Who would you rather be: A Mandlikova-type or a Williams-type - TennisForum.com

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 7th, 2005, 09:48 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 44,679
                     
Who would you rather be: A Mandlikova-type or a Williams-type

You always hear commentators say such and such player was sooo talented, sooo much better than others who actually were winning the titles.

For instance: Mandlikova, Sabatini...they all supposedly were more talented than the Graf's, the Navratilova's of this world, and today it seems everybody is more talented than a Williams sister.

Brings the question: What is all that talent if you can't win when it matters?

Always bet on black!
Can you handle the truth?
The truth:
Serena Williams: Greatest African-American tennisplayer in history
22 majors:6376


Official Prince of the Royal Court
bandabou is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 7th, 2005, 09:49 AM
Senior Member
 
ceiling_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 5,606
                     
i'd rather be a winner
ceiling_fan is offline  
post #3 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 7th, 2005, 12:54 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 63
                     
some players are technically superior to others….some players are more naturally gifted than others and make everything look so effortlessly...but lack the vital cog in their armour that makes them a champion......
…...don’t mean they always come out on top though……i guess thats why we have so many underachievers in sport….its the same for the players who work so hard yet achieve so little in the sport too…..at the end of the day results usually speak for themselves....
faithtrueman is offline  
post #4 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 7th, 2005, 01:00 PM
Sunset, Moonrise, Winter
 
Sam L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Shangri-La
Posts: 35,182
                     
Definitely Williams.

Problem is some tennis purists think that only if you employ all the tennis skills in the tennis Bible are you a complete, talented player.

I disagree. Of course, it's winning that counts and that means X factors.




Sam L is offline  
post #5 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 7th, 2005, 01:15 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 7,274
                     
What gets me is that everyone says that tennis is 90 percent mental and then they go on and on about so and so being technically superior and perfect strokes and blah blah blah...

If tennis is 90% intangibles then your perfect strokes mean nothing! Also just because your strokes are Non traditional doesnt mean they are bad as Venus just proved. She hasnt changed her game she regained her belief and got fit.

If you have the mental game then you do not need perfect text book strokes.

You can go to a local club and see text book strokes but those people arent on tour or winning titles or slams are they?

The WTA Women of Wonder Featuring....The Goddess: Venus Williams The Glamazon: Serena Williams The Lioness: Jennifer Capriati The High Priestess: Monica Seles The Saint: Kim Clijsters The Phoenix: Chanda Rubin The Bon Vivant: Amelie Mauresmo The Titan: Lindsay Davenport The Courtesan: Anna Kournikova The Exile: Martina Hingis The Sorceress: Anatasia Myskina The Minx: Maria Sharapova
Cybelle Darkholme is offline  
post #6 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 7th, 2005, 01:40 PM
Senior Member
 
deja_entendu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: taradise.
Posts: 1,599
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandabou
You always hear commentators say such and such player was sooo talented, sooo much better than others who actually were winning the titles.

For instance: Mandlikova, Sabatini...they all supposedly were more talented than the Graf's, the Navratilova's of this world, and today it seems everybody is more talented than a Williams sister.

Brings the question: What is all that talent if you can't win when it matters?
You're so full of shit, instead of making sweeping generalizations, actually have quotes and proof, until then few will think that commentators actually say "Mandlikova was sooo much better than Graf" or anything remotely like that with any player who doesn't have the titles, and most will think you're :retard:
deja_entendu is offline  
post #7 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 7th, 2005, 02:00 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 205
                     
I want to be talented and a winner
Capster is offline  
post #8 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 7th, 2005, 02:05 PM
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 27,279
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandabou
You always hear commentators say such and such player was sooo talented, sooo much better than others who actually were winning the titles.

For instance: Mandlikova, Sabatini...they all supposedly were more talented than the Graf's, the Navratilova's of this world, and today it seems everybody is more talented than a Williams sister.

Brings the question: What is all that talent if you can't win when it matters?
Actually it brings the question of whether some people will ever be satisfied - even when their favourites are winning .

It may have escaped your notice but Sabatini and Mandlikova were both grand slam (and other big title) winners - so both have won when it mattered.

Instead if trying to claim all the praise for your favourites why not let people admire whoever they want to ?

Williams sisters, Graf and Navratilova have more than enough trophies to rejoice in yet you're still complaining.
Kart is offline  
post #9 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 7th, 2005, 02:29 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,673
                     
a) I think anyone suggesting Mandlikova or Sabatini had more tennis talent than Navratilova or Graf is insane.

b) Mandlikova is a NOT an example of a 'talented' player who didn't win. She played slams from 1980 to 1990. Of the 44 slams in that period, In that period, Evert won 10, Navratilova 16, and Graf 9. That's 35. Of the 9 remaining, Mandlikova won 4. That's not exactly underachieving! She had the misfortune to spend her entire career playing against three of the five players in the history of the sport.

Sabatini, OTOH, was a player comparable to Mauresmo today. Able to beat anybody, except when it counted most.

c) You don't hear much commentary saying how other players are more 'talented' than Venus or Serena anymore. True, the word 'talent' is more often applied to lesser players, but to a great extent, it's used in place of 'potential'. Remember how 'talented' Daniela Hantuchova was supposed to be? But ultimately, her game is a lesser version of Lindsay Davenport. (Much lesser, but I am comparing Dani to the world #1.)

d) I think it was Goran Ivanisevic who said the most talented player was the one who recieved a fault serve and sliced a drop shot with it so it just clears the net, then skips sideways to the ballboy, who never has to move.

e) 'Talent' is only talent if it's usable against the Williams' and Davenport's and Sharapova's and Dementieva's of the world. Hingis was a vastly talented player. But she won her last slam in 1999, and it wasn't because of her feet. (not 'sole'-ly anyway ) The speed and power of the game swamped her talent. It doesn't swamp Justine Henin-Hardenne's talent. Hingis didn't have talent that could execute when every shot coming at was 100 mph and near the opposite sideline.

In today's environment, against today's top players, who demonstrates more talent than Venus or Serena? Henin-Hardenne. Mauresmo. That's about it. Throw in Martinez and Schnyder if you're talking strictly about shotmaking when they're playing their best.

Think about the Wimbledon commetary. It was Venus who was siad to have more variety in her game than Pierce or Sharapova. It was Venus who the long rallies was said to favor vs Davenport.

Was it Mary Carillo who spent all winter saying Sharapova was more talented than Serena, even though Serena beat her at OZ? Notice how we didn't hear that comparison between Sharapova and Venus? Or Sharapova and Davenport? That isn't because people don't want to say it. It's because it sounds stupid.

Yet in 2002, people were talking about Serena maybe being the best 'most talented' player ever.

When you read through the threads about 'talent', you notice that every single time, people fall back on, 'that's just my opinion'. They avoid objective measures of talent, because it's pretty difficult to say a less successful player is 'talented', and a more successful player is not. (Unless you're dealing with the obvious mental fragility of Mauresmo or Schnyder.)

The objectives measure of talent are, a) what CAN you do during a match against the world's best? and b) do you win vs the world's best?

What shows talent is ....

a) What shots do you have?

b) What shots can you execute under pressure?

If a) and b) are equal, it comes down to who's faster and stronger. (Like virtuall every other sport.)

Proud to be an American
Not blind. Not uninformed. We are party to atrocities. But the response of the world after 9/11 is worth noting. Even our most dire enemies offered aid. We should all be so lucky.
Volcana is offline  
post #10 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 7th, 2005, 02:32 PM
Senior Member
 
RenaSlam.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 25,033
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcana
a) I think anyone suggesting Mandlikova or Sabatini had more tennis talent than Navratilova or Graf is insane.

b) Mandlikova is a NOT an example of a 'talented' player who didn't win. She played slams from 1980 to 1990. Of the 44 slams in that period, In that period, Evert won 10, Navratilova 16, and Graf 9. That's 35. Of the 9 remaining, Mandlikova won 4. That's not exactly underachieving! She had the misfortune to spend her entire career playing against three of the five players in the history of the sport.

Sabatini, OTOH, was a player comparable to Mauresmo today. Able to beat anybody, except when it counted most.

c) You don't hear much commentary saying how other players are more 'talented' than Venus or Serena anymore. True, the word 'talent' is more often applied to lesser players, but to a great extent, it's used in place of 'potential'. Remember how 'talented' Daniela Hantuchova was supposed to be? But ultimately, her game is a lesser version of Lindsay Davenport. (Much lesser, but I am comparing Dani to the world #1.)

d) I think it was Goran Ivanisevic who said the most talented player was the one who recieved a fault serve and sliced a drop shot with it so it just clears the net, then skips sideways to the ballboy, who never has to move.

e) 'Talent' is only talent if it's usable against the Williams' and Davenport's and Sharapova's and Dementieva's of the world. Hingis was a vastly talented player. But she won her last slam in 1999, and it wasn't because of her feet. (not 'sole'-ly anyway ) The speed and power of the game swamped her talent. It doesn't swamp Justine Henin-Hardenne's talent. Hingis didn't have talent that could execute when every shot coming at was 100 mph and near the opposite sideline.

In today's environment, against today's top players, who demonstrates more talent than Venus or Serena? Henin-Hardenne. Mauresmo. That's about it. Throw in Martinez and Schnyder if you're talking strictly about shotmaking when they're playing their best.

Think about the Wimbledon commetary. It was Venus who was siad to have more variety in her game than Pierce or Sharapova. It was Venus who the long rallies was said to favor vs Davenport.

Was it Mary Carillo who spent all winter saying Sharapova was more talented than Serena, even though Serena beat her at OZ? Notice how we didn't hear that comparison between Sharapova and Venus? Or Sharapova and Davenport? That isn't because people don't want to say it. It's because it sounds stupid.

When you read through the threads about 'talent', you notice that every single time, people fall back on, 'that's just my opinion'. They avoid objective measures of talent, because it's pretty difficult to say a less successful player is 'talented', and a more successful player is not. (Unless you're dealing with the obvious mental fragility of Mauresmo or Schnyder.)

The objectives measure of talent are, a) what CAN you do during a match against the world's best? and b) do you win vs the world's best?

What shows talent is ....

a) What shots do you have?

b) What shots can you execute under pressure?

If a) and b) are equal, it comes down to who's faster and stronger.
Great post.
RenaSlam. is offline  
post #11 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 7th, 2005, 03:03 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 40,129
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandabou
You always hear commentators say such and such player was sooo talented, sooo much better than others who actually were winning the titles.

For instance: Mandlikova, Sabatini...they all supposedly were more talented than the Graf's, the Navratilova's of this world, and today it seems everybody is more talented than a Williams sister.

Brings the question: What is all that talent if you can't win when it matters?



I beg to differ on your premise. What I heard most often about the Williams sisters is that they have dormant enormous talents, and they need a technical coach (e.g. JMac) to exploit that talent and put it to use.

Remember how the tennis press used to use the word scarywhen pondering about the WS future. They were alluding to the fact if they were winning this much already; think how scary it would be after they are totally developed as players, using their full potentials (read unexploited talents)

tennislover22 is offline  
post #12 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 7th, 2005, 03:10 PM
Senior Member
 
deja_entendu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: taradise.
Posts: 1,599
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcana

e) 'Talent' is only talent if it's usable against the Williams' and Davenport's and Sharapova's and Dementieva's of the world. Hingis was a vastly talented player. But she won her last slam in 1999, and it wasn't because of her feet. (not 'sole'-ly anyway ) The speed and power of the game swamped her talent. It doesn't swamp Justine Henin-Hardenne's talent. Hingis didn't have talent that could execute when every shot coming at was 100 mph and near the opposite sideline.
You must not be watching the sport of tennis if you think that anyone was hitting anything at Martina at 100 mph, first serves being the exception. And a series of injuries, lack of fitness, and mental weakness swamped Hingis' game, but the notion that she was 'overpowered' out of Grand Slam titles is ridiculous. She choked away amazing opportunities in 3 of her last 5 slam finals that had nothing at all to do with the power of her opponent.
deja_entendu is offline  
post #13 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 7th, 2005, 03:29 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 40,129
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcana
a) I think anyone suggesting Mandlikova or Sabatini had more tennis talent than Navratilova or Graf is insane.

b) Mandlikova is a NOT an example of a 'talented' player who didn't win. She played slams from 1980 to 1990. Of the 44 slams in that period, In that period, Evert won 10, Navratilova 16, and Graf 9. That's 35. Of the 9 remaining, Mandlikova won 4. That's not exactly underachieving! She had the misfortune to spend her entire career playing against three of the five players in the history of the sport.

Sabatini, OTOH, was a player comparable to Mauresmo today. Able to beat anybody, except when it counted most.

c) You don't hear much commentary saying how other players are more 'talented' than Venus or Serena anymore. True, the word 'talent' is more often applied to lesser players, but to a great extent, it's used in place of 'potential'. Remember how 'talented' Daniela Hantuchova was supposed to be? But ultimately, her game is a lesser version of Lindsay Davenport. (Much lesser, but I am comparing Dani to the world #1.)

d) I think it was Goran Ivanisevic who said the most talented player was the one who recieved a fault serve and sliced a drop shot with it so it just clears the net, then skips sideways to the ballboy, who never has to move.

e) 'Talent' is only talent if it's usable against the Williams' and Davenport's and Sharapova's and Dementieva's of the world. Hingis was a vastly talented player. But she won her last slam in 1999, and it wasn't because of her feet. (not 'sole'-ly anyway ) The speed and power of the game swamped her talent. It doesn't swamp Justine Henin-Hardenne's talent. Hingis didn't have talent that could execute when every shot coming at was 100 mph and near the opposite sideline.

In today's environment, against today's top players, who demonstrates more talent than Venus or Serena? Henin-Hardenne. Mauresmo. That's about it. Throw in Martinez and Schnyder if you're talking strictly about shotmaking when they're playing their best.

Think about the Wimbledon commetary. It was Venus who was siad to have more variety in her game than Pierce or Sharapova. It was Venus who the long rallies was said to favor vs Davenport.

Was it Mary Carillo who spent all winter saying Sharapova was more talented than Serena, even though Serena beat her at OZ? Notice how we didn't hear that comparison between Sharapova and Venus? Or Sharapova and Davenport? That isn't because people don't want to say it. It's because it sounds stupid.

Yet in 2002, people were talking about Serena maybe being the best 'most talented' player ever.

When you read through the threads about 'talent', you notice that every single time, people fall back on, 'that's just my opinion'. They avoid objective measures of talent, because it's pretty difficult to say a less successful player is 'talented', and a more successful player is not. (Unless you're dealing with the obvious mental fragility of Mauresmo or Schnyder.)

The objectives measure of talent are, a) what CAN you do during a match against the world's best? and b) do you win vs the world's best?

What shows talent is ....

a) What shots do you have?

b) What shots can you execute under pressure?

If a) and b) are equal, it comes down to who's faster and stronger. (Like virtuall every other sport.)
Very comprehensive post as always.
The relative talent scenario also plays out on on the men's side. A glaring example is Roddick serve, so effective against other players, it disappears against Federer.
tennislover22 is offline  
post #14 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 7th, 2005, 03:31 PM
Senior Member
 
venus_rulez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,348
                     
"talent" is subjectice, because, we as people can't appreciate differences. It always havs to be Venus is better than Serena or Amelie is better than Justine, instead of just agreeing they are talented in different ways just like everyday people. Everyone has different talents and skills, just like on a tennis court. Whether those are used is obviously a different story just like some people go through life aimlessly.
venus_rulez is offline  
post #15 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 7th, 2005, 03:45 PM
Senior Member
 
Veenut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,327
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by deja_entendu
You must not be watching the sport of tennis if you think that anyone was hitting anything at Martina at 100 mph, first serves being the exception. And a series of injuries, lack of fitness, and mental weakness swamped Hingis' game, but the notion that she was 'overpowered' out of Grand Slam titles is ridiculous. She choked away amazing opportunities in 3 of her last 5 slam finals that had nothing at all to do with the power of her opponent.
You can choose to remain delusional if that helps you to keep your sanity but for the rest of us including Martina, know that the power game was the main factor that caused her to give up.

Check out the names of players who were defeating her consistently and tell me what they all have in common. (Sereana, Venus, Lindsay and Jennifer). With the addition of the Russians and Belgians explain how she would fair in todays game without added power.
Veenut is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome