Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» What now for Roger?
A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented EmptyYesterday at 7:36 am by raiders_of_the_lost_ark

» Slam chase
A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented EmptyThu Jul 18, 2019 11:31 pm by Tenez

» Generation Worthless
A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented EmptyThu Jul 18, 2019 2:08 pm by mcekovic

» Wimbledon Day 13, Sunday 14th July
A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented EmptyTue Jul 16, 2019 7:03 am by raiders_of_the_lost_ark

» Wimbledon seeding is disrespectful, says Rafael Nadal
A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented EmptyMon Jul 15, 2019 1:15 pm by barrystar

» Women final
A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented EmptySat Jul 13, 2019 4:54 pm by bogbrush

» Wimbledon Day 11, Friday 12th July
A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented EmptySat Jul 13, 2019 12:10 pm by paulcz

» Wimbledon Day 9, Wednesday 10th July
A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented EmptyThu Jul 11, 2019 9:21 pm by Tenez

» Wimbledon Day 10, Thursday 11th July
A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented EmptyThu Jul 11, 2019 4:19 pm by Jahu

July 2019
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Calendar Calendar

Affiliates
free forum


A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by DEC1M8 on Thu Jan 09, 2014 11:38 pm

The point I make in the article will be specifically responding to a point made by Luvsports!, but of course will be interested to hear all your views on this.

---------

LS said, I think it was last summer, that he thought Evans was more talented than Murray. Recently I saw him saying similar things on here and v2 on this topic, so I think a civilised response in the form of an article is appropriate. I will mainly base it on the Murray vs Dan Evans thing, as that's where we've specifically debated before.

So continuing my Murray vs Evans debate, keeping in mind the points I make here apply to other comparisons as well:

It's not logically consistent to assert that Dan Evans is more talented than Andy Murray, given the different scale of achievement Murray is on and evidence we have available:

Firstly we must consider, why do people play tennis at the highest level, primarily?
It is to give yourself the best chance to win; win matches, win trophies etc. So giving yourself the best chance of winning should be what you base your game around.
Now let's consider the achievement of Murray and Evans: Murray has won 2 Grand Slams, got to world number 2, and many Masters Events- meanwhile Evans is not even in the top 100 and has not won an ATP event. So it is clear that Murray has achieved far more and is on another level, we all agree to this.

Luvsports based the opinion that Evans is more talented than Murray on style of play, but given the stats shown above, I propose this rhetorical question: how do we know that Murray, if he wanted, could not have played the exact game as Evans, but given it would give him less success he does not do so?
The game Murray does play is one of the most successful, so to resort to the style and gameplay of Evans who is not even in the top 100, or even to go to the style of Benoit Paire who is not even top 25, even if he could would be sheer sheer lunacy.

Therefore I think we can conclude that the assertion that Evans is more talented than Murray based on gamestyle, simply cannot logically be backed up given the evidence we have. This is irrelevant on whether you think Murray/Evans is more talented or not, not once in this article have I brought in my opinion to the argument.

DEC1M8

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by noleisthebest on Thu Jan 09, 2014 11:57 pm

It is difficult to assess how talented Dan Evans is right now.

I only saw him play two matches at USO open last year and his game was great: beautiful, proper all-court tennis, brave shot-making, completely forward minded play.

That definitely indicates talent and also belief that comes from it.

I have never seen Murray play like that, though.

Before Lendl, he was a dogged pusher. Then he beefed up and evolved into a fit dogged pusher.
Then Lendl came and convinced him that he won't die if he hits a hard CC FH.
Murray evolved into an "aggressive" beefed dogged pusher.

So....

The main difference between Murray and Evans is their work ethic.
While Murray kept his head down and worked his bland socks off, talented and flairful Evans was enjoying life (anybody remember him being kicked out of GB Olympic Team in Sydney Olympics, or was it Beijing, can't remember now for being constantly drunk and squandering LTA's cash, thus being cut their financial support?)

So, there is more to talent than results.

