PDA

View Full Version : In terms of actual skill, who is more talented between Federer and young Nalbandian?


Mike Sams
10-04-2012, 06:53 AM
I know Nalbandian used to give Federer a lot of fits in the earlier days, even in defeat, and Nalbandian never dedicated his life to his craft.
In terms of pure talent and ball striking skills, who is better between them?

dangalak
10-04-2012, 06:57 AM
Ballstriking skills, Nalbandian, that's for sure.

Both are more or less evenly talented in terms of tennis, but Federer is the better athlete.

Let's not even get into things like mental toughness, dedication and serve. :lol:

RF20Lennon
10-04-2012, 06:57 AM
I think their both extremely talented but federers natural ability is just phenomenal

RF20Lennon
10-04-2012, 06:58 AM
Ballstriking skills, Nalbandian, that's for sure.

Both are more or less evenly talented in terms of tennis, but Federer is the better athlete.

Let's not even get into things like mental toughness, dedication and serve. :lol:

Yes defs I agree!!!

Mortifier
10-04-2012, 07:05 AM
Ballstriking skills, Nalbandian, that's for sure.

Both are more or less evenly talented in terms of tennis, but Federer is the better athlete.

Let's not even get into things like mental toughness, dedication and serve. :lol:

Yup, it's almost ridiculous how sure you are of this. Fed's forehand is top 20 in the world at best. His backhand? Worse than any other one-hander I've seen. Where is that 100 sq inch racquet again...?

dangalak
10-04-2012, 07:10 AM
Yup, it's almost ridiculous how sure you are of this. Fed's forehand is top 20 in the world at best. His backhand? Worse than any other one-hander I've seen. Where is that 100 sq inch racquet again...?

Do you even know what ballstriking is?

Hint: serial shankers are excempt from that club. :lol:

Sim
10-04-2012, 07:13 AM
Yup, it's almost ridiculous how sure you are of this. Fed's forehand is top 20 in the world at best. His backhand? Worse than any other one-hander I've seen. Where is that 100 sq inch racquet again...?

Backhand to backhand, Nalbandian bosses Federer around :lol:

nereis
10-04-2012, 07:14 AM
Anyone who has seen Nalbandian's match with Federer in the 2003 Australian Open and in their indoor matches would agree that David has the better pure ballstriking skills. Despite being 5'11 (at best) he just has the ability to outhit just about anyone on tour once shotmaking becomes more important than movement as is in an indoor tournament.

Federer has been so successful due to his superior mental toughness, match fitness and movement.

Alexandros
10-04-2012, 08:26 AM
Nalbandian's talent is immensely overrated on these boards, I'd take Federer by a country mile.

MichaelNadal
10-04-2012, 08:44 AM
Still Federer for me, no question.

kishnabe
10-04-2012, 08:56 AM
Federer.....

pvaudio
10-04-2012, 08:59 AM
I really don't understand why people hype up Nalbandian so much here.

Iron Man
10-04-2012, 08:59 AM
what did Nalbandian do in his whole career ?
No tennis player can be compared to Federer in terms of skill or talent

Limpinhitter
10-04-2012, 09:02 AM
Neither! The Rocket!

dangalak
10-04-2012, 09:30 AM
Nalbandian's talent is immensely overrated on these boards, I'd take Federer by a country mile.

I really don't understand why people hype up Nalbandian so much here.

what did Nalbandian do in his whole career ?
No tennis player can be compared to Federer in terms of skill or talent

Every time somebody makes a decent and interesting thread, these people have to stink the place up.

1. No Nalbandian's talent isn't "immensely overrated" on these forums. You just happen to be a glory hunter who isn't smart enough to distinguish true ability without having a dozen of trophies next to it.

2. People hype up Nalbandian so much because he is in all likelihood one of the most gifted player in history.

3. Another johnny come lately that cannot comprehend the meaning of the question of "WHO IS MORE TALENTED". Are you aware, how OFTEN Naldandian has made your idol look like a jock?

Prisoner of Birth
10-04-2012, 10:05 AM
Every time somebody makes a decent and interesting thread, these people have to stink the place up.

1. No Nalbandian's talent isn't "immensely overrated" on these forums. You just happen to be a glory hunter who isn't smart enough to distinguish true ability without having a dozen of trophies next to it.

2. People hype up Nalbandian so much because he is in all likelihood one of the most gifted player in history.

3. Another johnny come lately that cannot comprehend the meaning of the question of "WHO IS MORE TALENTED". Are you aware, how OFTEN Naldandian has made your idol look like a jock?

True. True. True. Safin and Nalbandian had the talent to win 20 Grand Slams between them; just not the temperament.

Tony48
10-04-2012, 10:07 AM
Nalbandian was incredibly talented. Federer, however, was just even more talented.

BauerAlmeida
10-04-2012, 11:25 AM
Ballstriking skills, Nalbandian, that's for sure.

Both are more or less evenly talented in terms of tennis, but Federer is the better athlete.

Let's not even get into things like mental toughness, dedication and serve. :lol:

This.

Not sure about mental toughness though. I don't think Nalbandian was bad in that aspect and Federer wasn't that good to be honest.

But I completely agree on the rest.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 11:26 AM
This.

Not sure about mental toughness though. I don't think Nalbandian was bad in that aspect and Federer wasn't that good to be honest.

But I completely agree on the rest.

:? Seriously, still vulturing that H2H?

Federer is one of the clutchest guys ever.

BauerAlmeida
10-04-2012, 11:34 AM
:? Seriously, still vulturing that H2H?

Federer is one of the clutchest guys ever.

What H2H??? Federer isn't that clutch. That is his main weakness IMO.

He choked a lot of matches he was in a clear position to win. vs Nalbandian MC 2005, vs Safin AO 2005, vs Delpo USO 2009, vs Nadal Rome 2006, vs Hewitt DC 2003, vs Djokovic USO 2011, vs Djokovic USO 2010, and I can go on.

Of course he is not Feliciano Lopez, but he is far behind Sampras or Nadal in that aspect IMO.

tennis_pro
10-04-2012, 11:44 AM
Ballstriking skills, Nalbandian, that's for sure.

Both are more or less evenly talented in terms of tennis, but Federer is the better athlete.

Let's not even get into things like mental toughness, dedication and serve. :lol:

Pretty much this.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 11:52 AM
What H2H??? Federer isn't that clutch. That is his main weakness IMO.

He choked a lot of matches he was in a clear position to win. vs Nalbandian MC 2005, vs Safin AO 2005, vs Delpo USO 2009, vs Nadal Rome 2006, vs Hewitt DC 2003, vs Djokovic USO 2011, vs Djokovic USO 2010, and I can go on.

Of course he is not Feliciano Lopez, but he is far behind Sampras or Nadal in that aspect IMO.

Honestly, when will you realize that not every match where you had an opportunity to win is a choke.

He has way too many comebacks and way too many clutch serving performances to be "far behind Sampras and Nadal".

Evan77
10-04-2012, 12:01 PM
Nalbandian is not over-hyped at all. He is a super talented tennis player. The problem with Nalby is that he was never as dedicated as Fed. His biggest problem is his fitness level. Nalbandian simply loves his burgers and his women more than tennis.

Dangalak summed it up very well in his posts regarding Fed and Nalby.

dominikk1985
10-04-2012, 12:59 PM
Fed easily. Nalbandian was a very fine ballstriker but he didn't have the power and athleticism of federer.

his feel for the ball and technique are certainly up there with anyone but talent is not just about how great your droppers and angle shots are.

athleticism, mental strength, willpower and hitting power are equally as important and fed was easily better than nalby in any of those.

It's no coinicidence that nalby didn't win more in his career.

TheCheese
10-04-2012, 01:01 PM
Seriously, people think Nalbandian is a better ballstriker than the guy with the greatest forehand of all time...?

