PDA

View Full Version : Age vs Talent


it-girl
Dec 16th, 2011, 03:35 PM
Do you think the ability for a player to win is based on their age or their talent? When players get older a lot of people tend to write them off more based off of age alone, even though they still have the same talent. Also when a younger player who's talent has been predicted to be a great champion loses matches they tend to say it is because they lack the experience. Well after several years of playing the young player still has not attained the great champion level victories but they have shown major improvement. While at the same time the older player has been winning matches at the championship level but yet when these 2 players meet they give the younger player the edge based off of age alone. I am sure there are factors of both being young and older that can affect a player in a positive or negative way. But in the end do you think it really comes down to age or talent.

*The above is only a scenario and not based off of any players on the tour.

Petkorazzi
Dec 16th, 2011, 03:37 PM
Age helps you win tight matches IMO. Experience is really decisive in some matches and now matter how talented you are, it just takes years to acquire it.

Mary Cherry.
Dec 16th, 2011, 03:40 PM
Venus isn't winning any more slams.

ElusiveChanteuse
Dec 16th, 2011, 03:46 PM
Age > Talent look at how many of the supposingly talented newcomers win slams recently?:shrug:

it-girl
Dec 16th, 2011, 03:49 PM
Venus isn't winning any more slams.This is not about whether Venus will win another slam or not. This is about do you believe talent is more important or age. Also in regards to Venus, you don't know if she will win or not until all of the slams have been played and the winner has been determined. Only when she retires will you know for sure that she will not win another slam.

BlueTrees
Dec 16th, 2011, 03:52 PM
Venus isn't winning any more slams.

That's not what the OP asked you idiot. :weirdo:

Mary Cherry.
Dec 16th, 2011, 03:54 PM
I read between the lines.

it-girl
Dec 16th, 2011, 04:03 PM
I read between the lines.I did not have Venus in mind when I created this thread. I just really wanted to know what people think of age vs talent. Every question asked does not always have to be about a persons favorite players. I play tennis and I see this all of the time. People not giving the older player a chance and I've actually seen senior citizens beating players in their early twenties with their talent. I was amazed but it really did open my eyes to the fact that you cannot underestimate anyone. I have to admit I initially thought the guy in his twenties would win the match.

So do you think age or talent is more important?

Julian.
Dec 16th, 2011, 04:18 PM
Talent is the most important factor.

See: Hingis and Navratilova.

Mynarco
Dec 16th, 2011, 04:18 PM
Shouldn't it depend on the players' playing styles?

Sammo
Dec 16th, 2011, 04:20 PM
Ask like everyone who played Hingis back in the late 90's :lol: Smartest game ever and a series of youngest ever records :shrug:

justineheninfan
Dec 16th, 2011, 04:33 PM
Talent is the most important factor.

See: Hingis and Navratilova.

Hingis was done as a top player at 21 despite her supreme talent. Strange example. Navratilova is a better one, but even she in her 30s had lost enough speed, power, reflexes, etc...that despite her amazing natural talent she had and her still tremendous work ethic she was losing to a slew of far less talented players.

So I would say talent to a point, but if one plays long enough unfortunately it becomes age, and it is different for each player depending when they peak, how they developed, playing style, injuries.

Mary Cherry.
Dec 16th, 2011, 04:34 PM
I did not have Venus in mind when I created this thread. I just really wanted to know what people think of age vs talent. Every question asked does not always have to be about a persons favorite players. I play tennis and I see this all of the time. People not giving the older player a chance and I've actually seen senior citizens beating players in their early twenties with their talent. I was amazed but it really did open my eyes to the fact that you cannot underestimate anyone. I have to admit I initially thought the guy in his twenties would win the match.

So do you think age or talent is more important?

I don't think it's quite a simple a case as age vs talent, it's a combination of many other factors. Obviously with age comes experience, and if you have the talent as well then that's a clear advantage. But no matter how talented a player is, there will come a time when age works against them and they simply can't perform the way they used to. Age and fitness are definitely linked. That's not to say just because someone is in their 30s it automatically means they're unfit but if they've been on the tour for 10+ years previously, that's bound to take its toll on anyone. Schiavone might've proved this wrong by winning the French Open last year, but in general her results are horribly inconsistent.