Personally, I think Murray is massively overhyped, and like Nadal benefitting hugely from current conditions that are covering up for lack of talent, and making those who have it struggle to fulfil it.

noleisthebest

Posts : 27759
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by Tenez on Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:01 am

Firstly we must consider, why do people play tennis at the highest level, primarily?
It is to give yourself the best chance to win; win matches, win trophies etc. So giving yourself the best chance of winning should be what you base your game around.
 
Not necessarily true! Some may pick up a racquet cause they love the game. They become so good at it, that they naturally turn into champs. Though they become professional and want (or have) to win as much, it is not their initial motivation. In fact I like to think that a tennis player loves (at least loved) the game first. So the ATP is probably filled with young players who when they started to play never believed in becoming a professional tennis player....playing a lot and becoming good at it can suddenly give you a career path. Federer for instance could have become footballers I think...had he loved the football game more. On the other hand you have people who have a plan and a strategy and very soon I agree they might want to win every tournament, they might not be talented but determined, or have other weapons, such as fitness training, diet, etc... and that person is for instance, not Nadal....but is uncle. Toni I feel loved the game more than Nadal. He told him how to play the game, what to do, where to serve (he still does actually), so for that second category of players, you are right it is probably a job from the very beginning. But I doubt it is for the majority. You can see most French, Italian and East European players, the love of the game is obvious, symbolised probably by Nastase, a very talented player.
 
Now let's consider the achievement of Murray and Evans: Murray has won 2 Grand Slams, got to world number 2, and many Masters Events- meanwhile Evans is not even in the top 100 and has not won an ATP event. So it is clear that Murray has achieved far more and is on another level, we all agree to this.
Agree. Murray has achieved more.
 
Luvsports based the opinion that Evans is more talented than Murray on style of play, but given the stats shown above, I propose this rhetorical question: how do we know that Murray, if he wanted, could not have played the exact game as Evans, but given it would give him less success he does not do so?
The game Murray does play is one of the most successful, so to resort to the style and gameplay of Evans who is not even in the top 100, or even to go to the style of Benoit Paire who is not even top 25, even if he could would be sheer sheer lunacy.

Therefore I think we can conclude that the assertion that Evans is more talented than Murray based on gamestyle, simply cannot logically be backed up given the evidence we have. This is irrelevant on whether you think Murray/Evans is more talented or not, not once in this article have I brought in my opinion to the argument.
 
Well since your conclusion is based on a false assertion (the first one), then your whole argument doesn't stand. In any case no-one needs a long assignment to state the obvious:
 
Winning slams and other titles requires a combination of factors, a winning formula that is essentially made of Natural and acquired fitness, talent, luck, mental strength and it is therefore impossible to conclude that winning titles means the winner is superior is all those departments than one who does not win.

And when it comes to Murray v Evans, Murray is so much more physically superior to Evans than the respective achievement is irrelevant to gauge their talent as fitness is clearly the base and main factor to win anything nowadays. Talent is very much a tiny part of that succesful formulae. It only becomes important (like mental strength) when the fitness is no issue....so roughly only between players of similar fitness.

Tenez

Posts : 20193
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by DEC1M8 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:09 am

noleisthebest wrote:I only saw him play two matches at USO open last year and his game was great: beautiful, proper all-court tennis, brave shot-making, completely forward minded play.

That definitely indicates talent and also belief that comes from it.
I acknowledge that is your opinion, but this is the kind of argument I've specifically argued against in the article.


Last edited by Julia Santamaria on Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:15 am; edited 1 time in total

DEC1M8

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by DEC1M8 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:14 am

Tenez wrote:Not necessarily true! Some may pick up a racquet cause they love the game.
Possible, but when I meant playing at the highest level I meant playing now (ie at the highest level on the ATP Tour).
Let me put it this way: if Murray had the chance to play a game he enjoyed playing more, but gives him less chances to win- would he take it? No.

Well since your conclusion is based on a false assertion (the first one), then your whole argument doesn't stand.
There is absolutely nothing you've said in your response which disputes what I'm saying in the article. I am not arguing that talent is/ isn't one of the many factors which decides who wins- I was arguing that on the evidence provided it's illogical and highly tenuous to come to the conclusion that Evans is more talented than Murray as LS and NITB have done.