It's not like movement is completely separate from ballstriking. You have to have excellent movement to be in position to hit the ball.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 01:03 PM
Seriously, people think Nalbandian is a better ballstriker than the guy with the greatest forehand of all time...?

It's not like movement is completely separate from ballstriking. You have to have excellent movement to be in position to hit the ball.

He is by far the better ballstriker.

It seems to me you are not aware of what the term implies. Nadal has also one of the best forehands of all time and he isn't even close to being the best ballstriker.

Serial shankers cannot be great ballstrikers.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 01:06 PM
Fed easily. Nalbandian was a very fine ballstriker but he didn't have the power and athleticism of federer.

his feel for the ball and technique are certainly up there with anyone but talent is not just about how great your droppers and angle shots are.

athleticism, mental strength, willpower and hitting power are equally as important and fed was easily better than nalby in any of those.

It's no coinicidence that nalby didn't win more in his career.

Thank you for proving you have no idea what "talent" means.

Mental strength and will power are diametrically opposed to talent. It is the last thing that has to do with gift or else, a guy like Ferrer or Simon is immensely talented as well.

Atleticism isn't talent either or else, many guys from the NFL would be "talented" tennis players. Physical talent is something you could use for any sport. "Tennis talent" only works for tennis though and should be the only one used.

NadalAgassi
10-04-2012, 01:07 PM
What H2H??? Federer isn't that clutch. That is his main weakness IMO.

He choked a lot of matches he was in a clear position to win. vs Nalbandian MC 2005, vs Safin AO 2005, vs Delpo USO 2009, vs Nadal Rome 2006, vs Hewitt DC 2003, vs Djokovic USO 2011, vs Djokovic USO 2010, and I can go on.

Of course he is not Feliciano Lopez, but he is far behind Sampras or Nadal in that aspect IMO.

I agree. It is funny there is anyone on this forum who thinks Federer is mentally as tough as Nadal imparticular, LOL!


I would say in their youth they were about equal talents, but Federer's talents developed and grew by leaps and bounds while Nalbandian's did not.

forzamilan90
10-04-2012, 01:09 PM
Fed's the more talented, skillful player no doubt. Nalbandian's backhand is insane, but other than that, I don't give him any edge against Federer.

Iron Man
10-04-2012, 01:10 PM
Every time somebody makes a decent and interesting thread, these people have to stink the place up.

1. No Nalbandian's talent isn't "immensely overrated" on these forums. You just happen to be a glory hunter who isn't smart enough to distinguish true ability without having a dozen of trophies next to it.

2. People hype up Nalbandian so much because he is in all likelihood one of the most gifted player in history.

3. Another johnny come lately that cannot comprehend the meaning of the question of "WHO IS MORE TALENTED". Are you aware, how OFTEN Naldandian has made your idol look like a jock?

hey , what do you want ? We don't agree with you and we're entitled to our opinion . and your idol ( nalby ) didn't make Fed look like a joke , don't base your argument on one match or two and mind your language next time

dangalak
10-04-2012, 01:11 PM
I agree. It is funny there is anyone on this forum who thinks Federer is mentally as tough as Nadal imparticular, LOL!


I would say in their youth they were about equal talents, but Federer's talents developed and grew by leaps and bounds while Nalbandian's did not.

Nadal's mental toughness is a little overrated. Grinders typically "choke" less anyway. They maintain the same level for a longer time. Also, he got crushed in straights far more often than Federer did.

I wouldn't say that Federer is as tough as Nadal, but I disagree that there is some massive gap.

On talent "developing": pretty sure the word "talent" is supposed to be the "gold" that a person has in their "soil". Not exactly something that you can "develop" only resurface.

ruerooo
10-04-2012, 01:12 PM
D-Nal was brilliant. If I were a player, I'd still be afraid to face him in Davis Cup when he's healthy.

He's got deadly angles. Have some posters here not seen the matches where he's beaten Roger? And not because Roger wasn't playing well, either. Is there a clip of that Shanghai Masters match around here somewhere?

ruerooo
10-04-2012, 01:12 PM
Nadal's mental toughness is a little overrated.




What are you basing a statement like that on?

dangalak
10-04-2012, 01:14 PM
hey , what do you want ? We don't agree with you and we're entitled to our opinion . and your idol ( nalby ) didn't make Fed look like a joke , don't base your argument on one match or two and mind your language next time

Oh Internet tough guys. :)

Nalbandian has made him look silly on numerous occasions. AO 03, Shanghai 05, Madrid 07, Paris 07.

Also, what in the 7 hells of tartarus is "we are entitles to our opinion" supposed to mean? :lol: Did I ever state that you are legally banned from stating uninformed nonsense. Your opinion is wrong. And I am entitles to THAT opinion.

U mad?

TheCheese
10-04-2012, 01:15 PM
He is by far the better ballstriker.

It seems to me you are not aware of what the term implies. Nadal has also one of the best forehands of all time and he isn't even close to being the best ballstriker.

Serial shankers cannot be great ballstrikers.

Well, what do you mean by ballstriking then?

NadalAgassi
10-04-2012, 01:15 PM
Nadal's mental toughness is a little overrated. Grinders typically "choke" less anyway. They maintain the same level for a longer time. Also, he got crushed in straights far more often than Federer did.

I wouldn't say that Federer is as tough as Nadal, but I disagree that there is some massive gap.

On talent "developing": pretty sure the word "talent" is supposed to be the "gold" that a person has in their "soil". Not exactly something that you can "develop" only resurface.

You think Nadal's everything is overrated so who cares. It is hilarious you think a player who basically relied entirely on speed, mental toughness, overall defense, a forehand, and basically nothing else and won 11 slams by his mid 20s could be matches or surpassed easily by many in mental toughness and speed as you seem to think.

Nadal gets crushed since his game is more crushable, especialy on a hard court which is the only surface he has ever been crushed on really. It has nothing to do with lack of mental toughness. In fact almost the only way to beat Nadal is by crushing him, hence why he almost never loses on clay, and only loses on hard courts when he runs into guys who power right him and win by big margins normally.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 01:23 PM
Well, what do you mean by ballstriking then?

People who can hit the ball with the center of the racquet consistently, even in awkward situations.

faranell
10-04-2012, 01:30 PM
Every time somebody makes a decent and interesting thread, these people have to stink the place up.

1. No Nalbandian's talent isn't "immensely overrated" on these forums. You just happen to be a glory hunter who isn't smart enough to distinguish true ability without having a dozen of trophies next to it.

2. People hype up Nalbandian so much because he is in all likelihood one of the most gifted player in history.

3. Another johnny come lately that cannot comprehend the meaning of the question of "WHO IS MORE TALENTED". Are you aware, how OFTEN Naldandian has made your idol look like a jock?

you speak the truth

World Beater
10-04-2012, 01:43 PM
Do you even know what ballstriking is?

Hint: serial shankers are excempt from that club. :lol:

Nalbandian has had far more matches where he cannot hit the ball into the court from either his fh or bh.

That says far more about his ballstriking ability compared to federer than some occasional shanking.

They both have been equally impressive in their best matches.

Federer more so on the fh...nalbandian on the bh. But fed has the variety with the slice.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 02:03 PM
Nalbandian has had far more matches where he cannot hit the ball into the court from either his fh or bh.

That says far more about his ballstriking ability compared to federer than some occasional shanking.

They both have been equally impressive in their best matches.

Federer more so on the fh...nalbandian on the bh. But fed has the variety with the slice.

sigh

I SAID HITTING THE BALL WITH THE CENTER OF YOUR RACQUET

Missing the court doesn't mean you can't strike the ball. Hantuchova is one of the cleanest strikers of the ball and she routinely makes over 50 UEs.

Berdych for example is also a better striker of the ball than Federer. He also makes lots of errors. Agassi. Safin. Baghdatis. Davydenko. THOSE guy strike the ball cleanly. Not Federer. Him and Nadal don't hit the ball that cleanly at all.

NadalAgassi
10-04-2012, 02:04 PM
I am no Nalbandian fan and I find him comically overrated on this forum at times but I do agree with dangalak he is undoubtably one of the cleanest and overall best ball strikers of the last decade. As for compared to Federer, he is atleast as good of one I would say (even though overall he isnt half the player Federer turned out to be).

World Beater
10-04-2012, 02:08 PM
sigh

I SAID HITTING THE BALL WITH THE CENTER OF YOUR RACQUET

Missing the court doesn't mean you can't strike the ball. Hantuchova is one of the cleanest strikers of the ball and she routinely makes over 50 UEs.

Berdych for example is also a better striker of the ball than Federer. He also makes lots of errors. Agassi. Safin. Baghdatis. Davydenko. THOSE guy strike the ball cleanly. Not Federer. Him and Nadal don't hit the ball that cleanly at all.

ok, so your definition is

clean = flat?

fps
10-04-2012, 02:10 PM
Federer. Absolutely ridiculous question. Talent does not exist in a vacuum. So because Nalbandian never fulfilled his potential he has infinity talent does he? Talent is not only impossible to define separate from dedication and hard work, but overrated on these boards, and achievement is underrated.

Those suggesting Nadal and Federer do not strike the ball cleanly know nothing about tennis. Literally nothing. Your opinions are discounted.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 02:13 PM
ok, so your definition is

clean = flat?

Well these days you need to be a ridiculously clean hitter to be able to hit flat.

But Nalbandian doesn't hit that flat, he can come up with spin as well. Similar with Haas. On the women's side, Seles struck the ball really cleanly, but hit with alot of spin.

It's basically one way of being able to hit shots, most guys would be afraid of. Yeah, I know Federer can do that too, but not because his hitting is really clean.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XOBP3N1ejc

Watch the first point even and see the difference between their shots. That is what is talked about.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 02:14 PM
Federer. Absolutely ridiculous question. Talent does not exist in a vacuum. So because Nalbandian never fulfilled his potential he has infinity talent does he? Talent is not only impossible to define separate from dedication and hard work, but overrated on these boards, and achievement is underrated.

Those suggesting Nadal and Federer do not strike the ball cleanly know nothing about tennis. Literally nothing. Your opinions are discounted.

:lol:

If you do not think talent is important, why did you pollute this thread with your presence?

Nalbandian is by far one of the biggest talents in this sport. Cry about it.

Andres
10-04-2012, 02:39 PM
ok, so your definition is

clean = flat?
Clean = sweetspot or close.

roberttennis54
10-04-2012, 02:42 PM
Federer at every age was more talented than Nalbandian. When they were younger they split their two most important matches, but Federer won 2 big tourmanents, but Bandy just 1. As they got older Federer continued to be the bigger talent. He could beat better players than Nalbandian.

Nalbandian whilst being a fantastic ball striker is vastly overrated as a player. He was never as good as Roddick, Hewitt or Safin. Coria was better on clay and Davydenko was his equal.

Federer, Safin and Agassi are the three most talented players for me. Stich and Sampras make up the top 5. In my time the last 22 years.

NadalAgassi
10-04-2012, 02:46 PM
Federer at every age was more talented than Nalbandian. When they were younger they split their two most important matches, but Federer won 2 big tourmanents, but Bandy just 1. As they got older Federer continued to be the bigger talent. He could beat better players than Nalbandian.

Nalbandian whilst being a fantastic ball striker is vastly overrated as a player. He was never as good as Roddick, Hewitt or Safin. Coria was better on clay and Davydenko was his equal.

Federer, Safin and Agassi are the three most talented players for me. Stich and Sampras make up the top 5. In my time the last 22 years.

Nalbandian is definitely overrated on this board. You are right he is not as good a player as Roddick, Hewitt, or Safin. Even Coria owned him when they played, and not just on clay.

In terms of natural talent, which he didnt fulfill, he might be more talented than Roddick and Hewitt, but by nowhere near as much as some people seem to think, and up with Federer or Safin in overall talent, not even close.

Nathaniel_Near
10-04-2012, 02:50 PM
Ballstriking skills, Nalbandian, that's for sure.

Both are more or less evenly talented in terms of tennis, but Federer is the better athlete.

Let's not even get into things like mental toughness, dedication and serve. :lol:

Are you implying that serving and talent are unrelated or that the ability to serve well is not a tennis specific talent/ability...

Nathaniel_Near
10-04-2012, 02:51 PM
Federer at every age was more talented than Nalbandian. When they were younger they split their two most important matches, but Federer won 2 big tourmanents, but Bandy just 1. As they got older Federer continued to be the bigger talent. He could beat better players than Nalbandian.

Nalbandian whilst being a fantastic ball striker is vastly overrated as a player. He was never as good as Roddick, Hewitt or Safin. Coria was better on clay and Davydenko was his equal.

Federer, Safin and Agassi are the three most talented players for me. Stich and Sampras make up the top 5. In my time the last 22 years.

Great post.

Iron Man
10-04-2012, 03:00 PM
Oh Internet tough guys. :)

Nalbandian has made him look silly on numerous occasions. AO 03, Shanghai 05, Madrid 07, Paris 07.

Also, what in the 7 hells of tartarus is "we are entitles to our opinion" supposed to mean? :lol: Did I ever state that you are legally banned from stating uninformed nonsense. Your opinion is wrong. And I am entitles to THAT opinion.

U mad?

I'm mad maybe but you're definitely silly

BauerAlmeida
10-04-2012, 05:28 PM
Nalbandian is definitely overrated on this board. You are right he is not as good a player as Roddick, Hewitt, or Safin. Even Coria owned him when they played, and not just on clay.

In terms of natural talent, which he didnt fulfill, he might be more talented than Roddick and Hewitt, but by nowhere near as much as some people seem to think, and up with Federer or Safin in overall talent, not even close.

I can't think of anyone besides those two more talented in recent years.

And he is up there. He lacked a lot of other things, dedication, fitness, consistency, a good serve, etc. But in terms of talent he was stunning. Nothing over-rated at all.

If a guy can beat Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in the same tournament, he is something special definitely. And if 2 weeks later he defeats Nadal and Federer again, and he did all this only losing one set.....well, take your own conclusions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjL7JASDfQA

BauerAlmeida
10-04-2012, 05:30 PM
Federer, Safin and Agassi are the three most talented players for me.

Agree, but I'd add Nalbandian too.

90's Clay
10-04-2012, 05:30 PM
Tough to say.. Nalbandian really showed how talented he was vs. Fed during some of those indoor finals at the end of the year in 2006 or 2007 where he beat Roger. Whatever year that was.


Its just one guy had focus and a career direction.. The other guy's focus was on hitting the next Krispy Kreme factory in town

roberttennis54
10-04-2012, 05:37 PM
Tough to say.. Nalbandian really showed how talented he was vs. Fed during some of those indoor finals at the end of the year in 2006 or 2007 where he beat Roger. Whatever year that was.


Its just one guy had focus and a career direction.. The guy's focus was on hitting the next Krispy Kreme factory in town

Sorry this is just untrue. Nalbandian lost virtually every time to Roddick, Hewitt and Safin when they were at their primes. Nalbandian was not always unfit either. Nalbandian was just lucky to match up well with Federer. It's true he was a phenomenal ball striker and probably had more pure tennis talent than most of the others, but even if he was dedicated he would never have come close to the career of Federer.

SStrikerR
10-04-2012, 05:42 PM
Nalbandian has some of the greatest talent I've seen when it comes to ball striking. He is also a very good shot maker. However, federer is the better shot maker.

From there, it depends on how you define talent. Does it include mental talent, ie, the ability to figure out how best to defeat your opponent and switch game plans before and mid match in order to win? In that case, Federer.

NadalAgassi
10-04-2012, 05:42 PM
If a guy can beat Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in the same tournament, he is something special definitely.

Del Potro beat Federer and Nadal and would have also beaten Djokovic too had they played at the 2009 U.S Open, and Federer in the final is probably the only close match he would have had (Djokovic would have lost in straights or 4 at most to DP there IMO). Murray has beaten those 3 players all tons of times over, it isnt his fault he was ranked too high, too consistently where he only gets to beat 2 in a row, not 3. I doubt he could beat all 3 in a row in a slam, but then again you know Nalbandian wouldnt either, heck he hasnt beaten any of the 3 in a slam any year from 2004 onwards. Djokovic did crush Nalbandian, beat Roddick, beat Nadal, and beat Federer all in a row to win a tournament at 19, it isnt his fault he couldnt play himself too, LOL! So while such a feat shows Nalbandian has talent but I dont see how it shows he is more talented than those others.

Even with a full commitment he wasnt ever going to be more than maybe a 2 slam winner IMO. We will never know for sure, but even when he burst on the scene nobody looked at him said wow this guy is going to win 6 slams. I agree he might be a bit more talented than guys like Roddick and Hewitt, but not so much more like some people seem to think. I think the phenomen of his success vs Federer, the majority of it early before Federer began dominance of the game, has greatly enhanced peoples views of him and his talent. Back in 2002 and 2003 if you had even suggested he was more talented than even Roddick and Hewitt, never mind all these other players who are more talented than Roddick and Hewitt, you would have been laughed off the block. Nobody back then thought he was some super talent to be honest. In 2002 when he made the Wimbledon final John McEnroe compared him to Chris Lewis. He was actually thought of as a grinder who played well on clay back then. In hindsight his talent was very underrated then, just as it is probably overrated now.

BauerAlmeida
10-04-2012, 05:49 PM
Sorry this is just untrue. Nalbandian lost virtually every time to Roddick, Hewitt and Safin when they were at their primes. Nalbandian was not always unfit either. Nalbandian was just lucky to match up well with Federer. It's true he was a phenomenal ball striker and probably had more pure tennis talent than most of the others, but even if he was dedicated he would never have come close to the career of Federer.


Davis Cup is the most important tournament for Nalbandian and if you see him play there it's scary to imagine what he could've accomplished. He completely demolished Hewitt in Australia in grass. Hewitt was in his prime and he distroyed him. Next year he did the same thing in Russia against Safin, he was already declining (Marat), but it was a walk in the park for Nalbandian. He defeated Davydenko very easily in that final (Kolya was TOP 5 back then, at his peak). Unfortunately for him he didn't have great partners (outside clay) and very often he would win his singles matches but Argentina would lose the doubles and the other two singles. And now that Delpo is around he is declining. But Nalbandian when he was fit and motivated could be scary good, like the MC in 2005 (6-2 6-2 against Ljubicic, bageling Davydenko, coming back from 2 sets against Roger) or the indoor season in 2007 (defeating Roger, Djoker and Nadal in the same tournament).

But he had no dedication AT ALL, to be an elite player. He would often be found partying at 4 AM or skying in Argentina or racing with his team in Cordoba and doing all sort of stuff like Bungee Jumping, etc. Not to mention his nutrition was worse than Agassi's in his early days.

He still managed to be N3 and won some important tournamentes defeating a lot of the top players.

90's Clay
10-04-2012, 05:56 PM
You would be surprised that what just what a little extra hunger, and focused combined with great TALENT can really do.. Nalbandian had more then enough talent to be an all time great. He just didn't have the other essentials which are just as important.


You gotta have all your bases covered. Safin and Nalbandian are two of the most talented guys Ive seen play the game and should have accomplished a whole helluva lot. But the problem is both just had the talent.. They didn't have the other stuff. (Focus, Drive, determination, wanting to be the best).

Both proved they could beat some of the best at their best. But they couldn't sustain because they didn't have the focus, drive or desire.

IMO both guys were just as good as anyone who's played the game when they were at their best and focused (which was 1-2 percent of their career sadly)

BauerAlmeida
10-04-2012, 06:01 PM
You would be surprised that what just what a little extra hunger, and focused combined with great TALENT can really do.. Nalbandian had more then enough talent to be an all time great. He just didn't have the other essentials which are just as important.


You gotta have all your bases covered. Safin and Nalbandian are two of the most talented guys Ive seen play the game and should have accomplished a whole helluva lot. But the problem is both just had the talent.. They didn't have the other stuff. (Focus, Drive, determination, wanting to be the best).

Both proved they could beat some of the best at their best. But they couldn't sustain because they didn't have the focus, drive or desire.

IMO both guys were just as good as anyone who's played the game when they were at their best and focused (which was 1-2 percent of their career sadly)

This

10This

roberttennis54
10-04-2012, 06:05 PM
Davis Cup is the most important tournament for Nalbandian and if you see him play there it's scary to imagine what he could've accomplished. He completely demolished Hewitt in Australia in grass. Hewitt was in his prime and he distroyed him. Next year he did the same thing in Russia against Safin, he was already declining (Marat), but it was a walk in the park for Nalbandian. He defeated Davydenko very easily in that final (Kolya was TOP 5 back then, at his peak). Unfortunately for him he didn't have great partners (outside clay) and very often he would win his singles matches but Argentina would lose the doubles and the other two singles. And now that Delpo is around he is declining. But Nalbandian when he was fit and motivated could be scary good, like the MC in 2005 (6-2 6-2 against Ljubicic, bageling Davydenko, coming back from 2 sets against Roger) or the indoor season in 2007 (defeating Roger, Djoker and Nadal in the same tournament).

But he had no dedication AT ALL, to be an elite player. He would often be found partying at 4 AM or skying in Argentina or racing with his team in Cordoba and doing all sort of stuff like Bungee Jumping, etc. Not to mention his nutrition was worse than Agassi's in his early days.

He still managed to be N3 and won some important tournamentes defeating a lot of the top players.

Yes he beat Hewitt when he was about to get married or shortly after if I remember straight. As you said he also beat a declining Safin who had been wrecked by injuries.

To say he cared most about the Davis Cup is probably true, but he cared an awful lot about slams too and that's why he choked in a few.

He lost to Hewitt at the Wimbledon final and he lost to Hewitt at the Australian Open.
He manged to beat Safin once at the French and lost every other time, before Marat's injury.
He never beat Coria on clay and lost to Gaudio the one time they played.

Nalbandian was a fantastic ball striker, who matched up well with Federer, but where are his slams going to come from if he was dedicated? No French Opens, No Wimbledons. He was the third best player indoors of his generation and perhaps the second best all round on every surface. However, he was never the best at a slam surface and so was never going to have the career some like to imagine even if there was no Federer.

Prisoner of Birth
10-04-2012, 06:09 PM
Yes he beat Hewitt when he was about to get married or shortly after if I remember straight. As you said he also beat a declining Safin who had been wrecked by injuries.

To say he cared most about the Davis Cup is probably true, but he cared an awful lot about slams too and that's why he choked in a few.

He lost to Hewitt at the Wimbledon final and he lost to Hewitt at the Australian Open.
He manged to beat Safin once at the French and lost every other time, before Marat's injury.
He never beat Coria on clay and lost to Gaudio the one time they played.

Nalbandian was a fantastic ball striker, who matched up well with Federer, but where are his slams going to come from if he was dedicated? No French Opens, No Wimbledons. He was the third best player indoors of his generation and perhaps the second best all round on every surface. However, he was never the best at a slam surface and so was never going to have the career some like to imagine even if there was no Federer.

Federer didn't hurt Nalbandian's career. Nalbandian just wasn't committed enough. I think he could've won 10 Grand Slams with Federer's commitment (and Federer's absence). He is talented enough to win anywhere, except on Clay considering the "Nadal" aspect.

90's Clay
10-04-2012, 06:12 PM
Safin and Nalbandian obviously were going to suffer many bad losses in their career because tennis came secondary (or less so) for the importance in their life. You aren't going to be great at the top level of a sport unless it consumes you and is the most important thing to you.. You just aren't. Everyone who achieved greatness at the highest level of their sport no matter how talented they were, eat sleep and breathed the game. Whatever it was.

Just imagine how much Nalbandian and Safin would have accomplished if tennis was the most important thing in their lives.


They should have took their fair share of slams away from other guys without a doubt..

Heck they half arssed 90 percent of their career and took down some of the biggest names in the history of tennis

BauerAlmeida
10-04-2012, 06:13 PM
Federer didn't hurt Nalbandian's career. Nalbandian just wasn't committed enough. I think he could've won 10 Grand Slams with Federer's commitment (and Federer's absence). He is talented enough to win anywhere, except on Clay considering the "Nadal" aspect.

This

He could've easily won a few USO and AO, specially before the surfaces were slowed down. And maybe in Wimbledon if there was no Federer.

roberttennis54
10-04-2012, 06:23 PM
Federer didn't hurt Nalbandian's career. Nalbandian just wasn't committed enough. I think he could've won 10 Grand Slams with Federer's commitment (and Federer's absence). He is talented enough to win anywhere, except on Clay considering the "Nadal" aspect.

Yes Federer did hurt Nalbandian's career, though I doubt he would have won those slams anyway. Federer took him out at the 2004 Australian, 2005 US Open and then 2006 French Open. 2006 French Open is hard to call. However, you are right even if he had beaten Federer he was unlikely to win any of those slams.

Again what slams was a dedicated Nalbandian going to win? The 2006 Australian Open was his golden chance, but he choked the semi final against Baghdatis.
I repeat

Roland Garro- Coria, Federer, Ferrero and Nadal were better.
Rebound Ace-Federer, Safin and Roddick better
US Open-Federer, Hewitt, Roddick and Safin better
Wimbledon-Federer, Hewitt and Roddick better.

Even indoors where he is at his best, Safin and Federer are better. Nalbandian's strength much like Federer was the ability to be great on every surface. Before the surface homogenisation, Nalbandian was the 2nd best all round player.

It just amazes me a guy, who had a losing record to ALL, but Davydenko of his other great peers is thought by some to be able to dominate them had he been motivated.

BauerAlmeida
10-04-2012, 06:29 PM
Yes Federer did hurt Nalbandian's career, though I doubt he would have won those slams anyway. Federer took him out at the 2004 Australian, 2005 US Open and then 2006 French Open. 2006 French Open is hard to call. However, you are right even if he had beaten Federer he was unlikely to win any of those slams.

Again what slams was a dedicated Nalbandian going to win? The 2006 Australian Open was his golden chance, but he choked the semi final against Baghdatis.
I repeat

Roland Garro- Coria, Federer, Ferrero and Nadal were better.
Rebound Ace-Federer, Safin and Roddick better
US Open-Federer, Hewitt, Roddick and Safin better
Wimbledon-Federer, Hewitt and Roddick better.

Even indoors where he is at his best, Safin and Federer are better. Nalbandian's strength much like Federer was the ability to be great on every surface. Before the surface homogenisation, Nalbandian was the 2nd best all round player.

It just amazes me a guy, who had a losing record to ALL, but Davydenko of his other great peers is thought by some to be able to dominate them had he been motivated.

In RG 2006 Nalbandian was leading easily a set and a break up and he got injured. 2004 AO was a very close match, could've gone either way. Specially if Nalbandian had won the first set where he had his chances. Considering Ferrero was in the SF and Safin could barely move in the final, it wouldn't be crazy to say he could've won there. And even in RG 2006, Nadal wasn't the beast he was later on and Nalbandian match-ups well with him. In USO 2005 Federer won very comfortable.

And about this:

"Roland Garro- Coria, Federer, Ferrero and Nadal were better.
Rebound Ace-Federer, Safin and Roddick better
US Open-Federer, Hewitt, Roddick and Safin better
Wimbledon-Federer, Hewitt and Roddick better."

He defeated Fed in both HC slams, so he can win against him there. Also on clay the matches Fed won were close and Nalby won some. He can beat Hewitt or Roddick everywhere. Against Safin and Fed he wouldn't be the favorite on HC but he can beat them, and he did. Don't see him beating Nadal on clay, or Fed on grass obviously.

Prisoner of Birth
10-04-2012, 06:30 PM
Yes Federer did hurt Nalbandian's career, though I doubt he would have won those slams anyway. Federer took him out at the 2004 Australian, 2005 US Open and then 2006 French Open. 2006 French Open is hard to call. However, you are right even if he had beaten Federer he was unlikely to win any of those slams.

Again what slams was a dedicated Nalbandian going to win? The 2006 Australian Open was his golden chance, but he choked the semi final against Baghdatis.
I repeat

Roland Garro- Coria, Federer, Ferrero and Nadal were better.
Rebound Ace-Federer, Safin and Roddick better
US Open-Federer, Hewitt, Roddick and Safin better
Wimbledon-Federer, Hewitt and Roddick better.

Even indoors where he is at his best, Safin and Federer are better. Nalbandian's strength much like Federer was the ability to be great on every surface. Before the surface homogenisation, Nalbandian was the 2nd best all round player.

It just amazes me a guy, who had a losing record to ALL, but Davydenko of his other great peers is thought by some to be able to dominate them had he been motivated.

A committed Nalbandian is a different beast altogether. He could've beaten Federer on any surface and would've been much better than Roddick and Hewitt in general. Anyway, my "10 Gland Slam" case is if Federer weren't around.

BauerAlmeida
10-04-2012, 06:34 PM
A committed Nalbandian is a different beast altogether. He could've beaten Federer on any surface and would've been much better than Roddick and Hewitt in general. Anyway, my "10 Gland Slam" case is if Federer weren't around.

Exactly. And yes, he wouldn't win 10 slams, but he would have won a few HC slams.

But if Fed wasn't around a focused Nalbandian/Safin would win most of the slams bar Roland Garros where Nadal would still dominate. They would even do better than Roddick/Hewitt at Wimbledon I think.

90's Clay
10-04-2012, 06:34 PM
We never saw a truly "committed" Nalbandian so who knows.. He could have won 10 slams if he was truly committed and taken a ton away from Rafa and Roger. He was that talented. He could beat Rafa and Federer on his day as he showed.

Its not some nutty fancy speculation or other worldly to think Nalbandian couldn't have won a crap ton of slams if he was committed.

Talent Wise, he just as good as anyone. From a pure ability standpoint. If guys like Berdych, Tsonga, Djoker and some others couldn't take Fed out a good share of times at slams or guys like Ferrer, DJoker, even Rasol or some others take Nadal out at slams..

Why the hell couldn't a "committed" Nalbandian do so? From a pure ability, talent standpoint hes just as good as any of those guys if not moreso then most. I think in terms of raw ability hes superior to Djokovic. At least from a weapons standpoint. .. Hes certainly more talented then Berdych or Tsonga were as well.

GO watch Nalbandian playing Fed in 2007 at the end of the year and tell me he doesn't have more raw ability and talent then some of those guys. ROFL

Heck watch some of his earlier matches with Nadal and see how easily he just bullied Nadal around from the baseline when he was on his game.

Prisoner of Birth
10-04-2012, 06:40 PM
Just for the record, I don't think Nalbandian is as talented as Federer. But he's pretty close. Safin was closer.

svijk
10-04-2012, 06:44 PM
Always get a chuckle when these pointless Nalbandian threads come up...some people just find so much stupid consolation by simply mentioning him and Federer in the same sentence...lol

TheFifthSet
10-04-2012, 06:48 PM
Sorry this is just untrue. Nalbandian lost virtually every time to Roddick, Hewitt and Safin when they were at their primes. Nalbandian was not always unfit either. Nalbandian was just lucky to match up well with Federer. It's true he was a phenomenal ball striker and probably had more pure tennis talent than most of the others, but even if he was dedicated he would never have come close to the career of Federer.

Yup.

Federer is the more talented player for sure. Better athlete, better anticipation, better footwork, more variety, etc. I think the thing that people forget with Nalbandian is that, despite his talent as a ballstriker, he misses out on the two strokes absolutely imperative for success in this era: serve and forehand. His serve is pretty average technically. And while his forehand is a good shot, it's not really a "kill" shot, and it's not as penetrating as Federers.

PS, kudos for giving Stich a shout in an earlier post. He had a beautiful game.

BauerAlmeida
10-04-2012, 07:03 PM
Yup.

Federer is the more talented player for sure. Better athlete, better anticipation, better footwork, more variety, etc. I think the thing that people forget with Nalbandian is that, despite his talent as a ballstriker, he misses out on the two strokes absolutely imperative for success in this era: serve and forehand. His serve is pretty average technically. And while his forehand is a good shot, it's not really a "kill" shot, and it's not as penetrating as Federers.

PS, kudos for giving Stich a shout in an earlier post. He had a beautiful game.

Well, everybody knows his serve was very average. In fact it's one of the things everybody mentioned was holding him down.

Just for the record, I don't think Nalbandian is as talented as Federer. But he's pretty close. Safin was closer.

Marat was the most talented of the 3 IMO. No real weakness. Nalbandian had the serve, Fed ocassionally the backhand. Safin had everything. Huge serve, great forehand, GOAT backhand, he could volley well and despite his height he had good movement.

TheFifthSet
10-04-2012, 07:10 PM
Well, everybody knows his serve was very average. In fact it's one of the things everybody mentioned was holding him down.


Yeah but many people don't seem to take that into account when evaluating "talent". There's a bundle of talent necessary to be a great server. When you compare Federer and Nalby that's definitely part of the "talent" equation. Nalbandian proponents often seem to leave that out, only focusing on his ball-striking.

NadalAgassi
10-04-2012, 07:21 PM
Federer didn't hurt Nalbandian's career. Nalbandian just wasn't committed enough. I think he could've won 10 Grand Slams with Federer's commitment (and Federer's absence). He is talented enough to win anywhere, except on Clay considering the "Nadal" aspect.

He wasnt winning anything on grass either, regardless of Federer's existence. Tons of guys better than him there- Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Murray, Djokovic, heck even someone like Haas. What was his best ever Wimbledon performance, making that one final but beating guys like Malisse, Lapentti, and Arthurs in 5 sets to do it, then getting 5 games off Hewitt in the final. Obviously that was his grass peak as it was all downhill on the surface from there, apart from one great Davis Cup performance. So you have tons of faith in his ability to dominate on hard courts, that is all I can say.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 07:24 PM
Yup.

Federer is the more talented player for sure. Better athlete, better anticipation, better footwork, more variety, etc. I think the thing that people forget with Nalbandian is that, despite his talent as a ballstriker, he misses out on the two strokes absolutely imperative for success in this era: serve and forehand. His serve is pretty average technically. And while his forehand is a good shot, it's not really a "kill" shot, and it's not as penetrating as Federers.

PS, kudos for giving Stich a shout in an earlier post. He had a beautiful game.

:lol:

No way, he often outguessed Federer.

TheFifthSet
10-04-2012, 07:32 PM
Ballstriking skills, Nalbandian, that's for sure.

Both are more or less evenly talented in terms of tennis, but Federer is the better athlete.

Let's not even get into things like mental toughness, dedication and serve. :lol:

Why is serve not a part of talent? If you're gonna say it's height, well they're only two inches apart. And even so, Nalbandian is an average server of someone who is 5'11, yet Federer is an amazing server for somebody who is 6'1.


Also, athleticism/movement is definitely correlated with talent. Tennis isn't a stationary sport. It doesn't matter how hard, or cleanly you can theoretically hit the ball if you can't get into position to hit it. How often do you see Federer handcuffed, drop-shotted, lobbed, or not in a position to hit the ball? Rarely, because he's an innately gifted mover and light on his feet, something that's hard to teach.

paulorenzo
10-04-2012, 07:32 PM
ballstriking isn't the measure of talent, and hitting more clean shots shouldn't be the absolute measure of shotmaking. however, in AO 04, back when federer was so much more of a shotmaker than today, young nalbandian comfortably kept up with him in the shotmaking department, and perhaps then some.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 07:32 PM
Are you implying that serving and talent are unrelated or that the ability to serve well is not a tennis specific talent/ability...

Eh, I feel the serve is one of the shots where great talent isn't always necessary (Roddick, Raonic) but where great talent cannot buy you a serve as it can buy you a good net game and anticipation. It#s a stroke that just needs to be rock solid for the most part.

Del Potro beat Federer and Nadal and would have also beaten Djokovic too had they played at the 2009 U.S Open, and Federer in the final is probably the only close match he would have had (Djokovic would have lost in straights or 4 at most to DP there IMO). Murray has beaten those 3 players all tons of times over, it isnt his fault he was ranked too high, too consistently where he only gets to beat 2 in a row, not 3. I doubt he could beat all 3 in a row in a slam, but then again you know Nalbandian wouldnt either, heck he hasnt beaten any of the 3 in a slam any year from 2004 onwards. Djokovic did crush Nalbandian, beat Roddick, beat Nadal, and beat Federer all in a row to win a tournament at 19, it isnt his fault he couldnt play himself too, LOL! So while such a feat shows Nalbandian has talent but I dont see how it shows he is more talented than those others.

I think it was the WAY he did it. He utterly crushed some of the worlds best players. (hey, considering the fact that it was 2007, beating Gasquet was also an achievement) And unlike, say, Nadal in the USO, they weren't exactly ailing.

TheFifthSet
10-04-2012, 07:35 PM
:lol:

No way, he often outguessed Federer.

It's somewhat close, and I won't argue that Nalby doesn't have fantastic anticipation, but I think Federer has him beat here. Altho yes its not a landslide. The other ones are.

I don't think he "often outgessed Federer". One thing Nalby does uncannily is generate otherwordly angles on the CC backhand -- it could make a lot of people look like fools at times.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 07:36 PM
Why is serve not a part of talent? If you're gonna say it's height, well they're only two inches apart. And even so, Nalbandian is an average server of someone who is 5'11, yet Federer is an amazing server for somebody who is 6'1.


Also, athleticism/movement is definitely correlated with talent. Tennis isn't a stationary sport. It doesn't matter how hard, or cleanly you can theoretically hit the ball if you can't get into position to hit it. How often do you see Federer handcuffed, drop-shotted, lobbed, or not in a position to hit the ball? Rarely, because he's an innately gifted mover and light on his feet, something that's hard to teach.

1. I've seen many great talents have ****** serves and some untalented players have great ones. It seems that more than natural gifts, you need a bulletproof technique along with the right physique.

2. Athleticism is athleticism. If Federer being a better jock means he is a better talent for the game for you, go ahead. :lol: I always thought those kind of things are viewed seperately. Also, if you watched some more matches between him and Nalbandian you would see Federer getting drop shotted and wrongfooted a lot.

NadalAgassi
10-04-2012, 07:39 PM
I think it was the WAY he did it. He utterly crushed some of the worlds best players. (hey, considering the fact that it was 2007, beating Gasquet was also an achievement) And unlike, say, Nadal in the USO, they weren't exactly ailing.

Crushing Nadal indoors is not an astonishing feat. How many guys have done it, I have lost count now, LOL! His Paris win over Federer was amazing, probably his best ever performance, but the Madrid final was a 3 set win and while he still played very well he definitely benefited from ******** appearing after getting blown out in the 1st set. So really the Paris match with Federer was the only one I would say was spectacular, crushing Nadal indoors is just too easy for anyone in the top 15 to do most times.

TheFifthSet
10-04-2012, 07:40 PM
Oh Internet tough guys. :)

Nalbandian has made him look silly on numerous occasions. AO 03, Shanghai 05, Madrid 07, Paris 07.

Also, what in the 7 hells of tartarus is "we are entitles to our opinion" supposed to mean? :lol: Did I ever state that you are legally banned from stating uninformed nonsense. Your opinion is wrong. And I am entitles to THAT opinion.

U mad?

Three of those matches were incredibly close. How is that "making him look silly"?

TheFifthSet
10-04-2012, 07:51 PM
1. I've seen many great talents have ****** serves and some untalented players have great ones. It seems that more than natural gifts, you need a bulletproof technique along with the right physique.

Of course physique is a factor. It's a factor in virtually everything. You don't see many 145 pounders with heavy forehands, or 5'7 guys serving 140. But Nalbandian wasn't a piece of bologne. He was 5'11 and pretty strong. He didn't have much pace, but he also wasn't a very crafty serve. His slice and kick serves weren't exactly weapons. Rod Laver wasn't the biggest guy but he had a great serve. There are plenty of examples of small guys who weren't big but could compensate for it. Tipsarevic has some pop on his serve. Benjamin Becker is 5'11 yet he was a big server.

Also, bulletproof technique, huh?? Isn't that what makes any great stroke? The serve is the most important stroke in tennis along with the forehand. There's no way it doesn't take talent to be a great server. If Nalbandian didn't have great technique on his serve, it's a point against him in the talent department.

2. Athleticism is athleticism. If Federer being a better jock means he is a better talent for the game for you, go ahead. :lol: I always thought those kind of things are viewed seperately. Also, if you watched some more matches between him and Nalbandian you would see Federer getting drop shotted and wrongfooted a lot.



Federers footwork is unparalled. Gael Monfils, James Blake etc are more "freakish" athletes yet their footwork isn't even close to being as good.

But even disregarding that, if "talent" is something that you are born with, then how does movement/balance/coordination/footwork/ATHLETICISM not fall into that category? It seems as if your criteria for talent is made entirely to support your argument. I'd say footwork can be just as hard to teach as ballstriking.

Federer does things with his God-given athleticism that help him win matches better than other people do (for example Blake), it's not just for show and it's not merely a superfluous advantage. Therefore how can it not be considered a part of talent?

dangalak
10-04-2012, 08:00 PM
Three of those matches were incredibly close. How is that "making him look silly"?

The way he made Federer look in some points, it's almost like he was Roddick, in a sense that he didn't know what was going to happen next. How Federer typically beats his opponents, he did it to him.

Of course physique is a factor. It's a factor in virtually everything. You don't see 145 pounders with heavy forehands, or 5'7 guys serving 140. But Nalbandian wasn't a piece of bologne. He was 5'11 and pretty strong. He didn't have much pace, but he also wasn't a very crafty serve. His slice and kick serves weren't exactly weapons. Rod Laver wasn't the biggest guy but he had a great serve. There are plenty of examples of small guys who weren't big but could compensate for it. Tipsarevic has some pop on his serve. Benjamin Becker is 5'11 yet he was a big server.

Also, bulletproof technique, huh?? Isn't that what makes any great stroke? The serve is the most important stroke in tennis along with the forehand. There's no way it doesn't take talent to be a great server.




Federers footwork is unparalled. Gael Monfils, James Blake etc are more "freakish" athletes yet their footwork isn't even close to being as good.

But even disregarding that, if "talent" is something that you are born with, then how does movement/balance/coordination/footwork not fall into that category? It seems as if your criteria for talent is made entirely to support your argument.

1. Eh, I'd say it's because of the repetition. It isn't something like point construction or anticipation that can hardly be trained (at least compared to the serve) Seems like the serve is more like a shot where you need to get the mechanics right.

It's a little different with groundstrokes and volleys, since your talent can win your points there. I struggle to see how talent could buy you a great serve. Seems more about practice than gift to me. (and in case you say that no amount of hard work would give Nalby the serve of Federer, that is true, but in this case that is impossible. Guy is already a pro. Federer OTOH nailed his technique before it was too late. It's more of a technical problem.

2. I dunno, does that mean that guys like Blake and Monfils are also talented? :lol: I always thought that being able to run fast and hit hard were more physical abilities and talent is innate SKILL.

TheFifthSet
10-04-2012, 08:10 PM
The way he made Federer look in some points, it's almost like he was Roddick, in a sense that he didn't know what was going to happen next. How Federer typically beats his opponents, he did it to him.


Yeah, some points. If Federer was as befuddled as you make him out to be, it wouldn't be as close as it was.


1. Eh, I'd say it's because of the repetition. It isn't something like point construction or anticipation that can hardly be trained (at least compared to the serve) Seems like the serve is more like a shot where you need to get the mechanics right.

Well now this is just semantics. Surely you can concede that some talent is necessary to be a great server. Every shot requires mechanics that were tinkered, plus practice and repitition. No shot is perfect on the surface. I doubt Nalby and Feds mechanics are the same now as when they first picked up a racquet.

It's a little different with groundstrokes and volleys, since your talent can win your points there. I struggle to see how talent could buy you a great serve. Seems more about practice than gift to me. (and in case you say that no amount of hard work would give Nalby the serve of Federer, that is true, but in this case that is impossible. Guy is already a pro. Federer OTOH nailed his technique before it was too late. It's more of a technical problem.

2. I dunno, does that mean that guys like Blake and Monfils are also talented? :lol: I always thought that being able to run fast and hit hard were more physical abilities and talent is innate SKILL.



NO! You don't get it. I'm saying Federer does things with his athleticism that are conducive to winning matches. His footwork, his grace afoot, those are the marks of a talented mover. He's not just fast or athletic. His movement is amazingly suited for tennis, unlike Blake or Monfils. Those guys are FAST. But they're NOT talented movers.

Also, going by your serve logic, footwork would have to be the antithesis of the serve then right? Because it's not something you can really practice. I mean sure you can work on it (footwork drills, strengthening your legs), but I don't see how any amount of tinkering would make Nalbandian even in the same league as a mover.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 08:16 PM
Yeah, some points. If Federer was as befuddled as you make him out to be, it wouldn't be as close as it was.




Well now this is just semantics. Surely you can concede that some talent is necessary to be a great server. Every shot requires mechanics that were tinkered, plus practice and repitition. No shot is perfect on the surface. I doubt Nalby and Feds mechanics are the same now as when they first picked up a racquet.

[/B]


NO! You don't get it. I'm saying Federer does things with his athleticism that are conducive to winning matches. His footwork, his grace afoot, those are the marks of a talented mover. He's not just fast or athletic. His movement is amazingly suited for tennis, unlike Blake or Monfils. Those guys are FAST. But they're NOT talented movers.

Also, going by your serve logic, footwork would have to be the antithesis of the serve then right? Because it's not something you can really practice. I mean sure you can work on it (footwork drills, strengthening your legs), but I don't see how any amount of tinkering would make Nalbandian even in the same league as a mover.

I dunno, I think the main difference between Nalbandian and Federer's movement isn't footwork, it's speed. I mean Federer might be better, but that isn't the slam dunk. The speed is.

I personally felt that Nalbandian typically outsmarted him more often than the reverse, in those matches. He certainly didn't overpower him. :lol:

TheFifthSet
10-04-2012, 08:25 PM
I dunno, I think the main difference between Nalbandian and Federer's movement isn't footwork, it's speed. I mean Federer might be better, but that isn't the slam dunk. The speed is.

