Davis Cup 2016: Semi-Final

Well I did not see that coming...Leoandro Mayer elevated his game to a level I never thought he could especially after watching him in the doubles yesterday.there were glimpses of brilliance but nowhere near what we saw today
if del potro is fit enough for the final and mayer plays the way he did today,the croats wont stand much of a chance in the final

Fantastic win for Argentina.

What a cool head and way to serve the matchnout for Mayer, he went for both his serves! respect for corazon!

So happy for Delpo, his win over Murray made this result possible.

All in all, a great DC SF, Murray did really well, but Argentina had better quality in their 2nd player.

GAUCHOS ALL THE WAY NOW!!!

legendkillar wrote:Evans just buckling under the weight of expectation. A trait that runs like a yellow streak through British sport. Unless of course you ride a bike!

Frankly you can say that of every Nation....bar the Germans maybe.

Embarassing to hear LM.

legendkillar wrote:Evans just buckling under the weight of expectation. A trait that runs like a yellow streak through British sport. Unless of course you ride a bike!

so true unfortunately!! us brits have the reputation as a nation of bottlers when under immense pressure
especially when it come to the england football team

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Evans just buckling under the weight of expectation. A trait that runs like a yellow streak through British sport. Unless of course you ride a bike!

Frankly you can say that of every Nation....bar the Germans maybe.

Keep the ashes for your nation.

We Serbs don't bow to anyone.
Turks, NATO, nobody!

Plus we beat you in 2010 DC final after being 0:2 down.

luvsports! wrote:https://twitter.com/DavisCup/status/777546746213732352

Yes, he's had one of two great moments, unfortunately heavily outweighed by the "other" ones.

My favourites were the "Ferrari" and "John" ones.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Evans just buckling under the weight of expectation. A trait that runs like a yellow streak through British sport. Unless of course you ride a bike!

Frankly you can say that of every Nation....bar the Germans maybe.

Keep the ashes for your nation.

We Serbs don't bow to anyone.
Turks, NATO, nobody!

Plus we beat you in 2010 DC final after being 0:2 down.

Plus, we'd never stoop so low and go to bed with Germans.

But, I am the old dying breed, I know...

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Evans just buckling under the weight of expectation. A trait that runs like a yellow streak through British sport. Unless of course you ride a bike!

so true unfortunately!! us brits have the reputation as a nation of bottlers when under immense pressure
especially when it come to the england football team

In every sport. Golf, tennis, football, cricket. When it's on the line, we just don't have the balls to take the game by the balls! I blame the schools and government. Absolutely brainwashed the youngsters with "it's the taking part that matters" which has now stunted ambition and now we are a nation of dossers! 

Never forget the time I was coaching an under 8's football team. Played a match against another under 8's team. By half time my team were 12-0 up. Referee comes up to me and says "we are resetting the score for the second half so we start 0-0" 

I quit after the game.

Yes, it's the "fruit" of feminism.

Beware of societies where women wear short hair and trousers.

This is the first time I've properly watched Evans and I am  not impressed at all. He's another gutless defender. Mayer made him look so stupid on so many points taking the game to him.  I'm afraid Evans isn't Slam material. No chance. It's even worse now that players have started to play even more aggressively to beat the baseliners. Evans simply isn't a hitter.

Nobody has ever said he is slam material. 
But he's around the top 50. He had MPs vs Stan in US remember.

I've no idea how he did that.  Stan must have been drunk.

legendkillar wrote:

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Evans just buckling under the weight of expectation. A trait that runs like a yellow streak through British sport. Unless of course you ride a bike!

so true unfortunately!! us brits have the reputation as a nation of bottlers when under immense pressure
especially when it come to the england football team

In every sport. Golf, tennis, football, cricket. When it's on the line, we just don't have the balls to take the game by the balls! I blame the schools and government. Absolutely brainwashed the youngsters with "it's the taking part that matters" which has now stunted ambition and now we are a nation of dossers! 

Never forget the time I was coaching an under 8's football team. Played a match against another under 8's team. By half time my team were 12-0 up. Referee comes up to me and says "we are resetting the score for the second half so we start 0-0" 

I quit after the game.

