PDA

View Full Version : could nalbandian have been an all time great?


samprasvsfederer123
04-12-2009, 09:01 AM
if would have been in his best like federer was 04-07, what could nalbandian have done.:shock:

nalbyvsfed
04-12-2009, 09:16 AM
maybe if he trained as hard as federer or nadal.

bolo
04-12-2009, 09:34 AM
Probably not an alltime great. But if early hardwork could have fixed the forehand and serve he certainly could have bagged at least a slam imo.

paterson
04-12-2009, 09:42 AM
When discussing the best players never to have won a major, Rios and Nalbandian are the two names at the top of the list. He doesn't show any commitment to lose weight and train so he can perform to a high standard. He's a bigger waste of talent than Safin. At least Safin has 2 Slam titles.

vtmike
04-12-2009, 09:56 AM
Don't know about all time great but he definitely could have won a few grand slams (unfortunately for him he had Fed in the same era)

egn
04-12-2009, 10:05 AM
Don't get me wrong I feel nalbandian has a lot of wasted talent..but alll time great is probably pushing it. He had a lot of talent, but not as much raw talent as Safin and did not have the dedication like Fed, Roddick and Hewitt. I think it would be safe to say he would have grabbed 2 to 3 slams tops if he really put his focus into it.

random guy
04-12-2009, 10:29 AM
As a Nalby fan, I say no. To be an all time great you not only need the talent (which Nalby has in a lot of aspect of his game but with a big weakness in todays game that is an ok forehand (not a winning forehand) and an unreliable serve) but you really really have to want it, that is, have an urge and a burning desire to be at the top. Seeing Nalby's career is obvious he doesn't have that urge. Still, that doesn't take away the fact that is a joy to see him play when his mind is into it.

GameSampras
04-12-2009, 10:40 AM
Not an all time great as I dont think his talent was THAT GREAT. But definitely a player that people would remember. He may have been able to grab 3-4 slams anyways

tudwell
04-12-2009, 10:57 AM
No, Nalbandian couldn't have been any greater than he is.

Satch
04-12-2009, 11:34 AM
With much better serve, yes...

rubberduckies
04-12-2009, 11:43 AM
He could have taken a few slams away from Federer during the years in which players simply laid down for him.
But no, he could not have become an all-time great.

egn
04-12-2009, 11:46 AM
He could have taken a few slams away from Federer during the years in which players simply laid down for him.
But no, he could not have become an all-time great.

Ehh I don't know what could he have taken? No wimbledons. I am thinking maybe an Aussie. What I think he could have really stolen was some french open finals from fed. I guess the problem I have is I say Nalby could win 2 or 3 but then it is like okay well which 2 or 3. Grass is out the picture. I am left thinking maybe 2004 French Open...and I still struggle to figure it out.

If he wasn't such a flake he would have won the 2003 US Open.

jms007
04-12-2009, 11:50 AM
If we're talking solely about motivation and everything else being the same in his game...no.

thalivest
04-12-2009, 11:51 AM
No. He could have had a better career but not been an all time great. His best surface by far is indoors which there are no grand slams played on. The only slam surface he has any shot of winning slams is outdoor hard courts, and he would have a hard time beating Federer in best 3-of-5 set matches on outdoor hard courts during his 2004-2007 prime regardless how hard he worked or competed. Still he could have won a few slams. He could have won a couple slams just by not choking though, the 2003 U.S Open, maybe 1 of the 2004 French or 2006 Australian Open.

egn
04-12-2009, 11:54 AM
No. He could have had a better career but not been an all time great. His best surface by far is indoors which there are no grand slams played on. The only slam surface he has any shot of winning slams is outdoor hard courts, and he would have a hard time beating Federer in best 3-of-5 set matches on outdoor hard courts during his 2004-2007 prime regardless how hard he worked or competed. Still he could have won a few slams. He could have won a couple slams just by not choking though, the 2003 U.S Open, maybe 1 of the 2004 French or 2006 Australian Open.

2006 AO is up in the air, I think Davy had a better chance at it than him.

Though if there was an indoor slam Safin would have locked that up during Nalby's era.

thalivest
04-12-2009, 12:00 PM
2006 AO is up in the air, I think Davy had a better chance at it than him.

Though if there was an indoor slam Safin would have locked that up during Nalby's era.

Well Safin was pretty much done after early 2005 anyway so Nalbandian wouldnt have had to worry too much about him from 2005-2008 even if there was any indoor slam.

I am not sure on the 2006 Australian Open either which is why I said maybe on that. Federer was vurnerable at that particular slam, of all the slams he won from 2003-2007 it was probably his least impressive performance. In fact he played much worse there than the 2005 and 2009 Australian Opens he didnt win. Losing sets to everyone he played in the last 4 rounds even with a pretty easy draw. Losing sets to all of a past his prime Haas, Kiefer, Baghdatis, and looking very scratchy in doing so.

If Nalbandian had played him in the final given Federer's poor form it would be close to 50-50 IMO. I think the Federer-Davydenko quarterfinal match in hindsight was also close to 50-50, really could have gone either way despite being 4 sets. I dont know what would happen if Davydenko-Nalbandian play, they usually have great matches on every surface.

Cesc Fabregas
04-12-2009, 12:09 PM
Well Safin was pretty much done after early 2005 anyway so Nalbandian wouldnt have had to worry too much about him from 2005-2008 even if there was any indoor slam.

I am not sure on the 2006 Australian Open either which is why I said maybe on that. Federer was vurnerable at that particular slam, of all the slams he won from 2003-2007 it was probably his least impressive performance. In fact he played much worse there than the 2005 and 2009 Australian Opens he didnt win. Losing sets to everyone he played in the last 4 rounds even with a pretty easy draw. Losing sets to all of a past his prime Haas, Kiefer, Baghdatis, and looking very scratchy in doing so.

If Nalbandian had played him in the final given Federer's poor form it would be close to 50-50 IMO. I think the Federer-Davydenko quarterfinal match in hindsight was also close to 50-50, really could have gone either way despite being 4 sets. I dont know what would happen if Davydenko-Nalbandian play, they usually have great matches on every surface.


To this day I can't believe Nalbandian blew a two set lead against a very unfit player like Baghdatis in the AO semi final, after such a tough loss its no wonder he hasn't done anything at the slams since.

Shaolin
04-12-2009, 12:33 PM
Yes he could have been. The guy is incredible and yet spends all day eating donuts and cookies, driving around in fast cars.

Its a shame. He could have multiple majors.

rubberduckies
04-12-2009, 01:30 PM
Ehh I don't know what could he have taken? No wimbledons. I am thinking maybe an Aussie. What I think he could have really stolen was some french open finals from fed. I guess the problem I have is I say Nalby could win 2 or 3 but then it is like okay well which 2 or 3. Grass is out the picture. I am left thinking maybe 2004 French Open...and I still struggle to figure it out.

If he wasn't such a flake he would have won the 2003 US Open.

He could have taken some USOs and some Aussie's, probably winning the USO in 2005, 2006 and the Aussie in 2004, 2006, 2007.

He is not better than Federer on clay. He isn't even that strong on clay. Hardcourt is where he shines.

Ripster
04-12-2009, 05:45 PM
If he retires without winning a slam it would be a major disappointment (no pun intended). I wouldn't go as far as saying he should have been all-time great since that would imply more than 5 slams at least. But he definitely should have won at least 1-3 by now.

Ripster
04-12-2009, 05:49 PM
No. He could have had a better career but not been an all time great. His best surface by far is indoors which there are no grand slams played on. The only slam surface he has any shot of winning slams is outdoor hard courts, and he would have a hard time beating Federer in best 3-of-5 set matches on outdoor hard courts during his 2004-2007 prime regardless how hard he worked or competed. Still he could have won a few slams. He could have won a couple slams just by not choking though, the 2003 U.S Open, maybe 1 of the 2004 French or 2006 Australian Open.

Agree with you that he could (and probably should) have won a few slams by now. However, he had chances on all surfaces to collect that first GS, not just outdoor hard courts. In fact his best surface used to be clay before he really started to excel on hard courts.

Cyan
04-12-2009, 05:51 PM
Oh definetely. He is bursting with talent. The problem is his lust for food and beer is bigger than his lust for tennis glory :-?

lambielspins
04-12-2009, 05:53 PM
He could have taken some USOs and some Aussie's, probably winning the USO in 2005, 2006 and the Aussie in 2004, 2006, 2007.

He is not better than Federer on clay. He isn't even that strong on clay. Hardcourt is where he shines.

