Who Is The Second Best Player Atm?

TMF wrote:Stan is not so talented in my book. He stands miles back and takes huge cuts at the ball. Take some time away from him an he becomes pretty average.

I think Rafa is underrated in terms of talent. Did anyone see the half volley off the baseline and down the line against Federer - now that takes some incredible hand-eye coordination - can't see Djokovic doing that.

Rafa also has very soft hands and is one of the best volleyers on the tour - much better at the net than Djokovic. Overall he's behind Federer in terms of talent but definitely ahead of Djokovic.

NITB wrote:The answer is not as straightforward as it seems.

I remember reading an interview with Pouille's coach last year in which he said we should really not aspire to build/model players like Federer as he is a one-off and has a special talent.
He said Nadal was a better example - grit, determination, focus, hard work etc.

With that I agree, everyone falls short compared to Federer and by some margin.

Also, I remember one comment from LS when he said how much he liked Goffin, yet compared to Federer's talent he can't even tie his shoelaces...


So, who IS the second best player in this era, one left with human, mortal talent?

We have many exciting players who are not consistent (Dolgopolov, Gulbis, Brown...)

Then we have the successful ones who bring no fun and flair, making the most of their fitness and slowed down conditions: Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Raonic...

Then some very good ones who play /come to life well in short batches: eg Fognini...

Then the young ones that are just about to burst onto scene within a year or two: Pouille, Dimitrov...


That leaves us with Stan and Nishi.


What do you all think?

TMF wrote:Stan is not so talented in my book. He stands miles back and takes huge cuts at the ball. Take some time away from him an he becomes pretty average.

I think Rafa is underrated in terms of talent. Did anyone see the half volley off the baseline and down the line against Federer - now that takes some incredible hand-eye coordination - can't see Djokovic doing that.

Rafa also has very soft hands and is one of the best volleyers on the tour - much better at the net than Djokovic. Overall he's behind Federer in terms of talent but definitely ahead of Djokovic.

Tenez wrote:Yes if it about being the most talented or best player on the day (more or less the same thing) I agree it is between Stan and Nishi for now,,,,,maybe Dimi, Thiem or Pouille. But if I had to pick one now it would be Stan.

It's very simple nowadays one cannot win slams with a SHBH unless supremely talented.

bogbrush wrote:You're really asking who is the 2nd most talented.

That's a tough question because on the whole the rest have strong and weak points, and to net them off and make a decision is very down to subjectivity. The difference to Federer is self evident, he's just obviously more talented than the rest in most attributes but I don't see that applying to the rest.

Veejay wrote:
to answer this question you really have to define what "talent" in tennis means 
there are several factors that goes into winning matches,are those factors or attributes what you now consider to be the talent an athlete needs to pay tennis 
is talent shot making,is talent natural power,is talent natural athleticism,hand-eye coordination?
we can take richard gasquet for instance..widely considered to be one of the most naturally talented player on tour,looks completely out of depth the way the game is played today

NITB wrote:

Veejay wrote:
to answer this question you really have to define what "talent" in tennis means 
there are several factors that goes into winning matches,are those factors or attributes what you now consider to be the talent an athlete needs to pay tennis 
is talent shot making,is talent natural power,is talent natural athleticism,hand-eye coordination?
we can take richard gasquet for instance..widely considered to be one of the most naturally talented player on tour,looks completely out of depth the way the game is played today

Yes there are several factors that play a part: hand to eye coordination is numero uno by some margin,  also it does help if you are not too tall or too short.

In my opinion, the key is in consistency of high-quality shots, i.e. shotmaking, especially under pressure.

So in this era we have two such players capable of winning slams: Federer and Wawrinka.

Nadal, Djokovic and Murray don't play shotmaking tennis, they rely on drawing an error, though they each do it in their own style.

NITB wrote:

TMF wrote:Stan is not so talented in my book. He stands miles back and takes huge cuts at the ball. Take some time away from him an he becomes pretty average.

I think Rafa is underrated in terms of talent. Did anyone see the half volley off the baseline and down the line against Federer - now that takes some incredible hand-eye coordination - can't see Djokovic doing that.

Rafa also has very soft hands and is one of the best volleyers on the tour - much better at the net than Djokovic. Overall he's behind Federer in terms of talent but definitely ahead of Djokovic.

The thing is, every one of those pros pull off amazing shots from time to time, the key is how often and how consistently.

Yes, that's a fair point and also the moments when they do it. Like Federer hitting a tweener to get to matchpoint is crazy..

TMF wrote:

NITB wrote:

TMF wrote:Stan is not so talented in my book. He stands miles back and takes huge cuts at the ball. Take some time away from him an he becomes pretty average.

I think Rafa is underrated in terms of talent. Did anyone see the half volley off the baseline and down the line against Federer - now that takes some incredible hand-eye coordination - can't see Djokovic doing that.

Rafa also has very soft hands and is one of the best volleyers on the tour - much better at the net than Djokovic. Overall he's behind Federer in terms of talent but definitely ahead of Djokovic.

The thing is, every one of those pros pull off amazing shots from time to time, the key is how often and how consistently.

Yes, that's a fair point and also the moments when they do it. Like Federer hitting a tweener to get to matchpoint is crazy..