I think part of the problem is also cultural,a lot of british kids lack discipline and haven't got much inspire them.problem starts at home
too many chavs,the dole system takes peoples initiative to want to become something  or do something with their life..the class system is also to blame for keeping the working class in tact,its hard to break out of that even in sport
but on the plus side,its a lot better then  it used to be,there has been a lot of great sporting success in the last decade or so

Daniel wrote:This is the first time I've properly watched Evans and I am  not impressed at all. He's another gutless defender. Mayer made him look so stupid on so many points taking the game to him.  I'm afraid Evans isn't Slam material. No chance. It's even worse now that players have started to play even more aggressively to beat the baseliners. Evans simply isn't a hitter.

it was a very poor match from him,i have seen him play far better then that

I think that he just couldn't cope with the pressure and magnitude of the match

legendkillar wrote:

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Evans just buckling under the weight of expectation. A trait that runs like a yellow streak through British sport. Unless of course you ride a bike!

so true unfortunately!! us brits have the reputation as a nation of bottlers when under immense pressure
especially when it come to the england football team

In every sport. Golf, tennis, football, cricket. When it's on the line, we just don't have the balls to take the game by the balls! I blame the schools and government. Absolutely brainwashed the youngsters with "it's the taking part that matters" which has now stunted ambition and now we are a nation of dossers! 

Never forget the time I was coaching an under 8's football team. Played a match against another under 8's team. By half time my team were 12-0 up. Referee comes up to me and says "we are resetting the score for the second half so we start 0-0" 

I quit after the game.

Not true of cricket or rugby.  We've had massive success there in the last decade or so. But pretty much every other sport has been one gutless performance after another.  I agree with you that this is a symptom of our shitty liberal left establishment pussifying the nation.  But, also, the working class folks - like me - simply cannot afford the life that Murray had.  I lived on a council estate. My mother struggled to put food on the table; paying for expensive coaches or allowing me to jet off to Spain for a tennis career was never gonna happen. Until the government has a REAL system in place that allows everyone a chance of being great, we'll continue to suffer these middle class pussies. Tennis is too cliquey and too expensive. And it's by design. Even at my local club me and my cousin are seen as the outsiders because we aren't turning up in BMWs and with expensive racquets. There's a snobbery there and you can feel it all the time.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Evans just buckling under the weight of expectation. A trait that runs like a yellow streak through British sport. Unless of course you ride a bike!

Frankly you can say that of every Nation....bar the Germans maybe.

Keep the ashes for your nation.

We Serbs don't bow to anyone.
Turks, NATO, nobody!

Plus we beat you in 2010 DC final after being 0:2 down.

We have got 10 DCs ....or so. You can have one.

You are too tiny a country to have interested the great nations.

Daniel wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Evans just buckling under the weight of expectation. A trait that runs like a yellow streak through British sport. Unless of course you ride a bike!

so true unfortunately!! us brits have the reputation as a nation of bottlers when under immense pressure
especially when it come to the england football team

In every sport. Golf, tennis, football, cricket. When it's on the line, we just don't have the balls to take the game by the balls! I blame the schools and government. Absolutely brainwashed the youngsters with "it's the taking part that matters" which has now stunted ambition and now we are a nation of dossers! 

Never forget the time I was coaching an under 8's football team. Played a match against another under 8's team. By half time my team were 12-0 up. Referee comes up to me and says "we are resetting the score for the second half so we start 0-0" 

I quit after the game.

Not true of cricket or rugby.  We've had massive success there in the last decade or so. But pretty much every other sport has been one gutless performance after another.  I agree with you that this is a symptom of our shitty liberal left establishment pussifying the nation.  But, also, the working class folks - like me - simply cannot afford the life that Murray had.  I lived on a council estate. My mother struggled to put food on the table; paying for expensive coaches or allowing me to jet off to Spain for a tennis career was never gonna happen. Until the government has a REAL system in place that allows everyone a chance of being great, we'll continue to suffer these middle class pussies. Tennis is too cliquey and too expensive. And it's by design. Even at my local club me and my cousin are seen as the outsiders because we aren't turning up in BMWs and with expensive racquets. There's a snobbery there and you can feel it all the time.

Yes they had success, however on the cricket side they always had teams capable of achieving success. Atherton with the team he had should've achieved more. They had a solid batting line up, granted not the depth in quality in the bowling department like they do now, but still they should've done more.