I personally felt that Nalbandian typically outsmarted him more often than the reverse, in those matches. He certainly didn't overpower him. :lol:

Well okay, I think we've hit an impasse :lol: our views on this issue are pretty set I'd say and I don't think we'll convince each other that the other person is wrong, so I'll stop here. It was nice debating with you though. :)

emilyhex
10-04-2012, 08:33 PM
Nalbandian vs. Ditka :confused:

...Ditka

svijk
10-04-2012, 09:38 PM
wow so may responses already....these Nalby threads make me wanna puke....these threads over glorifying him are really sad !!

smoledman
10-04-2012, 10:52 PM
Maybe Federer isn't the most freakish athlete in tennis, but his dedication to creating perfect footwork and a perfect serve over the last 10 years shows a superior mind at work.

dangalak
10-05-2012, 01:16 PM
wow so may responses already....these Nalby threads make me wanna puke....these threads over glorifying him are really sad !!

Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it.

mental midget
10-05-2012, 04:19 PM
Anyone who has seen Nalbandian's match with Federer in the 2003 Australian Open and in their indoor matches would agree that David has the better pure ballstriking skills. Despite being 5'11 (at best) he just has the ability to outhit just about anyone on tour once shotmaking becomes more important than movement as is in an indoor tournament.

Federer has been so successful due to his superior mental toughness, match fitness and movement.

his being better at tennis has also served him well.

dangalak
10-05-2012, 04:29 PM
his being better at tennis has also served him well.

Too bad you can't shoot people over the internet. :)

Listen, genius: he was analyzing HOW EXACTLY he is better at tennis.

Please log off, and never post again.

mental midget
10-05-2012, 04:33 PM
i think federer's ability to actually win matches has blinded a lot of people to the fact that he's got a more outrageous highlight reel than any of the various tormented, 'mercurial geniuses' that have passed in and out of this sport over the years.
this is an absurd debate. nalbandian is a dangerous player. federer is a towering freaking genius.

smoledman
10-05-2012, 04:37 PM
i think federer's ability to actually win matches has blinded a lot of people to the fact that he's got a more outrageous highlight reel than any of the various tormented, 'mercurial geniuses' that have passed in and out of this sport over the years.
this is an absurd debate. nalbandian is a dangerous player. federer is a towering freaking genius.

Federer just might have figured out this tennis thing.

dangalak
10-05-2012, 04:39 PM
i think federer's ability to actually win matches has blinded a lot of people to the fact that he's got a more outrageous highlight reel than any of the various tormented, 'mercurial geniuses' that have passed in and out of this sport over the years.
this is an absurd debate. nalbandian is a dangerous player. federer is a towering freaking genius.

Blake and Gonzalez alsohave tons of highleight reels. Are they great talents as well?

My God, would you stop sucking up to Federer for a second? :?

Federer20042006
10-05-2012, 04:45 PM
Nalbandian was the one player who, shotmaking vs. shotmaking, could beat Federer even when he was playing well.

Nadal owns Federer, but he does it by forcing Federer to play badly.

With Djokovic, it's usually also a matter of Djokovic forcing ******** to appear.

Same with Murray.

So it's close in terms of pure talent. Federer's always been much better mentally, physically, and he has a better go-to play with the serve-forehand than Nalbandian.

mental midget
10-05-2012, 05:24 PM
Blake and Gonzalez alsohave tons of highleight reels. Are they great talents as well?

My God, would you stop sucking up to Federer for a second? :?

neither of them come close in the highlight reel department, i think you know that. and how is acknowledging the objective brilliance of his game 'sucking up'?

what are you so mad about? you know, looking for meaning where there is none simply because you feel short-changed by the status quo, and assuming the contrarian mantle as a proxy for a coherent and defensible opinion doesn't make you an interesting person.

dangalak
10-05-2012, 05:28 PM
neither of them come close in the highlight reel department, i think you know that. and how is acknowledging the objective brilliance of his game 'sucking up'?

what are you so mad about? you know, looking for meaning where there is none simply because you feel short-changed by the status quo, and assuming the contrarian mantle as a proxy for a coherent and defensible opinion doesn't make you an interesting person.

:(

Spectacularity isn't really all that much of an indicator of talent, basically.

mental midget
10-05-2012, 05:34 PM
:(

Spectacularity isn't really all that much of an indicator of talent, basically.

it is when you're talking trophy cases.

dangalak
10-05-2012, 05:47 PM
it is when you're talking trophy cases.

Roddick>Nalby? :D

smoledman
10-05-2012, 06:00 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PaTQc0xkSI

BauerAlmeida
10-05-2012, 06:10 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XBdNRP2J9k

What we can agree is that a player with David's BH and Fed's FH would be devastating of the ground:mrgreen:

dangalak
10-05-2012, 06:15 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsb3-I_7Hb8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNTNkEEsNCs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJN2NKfY8eU

:D

Nathaniel_Near
10-05-2012, 06:25 PM
Always did appreciate Nalbandian's short angles. I think using short angles and forcing a player to move forwards instead of just sideways is a tactic that is underused in the game today.

BauerAlmeida
10-05-2012, 06:37 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsb3-I_7Hb8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNTNkEEsNCs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJN2NKfY8eU

:D

2:50 (or a bit before to see the whole point): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyftQwVk3VU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrO_9eZoIKE

dangalak
10-05-2012, 06:50 PM
2:50 (or a bit before to see the whole point): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyftQwVk3VU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrO_9eZoIKE

:shock:

I'm not sure what is more ridiculous, the shot in the first video, or his insanity of serve and volleying match point down.

tistrapukcipeht
10-05-2012, 07:55 PM
Federer is a better ball striker with just about every shot there is, I can't say the same about Nalbandian.

This is a ridiculous thread, if Federer wasn't more talented (better ball striker as well) He would not be the best player ever.

Look at the results and achievements and you'll see who is a better ball striker when it matters.

Xizel
10-05-2012, 09:20 PM
Federer is a better ball striker with just about every shot there is, I can't say the same about Nalbandian.

This is a ridiculous thread, if Federer wasn't more talented (better ball striker as well) He would not be the best player ever.

Look at the results and achievements and you'll see who is a better ball striker when it matters.

Do you think Roddick is more talented than Nalbandian as well? I mean, he did win a Slam, beating Nalbandian en route, too.

faranell
10-06-2012, 08:50 AM
btw, is nalbandian injured?

dangalak
10-06-2012, 09:00 AM
I do believe Nalbandian is a better striker of the ball, atleast as talent goes, than Federer is. But to insist on it being an absolute fact which cannot be disputed is... wrong?

Shanks, my friend. Shanks. :lol:

BauerAlmeida
10-06-2012, 09:12 AM
btw, is nalbandian injured?

Yes, he had an abdominal injury and missed the USO and Davis Cup semifinal. I think he comes back in Basel.

faranell
10-06-2012, 09:28 AM
Yes, he had an abdominal injury and missed the USO and Davis Cup semifinal. I think he comes back in Basel.

oh ok, thanks buddy.

10is
10-06-2012, 11:57 AM
There is not a snowballs chance in hell that Federer strikes the ball as cleanly as Nalbandian does.

Actually he does, or at least he used to in his heyday. Federer only got anointed Sir Shank-a-lot from 2007 onwards. He hardly ever shanked balls, especially off his forehand from 2003-2006. If you disagree, please cite me a match from his prime where he was shanking as frequently as he does now, because having followed Federer since 2001, I sure don't remember any.

Federer20042006
10-06-2012, 01:58 PM
Actually he does, or at least he used to in his heyday. Federer only got anointed Sir Shank-a-lot from 2007 onwards. He hardly ever shanked balls, especially off his forehand from 2003-2006. If you disagree, please cite me a match from his prime where he was shanking as frequently as he does now, because having followed Federer since 2001, I sure don't remember any.

The only match that really comes to mind for me is the French Open final in 2006 vs. Nadal. I think that kind of laid the blueprint for how to beat Federer.

Prisoner of Birth
10-06-2012, 02:52 PM
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-8kkpDzlX7M

Incredible shot by Nalbandian. To hit that good a shot when he had to lose eye-contact a split second before is astonishing.