DEC1M8

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by Tenez on Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:20 am

Julia Santamaria wrote:
Tenez wrote:Not necessarily true! Some may pick up a racquet cause they love the game.
Possible, but when I meant playing at the highest level I meant playing now (ie at the highest level on the ATP Tour).
Let me put it this way: if Murray had the chance to play a game he enjoyed playing more, but gives him less chances to win- would he take it? No.

Eh...but if you are talented it means you can actually win points and therefore matches easily. So why would you choose the hard way if you can do it the easy way? simply cause you cannot rely on your talent as much as you can rely on fitness  to win.

So again your assertion is plain wrong and your conclusion of "stats and logic pointing to " is wrong too. Murray might still be more talented but you cannot base it on your flawed logic! However nice try.

Tenez

Posts : 20193
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by noleisthebest on Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:22 am

Julia Santamaria wrote:


Luvsports based the opinion that Evans is more talented than Murray on style of play, but given the stats shown above, I propose this rhetorical question: how do we know that Murray, if he wanted, could not have played the exact game as Evans, but given it would give him less success he does not do so?.

How do we know?

Whichever sport you play, you want to "score".
In football for example, 11 people run forward and try to score a goal. Ideally, with as few passes as possible.
Once in a blue moon you have a super talented footballer like Maradona, who could run the entire pitch, dribble all the defenders out of his way and score.
Same in tennis.
Nobody in their sane mind is going to sit on or even worse BEHIND the baseline and hit millions of shots in order to win a point if they can do it in 5.
Or run and chase the ball like mad left and right scrambling trying to chase down good, attacking shots scramble them back and then do it all over again ad nauseum.
It's a bit like when in football a defender chases a winger and beings him down with a faul.

If you've got the tools, you use them. It's part of enjoying playing the game, anyway. It gives you the thrill and keeps you wanting to play more.

If Murray had a weapon, believe me, he'd use it.


noleisthebest

Posts : 27759
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by DEC1M8 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:27 am

Tenez wrote:

Eh...but if you are talented it means you can actually win points and therefore matches easily. So why would you choose the hard way if you can do it the easy way? simply cause you cannot rely on your talent as much as you can rely on fitness  to win.
Because in these conditions, playing a certain style ie 'the hard way' is the smart thing to do- even if Murray had the talent of Federer and Sampras combined if he played the same style as Evans it would be lunacy.

Tenez wrote:
So again your assertion is plain wrong and your conclusion of "stats and logic pointing to " is wrong too. Murray might still be more talented but you cannot base it on your flawed logic! However nice try.
[/quote]
Your interpretation of my assertion was wrong, I cleared this up last time, I was talking about their aims now (that's why I said when they're playing at the highest level ie ATP Tour), not why they started to play the game as you thought.
And which part of my logic is flawed? Do tell me, because you haven't addressed my point in the article at all. And I specifically said that my opinion on whether Murray is more talented or not is not expressed in this article, read the last line.

DEC1M8

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by Tenez on Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:27 am

noleisthebest wrote:
If Murray had a weapon, believe me, he'd use it.


Simply put but right on! In fact he has one (his fitness) but it is an acquired one...there still looking for sign of talent.

Tenez

Posts : 20193
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by DEC1M8 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:30 am

noleisthebest wrote:How do we know?

Whichever sport you play, you want to "score".
Yes, and Murray's style in these conditions gives him the best chance of scoring.

DEC1M8

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by Tenez on Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:32 am

Julia Santamaria wrote:Because in these conditions, playing a certain style ie 'the hard way' is the smart thing to do- even if Murray had the talent of Federer and Sampras combined if he played the same style as Evans it would be lunacy.
 
That is what you don't understand...If Murray feels like hitting his serve with 4 aces, he will not choose a 70mph serve instead just cause running and winning the hard way is smarter!!!  
 
And which part of my logic is flawed? Do tell me, because you haven't addressed my point in the article at all. And I specifically said that my opinion on whether Murray is more talented or not is not expressed in this article, read the last line.
I have but like everything that doesn't suit you, you don't want to see it....how can I say....
 
You are another Lydian.....

Tenez

Posts : 20193
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by DEC1M8 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:37 am

Tenez wrote:
 
That is what you don't understand...If Murray feels like hitting his serve with 4 aces, he will not choose a 70mph serve instead just cause running and winning the hard way is smarter!!!  
With these conditions, the style Murray plays is nearly perfect- this is not the conditions for serving and volleying.
In these conditions, Murray's style is equivalent to 3-4 aces per game in your comparison.
 

I have but like everything that doesn't suit you,  you don't want to see it....how can I say....
No, no, no... you are not addressing my point.
Remember Dan Evans has not been successful with his style of play... you (well it's LS and NITB I'm not sure if you're on the same boat) are assuming that Murray even if he tried to play the same style as Evans would do worse.
 

You are another Lydian.....
Is that what getting beaten in debates reminds you of?

DEC1M8

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by DEC1M8 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:42 am

This is the specific mistake you are making Tenez when addressing my point:
I am not saying Murray is a tennis god, and that it's possible for him to play serve and volley or a ridiculously attacking gamestyles in these conditions and still have the success he has.
What I am saying is that even if he played the same style as Evans, and if you do see that as superior in some way (btw in the sequel to this thread I will actually specifically debate this proposition using Nadal), you cannot say that Murray would be more/less successful than Evans.
In the interim, Murray is doing the smart thing, playing the intelligent kind of tennis for these conditions... and getting a lot of success.

DEC1M8

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by noleisthebest on Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:49 am

Lydian can't even clean Tenez's boots when it comes to  tennis. Amri.
I don't know why you keep mentioning Lydian.

Just for the record, it was him who asked for Tenez to be banned from v2, Gav, who was Administrator/Mod at the time said it so himself on JA606.

Lydian is just a self-proclaimed expert and legend in his own lunchbox, with a bunch of ignorant Nadal fans who feed his ego because he can write long paragraphs saying nothing.

He has never said anything insightful or interesting, I'd be the first one to say if he did, but unfortunately I can't.


Last edited by noleisthebest on Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:52 am; edited 1 time in total

noleisthebest

Posts : 27759
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by DEC1M8 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:51 am

noleisthebest wrote:
I don't know why you keep mentioning Lydian.

What??
I was Tenez who mentioned him in this thread, certainly not me.
And no, I'm not willing to go into a personal debate on him now, although what I can say is that Lydian is a fantastic poster and actually called for 606v2 to try and bring you and Tenez back to the forum.
No more on that though, start up another thread on it if you will.

DEC1M8

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by noleisthebest on Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:59 am

Amri, I am not interested in v2 in the least, but I do find upsetting when people throw mud at Tenez just because he loves tennis and knows a lot about it.
He is very gracious and actually quite modest and patient.
Anyway, that's the end of that conversation. Off to see Nole's and Fed's draw now diva
Thanks for the thread.

noleisthebest

Posts : 27759
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by mikeyM1000 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:48 am

If the most talented player in the world (not that anyone will agree on the definition of talent) was only 4 foot 9 and 100 pounds, he wouldn't be in the top 1000. So obviously it's possible for more talented players to be ranked lower.

But so what? Sport isn't, wasn't and shouldn't be just about talent. By it's very definition it's physical and it's a competition to win. If someone wins because they're mentally stronger or physically stronger, then that's actually what sport should be - that's what it's always been - it takes a combination of many things, not just talent, to win - and the goal is to win. 

All the top players are lucky anyway, to be born with whatever factors it is to get them there - it's just that some got lucky in some areas of genetics and some got luckier in others.

mikeyM1000

Posts : 231
Join date : 2012-08-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by DEC1M8 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:22 am

mikeyM1000 wrote:If the most talented player in the world (not that anyone will agree on the definition of talent) was only 4 foot 9 and 100 pounds, he wouldn't be in the top 1000. So obviously it's possible for more talented players to be ranked lower.

But so what? Sport isn't, wasn't and shouldn't be just about talent. By it's very definition it's physical and it's a competition to win. If someone wins because they're mentally stronger or physically stronger, then that's actually what sport should be - that's what it's always been - it takes a combination of many things, not just talent, to win - and the goal is to win. 

All the top players are lucky anyway, to be born with whatever factors it is to get them there - it's just that some got lucky in some areas of genetics and some got luckier in others.

I agree with this sentiment.

