this should be about as routine as Millot vs. Bolelli

Wow Gulbis beats Dolgo in straight sets instead. Well done Gulbis. Just when we don't expect anything from him, he surprises us all. Too bad the match was not televised anywhere.

And Raonic beats Llodra, what a strange match. So we have Gulbis vs Raonic next. Nice one, and I think Gulbis will win that one.

I guess Ernie felt like playing today. He clearly has more talent than Dolgo.

Interesting about the talent thing. Maybe this time it is Dolgo not feeling like playing. I think both are talented, just that Gulbis has more fire power. Both are of the same age and are equally unpredictable, let's see two years from now who will be the better player. Oh, Raonic, Delpo and Cilic too, let's see these five guys, how far can they go. (must say that after Delpo's injury, he has to start from scratch. He seems to have problem with his wrist again).

Oh how can I forget Nishikori. Hope he wins his second title today. Nishikori is one year younger than Delpo and co and one year older than Raonic. Such an interesting batch of youngers(though Delpo and Cilic are more experienced and established of the lot).

I would have loved to see this match, sadly no one was showing it, such a shame. Gulbis is far more talented than Dolgopolov so I'm not surprised at the outcome.

Considering the dismal results for Gulbis of late, I actually thought that Dolgo would beat him. I would have loved to see this match. It appears that maybe Gulbis has now decided to actually play tennis finally.

i wouldn't necessarily say "Gulbis is more talented than Dolgopolov."

Gulbis is more talented than anyone currently not in the Top 3 of the world.... Dolgopolov has plenty of talent, though.

I seriously don't think Gulbis is more talented than Murray. So, in my opinion, the top three plus Murray are more talented than Gulbis. Dolgo vs Gulbis, still can't tell who is more talented. What has Gulbis shown us so far, to confirm he's more talented than Dolgo? By his run at the FO in 2008? Or his matches against Fed and Rafa at Rome last year? Give Dolgo more time and see how he fares against Fedal and the rest.

i'm not talking about results. I am talking about talent.

your opinion of Gulbis' talent is a question of how much tennis you have watched Gulbis play, it's not a question about the results he has posted

Please define what you mean by talent.

From what I see from their matches, I think Dolgo has better feel for the ball, and he's able to make full use of the whole court and his own varieties. He may have some wrong shot selelctions but so do Gulbis. In terms of movements, Dolgo moves better than Gulbis, in terms of anticipatory skills I feel that Dolgo is better; in terms of gutsy play, both have them. Gulbis may have more fire power. So, I really can't see Gulbis as anymore talented than Dolgo.

Its quite obvious that Gulbis is more talented than Dolgopolov. Ricky's 100% spot on. Gulbis is the better ball striker off the two when he is on, he takes the ball earlier than dologopolov at the baseline, and he has as a bit more touch and feel. He also has a better serve and a more lethal return. Dolgopolov is a bit quicker than gulbis, and can counterpunch better, but Gulbis is more talented. I also think that Gulbis is more talented than Murray and has a bigger upside. Obviously Murray has achieved more, but thats mainly due to the fact that Gulbis is a massive nutcase who is so out of it mentally at times.

tj, all these who is more talented than who is rather subjective. To you one who can take the ball early seems to be more talented. To me one who can vary the pace, disrupt your opponents rhythm is talented. Why I say that? It's because this guy uses his brain and his ability (or talent if you may call it) to think of a way to break down his opponent's game and win the match. Maybe both you and Rocky based you emphasis on ball striking abilities as talent, for me talent means much more than that, ie using everything you have to maximize your chance of beating your opponents. Maybe that's why a guy like Safin, injuries and distractions aside, can't fulfill his potential despite having some great ball striking abilities. Likewise for Nalby. To me tennis now is not just about ball striking abilities but much more than that. Fed doesn't win just because he has great ball striking abilities, he also needs to use his brain in overcoming some difficult opponents.

So Gulbis is the better ball striker. When? Every six months or so? The guy has done nothing for months now. He shows up on court and basically phones it in. I have said this in the past, but will say it again. It's not just about talent and Gulbis is one of the best examples. If that was all it took to be great, then he would be at the top. But he never will be and it's because he hasn't made use of this natural talent. You need a good work ethic, the willingness to put in the hard hours of practice, the commitment to being the best you can be.

Even someone like Fed, who certainly has been blessed with an abundance of natural talent, puts in the hard work. No one gets a free pass. I have seen too many like Gulbis come and go in this sport over the decades.

Talent is nothing if you don't make the best use of it and Gulbis has just not gotten it done. At least with Dolgo we know that he has a blood disorder that has kept him from playing enough to really get any decent results until the last year. Whatever he has, even if one wants to argue that he has less pure talent that Gulbis, which I don't necessarily buy, at least he is doing something with whatever he has and that to me means more than the unrealized potential of Gulbis.

ah...the age old talent vs. results debate. In the end, it matters not a whit that a player has more ability than another if said player can't or refuses to execute.

In Gublis's case, the "he's so much more talented" simply doesn't matter ay more. It has done him no good. It's like those parents who insist that their little Johnny is smart and would get better grades if only he would apply himself.

To me talent is determined by two players playing at their best. When two players play at their best the more talented player wins. Ernie would beat 99% of the players on tour when that scenario occurs imo. Has he wasted his talent so far? Defnitely! Doesn't mean it's not there.

Take Wayne Odesnik as a case study. PEDs couldn't get him anywhere near the top 20. Not enough talent.

Take Marat Safin as another example. He mostly wasted his talent but came away with 2 Slams though. I'd take his career over a Tim Henman let's say, a guy who tried hard but just didn't have enough talent.

The funny thing about talent is the potential is always there. So Ernie still is capable of winning a Slam or more if he turns around. Not too many players can say that.

How do you know that Gulbis will beat 99% of the players when he's playing his best? Have you seen that yet? Or is it just your own conjecture? Unlike Fed who has beaten most of the players, I can't say the same for Gilbis, so regarding Gulbis, your guess is as good as mine. It's easy to say that about Gulbis, but until he can consistently beat some good players, I doubt we can confirm that his talent is above 99% of the players. Again we need to define what is talent here.

I like this chat. numero, the two that were often compared were the Brit brothers, John and David Lloyd. John (Mr Chris Evert once upon a time) was the higher on-court achiever, a finalist at AO and a mixed doubles champion on occasion. But he always came off as somewhat... diffident, perhaps? David didn't have his brother's shots, but was as feisty as they come, and after hanging up the racquet he established, developed and sold a hugely successful chain of sports and fitness centres in the UK. How we all longed for the best of both to be fused together!

luckystar is so right talking about the subjective test for sports appreciation. Some people gave up watching Wimbledon in the 1990s when it played so fast; some insist that things have never been more boring than nowadays. There's a poster called attackingtennisrulez, though others prefer to observe the waiting game. But all the great champions have one thing in common - the right mind-set. For that alone, every major final is a must-see. Whether we ever see Ernests at that stage is open to question, I think.

numero, Gulbis career win/loss record is 96/93, how on earth did you arrive at your conclusion that he can beat 99% of the players? Success in tennis is determined by results, so talent is a matter of opinion in this sport and purely subjective. Whether he is a head case or not is beside the point, his results are all we have to judge him by, and as none of us have any proof of his fickle mindset, we have to take his performance as the proof of what he is capable of. His performance could just be that he is inconsistent and doesn't have enough talent to win when he is not playing well.

So far he's barely won 50% of his matches so to project that to him beating 99% of players is a very very long shot.

Success is said to be 90% perspiration, 10% inspiration. If u substitute "inspiration" with "talent" that's about right. Can't see Gulbis putting in that 90% whereas I can see Dolgopolov doing so.
Isn't there a Mcenroe quote that fits the bill too? Will google.

@lucky and nadline

I did put an "imo" after my statement. It means in my opinion. It's not scientific fact.

everyone here is confused because everyone is blatantly trying to confuse everyone else

it is to separate discussions, and it is not hard to separate TALENT from RESULTS. So i suggest we start separating them.

Gulbis is a Top 5 talent.

Gulbis is a Top 75 results player because he does not use aforementioned talent.

Simple. End of story.

Don't agree with Ricky. How do you know Gulbis is top five in talent? Nothing to prove that, so that again is subjective. I see Fed, Rafa, Nole, Murray and Nalby playing at their best all can beat Gulbis playing at his best. Don't know about Tsonga, Davy, Delpo though, how
they match up against Gulbis when they are at their best.

Ricky,

My point is that you cannot separate talent from results.

I think some people assess talent on the basis of who a player beats and as Gulbis has beaten Federer and regularly takes a set off Rafa he is deemed to be talented.

There is no doubt that Gulbis is talented but it is not possible to quantify his talent in respect of ranking other than the highest rank he's held which is 21, because as much as he plays well against a top player, he plays badly against much lower ranked players. So he has flashes of brilliance but not consistent enough to hold a high ranking like 5.

Players in the top 5 have generally won at least 1 Masters title or made a GS SF at least once. Gulbis only has 1 Delray Beach title and has never made any other final, not even of a 250 event let alone a Masters. This is not skating where points are given arbitrarily, i tennis it's results that count.

So Gulbis is a top 20 player - that's all.

NNY - well i have watched a ton of tennis in my time and i find it very easy to separate talent from results

nadline - Gulbis' talent has nothing to do with people he has beat. If we judged talent on Gulbis' talent on his results, he would be Top 75 talent. We already went over this.

Prediction: Dolgopolov in straight sets.

ricky you're just sore because you got your predictions completely wrong. Let the ladies have their say and be done with it.

and so what if you have watched a ton of tennis in your time - you think we haven't?

maxi - i did not even predict this match, so no, that is not the case. And you are wrong, Dolgopolov already lost this match.

I am going to assume that anyone who feels qualified to post in this thread HAS watched a ton of tennis. I'm just saying I have ALSO - and as a result, it is not hard to figure out how much talent every player has.

RickyDimon - I don't doubt that you "know how to separate talent from results"...my question is whether that skill has any real use.

What good does it do hypothesize over who Gulbis could or couldn't beat when he's playing his best tennis? He has proven time and again that he is either incapable or unwilling to play "his best tennis" in any sort of sustainable way. At best, what we can say about Gulbis is that he treats the ATP like summer camp. It doesn't exactly speak highly of him, does it?

CherylMurray - don't tell me that. Go read this thread and you will see i am not the one hypothesizing who Gulbis would and would beat. Everyone ELSE is doing that. Why would i do that when i KNOW who Gulbis would and would not beat. You of all people know good and well that i know more about Gulbis than anyone on this thready will ever even PRETEND to know.

the only thing i am arguing is that talent and results are separate entities. If they were the same thing, Gulbis would be Top 5. So that proves that they aren't.

So Ricky who are the remaining of the top five? I seriously think that other than the current top four, Nalby is as talented if not more talented than Gulbis. It's hard to quantify talent so again it's all rather subjective, so Ricky you're entitled to your opinion and we're entitled to ours.

I agree with lucky, that any assessment of "talent" is highly subjective and probably based on a preference for a particular style of play.

Ricky, you think that even though Gulbis should be in the top 5 because of his talent, by his results he is top 75 because he does not use said talent, so how do you know he's got those talents if he doesn't use them?

That he's got a good serve is universally accepted but so have many others in the top 100. That he has moments of brilliance is also universally accepted, but they are too infrequent to take him into the top 5. Perhaps he doesn't have enough talent to take him through most matches that's why he only wins about 50% of the time. Many players show flashes of brilliance every now and again but to be in the top 5 it has got to be more than every now and again.

cheryl and ricky, can you stop your silly fights on a public blog. it's silly. you're both supposed to be leading the way in terms of professionalism.

you've become very touchy ricky when people don't agree with you. may be it's all these silly fights you are having in the open with cheryl. i don't think they are that funny to be fair, am sure the raphaelites do though.

just having fun, maxi. not real fighting. don't worry about it.

nadline - you are missing the point. It's very easy to tell the difference between talent and results because they aren't related--especially in Gulbis' case. For example, Albert Montanes is a Top 25 player but I know he will never win a Grand Slam because he doesn't have enough talent. Gulbis' results are far worse than Montanes', but I can't say for sure that Gulbis won't win a Grand Slam because he has the talent to do so.

winnind a grandslam requires a lot more than just TALENT....talent alone without the work ethic and mental fortitude is not enough to win a GS....mr. Gulbis either needs to get very very lucky or get strong mentally(not happening overnight) to win a slam....
gulbis certainly has "top 10" talent but it is not enough to be a top 10 player...that is the difference

problem with gulbis is that he is too rich. he doesn't have to wake up in the morning and go to work. he can please himself if he wants a great day at the office or a mediocre one. He doesn't have the fire ricky to be a true winner. He doesn't have the need otherwise he would be working his arse off to shape that natural talent that he has. It's a pity because when you have that talent and know it, yet do very little to mould it, it's pointless. May be his father should take away his private plane, his money and freeze his bank accounts for a year and say to him, don't come back until you have won at least 3 slams in one year - may be then Gulbis will take tennis more seriously.

Should that ever happen (it won't), gulbis is always going to be a dangerous player that no one wants to play but equally he'll be the waster that everyone wants to beat.

I know what you are saying that Gulbis is talented but I don't how how you arrived at him being as good as a top 5. Why not top 4 or top 6, how did you arrive at 5?

Actually Ricky, I think most people will agree with you that Gulbis is talented but he is inconsistent and no one knows why. We can only speculate that it's due to lack of drive or late nights, and we will never know what ranking he would achieve had he been able to bring his talent to the table more often.

Nadline - It might even be more than just lack of ambition and partying with Gulbis. He seems to be the type to get easily discouraged, and in a sport like tennis, that isn't good.

Maxi - I have a legitimate difference of opinion with Ricky. It's not silly, nor is it fighting. The purpose of this site is to air one's opinion of tennis. If one of the pre-requisites for sports journalism was that you had to fully agree with your colleagues, commentators would be out of a job.

cherylmurray - exactly HOW do you disagree with me? on what subject? I haven't seen any comments in which you disagree with anything I have said.

I disagree that it's useful to designate between "talent" and "results"...though I stipulate that there IS a difference and that Gulbis has one and not the other. So I guess not so much of a disagreement after all.

i didn't say it was useful...cause it isn't

i said it was easy...cause it is