Last week, I called Nick Kyrgios “talented” here, a statement which spurred a heated debate on his various flaws and… er…merits. It’s not surprising, of course. The mere mention of his name courts controversy. If I reported, “Nick Kyrgios blows his nose, misses trash can with used tissue,” somebody would almost certainly accuse him of missing on purpose and take that as proof positive that he’s the world’s biggest horse’s ass and slyly suggest that Nadal and Federer wouldn’t have missed in a million years. It is, for better or worse, part of the Nick Kyrgios experience.
So what does a Nick debate look like? In a nutshell, it goes something like:
Person 1: “NK is talented.”
Persons 2-6: “Oh yeah? Prove it. What extraordinary thing has he done?? And ‘he beat Rafael Nadal at Wimbledon once’ doesn’t count. Because frankly, there for a while, Nadal would have been better off TRIMMING the lawns rather than playing on them.”
And both sides have a point (especially about Nadal at Wimbledon). From a tennis perspective, how do we measure “talent”? How do we decide who is talented and who isn’t?
In order to answer the question, we first need to know what the word means. The Cambridge English Dictionary defines it as “a special natural ability to do something well.” For our purposes, we can assume that ‘natural’ is the operative word. And yet, it’s not quite that simple. Because somehow, in the rarefied world of elite tennis, we value certain natural abilities over others and place THOSE attributes in the category of talented…and unlike every single other measurement in our sport, it doesn’t necessarily have a direct correlation to the ability to win (which is flat-out weird).
As I attempted to unravel the particulars, I realized that NK, Nadal, and Novak Djokovic are near-perfect case studies for such an exercise. Despite ample evidence that Djokovic and Nadal will go down in history as two of the greatest to ever pick up a racket, the word ‘talented’ is applied to Kyrgios FAR more often than it is to either of them. Apparently, even I’m guilty of it. So what gives??? Why am I inclined to use that word for Kyrgios while I use other superlatives for Rafa and Nole?
It has, I think, to do with the qualities that are most valued in tennis. Aggression, for example, is “rated” higher than good defense. Instinct is more important than acumen (baffling), and most of all natural ability in the form of shot-selection and court sense is FAR more impressive to people than hard work. In short, we want tennis players – athletes who participate in one of the most physically demanding sports in existence – to make it look easy, something Nadal and Djokovic cannot do even on their best day. You watch those guys, and you could be excused for thinking “I’ll bet Nadal even works hard at sleeping”. It’s…what they do.
Kyrgios plays just the sort of aggressive game designed to impress-because he might miss 3 of every 5 shots he goes for, but when he hits one, it kind of takes your breath away. If Djokovic and Nadal are architects, Kyrgios is Jackson Pollock, slapping paint on a canvas: mostly it’s a mess but once in a while, he creates a masterpiece…and we’re enthralled by the prospect. We consider it undeniable evidence of that elusive talent. And the fact that his results run the gamut from good to positively miserable seems only to stoke interest.
“Just imagine” we say, “that Kyrgios put in a third of the work and effort of Nadal or Djokovic. He already beats them! He could…” (fill in the blank). And that’s where our collective powers of prognostication go wildly off the rails. What if we’re calling the wrong thing “talent”??
As I sit here and write, I become increasingly convinced that we place too many limits on that term. If we simplify the word down to its core, we mean “things you can’t be taught to do exceptionally well.” Does that not include intangibles like tenacity, concentration, and an otherworldly work ethic? Or the ability to problem-solve in the middle of a highly charged match that both Nadal and Djokovic do so often? Not usually, but it bloody-well should.
In fact, I’d go so far as to say that it’d be easier to teach Nadal to serve like Kyrgios does than it would be to “teach” Kyrgios to have the mulish insistence on perfection that Nadal has on the practice court. So maybe there isn’t such a thing as “if only Kyrgios would work as hard as Djokovic”. Because maybe you can’t teach that.
Incidentally, I still think Kyrgios is talented with a racket. I just think it’s worth understanding what that means…and what it doesn’t.
[polldaddy poll=10269965]
I chewed on this one for a long time. 🙂
Thanks, Cheryl! Great read, as always.
I think you can teach good work habits. But the student has to want to learn. No, you cannot teach the kind of desire that Rafa and Novak both have. And no one really had to teach a work ethic to Rafa. If he wasn’t born with that, he was born into an athletic family who firmly believed that success is based on hard training and was very young when he made that connection. His soccer star uncle, Miguel Angel, firmly believes that satisfaction in victory is directly related to the amount of effort it took. Rafa, Roger, Novak, Andy all have that desire, a hunger for victory that doesn’t stop with success. They keep saying they want more. They weren’t chasing Roger. They just wanted, well, more. If any of them catch Roger they’ll still want MORE. Is Roger happy with 20? Sure. Does he want MORE? You betcha! That’s just something that NK doesn’t have. I don’t know that it’s something you can acquire.
Yes. Very often people use same words, yet disagree. Words are just symbols. It’s important to be more specific and define what we mean. People interpret them differently, and sometimes manipulate using same words.
Someone may agree that NK is talented, while someone else, will say ‘Wait a moment, you wanna say Djoko is not?’ Which is totally irrelevant…
Yes, it’s an interesting study. It’s curious to me that we assign so much value to an attribute for which success is not a necessary component.
Cheryl, I notice that you’ve only compared Kyrgios to Nadal and Djokovic which suggests that you take it as read that Federer is indisputably talented. But Federer was a late starter; I think players who excel as teenagers are the talented ones, not late starters.
I came across this article the other day which makes Nadal the most talented teenager of all time. Rafa has proved that he has raw talent Kyrgios has not. At nearly 24, he still hasn’t made the top 10.