The rugby success again, they had a decent team in the early 90's. The Underwoods, Andrew, Leonard. They had another good team. Like cricket, our success in those fields have come when the opposition has tailed off. Woodward did wonders with a different coaching method. They should've continued with it after he left.

The Murray point. His Mum sold her house IIRC to put Andy through that academy in Spain. As much as people dislike the guy, let's not kid ourselves that it was the silver spoon treatment that got him where he was. Not sure many people would have the balls to put it all on the line banking on their son's success in the future.

I see where you are coming from with the classes argument, however I would disagree as any retard can get into university nowadays, waste government money doing naff all and a degree that contributes nothing to society. I agree there should be equal opportunity for all, but at the same time it should be open to those with the same ability. Sadly we live in an age now where mediocrity is now widely accepted and the norm.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Evans just buckling under the weight of expectation. A trait that runs like a yellow streak through British sport. Unless of course you ride a bike!

Frankly you can say that of every Nation....bar the Germans maybe.

Keep the ashes for your nation.

We Serbs don't bow to anyone.
Turks, NATO, nobody!

Plus we beat you in 2010 DC final after being 0:2 down.

We have got 10 DCs ....or so. You can have one.

You are too tiny a country to have interested the great nations.

Yet, big enough to rattle you to inject your perfumed poison into our simple stench.

legendkillar wrote:Never forget the time I was coaching an under 8's football team. Played a match against another under 8's team. By half time my team were 12-0 up. Referee comes up to me and says "we are resetting the score for the second half so we start 0-0" 

Yes they had success, however on the cricket side they always had teams capable of achieving success. Atherton with the team he had should've achieved more. They had a solid batting line up, granted not the depth in quality in the bowling department like they do now, but still they should've done more.

The rugby success again, they had a decent team in the early 90's. The Underwoods, Andrew, Leonard. They had another good team. Like cricket, our success in those fields have come when the opposition has tailed off. Woodward did wonders with a different coaching method. They should've continued with it after he left.

The Murray point. His Mum sold her house IIRC to put Andy through that academy in Spain. As much as people dislike the guy, let's not kid ourselves that it was the silver spoon treatment that got him where he was. Not sure many people would have the balls to put it all on the line banking on their son's success in the future.

I see where you are coming from with the classes argument, however I would disagree as any retard can get into university nowadays, waste government money doing naff all and a degree that contributes nothing to society. I agree there should be equal opportunity for all, but at the same time it should be open to those with the same ability. Sadly we live in an age now where mediocrity is now widely accepted and the norm.

Again, people fall for empty words politicians so readily feed through media.

Why would this capitalistic government want a well rounded, healthy individual?

Isn't it much "better", "profitable" for it to have young people enslaved by getting them into debt studying for those meaningless degrees, than to be on the dole?

Regarding cricket and rugby, those sports are not played and are popular widely, so much less global interest and competition, hence better results.

Same as with all those tens of DC trophies earnt in the days when competition was smaller,  only founding countries (Uk, Us, France and Australia) took part more or less.

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Never forget the time I was coaching an under 8's football team. Played a match against another under 8's team. By half time my team were 12-0 up. Referee comes up to me and says "we are resetting the score for the second half so we start 0-0" 

Yes they had success, however on the cricket side they always had teams capable of achieving success. Atherton with the team he had should've achieved more. They had a solid batting line up, granted not the depth in quality in the bowling department like they do now, but still they should've done more.

The rugby success again, they had a decent team in the early 90's. The Underwoods, Andrew, Leonard. They had another good team. Like cricket, our success in those fields have come when the opposition has tailed off. Woodward did wonders with a different coaching method. They should've continued with it after he left.

The Murray point. His Mum sold her house IIRC to put Andy through that academy in Spain. As much as people dislike the guy, let's not kid ourselves that it was the silver spoon treatment that got him where he was. Not sure many people would have the balls to put it all on the line banking on their son's success in the future.

I see where you are coming from with the classes argument, however I would disagree as any retard can get into university nowadays, waste government money doing naff all and a degree that contributes nothing to society. I agree there should be equal opportunity for all, but at the same time it should be open to those with the same ability. Sadly we live in an age now where mediocrity is now widely accepted and the norm.

Again, people fall for empty words politicians so readily feed through media.

Why would this capitalistic government want a well rounded, healthy individual?

Isn't it much "better", "profitable" for it to have young people enslaved by getting them into debt studying for those meaningless degrees, than to be on the dole?