DEC1M8

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by mikeyM1000 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:37 am

Sport is a strange beast anyway - there's no reason to support anyone really.
There are hard-working surgeons and more talented surgeons. There are hard-working video game developers and more talented video game developers. Etc etc.
But we don't align ourselves with any of them, or spend ages defending/attacking them.

It's only because the end result (a tennis match) is entertaining (as opposed to watching an appendectomy or someone writing source code) that we bother with it at all. Then we all get all het up about it, for no logical reason.

mikeyM1000

Posts : 231
Join date : 2012-08-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by DEC1M8 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:43 am

It's the top few, the superstars, who mainly bring the fans to the game. The Fed-Nadal rivalry has created a lot of heated debate, but brought in a lot of money for the sport.

DEC1M8

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by Tenez on Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:56 am

mikeyM1000 wrote:If the most talented player in the world (not that anyone will agree on the definition of talent) was only 4 foot 9 and 100 pounds, he wouldn't be in the top 1000. So obviously it's possible for more talented players to be ranked lower.

Yes this is why I include in the paramters for success (acquired AND NATURAL) fitness. Those nowadays are the base of success in this physical sport. When the courts were faster, a talented Leander Paes could beat Pete Sampras.....nowadays on talent is almost irrelevant unless the respective fitness of players are similar.

But so what? Sport isn't, wasn't and shouldn't be just about talent. By it's very definition it's physical and it's a competition to win. If someone wins because they're mentally stronger or physically stronger, then that's actually what sport should be - that's what it's always been - it takes a combination of many things, not just talent, to win - and the goal is to win.
 

I cannot sagree with that. You like a sport down to the degree of talent you can appreciate in it. If you like a purely physical sport, one might like weight lifting or cycling, but some may prefer sports where talent can be perceived, Golf, Snooker, football, etc.... It's a very difficult parameter to gauge but it is actually the most important for many sport watchers. Federer is not a loved tennis player for no reason. In weightlifting, a 70lb athlete will have his mental and talent paramters seriously challenged by a 200lb athlete....in such a way that they won't even bother putting them in the same draw. In tennis with those new strings and bigger balls....it coming to that. On one side you have Nadal, Djoko, Murray and Delpo....and then you have the rest.....

All the top players are lucky anyway, to be born with whatever factors it is to get them there - it's just that some got lucky in some areas of genetics and some got luckier in others.
No this is the forum which is not scared to talk about the non genetic advantages....those very much acquired ones.

Tenez

Posts : 20193
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by noleisthebest on Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:59 am

Julia Santamaria wrote:It's the top few, the superstars, who mainly bring the fans to the game. The Fed-Nadal rivalry has created a lot of heated debate, but brought in a lot of money for the sport.

I can only speak for myself here but Fedal did nothing for me, I saw only two of their matches.
The game has lost a lot of attraction in recent years for several reasons, among them its physicality that killed variety and bred monotony (read: marginalised the role of talent), the other is the money which turned players into gagged PR clones who, compared to the "olden" days (just look at that Lendl Edberg behind the back shot exchange clip for example) are not enjoying the game but are now "suffering" and enduring.
It's such a shame.
In order to win with talent now, as Tenez says, you need to be a genius, and that's a big ask because geniuses are born, not manufactured from the age of 4 a la Bolettieri.

noleisthebest

Posts : 27759
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by DEC1M8 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:04 am

noleisthebest wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:It's the top few, the superstars, who mainly bring the fans to the game. The Fed-Nadal rivalry has created a lot of heated debate, but brought in a lot of money for the sport.

I can only speak for myself here but  Fedal did nothing for me, I saw only two of their matches.

Which 2?

DEC1M8

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by noleisthebest on Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:09 am

The 2010 WTF final (had the ticket so "had" to go) and one this year, I forgot where, it was the best of 3 on hard court somewhere, was it Cincy?

noleisthebest

Posts : 27759
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by DEC1M8 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:18 am

Grrr Tenez has done this trick again, he starts losing in debates so he runs away and doesn't even respond, and then 15 off-topic posts later we all forgot the original discussion.

Where were we. Hmmm. How about this.