Veejay wrote:
that may not be our idea of how tennis should be played,but still it requires a honed skill which theoretically in turn requires some kind of talent to achieve 
its a very interesting questioned you asked NITB,which would be looked at and argued from so many different angles 
i think that there is also a very big difference between just having raw talent and how a player plays the game
the way the athlete plays the game isnt a direct reflection on their innate talent cause at the end of the day,its winning that counts,not how you necessarily how you won
on the flip side you could also argue if theres no b or c game plan then it proves how limited the player is and that theres a clear limit to their ability/talent 
i think that murray and djokovic have the talent to play shot making tennis,but play defensive tennis cause either its their comfort zone or they feel thats where they will have the most success

NITB wrote:

Veejay wrote:
that may not be our idea of how tennis should be played,but still it requires a honed skill which theoretically in turn requires some kind of talent to achieve 
its a very interesting questioned you asked NITB,which would be looked at and argued from so many different angles 
i think that there is also a very big difference between just having raw talent and how a player plays the game
the way the athlete plays the game isnt a direct reflection on their innate talent cause at the end of the day,its winning that counts,not how you necessarily how you won
on the flip side you could also argue if theres no b or c game plan then it proves how limited the player is and that theres a clear limit to their ability/talent 
i think that murray and djokovic have the talent to play shot making tennis,but play defensive tennis cause either its their comfort zone or they feel thats where they will have the most success

I think the opposite.

Obviously, everyone wants to win, and that's where we can easily see how talented a player is, because in order to win, they need to play within themselves.

So if they are not able to play high risk shots consistently, they have to play safe shots until they feel comfortable enough to play a winner or draw an error from the opponent.

Very simple.

Nobody talented wants to grind and sweat, but some don't have any other choice.

Veejay wrote:
i said that cause a lot of it has to do with how you were coached and how you were taught to play the game
old habits die hard and you cant teach an old dog new tricks
to grind a point out also requires skill which in turn theoretically requires some kind of talent to achieve
that why i asked the question earlier... is physical athleticism what you would now consider having talent to play tennis
like you i am one whose opinion is [b that tennis is still very much be a racket sport, but as we all know the game isnt played like it is today[/b]

NITB wrote:With his talent, he could also have a better serve despite his height.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

NITB wrote:With his talent, he could also have a better serve despite his height.

How did you spot his absolutely hidden serving talent?

Daniel wrote:Best player atm: Hard to say.  I wouldn't say it's Federer on the basis of one tournament. It would have to be Djokovic, despite his slide.

2nd.  probably Federer or Murray.  

None of them look particularly deadly or consistent from what I've seen.  And Raonic, Dimitrov, Kyrgios of the tour should be right there capitalizing. And they aren't.

bogbrush wrote:

Daniel wrote:Best player atm: Hard to say.  I wouldn't say it's Federer on the basis of one tournament. It would have to be Djokovic, despite his slide.

2nd.  probably Federer or Murray.  

None of them look particularly deadly or consistent from what I've seen.  And Raonic, Dimitrov, Kyrgios of the tour should be right there capitalizing. And they aren't.

I can't see a case for Djokovic. If we're saying "most effective", the rankings say it's Murray. If we're saying "most talented" then no way in this World am I rating Djokovic anywhere near Federer (and i put him behind a few others).

NITB wrote:

Veejay wrote:
i said that cause a lot of it has to do with how you were coached and how you were taught to play the game
old habits die hard and you cant teach an old dog new tricks
to grind a point out also requires skill which in turn theoretically requires some kind of talent to achieve
that why i asked the question earlier... is physical athleticism what you would now consider having talent to play tennis
like you i am one whose opinion is [b that tennis is still very much be a racket sport, but as we all know the game isnt played like it is today[/b]

I think tennis has always been a physically demanding sport, but now the level of physicality has gone to unnatural levels, which is why we need unnatural talent to win.

The coaching element is also interesting in relation to talent.

Can you coach instincitive play?

I think Boletieri Academy is a killer of talent.
Look at Nishi.

Despite the obvious talent, you can see something is missing.
I used to half jokingly say it was his Japanese automated gene, but probably it's the tennis factory he grew up in that may have contributed to his slightly unimaginative style.

With his talent, he could also have a better serve despite his height.

Daniel wrote:Murray certainly isn't "further down".  He's world number 1 for a reason - whether he is a boring inconsistent player or not. Over the year he has been the best. Djok is in two for a reason also - but he had many more points to defend.

Daniel wrote:Murray certainly isn't "further down".  He's world number 1 for a reason - whether he is a boring inconsistent player or not. Over the year he has been the best. Djok is in two for a reason also - but he had many more points to defend.

bogbrush wrote:The question anyway was 2nd best player of the era, not this week, and refers to talent.

The players used to illustrate the question make clear the meaning is innate talent, bit grit or running skills.

Daniel wrote:

bogbrush wrote:The question anyway was 2nd best player of the era, not this week, and refers to talent.

The players used to illustrate the question make clear the meaning is innate talent, bit grit or running skills.

"atm" means at the moment.  Blame the author for a poor title. 

NITB wrote:The answer is not as straightforward as it seems.

I remember reading an interview with Pouille's coach last year in which he said we should really not aspire to build/model players like Federer as he is a one-off and has a special talent.
He said Nadal was a better example - grit, determination, focus, hard work etc.

With that I agree, everyone falls short compared to Federer and by some margin.

Also, I remember one comment from LS when he said how much he liked Goffin, yet compared to Federer's talent he can't even tie his shoelaces...


So, who IS the second best player in this era, one left with human, mortal talent?

We have many exciting players who are not consistent (Dolgopolov, Gulbis, Brown...)

Then we have the successful ones who bring no fun and flair, making the most of their fitness and slowed down conditions: Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Raonic...

Then some very good ones who play /come to life well in short batches: eg Fognini...

Then the young ones that are just about to burst onto scene within a year or two: Pouille, Dimitrov...


That leaves us with Stan and Nishi.


What do you all think?