Regarding cricket and rugby, those sports are not played and are popular widely, so much less global interest and competition, hence better results.

Same as with all those tens of DC trophies earnt in the days when competition was smaller,  only founding countries (Uk, Us, France and Australia) took part more or less.

Not necessarily. You can go to uni, rack up a £20K debt and provided your income falls below £21K pa, result. A debt remains unpaid and sits on the books. They are never getting that money back. Hence why a lot of students end up working in supermarkets. Not the wisdom to take the species forward.

The country doesn't need healthy people. Hence why I find it astonishing they advocate healthy living. Let them eat, drink, smoke themselves to death. Saves them drawing a pension. Less of a burden to society. I know that piece sounds cold, however people are living much longer and multiplying like no tomorrow. The average life expectancy in 130 years has shot up by more than double. As a government I would imagine they are sitting there thinking crap we have no money to support the wellbeing of all these people. I don't support that this view, however I think it is a stark representation of where we are. Media are a necessary evil. A comfort blanket that prevents a degree of total chaos. Imagine if we turned around one day, cards on the table, we need to reduce our numbers.

We need wars. It's a culling event. Does sound so easy for me to say that having personally never been affected by them, however the reality of our situation is quite horrifying. We as a species have grown out of the control and we are ignoring the white elephant in the room. There are too many of us.

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Never forget the time I was coaching an under 8's football team. Played a match against another under 8's team. By half time my team were 12-0 up. Referee comes up to me and says "we are resetting the score for the second half so we start 0-0" 

Yes they had success, however on the cricket side they always had teams capable of achieving success. Atherton with the team he had should've achieved more. They had a solid batting line up, granted not the depth in quality in the bowling department like they do now, but still they should've done more.

The rugby success again, they had a decent team in the early 90's. The Underwoods, Andrew, Leonard. They had another good team. Like cricket, our success in those fields have come when the opposition has tailed off. Woodward did wonders with a different coaching method. They should've continued with it after he left.

The Murray point. His Mum sold her house IIRC to put Andy through that academy in Spain. As much as people dislike the guy, let's not kid ourselves that it was the silver spoon treatment that got him where he was. Not sure many people would have the balls to put it all on the line banking on their son's success in the future.

I see where you are coming from with the classes argument, however I would disagree as any retard can get into university nowadays, waste government money doing naff all and a degree that contributes nothing to society. I agree there should be equal opportunity for all, but at the same time it should be open to those with the same ability. Sadly we live in an age now where mediocrity is now widely accepted and the norm.

Again, people fall for empty words politicians so readily feed through media.

Why would this capitalistic government want a well rounded, healthy individual?

Isn't it much "better", "profitable" for it to have young people enslaved by getting them into debt studying for those meaningless degrees, than to be on the dole?

Regarding cricket and rugby, those sports are not played and are popular widely, so much less global interest and competition, hence better results.

Same as with all those tens of DC trophies earnt in the days when competition was smaller,  only founding countries (Uk, Us, France and Australia) took part more or less.

Have to pick up on the cricket comment.
It is the second highest viewed sport in the world. Sure it doesn't hit as many countries but more people play cricket than tennis.

Yes they had success, however on the cricket side they always had teams capable of achieving success. Atherton with the team he had should've achieved more. They had a solid batting line up, granted not the depth in quality in the bowling department like they do now, but still they should've done more.

The rugby success again, they had a decent team in the early 90's. The Underwoods, Andrew, Leonard. They had another good team. Like cricket, our success in those fields have come when the opposition has tailed off. Woodward did wonders with a different coaching method. They should've continued with it after he left.

The Murray point. His Mum sold her house IIRC to put Andy through that academy in Spain. As much as people dislike the guy, let's not kid ourselves that it was the silver spoon treatment that got him where he was. Not sure many people would have the balls to put it all on the line banking on their son's success in the future.

I see where you are coming from with the classes argument, however I would disagree as any retard can get into university nowadays, waste government money doing naff all and a degree that contributes nothing to society. I agree there should be equal opportunity for all, but at the same time it should be open to those with the same ability. Sadly we live in an age now where mediocrity is now widely accepted and the norm.