Nalbandian could have never beaten Federer at the 2004 or 2007 Australian Opens or 2005 or 2006 U.S Opens. You are delusional if you think so. The 2006 Australian Open maybe.

thalivest
04-12-2009, 06:01 PM
Agree with you that he could (and probably should) have won a few slams by now. However, he had chances on all surfaces to collect that first GS, not just outdoor hard courts. In fact his best surface used to be clay before he really started to excel on hard courts.

Well I dont really see when he ever could have won Wimbledon. Yes he made the final of Wimbledon 2002 which was a huge shock at the time as he was a relative unknown back then. He still never had a shot vs Hewitt in the final really as Hewitt was by far the better player at that particular point in time. Then from 2003-2005 he never could have beaten Federer or Roddick (or pretty even still Hewitt as well)there, and from 2006-now Federer or Nadal there. I am not even sure how to evaluate his abilities on grass since he has very few good results on the surface, yet made a Wimbledon final with an easy draw in a year well before his prime. Either way cant think of any year he could have ever won there.

At the French Open his best shot was definitely 2004. He could have beaten Gaudio and a nervous/choking Coria potentialy. He didnt really become a real contender again until the 2003 U.S Open though (he went back for awhile after his Wimbledon final) so cant think of any other year. From 2005 onwards Nadal ruled the French Open of course, even if Nalbandian matches up well with Nadal I cant see him beating him on clay, maybe he could beat him a best 2-of-3 but not in a best 3-of-5 at the French Open. 2005 was probably the year Nadal was most beatable there though, but of course there was Federer to deal with too, and Coria as well (despite that Coria was upset by Davydenko that year).

That is why I see his best chances of course coming on hard courts. You have to look at what players he would have had to beat. On hard courts his only major obstacle for awhile would have been Federer, and he even plays Federer well.

illkhiboy
04-12-2009, 07:44 PM
Well I dont really see when he ever could have won Wimbledon. Yes he made the final of Wimbledon 2002 which was a huge shock at the time as he was a relative unknown back then. He still never had a shot vs Hewitt in the final really as Hewitt was by far the better player at that particular point in time. Then from 2003-2005 he never could have beaten Federer or Roddick (or pretty even still Hewitt as well)there, and from 2006-now Federer or Nadal there. I am not even sure how to evaluate his abilities on grass since he has very few good results on the surface, yet made a Wimbledon final with an easy draw in a year well before his prime. Either way cant think of any year he could have ever won there.

At the French Open his best shot was definitely 2004. He could have beaten Gaudio and a nervous/choking Coria potentialy. He didnt really become a real contender again until the 2003 U.S Open though (he went back for awhile after his Wimbledon final) so cant think of any other year. From 2005 onwards Nadal ruled the French Open of course, even if Nalbandian matches up well with Nadal I cant see him beating him on clay, maybe he could beat him a best 2-of-3 but not in a best 3-of-5 at the French Open. 2005 was probably the year Nadal was most beatable there though, but of course there was Federer to deal with too, and Coria as well (despite that Coria was upset by Davydenko that year).

That is why I see his best chances of course coming on hard courts. You have to look at what players he would have had to beat. On hard courts his only major obstacle for awhile would have been Federer, and he even plays Federer well.

He spanked Hewitt in Davis Cup on grass back in 2005. And I think his game matches up really well against Roddick's, especially the 2005 Roddick with the weak backhand. Too bad he couldn't get past ToJo at Wimbledon that year - he had a good chance to make the final but I highly doubt he would beat Federer then.

In 2006 at the Australian he had a lot of momentum and confidence coming in. He had just won the Masters Cup, and was playing lights out tennis towards the end of that tournament. He was killing Baghdatis in that semi-final for the first set and a half. Unfortunately, he couldn't maintain his level.

I remember in a press conference before the semis, when a reporter asked him who he would bet on to win the tournament if he was a betting man, he named himself. That Nalbandian had a decent shot against Federer.

OliverSimon
04-12-2009, 08:34 PM
it's too late now................

ITS NOT TOO LATE ITS NEVA TOO LATEEEEEEE

bolo
04-14-2009, 01:41 PM
To this day I can't believe Nalbandian blew a two set lead against a very unfit player like Baghdatis in the AO semi final, after such a tough loss its no wonder he hasn't done anything at the slams since.

amazing last set there. I think he pulled another stomach muscle at some point in that match.

tacou
04-14-2009, 02:01 PM
surprised that nalby only has 10 titles. says a lot.

35ft6
04-14-2009, 04:02 PM
If you just saw the pros hitting back and forth, and you didn't know any of them, Nalbandian might look the best of all of them. His technique is ridiculous. But the supremely talented usually don't have a great worth ethic because working hard at it is something they never really have to develop on the way up, and it would seem he's no exception. But he's one of those guys, like Rios, who can make anybody look like a complete beginner when he's on. That includes Nadal and Federer.

charliefedererer
04-14-2009, 06:57 PM
Could nalbandian have been an all time great?
I don't believe any player who lacks a deep inner drive could be considered an all time great. The all time greats had talent and drive.

blackfrido
04-14-2009, 07:04 PM
As a Nalby fan, I say no. To be an all time great you not only need the talent (which Nalby has in a lot of aspect of his game but with a big weakness in todays game that is an ok forehand (not a winning forehand) and an unreliable serve) but you really really have to want it, that is, have an urge and a burning desire to be at the top. Seeing Nalby's career is obvious he doesn't have that urge. Still, that doesn't take away the fact that is a joy to see him play when his mind is into it.

come on RG el gordo es lo mas!
deja que estos boludos sigan hablando:-? y David disfrute como a el le gusta.........comiendo pizza y de joda todos los dias :)

Ripster
04-14-2009, 07:44 PM
Well I dont really see when he ever could have won Wimbledon. Yes he made the final of Wimbledon 2002 which was a huge shock at the time as he was a relative unknown back then. He still never had a shot vs Hewitt in the final really as Hewitt was by far the better player at that particular point in time. Then from 2003-2005 he never could have beaten Federer or Roddick (or pretty even still Hewitt as well)there, and from 2006-now Federer or Nadal there. I am not even sure how to evaluate his abilities on grass since he has very few good results on the surface, yet made a Wimbledon final with an easy draw in a year well before his prime. Either way cant think of any year he could have ever won there.

At the French Open his best shot was definitely 2004. He could have beaten Gaudio and a nervous/choking Coria potentialy. He didnt really become a real contender again until the 2003 U.S Open though (he went back for awhile after his Wimbledon final) so cant think of any other year. From 2005 onwards Nadal ruled the French Open of course, even if Nalbandian matches up well with Nadal I cant see him beating him on clay, maybe he could beat him a best 2-of-3 but not in a best 3-of-5 at the French Open. 2005 was probably the year Nadal was most beatable there though, but of course there was Federer to deal with too, and Coria as well (despite that Coria was upset by Davydenko that year).

That is why I see his best chances of course coming on hard courts. You have to look at what players he would have had to beat. On hard courts his only major obstacle for awhile would have been Federer, and he even plays Federer well.

I'm saying that he has had very good chances to win on ALL surfaces. That 2002 Wimbledon he was one match away from winning a grass GS title. One match. Anyone who watched that match knows that Nalbandian played like crap. He essentially choked that match away, he was extremely nervous the entire time, and it was a walk in the park for Hewitt. However, it doesn't change the fact that he was that close. If he turned on his best stuff for that match or for some reason Hewitt was off, well this thread wouldn't exist.

That 2004 French Open SF he could have easily beaten Gaudio. I don't know about beating Coria in the final, but I think he might have won that final since Coria was cramping severely.

And we all know about that 2003 US Open with the match points against Roddick. Then he would have had Ferrero in the final. Had he faced JCF, I think he would have won that final. And I'm a huge JCF fan.

Again, all I'm saying is that he's had very good chances on ALL surfaces to win a GS. :(

JW10S
04-14-2009, 08:05 PM
There is no question Nalbandian has underachieved. He battles with motivation but when he is on song he is a top 5 player.

grafselesfan
04-14-2009, 08:41 PM
Nalbandian even being in the 2002 Wimbledon final was a joke. He isnt that good a grass court player at all. Has he even made the quarters any other year at Wimbledon? He can play some really good tennis on indoors, hard courts, and once in awhile even on clay, but he is probably the worst grass court player to be in a Wimbledon final since Chris Lewis. Even Washington is better. He made the Wimbledon final since that was one of the worst Wimbledons in history. The quarterfinal lineup made me gag that year. Even with a total joke draw he still would have lost if Wayne Arthurs or Xavier Malisse had played their normal tennis on grass. Both those guys fell apart with nerves when they played Nalbandian and I think still went to 5 sets if I remember correctly.

