PDA

View Full Version : Best Federer vs Best Nalbandian


SuperDuy
10-31-2009, 09:50 AM
Who wins? Remember, at their best plays, im going for Federer.

aphex
10-31-2009, 09:53 AM
what kind of question is that?

the only person who can beat best federer is best nadal only on clay.

skyzoo
10-31-2009, 09:54 AM
what kind of question is that?

the only person who can beat best federer is best nadal only on clay.
Agreed, but only soderling can beat a mediocre nadal on clay

aphex
10-31-2009, 09:56 AM
Agreed, but only soderling can beat a mediocre nadal on clay

lol................

Cesc Fabregas
10-31-2009, 09:58 AM
Silly thread, Federer at his best destroys Nalbandian.

Claudius
10-31-2009, 10:04 AM
Not so sure about that.

2003 AO - Nalbandian
2003 USO - Nalbandian
2007 Paris Masters - Nalbandian

In each of these matches, both players were at their best and Nalbandian prevailed. Nalbandian is simply the biggest waste of talent in tennis history.

viduka0101
10-31-2009, 10:23 AM
as much as this contributes to nalbandian being one the most overrated players in recent years i'm saying it would be a 50-50 match
nalbandian playing his best is just awesome to see

blackfrido
10-31-2009, 10:27 AM
what kind of question is that?

the only person who can beat best federer is best nadal only on clay.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????:confused:

LiveForever
10-31-2009, 10:30 AM
LOLZ! Nalbandian would get his *** kicked. Nalbandian and Safin are soo overrated on this website. :lol:

random guy
10-31-2009, 10:42 AM
50/50 for me. What is guaranteed is that Federer-Nalbandian with both playing at their best are the most beautiful tennis matches one can get.

President
10-31-2009, 10:45 AM
as much as this contributes to nalbandian being one the most overrated players in recent years i'm saying it would be a 50-50 match
nalbandian playing his best is just awesome to see

How is he overrated if he is "awesome to see" at his best?

Anyway, it would probably be 50/50. Nalbandian seems to be a bad matchup to Federer for some reason when he's at his best, and he has a godly level of talent. Just no mental strength at all to back it up.

viduka0101
10-31-2009, 10:53 AM
How is he overrated if he is "awesome to see" at his best?


i'm just saying he's done so little in his career that it doesn't back me up giving him a very good chance at a winning against a 15 slam winner playing at his best

President
10-31-2009, 10:55 AM
i'm just saying he's done so little in his career that it doesn't back me up giving him a very good chance at a winning against a 15 slam winner playing at his best

Some of the players that have the highest peak level out there today have never won a slam. Examples are Tsonga, Soderling, Nalbandian, Verdasco and Safin.

These players can play at a ridiculous level when they are on, but can't string it together consistently to win a slam.

Bertie B
10-31-2009, 11:00 AM
Didn't they play '04 Australian Open. I vote Federer.

Nalbandian does best against Federer when he's the underdog. Davide is mentally weak, and you can't discount the mental aspect of a player's arsenal. All things being equal, Nalbandian would play Federer close, but at the key moments he would either choke, or find some other way to give up.

Federer.

McBrat
10-31-2009, 11:01 AM
Federer will hand him a triple bagel. And Nalby will continue playing so he can get a couple of breadsticks to go with the bagels...

aphex
10-31-2009, 11:01 AM
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????:confused:

reading comprehension issues much?

All-rounder
10-31-2009, 11:53 AM
Not so sure about that.

2003 AO - Nalbandian
2003 USO - Nalbandian
2007 Paris Masters - Nalbandian

In each of these matches, both players were at their best and Nalbandian prevailed. Nalbandian is simply the biggest waste of talent in tennis history.
Federer at his very best was 2006/07 AO nalbandian can't touch federer in that form.

zagor
10-31-2009, 12:09 PM
When Fed and Nalbo are playing their best I just want to know which time and which channel,who ultimately wins is irrelevant.

fps
10-31-2009, 12:10 PM
Federer.

Nalbandian wins a few times playing out of his mind and people just assume Federer must be at his best in those matches. why? because Federer has a base level of performance 5 leagues higher than David. Federer's best is not of this earth.

Anaconda
10-31-2009, 12:11 PM
When Fed and Nalbo are playing their best I just want to know which time and which channel,who ultimately wins is irrelevant.

Nalbandian v Federer is definately the best matchup - along with Roddick v Karlovic and Safin v Federer.

IvanAndreevich
10-31-2009, 12:17 PM
Not so sure about that.

2003 AO - Nalbandian
2003 USO - Nalbandian
2007 Paris Masters - Nalbandian

In each of these matches, both players were at their best and Nalbandian prevailed. Nalbandian is simply the biggest waste of talent in tennis history.

I could somewhat agree with Paris 2007, but those 2003 matches were NOT EVEN CLOSE to the best of Federer. Not even close.

mtr1
10-31-2009, 12:19 PM
Federer at his best beats anyone, that is why he is the GOAT.

Polvorin
10-31-2009, 12:21 PM
Not so sure about that.

2003 AO - Nalbandian
2003 USO - Nalbandian
2007 Paris Masters - Nalbandian

In each of these matches, both players were at their best and Nalbandian prevailed. Nalbandian is simply the biggest waste of talent in tennis history.

Matches from 2003 can hardly be considered Federer's "best" form. That was his breakthrough year. And wasn't the end of 2007 when he was having back problems?

Anaconda
10-31-2009, 12:22 PM
Federer at his best beats anyone, that is why he is the GOAT.

Nope, he didn't beat Nadal much in 2004,2005,2006,2007,2008 oh and 2009.

That's why Nadal leads H2H

IvanAndreevich
10-31-2009, 12:28 PM
Matches from 2003 can hardly be considered Federer's "best" form. That was his breakthrough year. And wasn't the end of 2007 when he was having back problems?

He was having back problems end of last year ( 2008 ).

President of Serve/Volley
10-31-2009, 12:35 PM
Silly thread, Federer at his best destroys Nalbandian.



Yes... 2005 Roger Federer wiped out Nalbandian when they met at the US Open.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYVmeFGKDyY

flyinghippos101
10-31-2009, 12:46 PM
Not so sure about that.

2003 AO - Nalbandian
2003 USO - Nalbandian
2007 Paris Masters - Nalbandian

In each of these matches, both players were at their best and Nalbandian prevailed. Nalbandian is simply the biggest waste of talent in tennis history.

2003 was pre-prime Fed. 2007 Fed was in his prime sure, but considering how Nalbandian is an indoor god, he gets the immediate edge.

_maxi
10-31-2009, 12:55 PM
2005 TMC final. Fed said that his ankle was ok and didn't provoque him problems.

Their H2H is pretty even. I'd say Fed would take the mayority of the matches, but It's difficult. When nalbo is on, he has no weaknesses. 65% fed 35% nalbo

siowmotion
10-31-2009, 02:55 PM
Yes... 2005 Roger Federer wiped out Nalbandian when they met at the US Open.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYVmeFGKDyY

<3 that 360 hit by Nalbandian LOL.

All-rounder
10-31-2009, 03:00 PM
2003 was pre-prime Fed. 2007 Fed was in his prime sure, but considering how Nalbandian is an indoor god, he gets the immediate edge.
Federer or nalbandian???

Baikalic
10-31-2009, 03:04 PM
talking about nalbandian at his best is like talking about safin at his best- Once in a blue moon.

When was Nalbandian "at his best" outside of Paris/Madrid 07?

ahile02
10-31-2009, 03:06 PM
Best Federer: 7-6, 6-4,6-3

hoodjem
10-31-2009, 03:10 PM
Federer at his best beats anyone, that is why he is the GOAT.
Well-supported opinion.

LiveForever
10-31-2009, 03:13 PM
That is why you are a new user.
Whoa calm down with the insults. Being here for 2 years doesnt make you any better than anyone else. GOAT debate will never be solved but I can guarantee 100 % that Laver, brought back from his prime playing with his own wood racket, will recieve the beating of his life against Federer of 2005 and even Sampras for that matter.

Baikalic
10-31-2009, 03:13 PM
Federer at when not his best still beats almost anyone, that is why he is the GOAT.

Fixed for you :)

mtr1
10-31-2009, 03:17 PM
That is why you are a new user.

mtr1
New User
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: England
Posts: 92

Calm down, I'm just stating a known fact. Just because I don't have as many posts as you doesn't mean I know nothing about tennis.

hoodjem
10-31-2009, 03:20 PM
I voted for Fed: he can beat Nalby on grass or hard-court (although Nalbandian did beat Fed at the 2005 Shanghai Masters final on hard-court in 5 sets, three of which were tiebreakers). Fed is up 6-5 versus Nalbandian on hard courts.

Nalby has done very well against Fed indoors, but I would say that in those instances Fed was not playing his best, though David probably was. Nalbandian is ahead 2-1 on carpet.

On clay I take Fed. At the 2006 FO Fed was up against Nalbandian in the semis 5-2 in the third set (the first two were split 2-6, 6-4), when David retired because of a strained abdominal muscle. Fed is ahead 3-1 on clay.

Fed is up 10-8 head-to-head against Nalby.

LiveForever
10-31-2009, 03:21 PM
Calm down, I'm just stating a known fact. Just because I don't have as many posts as you doesn't mean I know nothing about tennis.
LOL so true. I bet if Rod Laver himself made an account here, the veteran posters would probably call him out on his tennis knowledge. :lol:

LiveForever
10-31-2009, 03:24 PM
Did I say anything insulting? No. He said Fed is the GOAT; I said MTR is a new user.

Being here for two years will probably make one a lot smarter about tennis and its history.

I'm very calm. I would offer that this statement is merely a debatable opinion.
and what is that implying? You know what you are trying to say. You are pretty much saying that since you are new, I am much smarter than you and know more about tennis. This is complete BS. Are the worlds best coaches and players on this forum? I dont think so. You can be prefectly knowledgeable about the game without receiving biased knowledge from other posters on an internet forum

mtr1
10-31-2009, 03:30 PM
and what is that implying? You know what you are trying to say. You are pretty much saying that since you are new, I am much smarter than you and know more about tennis. This is complete BS. Are the worlds best coaches and players on this forum? I dont think so. You can be prefectly knowledgeable about the game without receiving biased knowledge from other posters on an internet forum

Exactly. This forum is a good place to share opinions and look up information, but it is not the only source of tennis knowledge.

hoodjem
10-31-2009, 03:30 PM
I voted for Fed. Fed is up 6-5 versus Nalbandian on hard courts. Nalbandian is ahead 2-1 on carpet. Fed is ahead 3-1 on clay. Fed is up 10-8 in total head-to-head against Nalby.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
10-31-2009, 03:36 PM
On clay and Indoors Id like to favor Nalbandian actually. He could beat Fed at his best and he did. Every other surface Fed

TheFifthSet
10-31-2009, 03:43 PM
I really dislike the term "at his/her best" when it implies that it is the ultimate, theoretical best that a player can play. It just doesn't make sense. Unless a player hits zero unforced errors, executes every stroke perfectly, makes no mental mistakes, there really is no such thing as a player playing the best they absolutely, possibly can . . . i.e, Federer was broken in his match vs. Roddick at the AO a few years back, Agassi served at 44% at the '99 Wimby final yet Sampras could "only" break him 3 times, Nadal was broken 8 times at RG '08 . . . bottom line, there is always room for improvement. People take the term "at his best" way too seriously around here, as if a player could not possibly play better than they did in the best match they ever played thus far.

big bang
10-31-2009, 04:35 PM
Some of the players that have the highest peak level out there today have never won a slam. Examples are Tsonga, Soderling, Nalbandian, Verdasco and Safin.

These players can play at a ridiculous level when they are on, but can't string it together consistently to win a slam.

Safin?? maybe you need to watch more tennis if you say he never won a slam..

Knightmace
10-31-2009, 04:41 PM
Their 2005 TMC Final was one of the most high quality matches ever. They can both strike the ball super cleanly. Nalby would definately make it tough for Federer if he was playing at his best.

Baikalic
10-31-2009, 04:58 PM
Their 2005 TMC Final was one of the most high quality matches ever. They can both strike the ball super cleanly. Nalby would definately make it tough for Federer if he was playing at his best.

OK that's the one time I remember seeing Nalby outside of Madrid/Paris07 where he was playing at the top of his game. EXCELLENT MATCH.

President
10-31-2009, 05:43 PM
Safin?? maybe you need to watch more tennis if you say he never won a slam..

Yeah I shouldn't have included Safin..brainfart on my part.


But he should have won a lot more slams than he did with his talent!:)

Dark Victory
10-31-2009, 07:39 PM
Their 2005 TMC Final was one of the most high quality matches ever. They can both strike the ball super cleanly. Nalby would definately make it tough for Federer if he was playing at his best.
Both Federer and Nalbandian played their best in this match.

Baikalic
10-31-2009, 07:39 PM
Yeah I shouldn't have included Safin..brainfart on my part.


But he should have won a lot more slams than he did with his talent!:)

Well hey, at least he's not in Nalbandian's situation. But yeah Safin definitely underperformed for most of his career.

President of Serve/Volley
10-31-2009, 07:56 PM
Federer would beat Nalbandian more often if he tried to do more serve and volley.

Turning Pro
10-31-2009, 10:04 PM
TMC 05. Nalbandian is a very tough match up for fed, simply because he's at least as gifted as ball striker as himself. Nalby in 5. He was going to take the french semi 06 (barring injury) and he had fed's number severeal times.

President of Serve/Volley
10-31-2009, 10:14 PM
TMC 05. Nalbandian is a very tough match up for fed, simply because he's at least as gifted as ball striker as himself. Nalby in 5. He was going to take the french semi 06 (barring injury) and he had fed's number severeal times.


Yes, this is true. But I believe if Federer would use his volleying skills, he might have a good chance of winning more matches...

If you take Pete Sampras vs Nalbandian, Sampras wins 9 out of 10. Or Boris Becker (greatest carpet player of all time) he wins 10 out of 10.

lambielspins
10-31-2009, 10:32 PM
Ridiculous thread. Lets break it down.

Grass both playing their best- Federer wins 11 times out of 10
Clay both playing their best- Federer wins 8 or 9 times out of 10
Outdoor hard courts both playing their best- Federer wins 7 or 8 times out of 10
Indoors both playing their best- toss up

Overall it is Federer by a landslide. The only surface Nalbandian has a decent shot to beat Federer with both in similar form is indoors, nothing else. The 18 people who voted for Nalbandian are either Federer haters, Nalbandian fanatics, are flat out stupid.

PCXL-Fan
10-31-2009, 10:35 PM
I would have to go with Federer.

Baikalic
10-31-2009, 10:35 PM
Ridiculous thread. Lets break it down.

Grass both playing their best- Federer wins 11 times out of 10
Clay both playing their best- Federer wins 8 or 9 times out of 10
Outdoor hard courts both playing their best- Federer wins 7 or 8 times out of 10
Indoors both playing their best- toss up

Overall it is Federer by a landslide. The only surface Nalbandian has a decent shot to beat Federer with both in similar form is indoors, nothing else. The 18 people who voted for Nalbandian are either Federer haters, Nalbandian fanatics, are flat out stupid.

wow he really does stand no chance on grass! But of course I agree with this, Nalbandian seems only to match up to Fed well on indoor HC.

lambielspins
10-31-2009, 10:37 PM
Not so sure about that.

2003 AO - Nalbandian
2003 USO - Nalbandian
2007 Paris Masters - Nalbandian

In each of these matches, both players were at their best and Nalbandian prevailed. Nalbandian is simply the biggest waste of talent in tennis history.

Safin is a bigger waste of talent than Nalbandian is despite that he has accomplished more. Among current players I would say Gulbis is a bigger waste of talent just considering he cant even get inside the top 50 or win matches on tour it seems. Nalbandian is very talented and should have won atleast one slam but you are overrating him alot. Australian Open 2003 and U.S Open 2003 was Federer at his best!? ROTFL at that one. Even if Federer had been playing his best for what he was then, this wasnt the same Federer (especialy AO 2003) as 2004-2007, and as it was Federer wasnt even playing that well in either match.

lambielspins
10-31-2009, 10:39 PM
wow he really does stand no chance on grass! But of course I agree with this, Nalbandian seems only to match up to Fed well on indoor HC.

Nalbandian is just a fair grass court player at best. It is his worst surface by a huge margin. 2002 Wimbledon was simply the worst Wimbledon in mens tennis history, and that is no exagerration. I challenge anyone to come up with one that was worse overall than that year. His Wimbledon final appearance was also one of the biggest fluke results of the entire decade. His best performances on grass since have been a couple 4th rounds at Wimbledon, and a Queens semifinal where Djokovic dished him a bagel and breadstick.

bladepdb
10-31-2009, 11:19 PM
Some of the players that have the highest peak level out there today have never won a slam. Examples are Tsonga, Soderling, Nalbandian, Verdasco and Safin.

These players can play at a ridiculous level when they are on, but can't string it together consistently to win a slam.

This thread isn't about a consistent ability to win slams. It is an argument of pure extremes: best Federer vs. best Nalby.

Consider this -- 2005 is considered a year of Fed's prime. Safin defeated Federer in AO 05, demonstrating clearly that in a single match players with enormous talent (but lack of consistency, including Safin, Nalby, etc.) have the ability to defeat Fed.

Thus I'm convinced a Nalbandian at his best can defeat Federer at his best.

flying24
11-01-2009, 04:52 AM
This thread isn't about a consistent ability to win slams. It is an argument of pure extremes: best Federer vs. best Nalby.

Consider this -- 2005 is considered a year of Fed's prime. Safin defeated Federer in AO 05, demonstrating clearly that in a single match players with enormous talent (but lack of consistency, including Safin, Nalby, etc.) have the ability to defeat Fed.

Thus I'm convinced a Nalbandian at his best can defeat Federer at his best.

Just because a potentially great but inconsistent player has the ability to once in awhile defeat a great player with both playing well definitely does not mean on average with both playing their best they would do that often. Lambielspins broke it down perfectly. Nalbandian at his best would almost never beat Federer at his best except indoors, and even then not all the time. On grass it would be a laugher if both were at their best, and even on an outdoor hard court of any speed it would also be one sided (and please dont make me laugh by using 2003 examples). Clay is the surface he would have the 2nd most chance to outplay a prime in form Federer after indoors, the other surfaces are really of no realistic consideration at all.

Safin at his best is better than Nalbandian at his best and even he would lose the vast majority of matches to Federer with both at their best.

big bang
11-01-2009, 05:10 AM
Yeah I shouldn't have included Safin..brainfart on my part.


But he should have won a lot more slams than he did with his talent!:)

Safin should have won more slams.. he beat Pete in 2000 to win USO, when Pete retired Fed was still very young and not dominating, Safin should have won at least 1 slam every year in that period.
then he comes back 5 years later and beats Fed in an epic match before dominating Hewitt in the Final at AO.. Safin should have won 5-8 slams in his career, he sure had every chance to do so.

Turning Pro
11-01-2009, 05:37 AM
I'd say 5-8 slams is a bit, maybe if he was born with a different mentality, skipped partying and focused 100% and not have mental lapses and played with federer's ethics and commitement. But then he'd have ended up with well over that slam count. I'd say he should have won 4-5 though even with all these problems.

robt18
11-17-2009, 02:13 PM
Best Federer versus, best Nalbandian. Nalbandian would win.
At his best Nalbandian is just impossible to dictate and threaten by anyone Federer included.

However Federer always maintains a extremely high level of play, so most of the time he will beat Nalbandian.

I think if Federer were to write an autobiography like Sampras and Agassi had, he would cite Nalbandian as one of his biggest rivals that scared him as much as Nadal. As recent as the 2009 US open Federer joked that he liked his chances in the draw becuase there was no Nalbandian. That shows how serious Federer considers him a threat even when he has not produced good results since 2007.

CHOcobo
11-17-2009, 02:17 PM
lets see some videos.

flying24
11-17-2009, 02:20 PM
I'd say 5-8 slams is a bit, maybe if he was born with a different mentality, skipped partying and focused 100% and not have mental lapses and played with federer's ethics and commitement. But then he'd have ended up with well over that slam count. I'd say he should have won 4-5 though even with all these problems.

What an idiot as usual. There are not 4-5 slams Nalbandian could have won. At absolute most there is 1-3, more likely 1 or 2. 2003 U.S Open was a chance for sure. Then again in some ways it is surprising he came as close to beating Roddick as he did, since Roddick had destroyed Nalbandian their previous 2 matches on hard courts at that point. Maybe the 2006 Australian Open, but then again Nalbandian never beat Federer on anything but an indoor court since August 2003, so even in Federer's sluggish form that event it would be a big assignment in the final for him. And just maybe the 2004 French, but really beating Gaudio and Coria back to back on clay seems unlikely for him, and the process of events that led to Coria choking in the final would not neccessarily have happened in a different match vs a different opponent (and Coria actually owned Nalbandian back then).

robt18
11-17-2009, 02:25 PM
The serve and volley game is dead. That strategy worked back then because the racquets were slower and so players had to employ S and V to attack.

You will not find anymore purely Serve and volley players, that was a different era in itself. I dont know why you think Sampras, Becker maybe Edberg, Rafter or Stitch would dominate Nalbandian because of serve and volley. These players were beat by new era players because they could no longer handle the fast and easy passing shots, ex. Hewitt.

Nalbandian is one of the best returner in the game. He would destroy these guys.

Turning Pro
11-17-2009, 04:29 PM
What an idiot as usual. There are not 4-5 slams Nalbandian could have won. At absolute most there is 1-3, more likely 1 or 2. 2003 U.S Open was a chance for sure. Then again in some ways it is surprising he came as close to beating Roddick as he did, since Roddick had destroyed Nalbandian their previous 2 matches on hard courts at that point. Maybe the 2006 Australian Open, but then again Nalbandian never beat Federer on anything but an indoor court since August 2003, so even in Federer's sluggish form that event it would be a big assignment in the final for him. And just maybe the 2004 French, but really beating Gaudio and Coria back to back on clay seems unlikely for him, and the process of events that led to Coria choking in the final would not neccessarily have happened in a different match vs a different opponent (and Coria actually owned Nalbandian back then).

i clearly indicated i was talking about safin moron, . lol

matchmaker
11-17-2009, 04:32 PM
This is pure hypothesis, but Nalbandian at his best might just win.

robt18
11-17-2009, 06:56 PM
This is pure hypothesis, but Nalbandian at his best might just win.

I have no idea what you mean but just might win, youtube Federer vs. Nalbandian and right off the bat, you find more memorable matches availible where Nalbandian beats Federer.

Fedace
11-17-2009, 07:05 PM
you have your answer on Tennis channel ON right now...

SuperDuy
11-17-2009, 08:46 PM
Its a bummer, that I dont get the tennis channel ^

OliverSimon
11-17-2009, 08:58 PM
Prime Nalbandian > Prime Federer

lawrence
11-17-2009, 09:02 PM
obviously prime nalbandian beats prime fed
i mean look at all the slams prime nalbandian won


oh wait lewl

President of Serve/Volley
11-17-2009, 09:03 PM
Prime Nalbandian > Prime Federer


Nalbandian never had a year like Fed did in 2006.

Breaker
11-17-2009, 09:15 PM
2005 TMC final. Fed said that his ankle was ok and didn't provoque him problems.

Their H2H is pretty even. I'd say Fed would take the mayority of the matches, but It's difficult. When nalbo is on, he has no weaknesses. 65% fed 35% nalbo


Federer couldn't play proper defence in that match and that can only be because of his movement being affected by his ankle. He was striking the ball brilliantly and still ended up serving for it in the 5th but he clearly was not moving at his best in that match. He dumped more shots into the bottom of the net in that match than any other I can remember.

joeri888
11-19-2009, 04:46 AM
Has Nalbandian ever reached his best? Since I think he has, it's easy to say Federer. Nalbandian at his best never won a Slam.

grafselesfan
11-19-2009, 04:51 AM
Prime Nalbandian > Prime Federer

ROTFL what an insane statement. Prime Federer was winning 3 slams a year and losing 4 or 5 matches a year. The field sort of sucked, but then again Nalbandian primed at the same time and faced the same field. Nalbandian in his so called prime did what? Never reached a slam final (his one fluke Wimbledon final was in his pre prime days), lost 4 straight slam semis including choking 2 sets to 0 vs Baghdatis, being spanked by Gaudio, and choking vs Roddick, and won something like 6 tournaments. Not to mention losing almost every match he and Federer played as well. Shame on you not only for your statement of sheer stupidity but forcing me to defend Federer too.

LOL at a quarter of you actually voting for Nalbandian. I knew there were some strange ones around here but is a quarter or more of TW doing glue sniffing and crack snorting for a living.

grafselesfan
11-19-2009, 04:53 AM
Has Nalbandian ever reached his best? Since I think he has, it's easy to say Federer. Nalbandian at his best never won a Slam.

The Nalbandian fanboys will just say Nalbandian never played his best tennis in a slam even once. In that case that just means he is even more an overrated clown than this thread is already making him into.

lambielspins
11-19-2009, 06:28 AM
TMC 05. Nalbandian is a very tough match up for fed, simply because he's at least as gifted as ball striker as himself. Nalby in 5. He was going to take the french semi 06 (barring injury) and he had fed's number severeal times.

ROTFL TMC 05 was Nalbandian playing one of the best matches of his life and barely scraping past an injured Federer who was moving and serving at about 50%. How would they matchup in their primes per surface:

Grass- Federer wins 20 times out of 10.
Decoturf- Federer wins 10 times out of 10 (this is prime Federer)
Rebound ace- Federer wins 8 or 9 times out of 10
Clay- Federer wins 8 or 9 times out of 10
Indoors- Federer wins 7 times out of 10

You fail as usual as does this silly thread.

Anaconda
11-19-2009, 06:45 AM
Best Federer versus, best Nalbandian. Nalbandian would win.
At his best Nalbandian is just impossible to dictate and threaten by anyone Federer included.

However Federer always maintains a extremely high level of play, so most of the time he will beat Nalbandian.

I think if Federer were to write an autobiography like Sampras and Agassi had, he would cite Nalbandian as one of his biggest rivals that scared him as much as Nadal. As recent as the 2009 US open Federer joked that he liked his chances in the draw becuase there was no Nalbandian. That shows how serious Federer considers him a threat even when he has not produced good results since 2007.


Players like Roddick and Djokovic can destroy nalbandian at his best. Nalbandian is just an overrated 'no slam choker'.

NamRanger
11-19-2009, 06:47 AM
ROTFL TMC 05 was Nalbandian playing one of the best matches of his life and barely scraping past an injured Federer who was moving and serving at about 50%. How would they matchup in their primes per surface:

Grass- Federer wins 20 times out of 10.
Decoturf- Federer wins 10 times out of 10 (this is prime Federer)
Rebound ace- Federer wins 8 or 9 times out of 10
Clay- Federer wins 8 or 9 times out of 10
Indoors- Federer wins 7 times out of 10

You fail as usual as does this silly thread.




Disagree, the two times they met during their respective best years on clay were at Rome 2006 which was an incredibly close match that was decided by 1-2 points, and the FO 2006 where Nalbandian was leading and beating the living snot out of Federer for awhile until at some point, he tore a hip flexor I believe.



Grass Federer does win pretty much every match, but the other surfaces are much closer than one expects them to be. Nalbandian is no slouch at all if he decides to play his best tennis.




Now, that's not to say Nalbandian would win more matches than Federer; that's just crazy. However, I think Nalbandian wins a few more matches than some people expect him to.

grafselesfan
11-19-2009, 07:13 AM
Players like Roddick and Djokovic can destroy nalbandian at his best. Nalbandian is just an overrated 'no slam choker'.

Roddick did own Nalbandian back when he had a forehand. He won all 3 of their matches. Granted Nalbandian should have won that U.S Open match, but still didnt. Actually the U.S Open match was telling as Nalbandian was playing his best tennis that day and still ended up losing to Roddick far below his best, even if it is widely considered a choke. Their other 2 matches in Roddick's "I have a forehand" days Nalbandian was completely destroyed and overwhelmed by Roddick's power.

Nalbandian is a very talented player but he is quite overrated on TW planet all the same. The results of this poll are telling to that. Even if one feels Nalbandian at his best can beat Federer on a given day on a particular surface, a vote for Nalbandian indicates someone who feels he would have won the majority of their matches over a variety of surfaces with both at their best. And that is a crazy concept, and that a quarter of people actually think that way is laughable.