Working class people generally don't own a house. Nobody I knew growing up did. So straight away your argument has jumped 5 fences. And moving to spain and paying for all those coaches - where did the money for that come from?  I'm not saying Murray was mega rich, but you are dreaming if you think that his life is achievable for the vast number of people. It simply isn't. The vast number of people have parents that can't even afford to pay a tennis club, let alone pay for coaches or move abroad. And both brothers became tennis players. He clearly had a privileged upbringing compared to most - and I'm aware people want to push this low-income hero story on us about Murray, but it isn't true.

Going to university isn't the same thing by a long chalk. You can get funded for it (but pay it back later) - and it still isn't close to the money you would need to do what Andy Murray did. Try going to the government or a bank asking for a loan for tennis when you're average income is less than 15000 a year.  Not gonna happen.

why should a talented athlete like murray for instance have to go abroad to get the best training??
we have some of the best the facilities some other countries can only dream of,we host the best tennis tournament in the world,the u.k is the 4th largest economy in the world,so why does the u.k not have a world class tennis academy thats producing world class tennis players who are dominating the sport?
why arent all the talented players around the world queuing up to come and get their training here?
just look at ana ivanovic ,apparently she was using a swimming pool to train in!!
why isnt this country producing better payers? its probably fair to say that if murray had stayed in the u.k and got his training here rather then in spain that he most likely would have been just be another dan evans
its the same argument with the football,premier league is probably the best league in the world and most definitely the richest but the england football team are mediocre at best

Murray talented? Compared to who? Not more talented than his brother according to what Murray says and what we saw this weekend. All those players are talented....but few are talented enough to pull winners at will. And Murray ain't one of them.

theres a saying that goes- hard work beats talent...but i think thats just what people who have no talent tell themselves so that they can believe that they actually have a shot at something
there is no way that an athlete who has no talent can win 3 majors,make 10 grand slam finals and win 2 olympic gold medals on hard work alone
because how can an athlete who has no talent beat other talented players who work just as hard if not more? 
murray must have some talent to be able to be a professional athlete and be able to carve a career out for himself in such an incredibly competitive world of sport 
obviously he is nowhere near as talented at roger federer so how much talent he has is debatable 
i was only using murray as an example as he has been the most successful british player in the open era and arguably in my opinion the most talented 
my question applies to anyone who has enough talent to be able to be a world class tennis player

I don't think you are asking the right question:

"How can an athlete who has no talent beat other talented players who work just as hard if not more? "

As mentioned, no one says "no talent". Secondly, it's not all about work. As you know too well. It;s very much nowadays about "diet".

Finally and more importantly, those physical players base their game in destroying their opponent talent as talent quickly fades with at the match extends.

If you play tennis, you will know that after one or 2 25 shot rallies, your arm loses a lot of its accuracy. In other word, the fine art (read talent) is strongly affected by those long rallies.

That's why Murray, Nadal and Djoko are so consistent cause very talented players can end up winning in those long exhausting slam matches.

When Murray says that his brother was more talented than him, I am pretty sure he means it.

my intention was never to compare murrays talent to anyone but only to use it as an example to ask a question
i also never said that its all hard work of course there several factors comes into play but in my opinion hard work in anything you do in life still plays a very big part in success even if youre doping cause doping does not guarantee winning
ask anyone who uses steriods...
what will happen if you take the drugs and sit on your ass and do nothing?
zero results...
the results on the drugs depends on how hard you work it,the harder you work the bigger the improvement 
i never argued that murrays brothers was less or more talented...all i said was that murray was talented 
he is obviously talented enough to be a pro athlete with some results many would rave about 
everyone has different talents but a talented ballet dancer does not have the physique or talent to be a pro tennis player and visa versa..
so therefore a ballet dancer has no talent to be a tennis player

The very definition of talent is to make what's difficult look easy.

Those physical players's job is to make tennis look even more difficult in order to squeeze talent out of the game.

They are professionals trying to earn a maximum before retiring. There is nothing loose in their games.

All top 1000 players have talent. They are also all fit. But that doesn't give us much clue, does it?

Tenez wrote:The very definition of talent is to make what's difficult look easy.

Those physical players's job is to make tennis look even more difficult in order to squeeze talent out of the game.

They are professionals trying to earn a maximum before retiring. There is nothing loose in their games.

All top 1000 players have talent. They are also all fit. But that doesn't give us much clue, does it?

so i dont understand why you asked if murray has talent?
in my opinion talent = the potential or ability to do or become something,in some cases where the talent is so extreme,that person is able to make difficult look easy 
because the world we live in today is so competitive and almost everyone wants to be the best at whatever they are doing or have the most success,you pretty much have to have the talent first,its your foot in the door because hard work with  no talent wont amount to much
talent is only the beginning,the rest is hard work dedication,discipline passion etc 
unlike talented singers who can mostly automatically sing without ever having had a single days vocal training,in professions that are physical and where your body is your instrument,you have to train,get the training and coaching and work every day to build or maintain a technique which enables to help you perfect your craft 
of course all top 1000 players have talent which is why they are where they are today,they would otherwise stand no chance if their talent in life lied elsewhere so to me it makes no sense why you would question murrays talent
as much as we hate the guy,he clearly has enough of it to have gotten where he is today 
his mother saw the natural potential in him which is why her and her family made the sacrifice to send him off to spain so that he can realise his full potential  
and this is my main argument
why should sacrifices like that have to be made when  talent can easily be developed and realised right here 
why isnt the training here good enough to develop world class players?

Because when we talk about professional tennis players we talk in relative terms. I would not say
Gasquet is a physical player even though I am pretty sure it's very physical to play with him.

Murray has big arms and muscles the ball. The big sweet spot on his racquet thanks to his big arms doesn't quite allow us to measure his talent, especially as he pushes the ball and plays with big margins. Hs big legs are not natural so we cannot say he moves well naturally either....and talent is an "inate ability".

Hence my questioning why qusalify him as a talented player cause that is not what distinguishes him from the other really talented players who can do as much with less. Though the problem is noawdays talent doesn't reward players much.

i think the fact that someone like lendl  and others would want to coach him leads me to believe that they see enough potential there to work with
when you look at the impact PED's and racket technology has on the game or how much it has changed it
its fair to ask if any of these players would still be the same player if we took that out of the equation or how much they rely on external factors rather then innate talent which then questions how much talent there is to begin with 
but all i am saying is that i dont believe that we live in a world where anyone can become anything they want to be,i believe that if you dont have some talent to work with then chances are youll get nowhere cause in my opinion its really no different then telling someone who is completely tone deaf and who cant sing a note in tune that if they worked hard that they could become the next katherine jenkins or to tell someone with the iq of a plant that they could become a rocket scientist  
obviously the subject of natural talent and what it takes to win matches are different arguments, a lot more goes into winning matches then just having the talent and working hard,so much of the game now is also about mental strength and fitness.this cant be more apparent when you look at someone like gasquet..all the talent in the world but looks completely mediocre and out of depth with the way the game is played today
which creates another debate..is natural power or athleticism now what you would consider natural talent to be a pro tennis player 
it used to be that athletes with rare exceptional talents like federer for instance didnt have to work as hard but with how high the bar has been set by previous athletes and factors like drugs and racket technology that can help make up for athletes who are less talented short comings i.e nadal they wont see much reward or their name go down in the history books unless they work their potential to the max

But having Lendl as coach is not proof of talent. 

Nadal is the proof you can be entirely built to become a champion. He does not use his natural arm cause Tony knew he would cause more problem with his left arm. And Nadal for years was standing 5m behind the baseline with sole objective to inject enough spin to generate endless UEs.  

That is modern tennis! Cause that makes him very consistent. The most talented player ever by some margins ended up losing to him.....not because Nadal was more talented but by making sure the ball he was sending could not be timed with ease....especially after long and gruelling rallies. 

Talent is a very fragile factor.  Doesn't matter how much more talented birds are at flying than we are...we can now fly longer, higher and faster than them. 

People should use the term talent with caution.

youre right its not proof but it certainly proves that someone sees enough potential in him to work with 
talent only means natural potential or ability it doesnt guarantee anything 
you could be the most talented player in the world and still be the biggest loser

I think you're interpreting the meaning of "talent" far too rigidly. As much as I detest that kilt wearing spoiled jaw detacher and that "matador" fist pumping arrogant cunt, they DO have LOTS of talent. Of course they do. You do not win 14 slams and 3 slams without it. Let's just stop that delusion here and now. But it's relative. Relative to Borg, or Federer, or Sampras, they aren't in the same league. Attempting to put Murray or Nadal onto some sort of "talent" scale... is just doomed to failure.