed by Agassi,Johnny Mac,Borg,Lendl etc...But they were all in different times and yet it was the same then as it is now.

Is talent overrated?Do you need talent to be a success?Or is talent a hinderence?The list of players that posses the talent but cannot figure out what to do speaks for itself.Guys have so much at their disposal that it works against them.

What do you guys think?

Just came to me now and that is Pat Cash was not that great in the talented department,yet he managed to pipe Lendl to that Wimbledon Crown.And over the years we have seen many case like this,Mjoli Pipng Hingis,Stich got piped by a young Yevegeny.Most recently Federer yesterday losing to Vollandri who isnt talented at all!

just an additional dimension here..

Could it be that the talented yet success-challenged players have been brought up to believe they are talented and 'success is just around the corner' i.e. do they believe the hype of their management and therefore don't push themsleves that extra inch? Or are they all from 'well to do' backgrounds and have never really had to fight for anything (or are Brits :lol:)

In the same vein, perhaps the grinders know that they aren't the most gifted players, but make up for it by rugged determination

As you say DN, there are very few who are talented and determined, but isn't that the case in every walk of life?

Good topic :ok:

Interesting post.

I truly believe that to be successful you have to be talented, hardworking, have a mature head on your shoulders and also be exceptionally dedicated and passionate.

In all walks of life, it's not always the truly talented who make it...but the hard grafters.

For example, in the case of Safin...he has immense talent, but his head and-at times-dedication can be questioned.

Ditto Gasquets head.

Nalby wants to be hard working when he sees a mound of donuts, but not the tennis raquet.

I think it's really quite rare you get a combination of all these attributes - which is why a Federer is all the more special. I guess that's why a Davydenko will make it if he's prepared to graft.

Frustrating, though. I'll always be a talent advocate...however frustrating it gets!

It is quite frustrating especially when you are a fan of a particular player,you see the talent and the potential but the talent gobbles them up.Federer was once quoted saying he had too many options with shot selection and inevitably he made the wrong choice.This costed him early in his career!

Safin,is like off the charts of the talent radar but his head gets the better of him.But I like him so much just get frustrated with many of his performances.I supposethe tour needs the proverbial badboy!

Gasquet is like an underachieving Hingis IMO....

The answer to the question is Yes. Talk about talent is so much hot air unless you are describing something that is pleasing to the eye.

Thomas Edison had it when he said: "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration."

That's the truth. People like us who fritter time away on a messageboard instead of ****ing getting on with it are perhaps unlikely to want to agree with that, but it's the sad truth. Like Sarah says, every walk of like you think of is dominated by those who work hard - plenty don't combine that with imagination, flare, natural skill, humour, talent etc, but they still do better than the clever or skillful guy who remains on his ass.

It is possible to turn being clever/talented enough to get by better than many people without having to make the same effort into a cross to bear. You can so easily let the others catch up with you in the end and then feel sick that they are outscoring you.

Another similar point is that most things are not boring if you put enough into them.

Agree with Barry here.Look at Federer of 04/05...He did enough to beat the minnows in the early rounds without really exerting his talent and then in the latter stages he obliterated the top players.This now isnt working for him and as a result he loses to people like Flapping Ears Volandri.

I really respect Nadal coz to him he goes out there with the little talent he has but applies himself 100% in every match!

Barry you are definitely a great man (with a lot of talent when you are writing ;) I tell you: It is always a pleasure to read you :P )..Great comment..I like in particular your last sentence: so true for us.."normal" human being (not Great Tennis players I mean B) )..

Anyway, once said that, the thread is very interesting and we could discuss on this subject days long..

In short nevertheless let's bring the most recent example of a talent that was not wasted, FED and one which was (at least in part) Marat.

You have simply to buy somewhere their match at the Rome Master in 2001: Both of them they was just hilarious and horrible during that match. Both of them they was spending most of their time not playing one against the other but looking for the beauty the great shot. In some sense, they was fighting against their ego and their vision of the game (in some sense they was both looking and focusing to the "ideal" job, i.e. they was taking care just of the nice part of the Tennis activity :) ). By so doing, if a shot was bad..well..disgrace and shame...for at least 5 minutes.. :yikes:

Now, why FED changed at a given stage and took the next step? Because he simply mature. He was able to see that the real issue was not to deliver great shots all the time but win the match and stay focus so to win: once again, simply, FED mature ( I mean it is the same for us: we have to simply accept the boring aspects of our daily job to appreciate the whole right Barry??).

Marat at the contrary, might be without thinking about that he remains to a low level..he did not mature if you want and he is still paying the price of that.

All the top players are highly talented and will have been told so from their youth, admittedly at varying levels, but it is true. I'm going to be honest now, when Federer beat Sampras at wimbledon in 2001, I thought it was a freak win - I looked at Federer and thought "top ten player of the future maybe?" but certainly did not see where the god status was going to come from!

The match that showed for me that Roger was going to be incredible was the Wimbledon 03 semi-final against Andy Roddick. Fed had quietly progressed through the draw, while Roddick was everyone's hot favourite for the title after Hewitt went out in the first round. Federer absolutely blitzed Roddick that day with some magnificent tennis and Roddick looked genuinely shellshocked.

Players you might class as having "exceptional talent", such as a Gasquet, a Murray, a Nadal, a Djokovic, need that breakthrough to push them right in the at the very top. Obviously Rafa has already barged his way in, but the likes of the other three i've mentione are very well capable of the same. Obviously Federer has a once in a generation, if not lifetime, talent!

Re Fed - that may be what is happening, in which case Fed needs to accept that he will not be able to win everything and concentrate on the biggies. If you have to turn it on to win every match you can't go on with 82-5 w/l ratios, or at least nobody has done so yet. His ratios may now come down to a more normal level, but if he works his talent he should still be capable of racking up a few more GS and MS wins. I don't like to say it, but Chetanpv may be right on the Beeb when he looks at the parallel with Sampras and points out that he found a new way to win matches in the latter half of his career. If you look at the two careers, although Fed's greatest achievements have been in a more concentrated short burst, overall where they are at this stage is very similar in terms of GS and Tournaments won. Also, if you think about it, even if Fed ONLY has 4-5 GS and 16 other tournaments left in him that would be a great career for most players in itself (Courier, Kuerten, Safin anyone?). That may not feel right simply because it would be small compared to the extraordinary pace Fed has set in the last 3 years - but it is probably not realistic to Judge Fed's future against the last 3 years. The rest have to start making it more difficult for him.

On another point - he may be making it difficult for himself because someone with his natural ability has so many options that he is short-circuiting on clay when wondering what to do. It may be that he just is not good enough on that surface.

Roll on RG then Halle I say.

I don't subscribe to the few that Rafa Nadal has little talent - I remember the first sighting I had of him was as a 16 year old at wimbledon, and even then you could see he was gifted - the powderpuff serve he had at the time let him down!

Yes Nadal is talented but his talent is mainly in his moving and speed of legs...as well as his upper body strength. It allows him to hit the ball with huge power even if not ideally placed or positioned. A tennis racket is like a ping pong bat for him.

What I would call talented is the ability to win points with a minimum sweat (energy spent). Being consistant at it is another matter but talent in tennis for me is about the execution of the shot which by nature can be best expressed on grass.

Nadal is extremely talented at tmoving around the court but his shots can be executed by most top 100 players. The difference mainly is that they won't be as well placed as him to execute them.

How many shots does Nadal miss Tenez?

That in itself is a pure talent, and his forehands and backhands are unique because of the topspin he can impart. It is this topspin he is able to generate, more than his movement etc., that makes him so hard to play against. If Nadal hit the ball normally, Federer would have him for toast every single time, no matter how fast Rafa ran!

Actually this has not much to do with talent.

I agree with the top spin side, but that is not something requiring as much talent as taking the ball early and flat (genrating max pace and power with minimum energy).

I respectfully disagree, the answer is NO.
First of all i think talk about talent is often aesthetic, but is that a small consideration? how the game is played and how it looks are profoundly important, and often determine who one champions, it separates those who participate from those we think should win. Imagine a scenario-slightly far fetched, but not too much so to make the point.
A player 6'6" has 100% first serve percentage, serves virtually all aces, but has virtually no ground strokes or other play and wins all his matches by taking sets to tie breaks, and waits for his opponent to make a mistake, to give him the sets and matches.
This sort of play would make the game unwatchable, because unlike the 100 metres sprint, the aesthetics of tennis are integral to it's very nature. From the perspective of the player wining is the objective, from the spectator's point of view variety is the spice of life.
Of course talent and success are not not mutually exclusive terms, Fed shows that, and the idea of a player too talented to win, is not inconceivable either, but that does not mean talk of them is hot air.

Djoko is currently making a great demonstration of what talent is. Nadal is playing extremely well but with a much thinner frame but with flatter hitting, he is, even if for a few games only, battling very evenly with Nadal.

Short lived certainly but quite impressive from both Nadal and Djoko.

I'll watch a video of Wilander v Nystrom to relax a bit now. ;)

I tend to think the opposite - some of Nadal's retrievals are incredible, and he almost always manages to get the bal back at a decent length and decent pace from even the most impossible of positions. He also hits winners purely and consistently. That is talent, sorry!

Would racquet technology have anything to do with it ? Coupled with his amazing physical ability .

Sam - the point is hitting a winner by hitting a spinny ball flat requires more timing (hence talent) than spinning the ball back. If you think Wilander is more talented than McEnroe, then fine, but I can tell you that despite having both the same number of GSs, McEnroe will always be remembered for his genius. Wilander won't!

Very interesting points here though I tend to agree with Tenez,TV and Barry.Though Tenez you cant getaway from the grass.

Another example yesterday was Berdych.The commentators said the talent is ever so apparent but he is always questioned about his mental state which lets him down.Look at what weaponless Vollandri did to him.It was shocking.

Talent is definetley overrated.

Talent was clearly more obvious in the past and was mostly what made the difference between players. I would say McEnroe was probably the last player able to win Slams on pure talent. After that Talent was not enough and work ethic had to be part of the equation.

From a mathematic approach, Talent is a kind of a constant in this equation while Work is the variable factor, increasing by the years, making Talent less and less obvious, or significant.

So you might say DN that talent is over rated....except on grass...thus far!!!

Is there such a thing as totally natural talent though , or did players learn their talent by practising a lot at a young age ? None of them were born with a racquet in their hand not even Federer .
I agree that instinctive talent is most important and obvious on grass but the most talented players also have the ability to play very well on all surfaces.
So in that respect I dont think its overated .
And I would rate McEnroe as much more talented than Wilander , even though he did win the AO on grass .McEnroes feat of nearly winning the French took more talent .

But if you put 2 young players on the court, one might instinctively take more risk cause he feels more comfortable with it, the other, when faced against that one will feel more at ease retrieving shot and forcing the opponent taking another risk. One will become active, the other reactive. This is what happens on the tour as well.

Also, there is the differentation between talent and technique. They are kind of intertwined too.

It takes talent to play to a technically high standard. Without technique, you won't get far in the game.

It also takes talent to effectively play shots that aren't in the textbook.. the 'X Factor', as it were.

It also takes talent to determine the right shots to play and the right moment.. this often comes with experience, but then talent is definitely needed to build on this..

So I would say that talent is fundamental, cannot be overrated.. depends on your definition of talent I would think..

Indeed. Technic has evolved a lot recently and McEnroe push of the ball would not be good enough nowadays. At the end of his career he did not understand why all his opponents where playing extremely well against him. This is because he was feeding them with soft balls. Nowadays, players have to generate a lot of power.

This is mainly due to the fact that Mc learn to play with a small frame where placing the ball was more important than smacking it hard.

who else can do it though? Surely that qualifies as a talent.

Technology doesn't play those shots for you :D

The exchange of shots you mention there is always interesting to me - if you get hold of a ball flat from a heavy topspin groundies, you get more pace out of that groundie yourself anyway (try it!). Look how murray, for instance, managed to hit some shots against Nadal with unbelievable power!

To be honest, the word talent is one of these symbolic words that actually doesn't have any real material point. It's like the word Quality. Football commentators often say a team hasn't got enough quality. Really it's just a cop-out.

Some people think what Nadal does requires more Talent than Federer. Honest!

I dont think it takes talent to play the right shot,I mean if you work the opening then you must go for it,its that simple.

However technique and talent I somewhat agree go hand in hand because is it not true that we develop our own technique based on our own talents?

It really does bring this into perspective.Davydenko for me isnt talented,well maybe he is at taking that ball early but for the most of it he isnt and yet he seems to really do well time and time again!