This is the specific mistake you are making Tenez when addressing my point:
I am not saying Murray is a tennis god, and that it's possible for him to play serve and volley or a ridiculously attacking gamestyles in these conditions and still have the success he has.
What I am saying is that even if he played the same style as Evans, and if you do see that as superior in some way (btw in the sequel to this thread I will actually specifically debate this proposition using Nadal), you cannot say that Murray would be more/less successful than Evans.
In the interim, Murray is doing the smart thing, playing the intelligent kind of tennis for these conditions... and getting a lot of success.

DEC1M8

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by mikeyM1000 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:26 am

I do agree (as does everyone, I think) that the ratio of talent:physically has changed drastically toward the physical side over recent years. But I would still argue that for tennis as a sport, that that is it's nature  - as opposed to golf, snooker etc which some argue are games, not sports.

Any sport where a significant degree of physical ability is required will always develop towards that side. Simply because science (even legal science!) can help with it a lot faster than evolution can help with talent. I also wish that wasn't the case, that the talent:physically ratio were different, but there's no point decrying it, or railing against it because that's the nature of sport.

There's also more to liking tennis than just the talent on offer, otherwise there would be a big fan base for badminton, squash, racketball and real tennis. The entertainment is better in tennis, and that's separate from the talent.

mikeyM1000

Posts : 231
Join date : 2012-08-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by noleisthebest on Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:45 am

Nobody is denying the role of genetic package when it comes to athleticism in tennis.
It's hard to see a 5ft 5 Fed win 17 slams.
Fed is an example of a perfect package: superb talent, great build, passionate and hard working.
And yes, that grace does not come from hard work - he was born with it and that's the talent and genius we are talking about: to use the well worn but so true expression: he makes it all look so easy and effortless.
We know who is the exact opposite.

noleisthebest

Posts : 27759
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by luvsports! on Fri Jan 10, 2014 3:06 pm

Honoured to have my name mentioned as an article title smiley

luvsports!

Posts : 4681
Join date : 2012-09-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by Tenez on Fri Jan 10, 2014 4:45 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:Grrr Tenez has done this trick again, he starts losing in debates so he runs away and doesn't even respond, and then 15 off-topic posts later we all forgot the original discussion.

Where were we. Hmmm. How about this.

This is the specific mistake you are making Tenez when addressing my point:
I am not saying Murray is a tennis god, and that it's possible for him to play serve and volley or a ridiculously attacking gamestyles in these conditions and still have the success he has.
What I am saying is that even if he played the same style as Evans, and if you do see that as superior in some way (btw in the sequel to this thread I will actually specifically debate this proposition using Nadal), you cannot say that Murray would be more/less successful than Evans.
In the interim, Murray is doing the smart thing, playing the intelligent kind of tennis for these conditions... and getting a lot of success.
JS - I don't "lose" debates....at best I learn from them...Here I have not learnt much from you. Especially rereading your last paragraph....I can't make much sense of it. What I know though is that Murray chose th every physical route....whether that brought him more success than going the talented/skills route is very difficult to say.....probably yes considering the conditions but who knew which direction the conds were going to evolve? Maybe more luck than smart.....unless he had inside knowledge from TDs.

Tenez

Posts : 20193
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by Tenez on Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:58 pm

mikeyM1000 wrote:Any sport where a significant degree of physical ability is required will always develop towards that side. Simply because science (even legal science!) can help with it a lot faster than evolution can help with talent. I also wish that wasn't the case, that the talent:physically ratio were different, but there's no point decrying it, or railing against it because that's the nature of sport.

but it has not got to be like that. You and I have been watching tennis for years and even watched the greatest tennis athlete get beaten by McEnroe's talent. And this is what we liked (or disliked as I was behind Borg). I remember Federer saying in 2005 or 6 that "at Wimbledon physic is no issue contrary to other surfaces" (to justify playing Halle). Which meant clearly that Wimby had the conds to favour talent and mental strength over physical strength. Make the game super fast, and the 20 long rallies will disappear...S&V will even come back.
This is what really annoys me about the physicality of the sport....it has been pushed that way to allow some players, if not one, the most popular to go far in tournaments.