And, just like Alfarshear says, when it comes to playing styles and how they match up against each other, age & talent almost become irrelevant. A lot of players lack a plan B in their game as well, so even if they have the ability but don't know how to put it to good use in different situations then, again, talent becomes less relevant. So along with age & talent there's also intelligence, experience and outside factors like injuries.

In other words, it all depends on the individual.

Julian.
Dec 16th, 2011, 04:56 PM
Hingis was done as a top player at 21 despite her supreme talent. Strange example. Navratilova is a better one, but even she in her 30s had lost enough speed, power, reflexes, etc...that despite her amazing natural talent she had and her still tremendous work ethic she was losing to a slew of far less talented players.

So I would say talent to a point, but if one plays long enough unfortunately it becomes age, and it is different for each player depending when they peak, how they developed, playing style, injuries.

What I was trying to say is age doesn't really matter if you have the talent to win a slam. Every player peak at different time of their career. Hence I put Hingis and Navratilova as an example because they are the 2 extremes.

What If?
Dec 16th, 2011, 05:01 PM
Mostly, only age+talent leads a player to the top. e.g. Caroline Wozniacki.
There were just rare occurrences when old players won smth important (Schiavone, S.Williams)
A factor of luck is sometimes the crucial one. (Schiavone, Kvitova, Na Li)

Alejandrawrrr
Dec 16th, 2011, 05:20 PM
Talent, Mental Strength, and how well you take care of your body can all transcend your age. The problem with a lot of "old"(tennis-wise) players, is that I feel that a lot of them(Venus being an excellent example) lose much of that fighter instinct, that hunger that most players have when they're 20.

The Witch-king
Dec 16th, 2011, 05:21 PM
I read between the lines.

Is that what we call being obnoxiously presumptuous these days?:lol::confused:

To answer the question, I would favour the "talented" player over the youthful one in most scenarios. This is the WTA where grandmas rule after all. :rocker:

Leo St
Dec 16th, 2011, 05:35 PM
great thread, talent always, but its an equasion

ok talent/on fire beats huge talent/lame physical condition

Excelscior
Dec 16th, 2011, 06:34 PM
Mostly, only age+talent leads a player to the top. e.g. Caroline Wozniacki.
There were just rare occurrences when old players won smth important (Schiavone, S.Williams)
A factor of luck is sometimes the crucial one. (Schiavone, Kvitova, Na Li)

1) I see most of you missed this hilarious post (or you just all know the poster). The Great Dane is young, but where's the talent?

2) Serena's really not that old, considering she won her last major at 29. I guess the poster was to unaware to realize that players like Martina Navratilova won majors at older ages than Serena and Schiavone.

3) How were LI NA and Kvitova lucky for their majors, when they both played so well during 2011 (particularly the first half for NA), and in their respective major championships?

:smash: :confused: :tape: :confused: :smash:

As far as the actual post; it's a combination of those things, depending on how much talent that younger players has over the talent of the more experienced player and what/how much that older player has left (along with associated co-mitigating factors like injuries, nerves, etc.)?

Sombrerero loco
Dec 16th, 2011, 06:36 PM
talent

Start da Game
Dec 16th, 2011, 07:19 PM
they go hand in hand.....

What If?
Dec 16th, 2011, 08:23 PM
1) I see most of you missed this hilarious post (or you just all know the poster). The Great Dane is young, but where's the talent?

2) Serena's really not that old, considering she won her last major at 29. I guess the poster was to unaware to realize that players like Martina Navratilova won majors at older ages than Serena and Schiavone.

3) How were LI NA and Kvitova lucky for their majors, when they both played so well during 2011 (particularly the first half for NA), and in their respective major championships?

:smash: :confused: :tape: :confused: :smash:

As far as the actual post; it's a combination of those things, depending on how much talent that younger players has over the talent of the more experienced player and what/how much that older player has left (along with associated co-mitigating factors like injuries, nerves, etc.)?

