What would everyone's top 10 tennis talent leaderboard be and why?

I find this hard to quantify really especially in an order so for me it will be a general top 10.

1) Federer
2) Dolgopolov
3) Goffin
4) Fognini
5) Wawrinka
6) Brown
7) Kohli
8) Nishi
9) Llodra
10) Mannarino

I find this a very difficult question in current era as there are several generations of players that have all learnt to play differently, esp players over 30: Stepanek, Haas, Llodra, Brown & Golubov (ok, they are younger but play old school tennis).
These players (with the exception of Haas) never learnt the base-line game so their groundstrokes are not as good as younger generation, but the game is - tons of flair and variation.

Federer somehow stands out as he was able to transcend eras.

With the younger generation, since they all seem to be pinned back on or behind the baseline, the only one to judge them on for me is how quick their hands are, so: Dolgopolov, Nishikori, Mannarino, Monfils, Fognini, even Berankis.

Then there is the group of players with easy power, which I don't know whether it's talent or simply ball-striking technique: Stan, Gulbis, Tomic, Gasquet on a good day...

None these players  rely on spinning the ball and physical tennis, and to me that's the measure of talent.

Good post.
Yes there is a lot to consider hence why i said that in the title. 
Could you do a top 10 for all those facets of the game?

He, he...not easy, maybe another one to Ask Tenez , but I'll try...

My favourite combination in a player is: quick hands, light feet, big heart.
Of the three, only quick hands, i.e. hand to eye coordination is what I think tennis talent is, you can't learn it.
Coordinated people are good at any sport and pick it up easily.

Those players love the ball and go for it: Dolgo is the ultimate case.
Not only do Federer and he take the ball aggressively and early, always with loose shoulders, they commit to it fully, hit it hard, too, almost all the time.

To me that is the ultimate way to play...it's just a flow. And to reproduce it over and over is a dream.

Mannarino and Fognini for example (and Goffin) are very creative but not as aggressive.
Nishi is learning it and is looking pretty good.
In current playing conditions, sadly, average (relatively speaking) players are able to return the ball and look better than they are because they have more time for the shot.

This is where players with good coordination but not so light feet suffer as they are manoeuvred and frustrated into UEs easily (Gulbis, Paire, Stan...)

And to add to this is the "other" type of ball-striking, because many are not aware there is a difference in Nadal's or Federer's FH.

To them they are both powerful, hence "great".

Nadal's FH requires zero talent, Federer's FH is all talent. Nadal's FH only attacks when it's safe, when the opponent is worn out by having to return a number of his low risk mid-court shots charged with power-spin.
One look at Nadal's bicep says all about his talent.
I see people in my club do it. It's not hard at all. The only difference is they can't last long in that mode.

Federer's FH is all in the timing and confidence in his ability: he hits it on the rise, hard and goes for the lines pretty much straight away.
Doesn't need to pump the ball with his skinny arm, he uses the opponent's power while the ball is alive and not dying in descent.

There is nothing sweeter than hitting the ball flat and cleanly, that's particularly obvious on the serve. Mannarino's one is very special in that way, almost quiet on contact point.
The guy doesn't even wear sweatbands.

But flat-hitting is becoming "useless" as a whole new generation of players has arrived, all taught to play with a DBH, able to control the ball with spin and keep it in play, executing low percentage tennis and earning their paycheque.

With it come: sweat, grunting, muscling, repetition, and all the rest that is needed to maintain the physicality.

It's very difficult to gauge cause talent is one thing but talent under pressure is a very different matter. If you look at the history of tennis, those who collected most slams (10 plus) were the solid players, more than the talented ones....except for Federer! There were player more talented than Pete but few coudl give hold their own when they had to come up with an important second serve.

Instead of comong up with a list I'll comment those I see.

luvsports! wrote:I find this hard to quantify really especially in an order so for me it will be a general top 10.

1) Federer - quite obvious .
2) Dolgopolov - He woudl not be in my top 10 let alone top 5. He can hit great shots ...but enough to win an ATP500? yet to be seen
3) Goffin - He certainly has talent. top 10.
4) Fognini - top 20.
5) Wawrinka - top 10 but not top 5.
6) Brown - creative and athletic but talented? Too much waste like Dolgo.
7) Kohli - Yes a talented player but probably lacks mobility.
8) Nishi - Top 5 with those extra muscles.
9) Llodra - Top 5 for me and I woudl put Stepanek in the top 5 too.
10) Mannarino - have not seen enough of him.

noleisthebest wrote:I find this a very difficult question in current era as there are several generations of players that have all learnt to play differently, esp players over 30: Stepanek, Haas, Llodra, Brown & Golubov (ok, they are younger but play old school tennis).
These players (with the exception of Haas) never learnt the base-line game so their groundstrokes are not as good as younger generation, but the game is - tons of flair and variation.

Federer somehow stands out as he was able to transcend eras.

With the younger generation, since they all seem to be pinned back on or behind the baseline, the only one to judge them on for me is how quick their hands are, so: Dolgopolov, Nishikori, Mannarino, Monfils, Fognini, even Berankis.

Then there is the group of players with easy power, which I don't know whether it's talent or simply ball-striking technique: Stan, Gulbis, Tomic, Gasquet on a good day...

None these players  rely on spinning the ball and physical tennis, and to me that's the measure of talent.

Golu is certainly extremely talented but he needs to work on his head.

Gasquet has talent but no guts. Had he made th effort to take the ball closer years ago he woudl have got a deadly timing cause I do think he has talent but his standing 3m behind the baseline, simply makes him a bit useless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8jdyeoPKuk&feature=share 

Well bugger me with a fish fork dimi!

luvsports! wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8jdyeoPKuk&feature=share 

Well bugger me with a fish fork dimi!

That clip really made me smile

One thing to note though, as we are on a thread about talent- but from my list of different aspects under talent the ones Dimitrov struggles with the most I think are reproducibility of shots and and mental strength.

I um and arr (is that how you write um and arr about something? ) about mental strength being a talent 2bh for a variety of factors.

luvsports! wrote:I um and arr (is that how you write um and arr about something? ) about mental strength being a talent 2bh for a variety of factors.

Yes that's fair enough, I suppose many people could quite reasonably have mental talent and tennis talent kept separate.

For me the mental aspects is so interlinked with the play on the court itself, I see it as part of tennis talent.

What is mental talent?

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

luvsports! wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8jdyeoPKuk&feature=share 

Well bugger me with a fish fork dimi!

That clip really made me smile

One thing to note though, as we are on a thread about talent- but from my list of different aspects under talent the ones Dimitrov struggles with the most I think are reproducibility of shots and and mental strength.

yes more non sense. Repeatabilty of shots when those shots are hit from 5m behind the baseline with tons of margins require no talent. In fact I have serious doubt you play tennis at all if you cannot understand this very basic principle.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

luvsports! wrote:I um and arr (is that how you write um and arr about something? ) about mental strength being a talent 2bh for a variety of factors.

Yes that's fair enough, I suppose many people could quite reasonably have mental talent and tennis talent kept separate.

For me the mental aspects is so interlinked with the play on the court itself, I see it as part of tennis talent.

It's clear you are again mixing things up altogether. Nadal is resilient, doesn't give up, tenacious, focused but he is not mentally tough, nor courageous. To do that he'd need to play risky shots when it matters and we know he is the least likely to do so as you say it yourself he chooses to defend and wait for his opponent to miss. Somone courageous and mentally strong is someone who takes his destiny in his hands. And more so doing it with very thin margins.

At the end of the day we all know you like Nadal for his look and his iconic image and you try to paint him as a hero when frankly is game is all about muscles and lungs. Once again you idolise your man failing to see what makes him successful....or rather romanticizing his defending skills.

Tenez wrote:Nadal is resilient, doesn't give up, tenacious, focused but he is not mentally tough

Reproducibility of shots is absolutely an important factor. What choice a player makes in terms of shot to play is his choice- and how effective his game will be is based on those choices- but being able to execute a particular shot more times than not is very important. I saw a clip of Gonzalez's top 10 massive forehands- and they were unreal- but he can't produce them consistently which was his problem.

Amri. In regards to djoko beating rafa 6 times in a row in '11.
There it seemed Nadal seemed mentally weak, especially in the wimbledon final as he could not come up with an answer to the now super fit Djoko.
His go to tactics weren't working. All of a sudden the mental giant people saw was found wanting. Yet he now seems to have the edge on djoko in slams again. Talent should stay the same imo. Here is an example where mental strength fluctuated. Is that a talent, something innate?

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Reproducibility of shots is absolutely an important factor. What choice a player makes in terms of shot to play is his choice- and how effective his game will be is based on those choices- but being able to execute a particular shot more times than not is very important. I saw a clip of Gonzalez's top 10 massive forehands- and they were unreal- but he can't produce them consistently which was his problem.

Wrong. It's what his talent allows him to choose.
Nadal couldn't choose to hit a SBHDTL winner under pressure if he wanted to choose it with all his "mental talent".
He himself rues the fact he can't take the ball early, he mentioned it after his match against Nishi in AO.

I don't know why it's so hard for you to accept it.

luvsports! wrote:Amri. In regards to djoko beating rafa 6 times in a row in '11.
There it seemed Nadal seemed mentally weak, especially in the wimbledon final as he could not come up with an answer to the now super fit Djoko.
His go to tactics weren't working. All of a sudden the mental giant people saw was found wanting. Yet he now seems to have the edge on djoko in slams again. Talent should stay the same imo. Here is an example where mental strength fluctuated. Is that a talent, something innate?

No because part of mental strength is having tough losses, even ones which are heartbreaking and leave you gutted... but to still come back against that player with a determination that you will find a way and not give up.
He lost in 2011 to Djokovic as his tactics weren't right- he was not hitting enough forehands DTLs as a proportion and he needed to hit his backhand with a bit more bite.

noleisthebest wrote:Wrong. It's what his talent allows him to choose.

Well in that case Nadal chose the path which leads him to having the best match win average out of all players.

That's not really addressing the point.
For example Rafa would try to out rally Novak and when he couldn't he went for too much and made very uncharacteristic errors. This made him more agitated, making more errors, remonstrating with the umpire (most noticeably at the US) and looking bewildered. His game was being made to look obsolete. 
You watch that 4th set. Nadal is dead on his feet, I had never seen that happen in a 4th set with rafa. When he could not rely on his body he was mauled 6-1, just like djoko was in last year's US final. 
Nadal did not have that physical edge. He lost his "mental" superiority as his physicality failed him for once. This was not the mental giant we had become accustomed to. He did not have a solution then as he does now, to an extent. 

One year he was mentally strong, the next he wasn't against one player. That is not innate talent surely.

luvsports! wrote:
One year he was mentally strong, the next he wasn't against one player. That is not innate talent surely.

I don't see his struggles against Djokovic as mental; he tactically struggled against Djokovic I'd say.
US Open he was outplayed in the 4th set- but the third set of that match was probably one of these best sets he's every played in his career (perhaps that took a lot out of him?) Either way full credit to Djoko, he played probably the highest level I've seen from him in that match.

This is one of the best points Nadal has played, in that match when he was on the verge of losing- Djokovic serving for the match in the 3rd set:

Agree to disagree as usual then

No worries LS

On a more broader topic; obviously people see a few different aspects under mental strength.
The first one is what most people will recognise when they think mental strength... the ability to play your best tennis (i.e. the tennis which gives you the best chance of winning the point) in the critical moments.
What people don't appreciate as much is mental intensity and focus, unwavering throughout the match and not having mental dips (as Djokovic for example does sometimes).

However for me there's another undervalued aspect, and it's probably the most important reason as to why I like Nadal. Now obviously most players who want to win have big emotions and passion about winning the most important points... the match points or tiebreaks etc. (They may celebrate it to show the emotion or they may not... either way they can have the passion and will to win that point.) But let's say you're in this position: let's say you're 2 sets to 1 down and a break down in a BO5, or a set and a break down in a BO3. And then you're facing break point, on the verge of going a double break.
For me the idea of playing that point with the same emotion as a match point, with the unrelenting will to win expressing itself there too when most people watching are just thinking it's a case of how much you're going to lose by rather than how much... that for me is a mental strength I really value.

Tenez I only just saw your list in response to mine. 
Very interesting. 

1) Federer - quite obvious .
2) Dolgopolov - He woudl not be in my top 10 let alone top 5. He can hit great shots ...but enough to win an ATP500? yet to be seen
3) Goffin - He certainly has talent. top 10. 
4) Fognini - top 20.
5) Wawrinka - top 10 but not top 5. 
6) Brown - creative and athletic but talented? Too much waste like Dolgo. 
7) Kohli - Yes a talented player but probably lacks mobility. 
8) Nishi - Top 5 with those extra muscles. 
9) Llodra - Top 5 for me and I woudl put Stepanek in the top 5 too. 
10) Mannarino - have not seen enough of him. 


Can you expand on any of these please?

I am in Atlanta's airport and this will help me kill time. In short, I would try to distinguish talent from playfulness and creativity. They are often linked but have not got to be. As I mentioned in another thread, some players may have willingly killed their creative and playfull style early cause they want to make a living and do not wish to be the entertainer who amuses the crowd at his own expense: Monfils being the perfect example.

To me talent is about doing something quite difficult consistently. In tennis, Taking the ball early, volleying or even serving powerfully and accurately and doing this with an ease factor. So in your list I see some "playfull" players, some very creative ones but it has to be doubled with consistency too. Otherwise it just means they are pushing their luck where others wouldn't. To me guys like Fognini have some talent but certainly not enough (and not enough consistency) to really belong to the "club".

Regarding Wawrinka, I think he also misses the consistency...and I don't mean over the 12 month period but within a match. He certainly has a very powerful arm and that helps him in his consistency but despite that he has not got the quick hands able to retrieve difficult balls and even less to do something hurting with it.

Llodra and Step are high on my list cause they have this talent to deliver consistently but the conds are certainly not helping them. They are also unlucky to belong to the last generation which learnt the game SVing.

Dolgo has a fantastic serve for his (5'10?) height. 
If he went on to have a good career with a few years in the top 10, would that impact your decision? He has incredible power off both wings, has got great touch, variety and hands.
Because consistency can change no? If someone like Tipsarevic was still in the top 10 from 2011-now would that change your view of him? 
James Blake. He was very talented imo, with a high risk game. Would you have said this if he had a Dolgo career? It just seems it fluctuates depending on the players success. Like if Ferrer had had that 2007 flash in the pan season, would you view him so highly talent wise?

luvsports! wrote:Dolgo has a fantastic serve for his (5'10?) height. 
If he went on to have a good career with a few years in the top 10, would that impact your decision?

Sure cause that would prove one thing: his great shots ave become more consistent.

He has incredible power off both wings, has got great touch, variety and hands.

Sure ...so why doesn't he win some decent tournaments? He is not particularly a choker so that means he simply lacks consistency.

Because consistency can change no? If someone like Tipsarevic was still in the top 10 from 2011-now would that change your view of him?

 
Not sure I considered Tips a talented player even at his peak. I do not see Nadal and Djoko as particularly talented yet they are very consistent.

James Blake. He was very talented imo, with a high risk game. Would you have said this if he had a Dolgo career? It just seems it fluctuates depending on the players success. Like if Ferrer had had that 2007 flash in the pan season, would you view him so highly talent wise?

Blake was very talented, helped by a very powerful, athletic body but I agree he was very consistent too......except when he mattered. Blake was a talented player but the lack of results are more down to his head than lack of consistency. He was very much a choker. Coria fits that category too.

Not the case of Dolgo imo.

So if Dolgo went on to do what Ferrer has done but sticking to DOlgo's style of play would that boost your estimation of him talent wise? 
If you switched the results round of the two, would you still say ferrer is more talented?
You see what I don't get is that it seems that you are boosting ferrer because of his consistency, so if he had had a career of say a mid 20's player you may not put him in the top 10 talent wise correct? Especially with his "smart" style of play.

Obvs you know more but it just doesn't seem to add up to me.

Blake wasn't that consistent. Best years ranked '06-'08, 4, 13, 10. 10 titles. 3 slam quarters, 2 tms finals and a wtf RU. That isn't that consistent. 
Would you rate Ferrer higher in terms of talent than Blake, I deffo wouldn't.

luvsports! wrote:So if Dolgo went on to do what Ferrer has done but sticking to DOlgo's style of play would that boost your estimation of him talent wise? 
If you switched the results round of the two, would you still say ferrer is more talented?
You see what I don't get is that it seems that you are boosting ferrer because of his consistency, so if he had had a career of say a mid 20's player you may not put him in the top 10 talent wise correct? Especially with his "smart" style of play.

But that's very important. You are simply disregarding what makes a player successful. Ferrer is successful cause he can hit a relatively risky ball consistently. If he were to miss slightly more often, he would never be a top 5 player.....like Dolgo. However he doesn;t. he beats all those guys cause he sends a crafty deep and angle ball....despite being quite short and not powerful. Only the physically more powerful players can beat him (Nadal, Murray and Djoko) and the most talented player ever. The rest he has their number!

Obvs you know more but it just doesn't seem to add up to me.

It's not about knowing more, it;s about observing and analysing....important if you want to be a sport journalist. Lyndian would tell you it is about knowledge...not me.

Blake wasn't that consistent. Best years ranked '06-'08, 4, 13, 10. 10 titles. 3 slam quarters, 2 tms finals and a wtf RU. That isn't that consistent. 
Would you rate Ferrer higher in terms of talent than Blake, I deffo wouldn't.

When I mean consistent, I mean consistent over a rally, a few matches. Not over their career.  That's very important to understand. Davydenko's career had lots of ups and down but when he had the "edge" his consistency during rallies was formidable. He was able to reproduce, well timed shots, razor sharp over the net and deep day in day out. Even if that period were to last just weeks or a couple of months that woudl be enough for me to call that "talented". Blake was extremely talented. But sure his fitness, like Ljubicic (in a different style) never allowed them to shine in slams.....plus as mentioned Blake choked often when it mattered. But once again one needs to distinguish talent from nerves.

Delgo is too much a hit and miss player for me...though I recognise he is quite talented I do not "feel" safe when I see him pull his shots. It's very simple. Fed plays a lot of risky shots and though I would expect many of those to go out or in the net, I surprisingly find out that they hit their targets. I had that same feeling with Davy and Blake for instance....even if it was just over a set or match. I never quite get that "safety" feeling when I see Dolgo. Probably cause he pushes his talent too much. If he were to be less showy but more consistent, he 'd probably jump the ranking (like Goffin is showing now). But until I can see he delivers that talent consistently, I am not seeing him as that talented.

Look at Dolgo's playing activity. I find it hard to believe a talented player (someone who can deliver hurting shots consistently) would get such poor results.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Alexandr-Dolgopolov.aspx?t=pa

I think part of Dolgo's consistency problem is in his medical condition, Gilbert's sydrome:

"Whenever I suffer from it, I need about a week or two to get treatment in the hospital. Nobody really knows how it affects a person. It is a relatively new condition which was discovered only about 30 to 40 years ago.”

I know about it but I am not sure it affects talent as much.

Talent needs tp be coupled with safety in shots which I do not see in Dolgo. Check Nalby, Medvedev, Coria, Davy...great powerful risky shots with consistency. they all achieved so much more than Dolgo just because of that consistency.

Shot-making consistency is definitely the toughest criteria for assessing someone's (amount) of talent.

With Dolgo and his condition, from what I have read he has reduced levels of energy, he once  aluded (after that famous match with Nole at USO 2011, when they played over 30 min long 1st set TB ) he can't last long, max 2 sets.
I think that is crucial in determining how he plays and why he hasn't had more success.
Not the talent which I think he has lot of.

He is the most aggressive player on tour (with the exception of the recent S&V edition of Fed).
He goes for the ball 100% every time, and either confidence in his talent or sheer stupidity are making him do it.

I often found it frustrating to watch him lose close matches, but his margins are so high, it's a miracle he wins anything.

So, with the levels of energy and the size of his body, no dope in it either, he plays the only way he can to win in these conditions. The most exciting player when in the zone. His every shot is like Russian roulette.

He cannot afford to be a businessman or "construct" points.

I saw him actually play a little slower this year and it looked so strange, not like "Dolgo". He won, of course.

In this match, he used all his variety to disturb Nole's rhythm and nearly succeeded (that was the "on fire" 2011 edition of Djokovic).
Again, he could only last two sets.

noleisthebest wrote:
I often found it frustrating to watch him lose close matches, but his margins are so high, it's a miracle he wins anything.

You mean "so small", don't you? Small margins = risky. 

But the slow conds help him reduce that risk factor. It was helping him beating Nadal in Miami as Nadal gives extra time too. How did Dolgo handled the pacier Federer? 3 and 1...not good. though to be fair it was very windy.

My only criticism of Dolgo is that he could play his FH flat more often, he'd make his life easier.
I think he has excellent hands, the only one to take Raonic's serve inside the baseline- and beat him.

His own serve... it left me breathless when I saw it in Boodles last summer.

Just saying Tenez, Dolgo has won a atp 500. A couple of years ago beating haas and losing in finals in to rafa on clay and ferrer in valencia.

luvsports! wrote:Just saying Tenez, Dolgo has won a atp 500. A couple of years ago beating haas and losing in finals in to rafa on clay and ferrer in valencia.

Sure he can have good periods...but do you feel his shots are safe? Like Davy's or Nalby's?

I just feel he is a great player to watch and can hit shots many others cannot.

luvsports! wrote:I just feel he is a great player to watch and can hit shots many others cannot.

Yes a creative player and loves his tennis....but he his shots were a bit more consistent, he would be top 5 if not top 3. yet he cannot produce that consistency so important in sorting the very talented from the flashy players.