Game Insights
27 August 2018
Rafael Nadal: The greatest teen in men’s tennis history
Published by Stephanie Kovalchik
Which male player hit the greatest heights in their teens? How does the current generation compare? Game Insight Group investigates.
After Stefanos Tsitsipas became the youngest player to beat four top 10 players in a single event at Rogers Cup earlier this month, it feels like an appropriate time to ask: Who has been the ‘Teenage GOAT’ in men’s tennis?
Using Elo rating*, an alternative to more traditional rankings aimed at giving a greater insight into a player’s performance ability, Game Insight Group has tracked the peak performance by male players in their teenage years.
The top 10 based on that stat are listed in the table below:
Rafael Nadal………….. 2500 Elo points
Boris Becker…………… 2424 Elo points
Novak Djokovic………. 2387 Elo points
Bjorn Borg……….……..2369 Elo points
Mats Wilander…….. …2363 Elo points
Lleyton Hewitt ………. 2319 Elo points
Alexander Zverev ……2315 Elo points
Andy Murray…………..2305 Elo points
Andrei Medvedev……2300 Elo points
Andre Agassi…………2294 Elo points
19 Roger Federer.…2209 Elo points
*How do Elo ratings work?
Elo ratings are already used in many other sports and when applied to tennis they outperform other published prediction methods, including those based on offical rankings.
Elo ratings factor in all main draw singles matches above the Challenger level.
Elo is smart about how many points are won or lost. If a player did more than expected in earning a win against a strong opponent, they earn more points than for an easy win. If a player underperformed by getting upset, they lose more points than for losing to an equal opponent.
Elo ratings can be surface-adjusted, taking into account all of a player’s matches, but weighing those on the specific surface more heavily.
Elo ratings of players absent from competition for more than three months are deducted 100 points. Walkovers and retirements are excluded.
Players earn/lose more points for results over the same opponents at Grand Slams compared to lower-level tournaments.
https://tennismash.com/2018/08/27/nadal-becker-greatest-tennis-teenagers/
Cheryl, why did you leave Federer out. Are you taking it as read that Federer is indisputably talented? Federer was a late starter whilst Rafa achieved far more as a teenager than any other player. But for repeated injuries, Rafa’s haul of trophies would have been far more.
At nearly 24, if Kyrgios was naturally talented, he would have made his mark by now even without the hard work. Rafa works hard because he works hard at everything even tiddlywinks. People who play golf with him, say he’s just as dedicated even though he is playing it as recreation so you can’t judge that a player is not talented simply because they work hard. That’s not logical.
Yes, I left Federer out because he’s widely considered to be talented already and I think it’s more interesting to look at it from the perspective of Nadal and Djokovic, who people dismiss as “hard workers”.
I think Kyrgios would love to just turn up and win every match if he was that talented; but we’ve seen so often from him that as soon as he smells defeat, he starts his antics simply because he can’t live up to expectations. The greatest disservice they did to Kyrgios was putting him on a pedestal before he actually achieved anything. The same goes for Tomic. They know that they are not as good as they are made out to be and it embarrasses them consequently, they feign lack of interest.
Tomic was trumpeted as a teenager but Kyrgios wasn’t so why all of a sudden Kyrgios became this feared player who hasn’t even made the top 10 at almost 24 years old? So is Tomic talented more than Kyrgios or Nadal or Djokovic?
Because in “tennis speak” talented = great hand-eye coordination = natural shot-maker. Richard Gasquet, for instance, was much touted in France as “talented” at a very early age. Talk to any coach who saw Rafa at an early age – no one, including Carlos Moya, describes him as unusually “talented” although they may make other favorable observations. Certainly Toni saw something in him early, but Toni has described Djokovic or Federer as “more talented”. Talent alone does not make a champion or even a successful pro. All those guys are good at what they do.
I am no judge of “tennis talent” but Rafa himself believes that NK should be competing for slams and Rafa is a pretty darn good judge. Otoh, I am not sure he can comprehend NK’s total lack of commitment and desire any more than NK can comprehend Rafa’s work ethic, insatiable ambition and consummate professionalism.
Rafa pays such compliments to young players all the time because he acknowledges that many players are good enough to excel if they apply themselves and keep their feet firmly on the ground. That’s the point he was making about Nick.
I may be wrong but its a case of really gifted players being hyped up too early in their careers. Rory McIlroy is a case in point, he was going to be the next Tiger Woods but is only now starting to find the work ethic/mental strength / realising his talent isn’t enough, Woods had those qualities in spades .
Good observation. I think it definitely affected Richard Gasquet. National/international attention is a lot of pressure for a young athlete to live up to. They either start believing their press or wishing it would all just go away.
It depends on our definition of talent. Regardless, it’s never in doubt that the big four all have talent, may be blessed with different gifts but talented nonetheless.
When Rafa first ‘burst’ into the tour, his speed and power were often talked about, esp when he was beating Fed the so called most talented tennis player ever, and it’s often being in a negative way, as if Rafa had no other talent.
Now, Kyrgios is blessed with speed and power too, and all we hear is how much raw talent this guy has! I mean why for Kyrgios is all taken as something positive but when Rafa has the same gift of speed and power, it’s been viewed as if it’s something negative esp when compared to Fed (and his so called talent)?
I don’t think it is all about attack or defend either; as a Berdych for example, who clearly uses his big serve plus forehand to attack, more than he needs to defend, yet I doubt anyone view him as more talented than any of the big four.
Maybe, people like things being done as if it’s effortless, or easy looking; and add in some flamboyance and outrageous showboating, and we have the so called ‘oh so talented’ tennis player. People seem to appreciate quick and easy way out, more than hard work and patience put in to produce a good piece of work.
Luckystar MARCH 21, 2019 AT 7:58 AM
“When Rafa first ‘burst’ into the tour, his speed and power were often talked about, esp when he was beating Fed the so called most talented tennis player ever, and it’s often being in a negative way as if Rafa had no other talent.
Now, Kyrgios is blessed with speed and power too, and all we hear is how much raw talent this guy has! I mean why for Kyrgios is all taken as something positive but when Rafa has the same gift of speed and power, it’s been viewed as if it’s something negative esp when compared to Fed (and his so called talent)?”
***********
The irony is Rafa has proved his talents by his achievements and the biggest irony of all, Nick’s accolade of talent is based on the fact that he’s beaten both Rafa and Nole who are not supposed to be talented. Rosol beat Rafa at Wimbledon, does that mean Rosol is more talented than Rafa and Nole?
I believe that there has been a reluctance to acknowledge how talented both Rafa and Nole are because that doesn’t feed into the narrative of Fed’s so-called greatness of all time even though Fed’s haul of trophies diminished as soon as Rafa and Djoko were old enough to come on the tour and stop him in his tracks. Fed is lucky that he was the only one in his peer group who was not an average player and his peers bought into the hype and were only too pleased to be on the same court as him whilst Rafa, Novak and Andy challenged him and beat him regularly.
Nick can’t even dominate his own peers. What is the manifestation of his talent? Oh, I know, he’s beaten Rafa and Nole! The irony!
Exactly!
Talent alone : a career like Kyrgios’
Talent plus hard work : a career like Rafa’s
Luckystar, that’s it in a nutshell. People who play musical instruments are talented but would be no good if they didn’t practice over and over and over again. First, they have to have the talent; next to have to work on it.
The most important talent of all is between the ears
“The greatest disservice they did to Kyrgios was putting him on a pedestal before he actually achieved anything. The same goes for Tomic. They know that they are not as good as they are made out to be and it embarrasses them consequently, they feign lack of interest.“
Nadline I agree with you entirely – Nick is incredibly emotionally immature – he pretends he does not care because to care and fail is his biggest fear – he would rather be seen as not living up to his potential than being actually not good enough. He also adores the attention.
Tonic? Well that’s a whole other story entirely.
^^^ Like
To a first approximation, athletic talent in general has to do with speed, power, and (somewhat related) size. There’s a reason that scouts in other sports such as football or basketball are very interested in how fast someone can run, e.g., the 40 meter dash. Mental qualities are not considered a big part of it, at least in sport. Why? The mental aptitude to play most sport at a high level is not excessively demanding and is much more susceptible to training than physical skills. It is not beyond the abilities of an average person. Contrast this with elite chess players, or mathematicians, where the intellectual skills required are simply beyond most people.
In tennis, there’s an added factor (all sports have it different measure, actually) of how “easy” a player makes it look. Federer is the archetype, which is one reason (imo) that he is so popular; the other big 3 don’t score as well by this measure.
What about NK? He ticks all the boxes for natural talent. Notably, he has ‘easy power’: he can hit the ball absurdly hard (and in) and make it look pretty easy. He has a beautifully fluid service motion that easily generates speeds above 130 mph. However, his record against the big 3, 6-6, cannot be over-looked. I’ve said this before: I doubt there is another player, current or retired, who has played 12 or more matches against the 3 greatest players ever with a .500 or better record. By comparison, Tomic (mentioned in the comments) is 0-12. (I’ve never understood the hype about Tomic).
As a good club player, I can say that Kyrgios makes elite tennis look easy better than anyone except Federer. Again, it isn’t reflected in his overall results, which just shows the limited importance of natural talent in overall achievement at the highest level.
I believe that the physical make up of a player helps them in certain aspects of tennis and most sports, one way or another. Tall players, more often than not, serve aces almost all the time but are often not good at ROS or moving around the court easily. Smaller players like Schwartzman and Ferrer are quick around the court because they are physically small. Nick is taller than average which is why he has a great serve. It just comes naturally to him. I wouldn’t class that as a talent.
If Nick is so naturally talented, why is he not dominating the tour? Why is the manifestation of his talent only measured against the B3 who he has beaten only 50% of the time? He’s been on the tour for 6 years and has still not made the top 10!
Wrong, mental qualities are big part of tennis, they separate a Foggy or Kyrgios for examples from a Ferrer or a Simon.
Foggy and Kyrgios, despite their raw talent, didn’t make it to top ten, whilst both Ferrer and Simon had.
You seem the odd one here who emphasize the importance of raw talent more than anything else. I mean, even the coaches emphasize the importance of mental toughness when playing and winning in tennis. In fact it’s more difficult to train someone to be mentally tough, or to be a good strategist on court, than to train that person to be physically tougher or stronger (when most professional sportsmen are blessed physically to begin with).
Tennis is not played and won with just brute force, if not a Verdasco for example would have won many titles and be at the top for a long time. Verdasco has his raw talent, he could serve really well and hit really well when he’s on, good enough to earn him a top ten spot in 2009/2010. But, what he lacked is/was a good tennis brain and he couldn’t sustain his position in top ten for long.
Kyrgios doesn’t make his matches look easy, he has chosen to quit when the goings get tough. When he beat the big three, he barely edged them, and often, the results of those matches he won against them could go either way.
Regarding Fed making it looked easy, I haven’t seen him looking easy against Rafa, Djoko, Murray or even Delpo, most of the times. It all depends on who his opponent is, even a Ferrer who lost to Fed every time they played, Ferrer made Fed worked hard to win his matches.
