It can be done: S&V

[gzhpcu]

Just watching Feliciano Lopez vs Raonic. Lopez has a great serve and volley game. Seems to me that it can be done.

[johnyandell]

His game is gorgeous! Would love to see him win.

[klacr]

Feliciano Lopez is fun to watch. Great service motion and willingness to come inshould be respected. In agreement with John. would love to see him win a big title or at least cause a big upset. Match for Raonic was his moment, just came up short.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[gzhpcu]

Just watched another match on clay with Feliciano Lopez playing great serve and volley.

[klacr]

Just watched another match on clay with Feliciano Lopez playing great serve and volley.

I watched the match as well Phil.

In all fairness, Lopez is playing in Quito, Ecuador. His attacking game is aided by the altitude of 9,350 feet (2,800 meters).

I'd really love to see him make a nice serve and volley run in Paris at Roland Garros. Similar to Rafter in 1997 and Henman back in 2004.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[gzhpcu]

Lopez wins again and now meets Verdasco. Verdasco was such a great player, wonder why he suddenly slumped.. Anyway, S&V still going strong...

[gzhpcu]

And now Lopez serves and volleys into the final, after winning two tough tie breaker sets...
His opponent Burgos is 34 and hopes to be the oldest players to win an ATP tournament after Pancho Gonzales who was 41 when he won Los Angeles.

Ken Rosewall, Wayne Arthurs and Gullikson were all 33...

[klacr]

Gilles Simon's Comments on Talent and Feliciano Lopez

Gilles Simon, who is a pretty outspoken member of the ATP Tour was asked about Talent. I do respect Simon and the way he competes with that game of his. These comments are very interesting.

What is "talent"? Gilles Simon talks about its nature in l'Équipe via Frédéric Bernès.

(In the piece, read talent as "talent" - me)

"Talent, no one knows what it is. They talked about it with me enormously until I was twenty-one, then when I got stronger I went over to the other side. When I qualified for the Australian Open and I'd beaten Berdych(2006), I was a genius. That's what Équipe wrote: 'Genius'. Me, I said: 'I'm 130th. in the world, I'm no genius.' In France, the word talent is associated with three things: having good hands - and as I have zero hands, I have no talent - technique - the impression of fluidity - and attacking. Basically, "flamboyance" is confused with talent. I often hear that Feliciano Lopez has talent and I piss on that. Ah Lopez the attacker ... No, Lopez is a defender. Everyone knows he's a baseliner who serves more than he volleys. He has the image of a gifted serve-and-volleyer. But I find the serve-and-volleyer is very often un-gifted. They guy hits a hard serve and moves up to volley because, for him, it's the easiest way to win a point.

"Me, I have zero hands but I have enormous talent. There are simply different talents, some more obvious than others. What's talent? When Richard (Gasquet) sends a backhand ten miles from the corner of the stands, they say talent. They're right. But when Rafa (Nadal) does the same with a forehand, they say it's strength, it's physical. Everyone agrees on Federer's talent, but Djokovic, pffft, they have trouble ... He has no great shot. Except you serve at him 275 kph and he takes it every time in the middle of the racquet. That's an incredible talent. If you ask Jan (De Witt, his coach) who has the most talent, Roger or Novak, he'll hesitate.

"Television distorts perceptions. People don't see what's so special about Kei Nishikori. He has the best two-handed backhand I've ever seen. He finds incredible angles but that doesn't make an impression. I often use the example of Mika (Llodra). He has an amazing volley and touch but he can't hit a correct forehand. Is he gifted? Safin had a patent on talent all his career, but when it came to hands, he was like me ... Ernests Gulbis, the same. He's talented, full stop. If he loses, it's because he doesn't feel like playing.

"In France, in the beginning, I had the impression that it was better to be less good, but with talent, that a Gulbis who's number 50 is more esteemed than a Ferrer who's 3. Now, I couldn't care less whether people see if I have talent or not ... I usually answer that my talent is my timing. It's weighing 70 kg. and hitting 50 winners against Rafa in Rome (last year). I hope he doesn't take this the wrong way, but when I see that they think that I have less talent than Jo (Tsonga), it's impressive. Jo hammers every shot. It's very forceful. Between us four, the one who has the most talent, it's Gaël (Monfils)"


Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[GeoffWilliams]

Players, or people who will speak honestly are few and far between, especially those who are articulate and know whereof they speak! Ask Djoker who has talent or what it is, or Fed, or Nadal, or murray, and see what kind of answers you get. We know, boring ones. Connors greatest talent was his foot work and crazy consistency with a sweet spot the size of a dime, T 2000 that to us was very difficult to hit with, even when strung with vs imperial.


No 41 yr. old male pro will ever again win an ATP. Unless they come up with a youth serum! Hey, a few weeks ago I weighed 250lbs, and today 218, so maybe I can get down to a fighting weight of 185 and be a national threat again in the 60s! My game is still improving, thanks in part to this site, esp.: serve and my forehand, long time weaknesses. I have won with power and volleys and short points.

[stotty]

When judging tennis talent (and I am talking what you can do with a ball and not other talents) it's clear some have no talent and some have varying degrees of it. You don't have to be talented to have good hands. Good hands have little to do with talent itself. Some players have good hands at the net, others have hands better off the ground; some have both. A talented player with good hands is a joy to watch, especially at the net.

Lopez is second rate at the net (in world class terms) but at least he comes in and can do a reasonable job. As serve volleyers go he's very dull compared to those of past eras.

A much less talented player can have a repertoire the same as a talented player, just perhaps without the nuances. Talents is perhaps not so much what a player can do, more the way they do it. Talent is a player's innate ability before training, as a good friend of once put it.

I used have a regular argument with another coach that you can coach the talent out of players if talented players aren't given the freedom to self develop at least a little. Nastase and McEnroe played in a time of wonderful freedom and far less coaching expertise, the result was two fascinating players the like of which you will never see again. The worst thing that happened to tennis was to make robots out of talented players. You won't see another Santoro because a modern Santoro would have all the Santorness coached out of him. It's all about being technically perfect these days. The game was always going to go that way because it's human nature to find the best way, even if it means narrowing everything right down.

I can understand Gilles Simon's confusion over what is talent. How do we judge and define it? I am not sure you can because it is truly is an innate quality assigned to certain individuals...and should be enjoyed as such.

I agree with Gilles that Monfils is the most talented of the French crop.

[gzhpcu]

Well Feliciano did not make it, but am happy for Burgos...

At 34 years old, Victor Estrella Burgos became the oldest first-time ATP World Tour titlist in Open Era history with his 6-2, 6-7(5), 7-6(5) win over top seed Feliciano Lopez in the Ecuador Open Quito final on Sunday.

This is also a good omen for Roger Federer...

[don_budge]

The Lump of Clay…the tennis player in the beginning

Wonderful points regards to two "bad ones". Freedom. It was the advent of "Open" tennis. Nowadays…you have to watch what you say. The tennis thought police are listening. Be careful…shhhhh!

Lopez is second rate at the net (in world class terms) but at least he comes in and can do a reasonable job. As serve volleyers go he's very dull compared to those of past eras.

I used have a regular argument with another coach that you can coach the talent out of players if talented players aren't given the freedom to self develop at least a little. Nastase and McEnroe played in a time of wonderful freedom and far less coaching expertise, the result was two fascinating players the like of which you will never see again. The worst thing that happened to tennis was to make robots out of talented players.

I can understand Gilles Simon's confusion over what is talent. How do we judge and define it? I am not sure you can because it is truly is an innate quality assigned to certain individuals...and should be enjoyed as such.

I agree with Gilles that Monfils is the most talented of the French crop.

Throw Bjorn Borg and James Scott Connors in with Ilie Nastase and John McEnroe and you have all four points of the compass. Two left handers…two right handers. One right handed one hand backhand and one right handed two handed backhand. One left handed one hand backhand and one left handed two hand backhand. One right hand one hand backhand and one left hand one hand backhand playing mercurial all court tennis with serve and volley. Perfectly capable of playing backcourt tennis and all points in between. One right hand two hand backhand and one left hand two hand backhand playing more backcourt tennis but with the capability of playing all court tennis and all points in between. Throw in the rest of the players of the era and what have you got. One unbelievable collage of talent.

What have you got now? All pointing due north. Lock step. Utter disappointment. "...it's human nature to find the best way, even if it means narrowing everything right down." It didn't used to be entirely human nature like so…the thing is the "nature" part has been bred out of the human experience.

Think about that. How much communing with nature does the average human being do in the course of a day…in the course of a month…in the course of a year. In the course of a lifetime? Get my drift? What is left? Robots…thus the tennis that you see these days. Roger is the end of it. Even he is rigid in his interpretation of the game to a point. For years he couldn't see the obvious need to switch the equipment. What is that? I'll tell you what it is…it's a no brainer.

Human Nature used to be a multi pronged experience. Some were going down the science path…but others were following a different drummer. What has happened to the artist? Gone…gone…gone. Engineered out of the equation. Look at the music industry for example.

Talent comes in all shapes and forms…that is Simon Gilles message. Leave it to a French guy to say it…it's art. Look at that lump of clay…what is inside of it? Can you see the finished product in the beginning? The tendencies? The possibilities and all points in between? What that lump wants to be…by nature? How do you go about the process? I think you know my answer.

[don_budge]

R. I. P. all-court tennis…good night Irene

Just watching Feliciano Lopez vs Raonic. Lopez has a great serve and volley game. Seems to me that it can be done.

It can't be done. There is too much momentum in the other direction. Feliciano is a bit player. He couldn't even succumb this other bit player who beat him in the finals.

Serve and volley tennis is dead. All court tennis is dead. At least for the time being. It would take years to resurrect it…a generation at least and that would be a revolutionary change in thinking.

When Roger retires you will here that loud sucking noise as if the air is being sucked out of the room by a giant vacuum cleaner. It is good that you are happy with the current state of the game, it isn't going to change anytime soon.

[klacr]

Lopez struggled against a 34 year old journeyman Victor Estrella Burgos from the Dominican Republic.

Lopoz could not sustain any significan rallies from the baseline. Depite his much higher ranking, bigger serve and attacking style and the fact that he was playing in altitude in Quito, Ecuador, he still couldn't get the job done. Bad loss for Lopez. He has another shot at a clay court title in Sao Paulo. And much like last week in Quito, He is the #1 seed. No rest for the weary. Another town, another tournament, another battle, another volley...hopefully.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

Victor Estrella Burgos has been on the tour for 13 years and made $752,125 in prize money in all that time. I assume a player like this is running at a loss financially? Any ideas Klacr? He has averaged just under $58,000 a year. Can a player tour on that kind of money? Seems impossible, doesn't it? I wonder what the annual breakdown costs are for a guy like this?