I know right? My post was hilarious because such amount of truth per post rarely happens to be seen here.:eek:

1) You are not the best player without a talent. Impossible.
And please don't even get me started to number her talents. Every tennis fan who started to follow the sport even just half a year ago knows it.
2) Serena is old. Navtratilova with her wooden racquets played another sport. Obsolete.
3) Lucky because they've got easy draws. Lucky because they haven't been able to at least somehow decently defend their success during the following slam.

Holdsworth
Dec 16th, 2011, 08:33 PM
And please don't even get me started to number her talents.
She doesn't have a talent, as well as Nadal.. To play anti-tennis is not a talent.


3) Lucky because they've got easy draws. Lucky because they haven't been able to at least somehow decently defend their success during the following slam.
Easy draws ?? Li beat 4 top-10 players (Petra - 2), while Dullniacki managed to do it 0.5 times last two years at slams

Holdsworth
Dec 16th, 2011, 08:41 PM
able to at least somehow decently defend their success during the following slam.
Petra's defended it at the YEC

What If?
Dec 16th, 2011, 08:42 PM
She doesn't have a talent, like Nadull.. To play anti-tennis is not a talent.
You won't leave me alone, will you? EVER?:lol:

Wozniacki is one of the most talented players in circuit right now.
Being an objective tennis observer, I must to admit, that her tennis is not always interesting to watch. But it is effective at the first place. And that is what matters. She plays smart. That's probably a flaw according to TF, because barely a couple of users gets the sport of tennis here.

I must confirm, you've said a smart thing for the fist time I know you. Which is - Nadull plays anti-tennis. 100% agreed.

Easy draw ?? Li beat 4 top-10 players (Petra - 2), while Dullniacki managed to do it 0.5 times last two years at slams
Check out the draws again. This is getting pointless.

Holdsworth
Dec 16th, 2011, 08:48 PM
Check out the draws again.
You should buy glasses.. Na beat Kvitova, Aza, Sharapova, Schiavone.
Petra beat Aza and Sharapova.

What If?
Dec 16th, 2011, 08:49 PM
You should buy glasses.. Na beat Kvitova, Aza, Sharapova, Schiavone.
Petra beat Aza and Sharapova.
In what universe these are the top players?:lol:

Start da Game
Dec 16th, 2011, 08:50 PM
it's not entirely novotna's talent that won her a slam finally in 98, rather her age and experience of being in finals before.....it's not seles' experience that won her her first slam, rather it's her talent.....talent alone may not always prove to be adequate, similarly age too......

Holdsworth
Dec 16th, 2011, 08:51 PM
In what universe these are the top players?:lol:
:facepalm: I clearly wrote "top-10 players".

What If?
Dec 16th, 2011, 08:56 PM
:facepalm: I clearly wrote "top-10 players".
Didn't get this. However, you better stick back to Russian flag, because having a Czech one is synonymous to being a bandwagoner. Oh wait, you are the one.:hug:

Holdsworth
Dec 16th, 2011, 08:57 PM
Being an objective tennis observer, I must to admit, that her tennis is not always interesting to watch. But it is effective at the first place. And that is what matters. She plays smart. That's probably a flaw according to TF, because barely a couple of users gets the sport of tennis here.
For example, Aga plays smart, because she has a various and inventive defence. Voz's monotonous pushing is far from a smart game. sorry.

Holdsworth
Dec 16th, 2011, 09:01 PM
Didn't get this.
Of course, because Woz could beat only 0.5 top-10 players last two years at slams.
PS. Suddenly the Ranking means nothing for you :lol:

What If?
Dec 16th, 2011, 09:02 PM
For example, Aga plays smart, because she has a various and inventive defence. Voz's monotonous pushing is far from a smart game. sorry.

I accept your apologies.:yeah: Not everyone is born to understand tennis. You are a dilettante in tennis, but I might be weak in some other field. So lets be even.:D

Brad[le]y.
Dec 16th, 2011, 09:08 PM
She doesn't have a talent, as well as Nadal.. To play anti-tennis is not a talent.


Easy draws ?? Li beat 4 top-10 players (Petra - 2), while Dullniacki managed to do it 0.5 times last two years at slams

First of all you lose all credibility calling Nadal Wozniacki, they are not comparable in any way.

Second of all .5 players doesn't make sense; Schiavone came out to play and she played through and lost. Shiavone is a whole player whether you like it or not. I still haven't found out which banned person you are :lol:

Excelscior
Dec 16th, 2011, 09:09 PM
In what universe these are the top players?:lol:

According to the same rankings that you so unfailingly worship, for your cherished # 1!!

So by that/your criteria, we can just throw the rankings out, can't we? Cause you just admitted, that they don't count; otherwise why aren't Masha, Azarenka, Li Na and Kvitova considered top players then? :confused: :rolleyes: :confused:

PS: At least you admitted that your idea of talent (at least for that player), is different then most reasonable tennis observers. :confused: :oh: :confused:

What If?
Dec 16th, 2011, 09:19 PM
I still haven't found out which banned person you are :lol:
So do I. He's attacking us, Caroline fans constantly and he know a lot more than a new poster could have known. Definitely a previosly banned user.:rolleyes:

According to the same rankings that you so unfailingly worship, for your cherished # 1!!

So by that/your criteria, we can just throw the rankings out, can't we? Cause you just admitted, that they don't count; otherwise why aren't Masha, Azarenka, Li Na and Kvitova considered top players then? :confused: :rolleyes: :confused:

PS: At least you admitted that your idea of talent (at least for that player), is different then most reasonable tennis observers.
Check out Masha's, Aza's, Na's, even Kvitty's rankings. I am a supporter of Federer's point of view according to rankings. He says #2, #4, #100 doesn't matter. Only #1 matters. Women's #1 is Caroline Wozniacki, FYI.

Holdsworth
Dec 16th, 2011, 09:23 PM
Check out Masha's, Aza's, Na's, even Kvitty's rankings. I am a supporter of Federer's point of view according to rankings. He says #2, #4, #100 doesn't matter. Only #1 matters. Women's #1 is Caroline Wozniacki, FYI.
So.. What did you mean, saying "easy draw" ?? And who are top-players, in your opinion ??

Excelscior
Dec 16th, 2011, 09:23 PM
So do I. He's attacking us, Caroline fans constantly and he know a lot more than a new poster could have known. Definitely a previosly banned user.:rolleyes:


Check out Masha's, Aza's, Na's, even Kvitty's rankings. I am a supporter of Federer's point of view according to rankings. He says #2, #4, #100 doesn't matter. Only #1 matters. Women's #1 is Caroline Wozniacki, FYI.

So by that criteria, if/when your fave becomes #2 next year, I guess she won't matter, and you won't bother posting about her (cause she wouldn't be good anymore and a insignificant player)?

I'm done with you. I can't take you seriously.

Please don't write me anymore on this topic.

Thank You.

What If?
Dec 16th, 2011, 09:26 PM
So.. What did you mean, saying "easy draw" ??
У них, блять, лёгкая сетка была.:lol:

I'm done with you.

Please don't write me anymore on this topic.

Thank You.
:awww: If the biggest troll is done with me, that means I do something right.:cool:

Holdsworth
Dec 16th, 2011, 09:29 PM
У них, блять, лёгкая сетка была.:lol:

А какая могла быть тяжелая ??

You are a dilettante in tennis, but I might be weak in some other field. So lets be even.:D
I understand.. You have nothing to say to defend a Woz's anti-tennis :hug:

What If?
Dec 16th, 2011, 09:35 PM
А какая могла быть тяжелая ??


I understand.. You have nothing to say to defend a Woz's anti-tennis :hug:
Не, ну шара там была. Даже ты не сможешь это отрицать.:p
Тяжелая у Воза была.

I am done with you. Your attacks on Woz are not based on anything.

Holdsworth
Dec 16th, 2011, 09:38 PM
Не, ну шара там была. Даже ты не сможешь это отрицать.:p
Тяжелая у Воза была.

I am done with you. Your attacks on Woz are not based on anything.

And who are top-players, in your opinion ??

marineblue
Dec 16th, 2011, 09:43 PM
She doesn't have a talent, as well as Nadal.. To play anti-tennis is not a talent.


Easy draws ?? Li beat 4 top-10 players (Petra - 2), while Dullniacki managed to do it 0.5 times last two years at slams

Yeah, because lower ranked players often do better than this magic top 10;)
Good that you've mentioned Li. Apart from RG and Sydney her year has been no good, she completely fell apart in the second part of the season.:o

Brad[le]y.
Dec 16th, 2011, 09:44 PM
Yeah, because lower ranked players often do better than this magic top 10;)
Good that you've mentioned Li. Apart from RG and Sydney her year has been no good, she completely fell apart in the second part of the season.:o

what about AO?

What If?
Dec 16th, 2011, 09:45 PM
And who are top-players, in your opinion ??
Caroline Wozniacki, Kim Clijsters, Serena Williams.

marineblue
Dec 16th, 2011, 09:45 PM
У них, блять, лёгкая сетка была.:lol:


:awww: If the biggest troll is done with me, that means I do something right.:cool:

You're so lucky :sad:. He still replies to some of my posts :help:

Holdsworth
Dec 16th, 2011, 09:49 PM
Caroline Wozniacki, Kim Clijsters, Serena Williams.
How ? Serena and Kim are only # 12 and 13 in the Ranking

Brad[le]y.
Dec 16th, 2011, 09:50 PM
is anyone else enjoying this troll v troll debate? :rolls:

madmax
Dec 16th, 2011, 09:56 PM
I'm still in the process of figuring out if tea is for real or simply plays dumb to make Dullniacki fans look even worse:devil: Either way, he's an interesting one...

Alejandrawrrr
Dec 16th, 2011, 10:50 PM
I'm still in the process of figuring out if tea is for real or simply plays dumb to make Dullniacki fans look even worse:devil: Either way, he's an interesting one...

That's Tea :drool:

ExtremespeedX
Dec 17th, 2011, 12:34 AM
Great amount of talent disguises your age and allows you to remain at the top for longer. A good example is Federer - he was twice the player he is now 5 years ago, however supreme amount of talent allows him to still compete with the top guys, despite being much slower and older.

Lord Choc Ice
Dec 17th, 2011, 01:50 AM
Well even though Olderer's 30 now pretty much the whole ATP tour hasn't figured him out. So the answer is talent.

chingching
Dec 17th, 2011, 02:57 AM
Talent never goes away. Look at Kimiko Date-Krumm

Holdsworth
Dec 17th, 2011, 03:45 AM
Well even though Olderer's 30 now pretty much the whole ATP tour hasn't figured him out. So the answer is talent.
When Nadal is 30 years old, he will fish in Mallorca. :cool:

ExtremespeedX
Dec 17th, 2011, 03:49 AM
When Nadal is 30 years old, he will fish in Mallorca. :cool:

Either that or playing doubles in wheelchair competition with Faker as his partner.

Excelscior
Dec 17th, 2011, 03:54 AM
Either that or playing doubles in wheelchair competition with Faker as his partner.

You guys are so hard on Rafa.

I'm not going to debate anything today about him. So spare your pointed, impassioned responses for another time (or poster). Lol.

But at least he has some offense, has added to his game, beat the top players before him, and won majors. At least he has a legacy.

They're a whole lot of players (some have been # 1) who have done a lot worse, who you can't say any of those things about. :confused: :tape: :confused:

new-york
Dec 17th, 2011, 03:57 AM
I read between the lines.

Of the wrong book.

On the actual, both gets you far. Being at your physical peak allows you to optimize your talent.

I'd say talent comes first though. When you're old, too young, talent gets you to the WIN.

And prolly I should say duh.

Lord Choc Ice
Dec 17th, 2011, 04:08 AM
Talent is also why Safin won two slams and Safina won zero, but that's more of a talent-hard work debate than talent-age :p.

Szavay #1
Dec 17th, 2011, 12:07 PM
talent. :p and some ppl play a lot better when they're older. :)