PDA

View Full Version : Nalbandian only Argentina player ever with potential to dominate?


NadalAgassi
10-29-2012, 07:20 PM
Argentina has produced alot of great players over the years. However most of them were in the shadows of other greats. Was Nalbandian the only Argentine player ever, man or women, who had the ability to dominate.

Vilas- was never going to dominate when he was basically a poor mans Borg, playing in the Borg era. Along with that Connors and McEnroe were much better players as well.

Sabatini- always in the shadow of Graf, Seles, Navratilova, Sanchez Vicario, and Capriati. Never had the ability to be on top amongst that group, or probably win more than the 1 slam she did.

Coria- was never going to dominate, career potential was probably just 1 French which he blew in 2004.

Nalbandian though is the one who people consider to have had the ability to win 6 or more majors and dominate tennis. Is he the only Argentenian man or women ever who had that potential.

Sabratha
10-29-2012, 07:27 PM
I'd say so. It's too bad he didn't live up to his potential. I would have loved to have seen more Nalbandian finals.

reaper
10-29-2012, 07:33 PM
Nalbandian was/is a terrible choker. He contrived a way to lose from two sets to love and a break up against Baghdatis is the semis the year Baghdatis made the Australian Open final. He barely showed up in the Wimbledon final where he was crushed by Hewitt. Del Potro looks to me to be set for a big 2013 and is the best Argentine I've seen, Vilas having been before my time.

hisrob777
10-29-2012, 07:34 PM
Great player. One of the best backhands EVER. People always talk about his lack of fitness.

LeeD
10-29-2012, 07:34 PM
Vilas by a mile.

Mustard
10-29-2012, 07:37 PM
Vilas did dominate the second half of 1977. Utterly dominated. I believe he won 72 of his last 73 matches in the calendar year, and the 1 loss was the infamous spaghetti strung racquet against Nastase.

Coria, when he had reached the 2004 French Open final, had won 48 of his last 50 matches on clay, dating back to the start of 2003 Hamburg.

not_federer
10-29-2012, 07:40 PM
POTENTIAL to dominate? How is nobody talking about Del Potro? I'm hardly a huge fan of his but look at the facts:

-already won a major
-lost to Fed in five epic sets in the French that same year; had a damn good chance of beating Soderling too if he made the final
-lost to Fed again at the French this year, pretty much only because of injury
-showed potential on grass at the olympics too

So he already has one HC major, came *this close* to winning the French that same year which would make him a two-slams-in-one-year champion which so few people have ever done.

NadalAgassi
10-29-2012, 07:43 PM
Vilas did dominate the second half of 1977. Utterly dominated. I believe he won 72 of his last 73 matches in the calendar year, and the 1 loss was the infamous spaghetti strung racquet against Nastase.

Coria, when he had reached the 2004 French Open final, had won 48 of his last 50 matches on clay, dating back to the start of 2003 Hamburg.

Nobody today remembers Vilas or Coria as being a "dominant player", nor even having the potential to be so. Being a dominant player requires more than dominating 3-5 months once in your career, especialy almost entirely based on only one surface. By that logic Rafter (summer of 1998), Azarenka (winter 2012), Kvitova (fall of 2011), Rios (February-May 1998 ), would be considered dominant players.

Disgruntled Worker
10-29-2012, 07:44 PM
Yeah. If we're talking about potential how about a guy who not only defeated one of the all-time greats en route to a major, but made him look down right silly!

NadalAgassi
10-29-2012, 07:46 PM
POTENTIAL to dominate? How is nobody talking about Del Potro? I'm hardly a huge fan of his but look at the facts:

-already won a major
-lost to Fed in five epic sets in the French that same year; had a damn good chance of beating Soderling too if he made the final
-lost to Fed again at the French this year, pretty much only because of injury
-showed potential on grass at the olympics too

So he already has one HC major, came *this close* to winning the French that same year which would make him a two-slams-in-one-year champion which so few people have ever done.

I dont think he ever showed the potential to dominate thus far. At his thus far career peak (late 2008-2009) he ended a year ranked #5, spent a few weeks only at #4, won only 1 title above 500 level (yes it was a huge win, winning the U.S Open by beating Nadal and Federer back to back), and had terrible records vs then #3 and #4s Djokovic and Murray.

LeeD
10-29-2012, 07:51 PM
Hindsight is always 20/20....

NadalAgassi
10-29-2012, 07:54 PM
I am not saying Nalbandian is the best Argentine player of all time btw. He isnt since he didnt come anywhere near fulfilling his vast potential, despite that he had by far the most of any Argentine player ever. Vilas, Sabatini, and Del Potro would all have to rank higher, Vilas and Sabatini both considered to have fully maxed out what their potential was. However Nalbandian was IMO the only one of those with potential to be a dominant player that could win 6 or more slams, spent various periods as a legitimate #1, etc..

Mustard
10-29-2012, 07:55 PM
Nobody today remembers Vilas or Coria as being a "dominant player", nor even having the potential to be so.

I'm going by objective facts. Vilas dominated the second half of 1977, winning 72 of his last 73 matches of the calendar year, and Coria had an excellent run on clay from 2003 Hamburg to the 2004 French Open. Even going into 2005, Coria had those masters series finals against Nadal in Monte Carlo and Rome, before a very surprising R16 loss to Davydenko at the French Open when Coria had been the clear favourite to reach the final from the bottom half of the draw.

Being a dominant player requires more than dominating 3-5 months once in your career, especialy almost entirely based on only one surface.

Vilas had a packed schedule into those months, playing as many matches as Djokovic did in a whole year in 2011. Besides, that run by Vilas is more dominant than anything Nalbandian has managed. Nalbandian's most dominant performances on a consistent basis were his Madrid and Paris Indoor performances in late 2007. As dominant as those tournaments were for Nalbandian, he also had a loss to Wawrinka in Basel in between those tournaments.

By that logic Rafter (summer of 1998), Azarenka (winter 2012), Kvitova (fall of 2011), Rios (February-May 1998 ), would be considered dominant players.

You're seriously comparing those runs to Vilas in the second half of 1977? Seriously? Vilas had a period when he was the dominant in-form player in the world, for 6 months. Nalbandian had it for 2 weeks.

NadalAgassi
10-29-2012, 08:34 PM
You obviously have no clue what a dominant player is. Someone who won only 2 real slams (since the Aussies of the late 70s were such a joke for both men and women they should all be disregarded, and since Vilas is so extremely far from slam champion calibre on grass), is ranked miles behind many others of their era- Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Lendl, Newcombe, and never held the #1 ranking is not a dominant player. Even if you wish to argue he dominated half a year, dominating half a year in no planet makes you a dominant player. Even arguing Jim Courier as a dominant player is a huge stretch, and he was much closer to being that than Vilas is, as he was the games top player for about a year and half, and won 4 majors and reached 7 slam finals in only about 2 years. Then Coria, that is something far beyond laughable. Having a great clay court season where you win only 1 Masters and dont even win the French, and being ZERO threat to win anything on any other surface, I think peaking at #4 or #5 in the rankings, and you were a dominant player, ROTFL!!!!! Why not even argue Sabatini as a dominant player then as Sabatini >>>>> Coria, and she had numerous stretches more impressive than Coria's best ever one (note I am not arguing Sabatini as a dominant player, just putting in perspective how ridiculous arguing Coria ever was one is).

I am going to ignore anything else you have to say in this thread as your delusions that Vilas and even Coria are regarded as "dominant" players is simply trolling and detracts the thread from its main topic point.

SoBad
10-29-2012, 08:44 PM
Nalbandian looks a little bit overweight, but he is still in better shape than Seles was after Graf tried to take her out.

cc0509
10-29-2012, 09:19 PM
Vilas by a mile.

I agree. The only thing Nalbandian had the potential to dominate was the donut stand. Hugely overrated player imo. Is he talented? Sure. But I don't think he ever had the potential to dominate, people just talked him up a lot and made him seem better than what he actually was.

NadalAgassi
10-29-2012, 09:31 PM
I agree. The only thing Nalbandian had the potential to dominate was the donut stand. Hugely overrated player imo. Is he talented? Sure. But I don't think he ever had the potential to dominate, people just talked him up a lot and made him seem better than what he actually was.

He has a 8-10 (or maybe it is 8-11 now) record vs Federer. That is mighty impressive. He wasnt playing past his prime Federer like Murray and Djokovic were either, he is virtually the same age, and his prime years were exactly the same as Federer's. After Federer was born at Wimbledon 2003 and until the end of 2007 when Federer fans claim his prime ended, he had 5 losses to Nalbandian, including major matches like the 2003 U.S Open and 2005 WTF final. This despite that he was overweight, unfit, and not fully commited to tennis in Serena Williams style (even less dedicated than Serena in her good years probably).

Watch his performances fall of 2007, especialy the ones where he destroyed Nadal and Federer, and one can see why people rate his raw talent so highly.

jokinla
10-29-2012, 09:37 PM
How did you fail to mention Delpo?????? He's clearly shown much more potential to dominate, did you miss the 09 US Open, he completely dominated Rafa and was close to losing to Fed until turning it around. He actually won a slam versus Nalbandian who has been close, but as for potential, Delpo showed absolute potential in that summer, unfortunately he got hurt and the rest is history. Not sure how you mentioned Coria and Nalby and left him out, the one guy who has won a slam?????

Ripster
10-29-2012, 09:38 PM
I agree. The only thing Nalbandian had the potential to dominate was the donut stand. Hugely overrated player imo. Is he talented? Sure. But I don't think he ever had the potential to dominate, people just talked him up a lot and made him seem better than what he actually was.

Nalbandian could and should have dominated. Of course he had the potential, the guy made the semis of all four slams, the Wimbledon final, won several Masters and a World Tour final. He's clearly the best player to have never won a GS and if he had of given it his all he would have been a multiple slam winner.

There were definitely periods where he could have dominated, he had Federer's number for awhile in the early 2000's and there were plenty of opportunities for him pre - 2008. After that point the big 4 were pretty much established.

cc0509
10-29-2012, 09:38 PM
He has a 8-10 (or maybe it is 8-11 now) record vs Federer. That is mighty impressive. He wasnt playing past his prime Federer like Murray and Djokovic were either, he is virtually the same age, and his prime years were exactly the same as Federer's. After Federer was born at Wimbledon 2003 and until the end of 2007 when Federer fans claim his prime ended, he had 5 losses to Nalbandian, including major matches like the 2003 U.S Open and 2005 WTF final. This despite that he was overweight, unfit, and not fully commited to tennis in Serena Williams style (even less dedicated than Serena in her good years probably).

Watch his performances fall of 2007, especialy the ones where he destroyed Nadal and Federer, and one can see why people rate his raw talent so highly.

I have seen him play many times and live too. I think he is talented but you asked which Argentine had the greatest potential to dominate and I don't think it is Nalbandian. I would put Vilas above Nalbandian. Nalbandian was a lazy sod and despite his talent he was never going to dominate.

Prisoner of Birth
10-29-2012, 09:38 PM
Nalbandian is the player with the most raw talent to have come from Argentina. Your OP is senseless as there have been dominant players who've come from Argentina, even if it's on "just one surface." Dominance is dominance.

NadalAgassi
10-29-2012, 09:44 PM
I have seen him play many times and live too. I think he is talented but you asked which Argentine had the greatest potential to dominate and I don't think it is Nalbandian. I would put Vilas above Nalbandian. Nalbandian was a lazy sod and despite his talent he was never going to dominate.

Vilas was Borg's lapdog, he went 6 years without beating him at one point, so with Borg being the best player of that era there was clearly zero potential to dominate. Along with that he was only a top player on clay, as his record at Wimbledon, and the U.S Open once it went to hard courts, shows. That is why I would say Nalbandian had much more potential to dominate, he wasnt owned by anyone of his era, not even Federer. Many people believe he should have won 6 or more slams and been #1 at various points if he were commited to tennis. Nobody would ever say that about Vilas (especialy as he in no way lacked commitment, he was one of the hardest workers ever, so what he was is the absolute max of what he could have been). Some think Sabatini was an underachiever but does anyone really think she could have been a dominant player in the era of Navratilova, Evert, Graf, Seles, and Sanchez Vicario.

NadalAgassi
10-29-2012, 09:53 PM
Nalbandian could and should have dominated. Of course he had the potential, the guy made the semis of all four slams, the Wimbledon final, won several Masters and a World Tour final. He's clearly the best player to have never won a GS and if he had of given it his all he would have been a multiple slam winner.

There were definitely periods where he could have dominated, he had Federer's number for awhile in the early 2000's and there were plenty of opportunities for him pre - 2008. After that point the big 4 were pretty much established.

He had potential to be the dominant player of 2003 and be Federer's biggest rival on top of the mens game by far from 2004-2006. Even past 2006 with Nadal starting to become a good player on non clay surfaces for the first time, Djokovic emerging, and the field starting to get tougher, his potential was still huge as his late 2007 performance showed.

Gizo
10-30-2012, 12:15 AM
I don't think that Nalbandian ever had the ability to completely dominate men's tennis, but I certainly think he had the ability to achieve a Hewitt like career, winning a couple of slam titles and spend some time as the world no. 1.

To me he was huge underachiever on hard courts during his career, never reaching a final at either the Aussie Open or US Opens, and never winning a masters series title on outdoor hard, getting spanked by at Montreal in 2003 in his one final appearance.

I don't think think he was ever good enough to win RG or Wimbledon, but I do think he was good enough to win both the Aussie and US Opens.

Argentina have produced a lot of underachievers over the years. Clerc was such a talented player with so much power and shotmaking ability, and he could make even the likes of Mac and Lendl look completely helpess at times. However he never reached a slam final, with just two RG semi-final appearances in 1981 and 1982. He won a lot of titles during his career including the 1981 Italian Open where he beat Lendl in the semis, and must be considered as one of the best players never to have reached a slam final.

Alberto Mancini and Agustin Calleri were also huge underachievers. Mancini only won 3 ATP titles during his career, but two of them were big ones at Monte-Carlo and Rome in 1989. He went into RG that year as one of the hot favourites, but was well beaten by Edberg in his QF. He beat Becker two times out of 3, in that 1989 Monte-Carlo final and on his way to the Miami final in 1992. Plus he beat Wilander 3 times out of 3 in 1989. I loved his backhand.

Calleri also had so much raw ability and sheer power, with one of the hardest backhands I've ever seen. He had some great victories such as destroying the world no. 1 and reigning RG champion Ferrero on clay in the Davis Cup in 2003, giving Agassi at tennis lesson at Miami in 2004 (Agassi had won his last 20 matches at Miami and won that event 6 times in total) and outclassing Hewitt at the US Open in 2007 (the US Open was Hewitt's strongest grand slam). It was ridiculous that he only won 2 ATP titles and never even reached the 2nd week at RG. In one of the biggest matches of his career, the 2002 Buenos Aires final, he committed a huge choke against Massu, a player that he otherwise owned.

vive le beau jeu !
10-30-2012, 01:31 AM
delpo has far more potential to dominate than nalbandian...

Flash O'Groove
10-30-2012, 06:37 AM
[Nalbandian] wasnt owned by anyone of his era, not even Federer.

Nalbandian didn't own anybody either, which is quiet necessary to be a dominant player.

Everybody agree that he had a huge talent, that he could (and maybe still can) beat the best player on a could day, which most players can't. However, he lacks consistency which is more important than talent to dominate (see David Ferrer).

Now Coria could have been a different player had he not lost against Gaudio. Del Potro as well had he not been hurt. And I can still him win a few slams during the next years. I wasn't born when Vilas played so I won't speak about him.

jean pierre
10-30-2012, 07:08 AM
I don't understand how it's possible to say Vilas was'nt a dominant player. Vilas was in the top ten during ten years and dominated 1977, winning 14 tournaments, with 2 Grand Slams.
Coria and Nalbandian, and even Del Potro, did nothing, compared to Vilas.

