Tennis

[sniper]

well yeah, the criteria to determine what 'real tennis talent' looks like, are of course somewhat arbitrary and in the eyes of the beholder.
For me it's about 'feel for the ball', something Gasquet has plenty of, and imo more than Nadal, Murray and Djoker.
And yes I have to admit I often take the capacity to hit volleys as an important criterion.
Nadal, sure, he has learned to play volleys. But we all know he's not a natural at the net.

Another player who I estimated highly in terms of sheer talent - and who never won as much as he could have had he been physically stronger - is incidentally also a Frenchman, Cedric Pioline.
Players like him are incredibly rare at the top these days.
Well, Federer is of course there, but otherwise...

 

[SeriousSam]

But Nadal, Murray and Djokovic are much better at everything than Gasquet. Your conception of talent really does seem to boil down purely to an aesthetic preference.

 

[Red Rick]

I know I've hit tweener winners, and I'm pretty sure I don't have the talent of Murray or Djokovic. Physicality is also a talent, and basically every different shot requires a different sort of talent, though these are highly correlated.

 

[sniper]

fair points.

Indeed, it's an aesthetic kind of 'feel for the ball' that I'm confusing with talent, although I do think they overlap at least partially.

Edberg is an interesting one. Beautiful volleys, stylish service also, but couldn't hit a decent groundstroke.
In my subjective perception of talent, Edberg was always much more talented than, say, an Ivan Lendl or Jim Courrier.

 

[DanielSong39]

Gasquet came up about the same time as Murray and Djokovic and was every bit as highly regarded during their first years on tour. His results were pretty similar to Murray and Djokovic in 2006 and still on par with Murray as late as 2007. However he tailed off after that.

Some players blossom and some don't.

 

[Red Rick]

Gasquet came up about the same time as Murray and Djokovic and was every bit as highly regarded during their first years on tour. His results were pretty similar to Murray and Djokovic in 2006 and still on par with Murray as late as 2007. However he tailed off after that.

Some players blossom and some don't.

It's the other part that's often considered 'talent' besides hitting pretty shots. Getting results early.

People thought Borna Coric would be the next super star when he beat Nadal at 17 back in 2014. They failed to see how limited his game is.

 

[kingjr]

Dolgopolov has lots of talent and "feel for the ball", but he will never win anything big. Too erratic, and having a chronic illness doesn't help either.

 

[DanielSong39]

Kyrgios, Thiem, and Zverev would be the most likely candidates among the next generation of players. Might as well draw lots to see which one(s) will blossom. In 2006 no one knew which of the three (Djokovic, Gasquet, Murray) would be the ones to challenge Federer and Nadal.

 

[Red Rick]

Don't think any of them will be ATGs. They all lack the forehand, and Zverev especially needs to be a better server at 1.98.

 

[BullsFan22]

Gasquet came up about the same time as Murray and Djokovic and was every bit as highly regarded during their first years on tour. His results were pretty similar to Murray and Djokovic in 2006 and still on par with Murray as late as 2007. However he tailed off after that.

Some players blossom and some don't.

Yep. What was a big moment in both of their careers was the 2008 Wimbledon 4th round. Gasquet was beating Murray 2-0 and serving for the match in the third set but choked, big time. Murray went on to lose to Nadal in the next round, but since that match Murray kept rising, despite not winning a slam until 2012. Gasquet has had some nice results since then, but he's largely been a big disappointment.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Why is it that I see this story (Djokovic out for rest of year) and think silent ban ?

http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/40725984

 

[DanielSong39]

Djokovic has been struggling with an elbow injury so this could be legitimate.

If it's a silent ban I'm not sure whether it would be for PED's or match fixing.

Now watch him win 3 slams in 2018.

 

[Zebadeedee]

Re:

Why is it that I see this story (Djokovic out for rest of year) and think silent ban ?

Why? Because the ITF and other tennis authorities encourage players to ***, lie and cover up their positive tests and doping bans. Agassi and Cilic would be prime examples of that. The Cilic case was relatively recent, 2013 and shows the ITF up as an organisation that treats tennis doping as largely a PR issue.

 

[sniper]

Or Bartoli retiring after winning Wimbledon. Doesn't pass the smell test.

 

[DanielSong39]

Re:

Or Bartoli retiring after winning Wimbledon. Doesn't pass the smell test.

Sampras and Pennetta also retired after winning the US Open.

 

[wansteadimp]

Re: Re:

Or Bartoli retiring after winning Wimbledon. Doesn't pass the smell test.

Sampras and Pennetta also retired after winning the US Open.

Pennetta announced her retirement and played out the rest of the season.

 

[Zebadeedee]

Pretty cynical when you think about it; that the ITF (and the ATP before them) provided within their own rules for players to lie about their positive tests to prevent the truth coming out. In other words, the public are just mug punters.

 

[yaco]

Re:

Or Bartoli retiring after winning Wimbledon. Doesn't pass the smell test.

Simple - Pennetta and Bartali were in their 30's and struck it lucky winning a Grand Slam Tournament - Lightning doesn't strike twice.

 

[sniper]

Nah.

I don't know Penetta's case so won't comment on it.

Bartoli wasn't 30 yet when she won Wimbledon.
Regardless, Bartoli's retirement didn't look well thought through at all, nor did it look voluntary.
May not have been a silent ban, but certainly plenty of reason to suspect it.

 

[Zebadeedee]

She couldn't carry on because she wasn't good-looking enough. John Inverdale said so.

 

[yaco]

Re:

Nah.

I don't know Penetta's case so won't comment on it.

Bartoli wasn't 30 yet when she won Wimbledon.
Regardless, Bartoli's retirement didn't look well thought through at all, nor did it look voluntary.
May not have been a silent ban, but certainly plenty of reason to suspect it.

I've posted that Bartoli fluked her victory - It was the time at her age because she was never going to win a second grand slam.

You won't comment on Pennetta's case because you dont have enough information, yet you already commented about Pennetta in this thread - Maybe listen to posters who closely follow a particular sport.

 

[sniper]

I agree she fluked it.
Took a bit more risk than years previous.
I think the ITF noticed it, too.

 

[poupou]

She was lso ucky and won WImbledon without having to beat a major player.

 

[sniper]

I get the point but dont find it convincing.
So she beat players who had beaten major players.
No matter who you come across, you're playing in-form players.
She was on top of her game and I think she overcooked it a little.

And she wasn't in her thirties as Yaco claims.
Retirement was very unexpected.

 

[DanielSong39]

It's also possible that the juice messed up her body, and she retired before things got worse.

No one wants to end up like FloJo.