I would add that its the counterpunchers who make Fed sweats and works harder than those who couldn’t counter Fed’s attacking game. Its no coincidence that Fed had it tough facing a Simon for example, ten years ago and when Fed’s in his prime. And, all three of Rafa, Djoko and Murray are great counterpunchers, and so they have a combined positive H2H (59-51) vs Fed. Compare that H2H to say Fed vs Davy, Nalby, Roddick (where all three are not counterpunchers).
I think you’re misunderstanding the relevant contrast class, Lucky. I am fairly athletic, received tennis training from a young age, and have (I think) a reasonably good understanding of how to play the game. However, like most avid tennis players, there was never any chance of me earning even a single ATP point. Why? Because I’m not talented enough. Any of the top (say) 1000 players in the world is insanely talented, relative to someone like me. No amount of mental toughness, court craft, etc., can compensate for such a huge deficit in natural ability. Give me Nadal’s skills with a racquet, and I think I would do quite well in a professional match -meaning, I think I could master the relevant intellectual skills. Again, compare elite chess players for an activity that really does require rare intellectual skills.
Now, the big three are of course more talented than most of the rest. (Even if I don’t think Nadal and Djokovic are as naturally talented as Fed or NK, they’re still unbelievably talented). Imo, despite working incredibly hard and being very mentally tough, it’s mainly the talent that explains their greater success over the long run than someone such as, e.g., Ferrer or Raonic (both of whom, I assume, have also worked very hard). The latter players, though incredibly good, are just not quite as good as the big three.
You also have misunderstood how important I think talent is to overall success, even though I have repeatedly said that it’s not enough. But, for success at the highest level, it’s essential. There are no great champions who are not incredibly talented. They have supplemented that talent with hard work and the drive to win.
Joe, just whats your definition of ‘natural talent’? If you’re talking about the serve, well Rafa wasn’t trained to depend on his serve to begin with. Now at 32, he’s still able to acquire a good serve to allow him to play with short point aggression. I doubt he’s not talented enough to have a great serve had he concentrated on that from young.
As for Djoko, he already possesses a great serve, and even after his elbow injury and so he changes his serve motion, he’s still serving great (just look at his AO this year, and also Wimbledon last year saving all those BPs during SF and final).
Kyrgios may have the best serve though, even better than Fed’s as he could hit with such precision time after time if he really wants to.
Deft touches? Rafa has those too and since his younger days; Djoko may be not as great as the other big four in this area. Djoko has great balance and flexibility and that’s his natural talent too. And what about ROS? You need good hand and eye coordination and good reflexes too to have a great ROS, and Djoko is the best with that, and Rafa one or two spot behind him, and both certainly above Kyrgios in this aspect.
Speed and power? Both Rafa and Djoko have them; Djoko could even hit with such depth from both wings it’s incredible!
I really don’t see how Kyrgios is more naturally talented than Rafa or Djoko. Even the weakest of the big four ie Murray, Murray has good reflexes, deft touches, great ROS second only to Djoko. He has a very good first serve though not able to serve consistently at that level I admit, and he hasn’t the raw physical power the other three have but he’s as quick if not quicker than any of them. Is he then not as naturally talented as Kyrgios?
I agree that the mental side in some sports is not as decisive as in chess for example. But also the importance of it varies depending on the type of sport. For example, I believe it takes more mental strength to be a successful tennis player than to be a basketball/football player. I mean, one still needs at least decent mental strength in those sports, but if their physicality is top combined with discipline, they are basically settled. Look at Cristiano Ronaldo. He doesn’t seem to be a mentally tough guy. He’s rather emotional and fragile. But he works very very hard to achieve those results. In team sports, you can get ‘saved’ sometimes by your teammates.
In tennis, on the opposite, you have to be constantly focused, otherwise even a Donskoy can run away and punish you for 3 seconds of daydreaming.
Lucky and Joe make it look as if they disagree, yet they both agree that talent is not the most important part of tennis.
Nadline was right about Kyrgios’ disservice regarding his early media overfocus on his talent. Even if they were right, that’s a disservice. Let the kid develop; leave him alone. Tomic is no comment. What kind of raw talent is that?
Regarding Fed, he had to work hard for that talent. Some people imagine him just sitting on the sofa and smiling while shooting some Barilla spaghetti ad :)) and eating chocolate with Mirka. No, he has to work hard and manage that ‘talent’. I never believed he could win another AUS again and he proved me wrong. I don’t know if he works less or more than Nadal or Djokovic, I just believe he is perceived to work much less than them, which I don’t think is the case.
Regarding this forum/website, I am happy we get less trolling generally (with some exceptions) and fans of both sides can respect each other, which was not exactly the case in the past.
Good article. I would agree that talent is generally a hard thing to assess – where does natural ability start & developed ability begin? Where does capacity for learning fit into the supposed dichotomy?
I tend to think of ‘talent’ in relation to sport as (1) natural physical ability; or (2) aptitude/instinct for the game. Basically, you’re physically good at it with less training than others, or you have above average instincts for the sport. You could separate ‘talent’ into a lot of different aspects though.
In the case of Kyrgios, I would say it is the physical talent that he has a lot of. Aptitude for the game of tennis would be more like point construction, when to attack/defend, hit a winner etc. He doesn’t have as much of that, but he does have first-class touch and shot-making, and an excellent ability to hit his spots consistently on serve.
Very few players on tour have those same abilities, it’s just rare. That is part of why you hear so many people (including players like Nadal and Federer who are concerned about the very game itself) lament Kyrgios’ apparent lack of drive, hard work and mental fortitude. He does not always appear motivated to work on things that could carry him to significantly more success. It would not be easy for Nick to find this drive/work ethic, far from it. But the frustration comes from the fact that Kyrgios is seemingly well below average in these departments AND suggests at times that he doesn’t really care.
Of course, mental fortitude and hard work can be considered its own sort of talent. Most people have a limited ability to focus on each particular point or shot in a match, and concentrate like their life depends on it. You see a guy like Rafa, for example, and he has obviously worked hard on this for many years. But it may also be something that he is naturally very good at, or perhaps something he learnt much quicker than others.
At the end of the day, as others have said, the physical talent part of it doesn’t necessarily mean that much. It’s definitely an opportunity, but it may not be much more than that if the will & application aren’t there. The proof of this is in the junior ranks, so many of the best juniors never go anywhere at the pro level, because they are strategically average and get found out, or they can’t ‘find’ the mental approach necessary for professional sport.
Well, that’s why this ‘Kyrgios is more talented than anyone not named Fed’ talk is imo incorrect. How do we describe or define talent? If we’re talking about raw physical talent, I doubt Rafa is not as great as Nick. Rafa has speed and power in spades, and he could hit with precision too. I’m sure that had Toni concentrated on Rafa’s serve from young, he would also have a great serve throughout his career.
I mean a Rafa at 17 could beat Fed the no.1 player, and was beating Fed quite regularly since; if Rafa wasn’t gifted both physically and mentally, how could he do what others couldn’t, ie having Fed’s number for so long?
You really need great talent (both physical and mental) to be great counterpuncher; the trio of Rafa/Djoko/Murray had won more matches against Fed individually than any other of Fed’s peers. To be able to counter Fed, one not only needs speed and power, but also anticipatory skills, and the ability to think a few steps ahead, not to mention the ability to deal with Fed’s quickness and aggression. To say that Kyrgios is more talented than the trio is simply ridiculous; whether it’s physical raw talent or otherwise.
On the subject of raw talent, which professional sportsman doesn’t have that to begin with?? Some are blessed with more no doubt, but not everyone with those gift could succeed. A Kyrgios for example may have all the physical gift, but he may not be blessed with the mental gift of a good tactician or strategist; whilst a Ferrer who’s less physically gifted but works his brain better for example, may be able to beat Kyrgios and gets better results than Kyrgios even if both work hard at their game.
Like I said earlier on, a good tennis brain is a gift, a talent and that may be why the trio of great counterpunchers could beat Fed regularly, and could overcome a player like Delpo (who could use his physical power to overpower anyone).
I tend to agree with lucky that Kyrgios is not more talented than Rafa, who at Nick’s his age was way more impressive already. The problem is again the same: what we define as talent? (and that is very subjective) – that tricks many of us into thinking Nick is soo talented.
When I first wrote this piece, I included a section on John McEnroe, but I took it out because the entry was already too long. I kind of wish I was able to keep it in.
If there has ever been a better example of what pure talent can accomplish than McEnroe, I can’t think of who it would be. He was an instinctive genius, an absolute wunderkind of touch, court position and anticipation. I don’t live in his head (thankfully), but I never got any sense that he did ANYTHING methodically. His point construction was pure instinct combined with his natural tendency for aggression.
But what’s most impressive is that McEnroe did what he did in a body that would have been more at home on the Senior PGA tour than in professional tennis – and even there, he’d have been a marshmallow. There isn’t a single doubt in my mind that Mac is in better shape now at age 60 than he was when he was 25. I don’t wish to be unkind, as I have immense admiration for his abilities, but the man had no athletic prowess. NONE.
He’d never make it against today’s players, of course. The sport has become too physical and racket technology has largely erased the advantage of finesse. But if you want to talk about talent or call somebody the “most talented”, failure to put Johnny Mac at the very front of the line would be a mistake.
Completely agree, Cheryl. In fact, Peter Fleming, who knew McEnroe better than anyone, says McEnroe never trained, he found it boring he just preferred to play matches. Considering his height, JMac had one of the most impressive serve in his day. Yes, that was raw talent and as you pointed out, raw talent alone wouldn’t cut it now. The game has moved on.
McEnroe’s talents put him at the top of the game. Kyrgios is yet to be in the top 20 consistently, 6 years into turning pro.
Yes, it did put him at the top of the game. That is almost certainly due at least in part to the era in which he played…but it’s also because, even accepting the limited, inadequate definition of talent that we currently use, Kyrgios isn’t in the same universe as McEnroe.
Since we’re attempting to quantify it, you could put it like this. If you were to assign a rating to “raw talent”, Kyrgios might be a 65. McEnroe would be a 98 – and that is not even an exaggeration.
Kyrgios has not done anything spectacular as of now apart from being 6all against the B3. As you rightly pointed out, Cheryl, Rafa has lost so many times at Wimbledon lately that it’s odd that beating him should earn any player so much prestige. Rafa has lost at Wimbledon because he was out-played, unfit, had an opponent who had nothing to lose or just bad luck. Rafa made 5 finals in a row at Wimbledon so it’s not because he’s no good on grass but still, that shouldn’t elevate anyone to stardom.
When Kyrgios start making the business end of tournaments on a regular basis, we can start judging him on his talents.
McEnroe won a tournament when he’d never picked up a racquet before, that’s natural talent.Yes he is the most talented I’ve ever seen and a great tennis brain.
If the mental side isn’t important why do players have coaches rather than just trainers?
It’s funny that more people don’t mention him when they’re talking about Federer and his talent. I guess the tantrums and bad behavior muddied the water too much…
The thing is, Federer has been bestowed with talent for reasons that escape me. In his first four tries at Wimbledon, his best surface, he made three 1st rounds and one QF before winning it. Whilst, on what is supposed to be Rafa’s worst surface, Wimbledon, he made one 3rd rnd, one 2nd rnd and two finals in his first 4 attempts. On Rafa’s best surface, which is RG, in his first 9 tries, he won 8 of them. After playing Wimbledon 20 times, Fedr has only won it 8 times.
I don’t disagree. But as I mentioned in the blog entry, for some reason tennis pundits don’t *necessarily* use success as a measurement of that attribute.
I believe the current explanation for his lack of immediate success on tour is that his game is so dependent on timing, that it took him some time to fine tune the minutiae that became the greatness of his game.
Could also just be that he was a late bloomer. 🙂
Ah, but logically, to be talented and be a late bloomer is an oxymoron.
^^I tend to agree with Nadline on this.
I don’t necessarily disagree…but keep in mind that Lleyton Hewitt was 16 when he won his first ATP tournament – an example of early success if there ever was one. And yet, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone call him particularly talented.
The standards have been and continue to be applied inconsistently.
nadline, it’s useless to compare Fed on grass with Rafa on clay. On grass margins are lower. Everyone knows that. Fed is one of the best on grass, but still far from Rafa on clay. Hard court players have a real chance to be dangerous on grass and players like Isner and Anderson have real chances to reach the final rounds, while on clay that is much harder for that kind of players. In other words, I would say Rafa had less competition on clay, and the competition was basically irrelevant due to how good his game is generally adapted to that surface.
The point I’m making is with raw talent a player should be able to manage more than 3 1st rounds and 1 QF in their first 4 attempts.
Well I agree Fed not to be the most ‘talented’ player, but at the same time I believe that all top players have a certain degree of talent, every single one. Like Joe said, you can’t do it at the top based solely on disciplined and hard work.
I believe Fed is talented, but not particularly more than the other top guys. The fact he didn’t have much success in his early attempts at Wimby, doesn’t make him less talented than Rafa, who had massive success early in his career. People evolve at different rate and different timing.
Maybe I’m not putting my points across in the best possible way. What I’m trying to say is this:
Players who were high achievers from the beginning are not said to be talented but a player like Federer who was a late bloomer and has a negative h2h with Rafa and Djokovic is supposed to be talented. Also, a player like Kyrgios is judged only on his h2h with players who are supposed to be less talented than him even though they have achieved far more than him. It doesn’t add up.
I think in the 80s, McEnroe’s era, players didn’t get labelled so much with their place in the history of the game because each player was appreciated for their own individual achievements not in comparison with their peers. Before the 2000s, Agassi and Sampras were appreciated for what they did best not which one of them was the most talented. No one was counting because computer stats were not readily available.
The problem started when Federer’s peers didn’t match up to his standards and he won matches just by turning up. Considering that Fed’s nearest rivals for greatness are players 5-6 years his juniors he was the one-eyed man in the country of the blind so he was the king. Further proof is that Fed’s contemporaries were still playing when the Big 4 emerged.
Luckystar MARCH 23, 2019 AT 3:00 AM
“Regarding Fed making it looked easy, I haven’t seen him looking easy against Rafa, Djoko, Murray or even Delpo, most of the times. It all depends on who his opponent is, even a Ferrer who lost to Fed every time they played, Ferrer made Fed worked hard to win his matches.”
********************
This is something that has conveniently escaped the notice of people who don’t want the facts to get in their way.
Not really.I think Joe was referring to Federers style of play looking effortless and graceful compared with Nadals somewhat laboured style.
Rafa doesn’t have a laboured style he keeps you on the edge of your seat with his scintillating style . One of the reasons I’m a fan of Rafa’s is because he makes tennis look like something not just anyone can do to professional level whereas Federer’s style just looks like anyone can do it.
Rafa’s style is not laboured. He plays scintillating tennis which is entertaining and it doesn’t look like something just anyone can do whilst Federer’s style is very boring, just like knocking up in the park unless he is pushed.
Nah, don’t agree that it looks effortless, I really don’t see how people can make that up. Fed obviously makes use of his athleticism like others, it’s just that he’s trying to play first strike tennis most of the time, relying heavily on his serve. Once the good returners of serves appeared, he started to have a hard time beating them.
But why is Nadal injured far more often than Fed if it isn’t effortless?
Rafa has his foot issue. Djoko hasn’t suffered much injuries despite his counterpunching tennis, isn’t his style effortless then?
Also, Kyrgios who played so little tennis in comparison, is/was often injured; hows that for effortless tennis?
Dont know, but Federer, Kyrgios and Djoko certainly make it look like they’re working less hard than Nadal
And yet Kyrgios was often injured! That proved that injuries have nothing to do with working hard or putting in effort or not! Delpo hits with easy power and yet he’s often injured.
There are those who are prone to injuries, esp if you’re born with some issues (foot for example) to begin with. A Rafa without foot issue to start with, I doubt he couldn’t sustain his way of playing tennis. Of course with a better serve, it would be even better, like his fellow counterpuncher Djoko.
Fed didn’t look effortless against #46 Albot in Miami yesterday. He had to pull out all the stops to avoid losing in straight sets to a qualifier.
That is what he does in these kind of matches. I watched the whole match. 2nd set- despite donating at least 15 points which even I would have probably return them on court, he still won that set. He kind of wins even when playing ridiculously weak. Fed was ok on his serves, but he just donated so many games when Albot serve. I think big players decrease their level involuntarily when facing players like Albot and increase it when facing Wawrinka, Isner, Raonic etc. I apprecitated Fed’s patience yesterday though. He waited for his moment to break at 5:5 in the 2nd set. Although I was pissed of by his dozens of unforced errors.
Effortless-looking tennis is boring. It’s a simple game, so Rafa’s style makes it entertaining.
Sorry for the repetition. Some of the posts were disappearing into thin air.
Yes, I’m not sure why but wordpress keeps making me “approve” your posts. Since there is nothing the least bit offensive in them, I have no idea why??
I think it’s because I wasn’t logged in.
Typical of the Nadal fans to rise to that comment from a perceived Fedfan.
But the same could be said of McEnroe v Connors or Lendl without taking away from their talent /ability. McEnroe was a genius , though I always wanted him to lose because of his behaviour.
Funny. I always wanted Connors to lose for the same reason. 🙂
I always figured at least 1/2 of Mac’s outbursts were for show. Connors always struck me as an actual git. Borg retired before I started watching tennis, but I’ve seen enough to know I’d have been mocked like Fedal people are today. I’d have been a…what? Borgenroe?
I was there in the McEnroe era and I was a big fan. To be fair to him, his outbursts were mainly because he was frustrated with the seeming incompetence of stuffy umpires who had the last word on calls when it was blatantly obvious to him that the umpire was wrong. McEnroe was a perfectionist and he couldn’t bear the imperfections of the way matches were conducted. Of course, having got the title of superbrat, he more than lived up to it. In those days, all we could watch in the UK was Wimbledon because there was no satellite TV so I didn’t witness his outbursts anywhere else. Cyclops was introduced on the service line which helped a lot. I don’t know why it was discontinued.
McEnroe’s tennis was sublime which more than made up for his bad behaviour. Despite calls to ban him etc. he was a box office draw. Even towards the tail end of his career, Wimbledon was begging him to enter the draw despite denying him membership of the AELTC which was offered to all Wimbledon Champions.
Connors was an obnoxious git as you say but McEnroe was even worse. Borg was the gentleman so I preferred him.
In those days they didn’t have hawkeye so a lot more arguments over line calls .
While I never condoned the behaviour it could be highly entertaining .
Reading the above again, I think Connors outbursts were more calculating and for show than McEnroes.
I certainly would say that Connors used it as a tactic to rattle his opponent more often. I’d forgotten that he did that.
I heard Mac say once that it got to the point where fans would be disappointed and complain if he didn’t have an outburst. Of course, he really WAS foul tempered, so it certainly wasn’t all a show. And when he was mad, he said some positively vicious, horrid things. Yet, I’ve run into him a few times and he’s not really off-putting. Connors IS.
I’ve met most of these guys at one time or another. I can’t claim I’ve ever been starstruck. Except when I saw Borg. 🙂 I didn’t even meet him, he just walked past me at a tournament. haha. I also got a little goofy when I met Guga Kuerten, but I was a kid and not a journo at that time, so I think I should be forgiven.
Guga was (and is) adorable so you’re forgiven. I’m about as far from being a kid as you can get but I might still get a little goofy if I met him. Or Borg, who is a silver fox.
Ive never met them but really like McEnroe over Connors these days.
Interesting piece on Kygrios.
https://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/nick-kyrgios-opens-up-on-why-he-doesnt-respect-his-opponents/news-story/af5f3652a3924f69365c24aecb434df5
Agree that McEnroe is as talented as anyone. Had he trained like Federer, he would have dominated the 80’s, even after introduction of graphite rackets (he played in ’83 and ’84 with one). But he probably trained less than NK; in fact, doubles was his training. It also wouldn’t surprise me one bit if Mac was into drugs in the 80s.
Also agree that Connors is a genuine git. Agassi’s autobiography gives a good sense of it.
Interesting piece on NK:
https://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/nick-kyrgios-opens-up-on-why-he-doesnt-respect-his-opponents/news-story/af5f3652a3924f69365c24aecb434df5
@Joe Smith MARCH 24, 2019 AT 2:06 AM>>>
https://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/nick-kyrgios-opens-up-on-why-he-doesnt-respect-his-opponents/news-story/af5f3652a3924f69365c24aecb434df5
Hearing Kyrgios analyse Federer, Nadal and Djokovic backs up the belief that while it seems like his plan is to entertain first and win tennis matches second, the young gun notices more than we realise.
Kyrgios has openly pinpointed a weak spot in Federer’s game. Source: Getty Images
“They don’t do anything spectacularly well. Obviously, Federer is unbelievably talented and the greatest of all time, but he gets tired in tight situations,” Kyrgios told the Daily Mail. “Djokovic struggles with short balls, he doesn’t like to come forward. The second serve can get a bit shaky.
“Rafa loves to be defensive so you can really push through his forehand and expose how far back he stands. So they do have weaknesses and if you play the right way and execute it right under pressure then they can be beaten.
“You just have to play the right way and for the stars to align. Of course, they are a level above all of us, but they are definitely beatable, I don’t think they are gods to the sport.”
*******************
Kyrgios is missing the point. All players deserve respect from their opponents and more importantly so do the spectators. That’s the point Rafa was making. As for pointing out their weaknesses, as Kyrgios sees it, that’s his opinion. Every day, forums are full of fans’ opinions on the weaknesses of this or that player. Kyrgios doesn’t have the last word on it.
When Kyrgios has been ranked in the top 4 for 16 – 20 years stretch like Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have been he would have earned the right to pontificate on them. Winning 50% against them in 12 meetings just doesn’t cut it. It would be different if he’d won 20 out of 25 meetings against them.