There's also more to liking tennis than just the talent on offer, otherwise there would be a big fan base for badminton, squash, racketball and real tennis. The entertainment is better in tennis, and that's separate from the talent.

I think in tennis we can (certainly could) see best the fight between talent and fitness. I think the proportions were right then....now they are not anymore...and I think most specialists agree nowadays....they do not want to see 5 or 6 hours matches.

Tenez

Posts : 20193
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by DEC1M8 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:02 pm

Tenez wrote:
JS - I don't "lose" debates
You have, and you do regularly.

Especially rereading your last paragraph....I can't make much sense of it.

Read it again, what do you think I'm trying to say?

Perhaps read the title, or the bit in bold in my OP.

DEC1M8

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by DEC1M8 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:07 pm

Stop arguing against something I'm not arguing, it's really irritating; is my title and bold bit in the article really not clear enough as to what I'm trying to say.

DEC1M8

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by luvsports! on Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:11 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:
mikeyM1000 wrote:If the most talented player in the world (not that anyone will agree on the definition of talent) was only 4 foot 9 and 100 pounds, he wouldn't be in the top 1000. So obviously it's possible for more talented players to be ranked lower.

But so what? Sport isn't, wasn't and shouldn't be just about talent. By it's very definition it's physical and it's a competition to win. If someone wins because they're mentally stronger or physically stronger, then that's actually what sport should be - that's what it's always been - it takes a combination of many things, not just talent, to win - and the goal is to win. 

All the top players are lucky anyway, to be born with whatever factors it is to get them there - it's just that some got lucky in some areas of genetics and some got luckier in others.

I agree with this sentiment.

By agreeing with this you agree that smaller, lower ranked players can be more talented correct? 
Next! 
Anymore titles where my name will be included? 
I'll think of a few suggestions and get back to ya Winking

luvsports!

Posts : 4681
Join date : 2012-09-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by DEC1M8 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:14 pm

luvsports! wrote:
By agreeing with this you agree that smaller, lower ranked players can be more talented correct? 
Next! 
I agree, and nor did I contradict your above point in my article??

Grrr you're doing what Tenez is doing, instead of responding to my point in the article you raise a issue which you think I may disagree with and then suddenly pretend that was what I was trying to say in my article when it wasn't.

DEC1M8

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by mikeyM1000 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:14 pm

Tenez wrote:
mikeyM1000 wrote:Any sport where a significant degree of physical ability is required will always develop towards that side. Simply because science (even legal science!) can help with it a lot faster than evolution can help with talent. I also wish that wasn't the case, that the talent:physically ratio were different, but there's no point decrying it, or railing against it because that's the nature of sport.

but it has not got to be like that.

Ultimately I think it's inevitable, even if it could be postponed, or pushed back. But in the end it's the way the tide goes and you can't fight it for ever. Perhaps it's good to rage against the dying of the light, but the light still dies in the end.

mikeyM1000

Posts : 231
Join date : 2012-08-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by DEC1M8 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:17 pm

mikeyM1000 wrote: Perhaps it's good to rage against the dying of the light, but the light still dies in the end.
Tennis has not lost its last light, it's in a healthy position.

DEC1M8

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by mikeyM1000 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:24 pm

In the sense that it appeals to the masses, yes it is, but then One Direction sell more records than Lloyd Cole, so the overall popularity of the game is hardly a good barometer, unless one views it purely as an entertainment.

mikeyM1000

Posts : 231
Join date : 2012-08-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by luvsports! on Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:29 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:
luvsports! wrote:
By agreeing with this you agree that smaller, lower ranked players can be more talented correct? 
Next! 
I agree, and nor did I contradict your above point in my article??

Grrr you're doing what Tenez is doing, instead of responding to my point in the article you raise a issue which you think I may disagree with and then suddenly pretend that was what I was trying to say in my article when it wasn't.

Evidence wise yes it cannot be backed up. But for me evidence (ie. stats) doesn't translate to a murky term such as "talent".

luvsports!

Posts : 4681
Join date : 2012-09-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by noleisthebest on Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:33 pm

There is nothing murky about talent. It's as clear as daylight.
The only problem is that some people don't want to acknowledge it.
Not difficult to guess why.

noleisthebest

Posts : 27759
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by Tenez on Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:36 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:
You have, and you do regularly.
Which one? Do you consider yourself Julia also the Judge of Forums debate? If you are as "impartial" as in Dr Fuentes case...then I accept your judgement!

Tenez

Posts : 20193
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by luvsports! on Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:37 pm

Amri won't agree, we don't on much Winking, but to be consistent with his argument, he has to maintain that Murray is more talented than a much lower ranked player. If he didn't many lower ranked players who have had a fraction of the success of nadal could be described as being more talented. 

I think the only player who contradicts amri's rule is that he thinks Nadal is more talented than feds despite having less slams and we all know why he thinks that!

luvsports!

Posts : 4681
Join date : 2012-09-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by mikeyM1000 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:38 pm

I'm not sure psychologists or philosophers can even agree if talent exists, let alone it's definition - so in that sense, it is murky.

mikeyM1000

Posts : 231
Join date : 2012-08-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by noleisthebest on Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:44 pm

mikeyM1000 wrote:I'm not sure psychologists or philosophers can even agree if talent exists, let alone it's definition - so in that sense, it is murky.

Maybe if you gave them a tennis racquet each and told them to hit a SBHDTL, they would understand it.
Or try to compose a piece of music that will be enjoyed hundreds of years after they die....

noleisthebest

Posts : 27759
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by mikeyM1000 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:45 pm

I'm not sure tennis players or musicians would even all agree if talent exists smiley

mikeyM1000

Posts : 231
Join date : 2012-08-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by noleisthebest on Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:48 pm

Of course they do.
Everyone on the locker-room knows who the Daddy is. Only people on forums with two left legs don't.

noleisthebest

Posts : 27759
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by DEC1M8 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:50 pm

luvsports! wrote:
Evidence wise yes it cannot be backed up. But for me evidence (ie. stats) doesn't translate to a murky term such as "talent".
No like Tenez again you're missing my point.
I'm not saying that Murray is more talented than Evans because of statistics.

I am saying this, (and I'm not repeating it anymore times I don't understand why people pretend I'm saying something else then argue against that):
-Murray and Evans both want to win matches at the moment and be successful.
-Murray's gamestyle at the moment is getting Murray success, considerably more than Evans.
-Thus it is logical to conclude that even if Murray did have the ability to play exactly the same attacking style as Evans, he would not take up that style as his current style would get him more success. Infact it may be the case that if Murray played exactly the same style and tactics as Evans he would be far more successful than Evans (although not as successful as he is now).

Therefore even if your assumptions are correct (that a certain style of play is talent and others aren't- this itself is questionable but I'm not arguing against that in this specific thread), even if that assumption is correct your point simply does not stand up to logic and reason.


Does that make sense?


Last edited by Julia Santamaria on Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:59 pm; edited 1 time in total

DEC1M8

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by mikeyM1000 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:52 pm

I can see a philosophical debate on the existence of talent isn't on the cards here smiley

mikeyM1000

Posts : 231
Join date : 2012-08-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by noleisthebest on Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:54 pm

No, it's not.
But you can have a debate on why it's not.

noleisthebest

Posts : 27759
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by DEC1M8 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:58 pm

luvsports! wrote:Amri won't agree, we don't on much Winking, but to be consistent with his argument, he has to maintain that Murray is more talented than a much lower ranked player.
No, no, no.
In which way do I have to maintain this to be consistent with my argument.
I can't understand whether this is a huge prank for everyone to simultaneously pretend they can't understand what I'm saying and make up arguments to argue against as they go along, or not.

Edit: I've now put my post explaining my point with clarity in red, just in case Tenez misinterprets my point for the 200th time, in which case I can say 'look at the red bit.'

DEC1M8

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by Daniel on Fri Jan 10, 2014 7:10 pm

mikeyM1000 wrote:I can see a philosophical debate on the existence of talent isn't on the cards here smiley

That's because it is a scientific fact that people are born differently and that genetics plays a massive part of who you are.  Usain Bolt got long legs, some kids are smarter than others with the same education and social factors, and some players are more talented than others.  It's the way it is.

Daniel

Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented Empty Re: A response to luvsports- why we should proceed with caution before heralding a far less successful player more talented

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum