Tweet
Here is an article from the Economist that hits an important note regarding the role of talent:
-
-
I could have been somebody...
Interesting...similar to the other 10,000 hour thread I recently posted. And yes if the naturals all nurture too then the Lendl's of this world have had it. Or have they?
Fortunately tennis isn't like that. Natural talent is only half the battle, much of the other half is in your head.
The strategic battle also plays a part. And player match-ups.
Federer may well be the most talented player ever to wield a racket but he cannot beat the lesser talented Nadal. The match up just isn't good for Federer, despite his genius.
That's the beauty of our game. Being more talented than others is no guarantee of anything, just a good start.
After looking at my belly button...I should have been a bloody swimmer!!!Last edited by stotty; 04-01-2014, 01:32 PM.Stotty -
I have 60,000 hours in the field as an electrician.
Here is a story about Williams electric on NBC: http://www.nbcbayarea.com/Federal-Pa...171406921.html
Here is a video done by nbc of Geoff Williams, Williams electric, that tells you how to tell if you have dangerous breakers or panels. By kntv, Tony Kovaleski investigative reports: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4jJv_j0UsY&feature=plcp Nbc video of Stab lok expert Master Electrician Geoff Williams (Me) explaining how to tell if you have the extremely dangerous stablok breakers. It’s just Geoff and his wife Ronda. Small business without illegal helpers or uncertified electricians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZZ3a64oaGk&feature=plcp NBC INTERVIEW.
HAPPENS WHEN A FEDERAL PACIFIC BREAKER LOCKS UP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG9m5kcwnV0 Federal Pacific pg&e panel onComment
-
Nature or nurture? I think the question about how greatness is developed is dangerous. It is dangerous because it causes us to commit two fallacies in our reasoning. One we can control our environment to the point that it is required to create genius. Two, we assume that a young child who excels in an area will always excel in that area. Both of these fallacies are harming to developing children.
I think the question we should ask is does this kid love what their doing?Comment
-
Love is not a requirement. Utter obsession is. Utter commitment is. A great mentor is. Great equipment is. Practice partners are. Access to competition is.Comment
-
I have done research & studied research in education. Percent of class time & total class time spent on academics can be important for students to achieve high scores on academic tests. However, there is a lot more to it than just "time spent." It matters so much the quality of instruction, the design of the curricula, the richness of the environment. With both a lot of "time spent," & a high quality environment, the students will achieve their high scores & also be excited about becoming ever smarter (-- similar to the love that don_budge talks about).
I could say the same thing about learning tennnis. For 2 kids who train in tennis for 10,000 hours, 1 kid might actually be taught many wrong things, while the other kid becomes the next Graf or Agassi. There is an important interaction between three factors -- (1) natural physical prowess, (2) time spent training & playing, and (3) quality of the tennis environment provided to the player.
Of course, it is hard to measure quality (1). Some people might say Lendl was gifted; some might say he was not gifted. Some people might say Nicole Vaidisova got the best tennis environment, but did not have the mental prowess required. I say Vaidisova worked hard & was dedicated, but had coaches who did not notice the extreme flaws in her game (so how was Nicole to improve, if coaches let her down so much?).Comment
-
I used to be a member of TC Seeblick in Zurich years ago, where I saw Claudia Pasquale, who used to be one of the best woman players in Switzerland training her 6 year old son, Robin Roshardt. She pampered him, carried his tennis bag, brushed the clay tennis court after playing. He pulled tantrums, thoroughly spoiled, and once, shocked, I heard him call his mother "bitch". I looked over to her and she just laughed... He played touraments, often beating kids several years older, and crying like a baby when he lost a match.
He later went on to be hailed Switzerland's greatest talent, and successor to Roger Federer. He reached a number 4 ranking in the world junior category. He won the Orange Bowl in Miami in 2005.
However, like many juniors, he did not succeed on the pro circuit. His best ranking on the ATP tour was around number 550. He is currently around 1500 and is 26 years old.Comment
-
Who is keeping score??
I feel like the experts say, "this kid is highly talented and is going to be world number one" on a daily bases. I feel like if someone was keeping track of expert predictions they would be less likely to type cast some of these players so early on.
I agree that learning the right stuff and committing enough time is important. But, I feel like the experts end up looking for a needle in a haystack. Kids with equal interest should be coached equally and not be discriminated against because they are a little smaller than the other 7 year olds.
Talent is impossible to see and people are horrible at making predictions. Let the kids figure out who is talented.Comment
-
I go along very much with this.Originally posted by lobndropshot View Post
As one coach over here put it. "Looking for children that have a chance to make it can be like looking for a black cat in a dark room".
Tim Henman was not considered a serious prospect until very late on...look how well he did. Suddenly by 19 he looked a player.
Yes, I think coaches should stop short of making predictions. They can make themselves look silly and, worse, put pressure on those they have lauded praise on.
You can never tell sometimes even when it's in front of your face. David Lloyd said of Borg, after losing in straight sets in round one of Wimbledon 1976: "He's a good clay court player but he has no future on grass". Look what happened after that...StottyComment
-
There was an article several years ago in Time that claimed Donald Young was going to be the greatest player of all time. At this point he had won Kalamazoo.
When he played his first pro tournament his agent had me film it for posterity.
The hype exceeded his talent obviously but where was the upside for this kid to find success and accomplishment at whatever level he was destined for?Comment
-
I remember hearing about Donald Young when he was 14. John McEnroe hit with Young and said his hands were magical, just like Mac. Nike signed him to an endorsement deal. The tennis world was laying out superlatives for this kid. My biggest concern for him was his size. As I've mentioned before on this forum and what we can agree upon is that you can't teach size. Teaching the strokes may be the easiest part if you know what you are doing, but if your player is only 5'9" then how far can it go. You can't teach being 6'6" no matter how good of a coach you are. No one taught me how to be 6'6" I just am.Originally posted by johnyandell View Post
How much does physical size have to do with champion tennis players? Look at where the game is going. Here is a article from last year discussing the growth of tennis players...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...ticle13946815/
Tall and proud of it.
Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca RatonComment
-
Grand Slam Titles by heightOriginally posted by klacr View Post
5'7" 8
5'8" 5
5'9" 7
5'10" 9
5'11" 35
6'0" 24
6'1" 57
6'2" 25
6'3" 15
6'4" 9
6'5" 1
6'6" 1Comment
-
Great numbers! I love it. Although it would be interesting to see exactly what years those were when the 5'8" and 5'9 guys won it. I think you'll see an increase in height correlate with the progression of the time frame. I'd love too see these numbers again in 15-20 years. Nadal, Djokovic, Federer are in that 6'1" - 6'3" range which in my mind seems like the "Goldilocks" height. Not too short to be at a offensive disadvantage but not too tall so that speed and agility may come into question.Originally posted by lobndropshot View Post
Obviously, if height was the primary factor, Karlovic would have done much better in his career. Just an interesting idea to think about. Is there an ideal or perfect height? And if so, what is it. Looking at the numbers that were posted i'd say it's pretty much 5'11" - 6'3" seem to have dominated. But again, looking at the size of tennis players nowadays, the height is moving up, not down.
Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca RatonComment
-
Gastón Gaudio was the last person at 5'9" player to win in 2004.Comment
-
my numbers above are from the open era.Comment
Comment