Sigh. Maybe Rafa should have defined respect for Kyrgios before accusing him of lacking it. He seems clueless as to its meaning.
Kyrgios has only faced an aging Fed, a Rafa who has clearly past his peak and prime, and a Djoko who was clearly suffering from injury issues the two times they met; the way he described their weaknesses, as if he knew them so well.
I’ve to say that the big three are still formidable even now, weakness or no weakness. I mean which player doesn’t have weakness? It’s up to their opponents to try and exploit them; the fact that they’re still winning most of their matches tell us that it’s easier said than done. I would even feel that the more they (the big three) meet Kyrgios, the more likely they’re to beat him as it’s they who will figure him out more than the other way round.
Luckystar, I think Rafa has passed his peak fitness for sure as he is more injured now than at any time before but I think he is playing far better tennis now than when he was a serial winner.
Yeah, agree; Rafa is a better player now but no longer at his physical peak.
Talent v effort? I’ll take Ferru!!! Grats to him on his big win in Miami!
I also believe that Djoko’s ‘talent’ is underrated somehow. If Fed is appreciated for his finesse shots, which I love, why the Novak’s ROS don’t count as talent? I mean the ROS rate can be crucial between winning and losing a match. Fed got me annoyed yesterday with his poor returns. I was relieved he finally has woken towards the end.
Eugene, the official stats don’t put Djoko at the top for ROS.
How Rafael Nadal Became The King Of Returns
https://www.atptour.com/en/news/nadal-infosys-returns-march-2017
Eugene, you might want to check this:
https://www.atptour.com/en/stats/1st-serve-return-points-won
Too many people have opinions about who is the best at this that and the other but most of the time the official statistics doesn’t back them up.
Thanks nadline. I have no problem to attribute those skills to Rafa. Simply, Djoko became ‘famous’ on this forum for his Ros as well. I definitely am not as informed as you when it comes to tennis stats.
People just bandy these accolades around based on their hunch not on reality. I hear commentators hoot time and time again that Djokovic is the best at ROS in the history of the game. It’s simply not the case. The same goes for the widely marketed opinion that Federer is the greatest player to ever pick up a racquet.
Exactly Eugene. People concentrate so much on the serve, ie how well a player could serve and think that a player like Kyrgios who could serve so well means that he’s so talented; but they forget that ROS is also an important part of the game. I mean who doesn’t possess a great serve these days among the young gen players? However, I haven’t seen a young player having a great ROS! If everyone can serve reasonably well, then having a great ROS will set one apart from the rest who couldn’t return well in comparison.
I watched players like Kyrgios, Tsitsipas, Shapo, Khachanov for examples, none of them has a great ROS, not even at the level of Simon, don’t even need to compare to Ferrer, or the trio of Djoko, Rafa, Murray. What sets Djoko apart from the other big four players is that he has an incredibly great ROS, that the other three guys couldn’t gain any advantage over him with their serves.
As I’ve mentioned before, having a great ROS requires lots of talent too; so Djoko is really very talented for having such great return abilities. I even think that he’s the most talented among the big four, with the least weaknesses, except that he doesn’t come with deft touches and has to learn and acquire those touches by putting in lots of efforts and getting a coach to help him achieve that.
Luckystar, according to the ATP, Rafa is the best active player at ROS.
https://www.atptour.com/en/news/nadal-infosys-returns-march-2017
https://www.atptour.com/en/stats/1st-serve-return-points-won
Nadal’s statistics are, in some ways, a bit misleading thanks to his unprecedented success on clay. I’m not saying he doesn’t have a great ROS, because he does, but the reason his stats are better than Djokovic’s is because when he plays on clay, he wins on clay. Pretty much without exception. The surface naturally favors the returner for reasons that you all already know. He plays (and wins) more matches than anyone else on the surface that is the worst for servers.
With that being said, he is a great returner even off the dirt…just not as great as Djokovic IMO.
It makes me laugh when people exempt clay from everybody else’s stats because Rafa dominates the surface. It’s not as if Rafa plays against himself on clay. Why not do the same for Federer and Djokovic on their best surface grass and H/C respectively? It’s so unfair to Rafa.
I think Rafa has better returns on clay whilst Djoko is better on the HCs.
H2H
H2H against Isner, Karlovic & Raonic
Federer 29-6
Rafa 19-2
Djokovic 19-4
Not a lot of difference against the Giants.
Cheryl Murray MARCH 24, 2019 AT 1:48 PM
“With that being said, he is a great returner even off the dirt…just not as great as Djokovic IMO.”
Cheryl your opinion doesn’t matter at the end of the day, it’s the stats that count.
There are far more hard court tournaments than clay so Djokovic has far more opportunities to top the table on ROS but he doesn’t on his best surface.
Please everybody guys, just stick to the facts and leave your opinions to one side.
You cannot disagree with the official statistics.
Generally, I would agree that it’s more beneficial to stick with the facts. But the purpose of a blog is to offer a separate forum in which opinion is welcome, and therefore a respectful debate on differing opinions is completely appropriate.
You say Nadal’s return statistics are the best. I’m not suggesting that his statistics aren’t the best. What I’m saying is that I think those particular statistics offer a better commentary on the fact that he’s so much better on clay than other other player is on any other surface. Probably better than any player in the history of the sport has ever been on any surface.
It’s certainly not an insult.
Cheryl, we don’t have the proof that Nadal’s ROS stats are boosted by his dominance on clay and as h/c forms about 75% of the tour it’s not logically that dominance on clay alone could be the reason why Rafa is shown to be the best active player at ROS. We can’t disagree about who has won the most slams or who has the most weeks at #1. It’s the same thing.