As for the final he didnt have a prayer in hell even if he played his best. That was Hewitt at his peak, it was not Nalbandian in his prime yet, and it was on grass where Hewitt is vastly superior. If Nalbandian played the match of his life at that point he might have gotten 8 games instead of 4. Please do not confuse Nalbandian's potential play and ability of 2005-2007 on a hard court to Nalbandian's potential play in 2002 on a grass court. There is a world of difference.

I think Nalbandian's second greatest achievement on grass is the semis of Queens. There he managed to eat a bagel and breadstick from Novak Djokovic, and Djokovic isnt even in the league of Federer or Nadal on grass at this point.

egn
04-14-2009, 08:58 PM
Nalbandian even being in the 2002 Wimbledon final was a joke. He isnt that good a grass court player at all. Has he even made the quarters any other year at Wimbledon? He can play some really good tennis on indoors, hard courts, and once in awhile even on clay, but he is probably the worst grass court player to be in a Wimbledon final since Chris Lewis. Even Washington is better. He made the Wimbledon final since that was one of the worst Wimbledons in history. The quarterfinal lineup made me gag that year. Even with a total joke draw he still would have lost if Wayne Arthurs or Xavier Malisse had played their normal tennis on grass. Both those guys fell apart with nerves when they played Nalbandian and I think still went to 5 sets if I remember correctly.

As for the final he didnt have a prayer in hell even if he played his best. That was Hewitt at his peak, it was not Nalbandian in his prime yet, and it was on grass where Hewitt is vastly superior. If Nalbandian played the match of his life at that point he might have gotten 8 games instead of 4. Please do not confuse Nalbandian's potential play and ability of 2005-2007 on a hard court to Nalbandian's potential play in 2002 on a grass court. There is a world of difference.

I think Nalbandian's second greatest achievement on grass is the semis of Queens. There he managed to eat a bagel and breadstick from Novak Djokovic, and Djokovic isnt even in the league of Federer or Nadal on grass at this point.

Yea seriously if anyone thinks Nalbandian could have possibly could have won that wimbleodn is nuts. He beat nobody higher ranked than 22 prior to the final. His QF and SF opponent it was also both of their best runs at wimbledon. That tournament was awful in the bottom half. The top was were the better players all wound up. The hewitt-henman match should have been the final

grafselesfan
04-14-2009, 09:00 PM
Yea seriously if anyone thinks Nalbandian could have possibly could have won that wimbleodn is nuts. He beat nobody higher ranked than 22 prior to the final. His QF and SF opponent it was also both of their best runs at wimbledon. That tournament was awful in the bottom half. The top was were the better players all wound up. The hewitt-henman match should have been the final

Yeah I agree, although Henman was in his worst form any Wimbledon from 1996-2002 that year. Sad for him as it was his best opportunity, albeit Hewitt kind of owned him career wise anyway. I agree the top half had any of the really good players though.

Nalbandian beat Nicolas Lapenti in 5 sets in the quarters, than Xavier Malisse in 5 sets in the semis. Malisse was actually heavily favored to win that semifinal which is telling enough, and was choking so badly he had to be treated for breathing problems or a heart condition of some kind in the middle of the match.

That isnt to take away from Nalbandian's talent and ability on many of his prefered surfaces in his prime. However grass in 2002, no. Amazing effort for him to make the final somehow, even with it being the worst Wimbledon in the Open era.

wyutani
04-14-2009, 09:01 PM
since he lost wimbly final...all down hill.

tudwell
04-14-2009, 09:06 PM
since he lost wimbly final...all down hill.

He's won his biggest titles since that Wimbledon final. And he hadn't really done anything before then, anyway, so I don't really see how he could have gone down hill.

grafselesfan
04-14-2009, 09:19 PM
I would say since the 2006 Australian Open semis it has been all downhill. That was the watershed match of his career if there ever was one. There has been some very bright moments since then, but he hasnt been the consistent force he was in 2003-2005.

BTW an all time great in mens tennis would have to win atleast 7 slams. Even that not a total gaurantee as some 7 time slam winners I am not sure are seen as all time greats (eg- Wilander, Newcombe). So no to the thread question.

TennisNinja
04-14-2009, 11:54 PM
If he had trained harder I'm sure he would have won at least a slam.