5point5
10-30-2012, 09:19 AM
Nalbandian never had the serve to dominate. He peaked, and that was the best he was ever going to do with his B rated serve.

Boricua
10-30-2012, 09:22 AM
Del Potro has the potential to be a dominant player. He beat Federer last week. His main weakness is lack of consistency but his power game is very tough.

NadalAgassi
10-30-2012, 09:26 AM
I am surprised so many think Del Potro has the potential to be a "dominant" player. I do think he has the potential, or atleast did have the potential at one point, to win more than 1 slam, but I would be hard pressed to see him ever be ranked #1, let alone have a season like many of Federer's, Nadal's 2008 or 2010, or Djokovic's 2011 in this season. His records vs all the top 4 are quite poor, he is totally owned by both Djokovic and Murray especialy, and even at his peak his U.S Open win was his only title above 500 level, he couldnt even win a regular Masters. He also has serious problems with staying fit.

Is Del Potro really more talented than Nalbandian?

PeteD
10-30-2012, 09:30 AM
Del Potro is only 24 years old, and anybody who has seen him play close up, the guy is absolutely scary the way he whips the forehand like he's playing jai-alai. The question is his wrist. Big scare when it hurt earlier this year but it seems fine now, and the longer that maintains the better the prognosis I would guess.

Steve0904
10-30-2012, 09:32 AM
Delpo has the most potential to dominate easily.

single_handed_champion
10-30-2012, 10:19 AM
Nalbandian? Dominate? Has the word acquired a radically new definition recently?? When did he ever show such potential? 1 GS final when nobody had ever heard of him and in FEderer's shadow all his career. Even the early H2H advantage he had ultimately meant zip. In fact, you can make a case that each of VIlas, Sabatini and Coria showed more potential than Nalbandian in this respect. And I am not talking just pretty backhands.

At least del Potro has won a Slam against far superior competition. With his game, he has the POTENTIAL to dominate. Not sure it will happen however.

BER256
10-30-2012, 03:06 PM
If you look at Del Potros losses to Federer this year and eventual win, you can see his progrression and his coming back to form. 2013 will be a huge form, he has all the weapons and I most certainly think he will dominate in 2013. I think he can take one of the big 4 out of the top 4 and win a slam. So Delpo had the potential to dominate most certainly, and I think he will next year. Nadal loses to big hitters, he has a good matchup with federer. Murray and Djokovic are tough matchups for him though.

NadalAgassi
10-30-2012, 03:07 PM
I most certainly think he will dominate in 2013. I think he can take one of the big 4 out of the top 4 and win a slam.

What you said is not dominating though. Dominating would be winning 2 slams and reaching #1 at minimum.

BER256
10-30-2012, 03:18 PM
Dominating in an Era with players like Novak Djokovic, Rafa Nadal, Roger Federer, and Andy Murray, is simply impossible. Although I believe your definition of winning 2 slams and reaching #1 would classify dominating a year, but then no one dominated the 2012 calendar year. So I don't foresee any players dominating in 2013 because the level of skill among the top 4 and Del Potro makes it so you cannot count anyone out. That being said Delpo is my favorite player and I could see him winning the AO, and UO, with an interesting advantage on Nadal at the FO, and Wimby was never his strongest tournament.

LeeD
10-30-2012, 03:22 PM
Delpo has the game to dominate. He might not have the physical recovery or the ability to keep from getting injured. We do have to look at history here.
Nalbandian can stay near the top longer, but not dominate.
Vilas, when he was still playing, had the game and a chance. His matches were all interesting and entertaining, most rooting for him to succeed, but as we now know, an artist seldom beats the technicians.
And big power seldom trumps the technicians, because big power has problems applying the game thru 6 rounds, week after week.

90's Clay
10-30-2012, 03:32 PM
Vilas perhaps could have dominated to an extent if not for his daddy Borg. Del Potro could have dominated most definitely to a reasonable degree but that injury set him back years it seems. He hasn't been the same since late '09 and it may be safe to say he never will be

Jeff Nuese
10-30-2012, 03:42 PM
Great thread as Im a huge Nalbandian fan. On any given day his game was parallel to none, and this list includes Roger and Rafa. The mans talent is unrivaled and probably the purest ball striker of our generation. I would also agree that his mental and physical approach often diminished his ability to hit a tennis ball. As he is getting older , I dont think a grand slam will be in the cards for Dave, which is a shame based on his talent, but still a pro's pro and a joy to watch.

TheFifthSet
10-30-2012, 03:43 PM
Nalbandian never had the serve to dominate. He peaked, and that was the best he was ever going to do with his B rated serve.

Agree completely. People freakin' forget this for some reason. Serve, forehand, and court coverage/athleticism are more important now than they've ever been, and Nalbandian doesn't score high in any of those categories (although his forehand was pretty good, particularly CC).

Nalbandian's serve is downright average, and below average for a top player. It's mighty hard to dominate an era with a pedestrian serve. Moreover, where was he gonna dominate? It wasn't gonna be grass and definitely not clay. Peak Nalby is a contender on hardcourts, no doubt, but he wasn't gonna dominate what with peak Fed (2004-2007), peak Nole, Rafa, Roddick, Murray etc. So where was this domination going to occur?

TheFifthSet
10-30-2012, 03:46 PM
Del Potro could have dominated most definitely to a reasonable degree but that injury set him back years it seems. He hasn't been the same since late '09 and it may be safe to say he never will be

That's overdramatic. What Del Potro have you been watching? 2012 Delpo is about as good as he's ever been. 62-14 with 4 titles. So what if he hadn't won a major this year? He lost to Fed twice, Djoko once and Ferrer once at the slams. He darn near hit Fed off the court at Roland Garros, the Olympics, then beat him at his hometown event. I'd say he's pretty close to being the player he was in '09. He's definitely more consistent.

smoledman
10-30-2012, 04:27 PM
Del Potro obviously.

Big_Dangerous
10-30-2012, 04:33 PM
Yeah I don't know how the OP missed Del Potro...

NadalAgassi
10-30-2012, 04:39 PM
Yeah I don't know how the OP missed Del Potro...

I didnt purposely miss him. I never felt he had potential to "dominate" tennis. How can someone who is owned by both Djokovic and Murray, and usually loses to Federer and Nadal, hasnt been a threat to win big titles on any surface but hard courts, and didnt win a Masters title in his best year ever, going to dominate. I should have factored in how overrated Del Potro is on this forum though. :lol:

Steve0904
10-30-2012, 04:46 PM
Delpo's not neccessarily overrated. He simply has/had the most potential to dominate. 2010 was set to be a pretty big year for him. He had beaten Fed twice in a row in 2009, he had just beaten Nadal pretty easily at Montreal and the USO, and Djokovic's 2010 as it turned out was pretty bad. He was serving more DF's than aces for gods sake. Federer said at the time that Delpo was playing like a #1 player or something of the sort, and the truth is, he was.

Prisoner of Birth
10-30-2012, 04:54 PM
I didnt purposely miss him. I never felt he had potential to "dominate" tennis. How can someone who is owned by both Djokovic and Murray, and usually loses to Federer and Nadal, hasnt been a threat to win big titles on any surface but hard courts, and didnt win a Masters title in his best year ever, going to dominate. I should have factored in how overrated Del Potro is on this forum though. :lol:

One could just as easily say, "How was a player that never won a Grand Slam going to dominate?"

90's Clay
10-30-2012, 05:01 PM
Its tough to say whether Del Potro could have dominated or not because his PEAK was cut short and he missed an entire year.. That can set you back a long time. The Del Potro that showed up to the USO in 2009 that took out Nadal and Fed back to back was scary and could have kept building off of that..

Who knows what Del Potro really could have done if his best wasn't cut short.

NadalAgassi
10-30-2012, 05:09 PM
Its tough to say whether Del Potro could have dominated or not because his PEAK was cut short and he missed an entire year.. That can set you back a long time. The Del Potro that showed up to the USO in 2009 that took out Nadal and Fed back to back was scary and could have kept building off of that..

Who knows what Del Potro really could have done if his best wasn't cut short.

It wasnt that unbelievable. Federer served poorly and played his worst match in awhile in that final, and still would have won in straight sets if he didnt blow a bunch of chances in the 2nd set. Beating Nadal at that point was no real achievement for a decent top 15 player, his record vs the top 10 was something like 2-11 the last 4 months of 2010 after his return from injury. What would have happened had he had to play one of Djokovic or Murray, instead of Federer or Nadal. Djokovic and Murray are much worse opponents for him than Federer or Nadal, and he almost never beats either one, in fact has never beaten Murray on hard courts, and his only hard court win over Djokovic was one he retired after the 1st set. To win any hard court slam 2010 and beyond you would likely need to beat Djokovic (apart from the 2010 Australian Open where beating Murray in the semis, then a top form Federer in the final would have been required for him to win), and a couple of times possibly both Djokovic and Murray. Meanwhile his odds of beating a top form Nadal at Wimbledon or the French Open are miniscule at best, or even surviving to the finals of either event for that matter as he is mostly a hard court specialist.

If this were his coronation as the new king of tennis why did he not win a tourament the rest of 2009, lose to Murray in the RR of the YEC, and lose easily to Davydenko in the final of the WTF. Sorry I just dont see it at all. I would agree he could have even risen to the top 3 at one point and won another slam or two had he remained healthy (maybe, very far from certain) but dominance, no way.
Not to mention with his height, build, and lack of supreme fitness or athletic ability he would never be able to stay healthy for a whole year.

One last note, why on earth are people still talking about his "comeback". He has been back from his major injury for over 2 years now. It is put up or shut up time for him. I actually like him so would be happy to see him back in the mix near the top, but as far as potential to dominate I do see Nalbandian as having had much more natural talent, ability to beat ALL the top players when on, and thus more potential to dominate than Del Potro ever had. Plus Nalbandian peaked in a weaker era, his only competition would have been Federer if he had it all together. Del Potro plays in an era of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, almost impossible to see him dominating in a group like that.

Steve0904
10-30-2012, 05:13 PM
The big thing here is that the truth is, Nalbandian had no more potential to dominate than Delpo did.

NadalAgassi
10-30-2012, 05:14 PM
The big thing here is that the truth is, Nalbandian had no more potential to dominate than Delpo did.

Nalbandian is easily more talented than Del Potro is. Some talk about Nalbandian as being on par with Federer and Safin in raw talent. Nobody has put Del Potro up that high.

Steve0904
10-30-2012, 05:38 PM
I know that, but Nalbandian would've never dominated IMO. His serve was far too average, and his FH was only slightly above average at the very best of times.

NadalAgassi
10-30-2012, 05:45 PM
Well either way I did get the answer to the thread. It seems many do think Del Potro was the other Argentine player who had potential to dominate. I dont agree with that, but I do appreciate the responses that essentialy answered the question I was asking all the same.

It seems virtually nobody feels Sabatini, Vilas, or Coria ever had potential to be a dominant player. I am not surprised at that, but I did wonder if some would say Sabatini did. It seems some expected alot more from her, and thought she would be a more serious rival to Graf, and win many more slams than she did. In hindsight though it seems most realize she just didnt have the game or overall abilities of Graf, Seles, Navratilova in the first place, and Sanchez Vicario's insanely great defense (maybe the best ever) and mental fortitude is not easily matched either.

jaggy
10-30-2012, 06:00 PM
I think Delpo has potential to win a bunch of slams, not sure about dominate though

cc0509
10-30-2012, 06:11 PM
Vilas was Borg's lapdog, he went 6 years without beating him at one point, so with Borg being the best player of that era there was clearly zero potential to dominate. Along with that he was only a top player on clay, as his record at Wimbledon, and the U.S Open once it went to hard courts, shows. That is why I would say Nalbandian had much more potential to dominate, he wasnt owned by anyone of his era, not even Federer. Many people believe he should have won 6 or more slams and been #1 at various points if he were commited to tennis. Nobody would ever say that about Vilas (especialy as he in no way lacked commitment, he was one of the hardest workers ever, so what he was is the absolute max of what he could have been). Some think Sabatini was an underachiever but does anyone really think she could have been a dominant player in the era of Navratilova, Evert, Graf, Seles, and Sanchez Vicario.

I agree that Borg was a better player than Vilas but Vilas did win four slams and made it to many slam finals. Plus how many other titles did Vilas win? Many. Nalbandian, what did he ever do? As I said, I think Nalbandian is talented but I also think he has been overrated by many people over the years and the proof is in the pudding. Does it really matter how much raw talent he has if he could not get that raw talent across through his results? Vilas may not have dominated but his results show me that he was a much better player than Nalbandian (raw talent or not.) It is just my opinion. Out of all of the Argentine players, to me Vilas has been the best. Del Potro? LOL, don't make me laugh. Vilas > Del Potro by miles.

cc0509
10-30-2012, 06:13 PM
Nalbandian is easily more talented than Del Potro is. Some talk about Nalbandian as being on par with Federer and Safin in raw talent. Nobody has put Del Potro up that high.

That may be true but neither were or are good enough to dominate. Not even close.

NadalAgassi
10-30-2012, 06:23 PM
I agree that Borg was a better player than Vilas but Vilas did win four slams and made it to many slam finals. Plus how many other titles did Vilas win? Many. Nalbandian, what did he ever do? As I said, I think Nalbandian is talented but I also think he has been overrated by many people over the years and the proof is in the pudding. Does it really matter how much raw talent he has if he could not get that raw talent across through his results? Vilas may not have dominated but his results show me that he was a much better player than Nalbandian (raw talent or not.) It is just my opinion. Out of all of the Argentine players, to me Vilas has been the best. Del Potro? LOL, don't make me laugh. Vilas > Del Potro by miles.

Well I never implied Nalbandian dominated of course. Nor did he even have a better career than any of Sabatini, Vilas, Del Potro, who all never dominated as well. I am only talking about potential. Someone like Vilas maximized his potential completely, in fact he was probably an overachiever. So he couldnt have possibly done any better than what he did when he played.

I also dont think of Vilas as a 4 slam winner, really a 2 slam winner. Just like people dont recognize Court as a 24 slam winner with those 11 Australian Opens, even though technically she is. The Australian Open in the 60s and 70s, especialy the late 70s was not a slam, it was a joke. The other winners those few years were Kerry Melville, Barbara Jordan, Roscoe Tanner, Vitas Gerulatis, and the infamous Chris O Neill, who has a 19-52 career pro record, was ranked in the 100s, and would never make it past the 2nd round of any future slam. Vilas was also never good enough to win a slam (a REAL slam) on grass, as his extremely bad Wimbledon record shows. He was a clay courter, period.

TheFifthSet
10-30-2012, 06:35 PM
Well I never implied Nalbandian dominated of course. Nor did he even have a better career than any of Sabatini, Vilas, Del Potro, who all never dominated as well. I am only talking about potential. Someone like Vilas maximized his potential completely, in fact he was probably an overachiever. So he couldnt have possibly done any better than what he did when he played.

I also dont think of Vilas as a 4 slam winner, really a 2 slam winner. Just like people dont recognize Court as a 24 slam winner with those 11 Australian Opens, even though technically she is. The Australian Open in the 60s and 70s, especialy the late 70s was not a slam, it was a joke. The other winners those few years were Kerry Melville, Barbara Jordan, Roscoe Tanner, Vitas Gerulatis, and the infamous Chris O Neill, who has a 19-52 career pro record, was ranked in the 100s, and would never make it past the 2nd round of any future slam. Vilas was also never good enough to win a slam (a REAL slam) on grass, as his extremely bad Wimbledon record shows. He was a clay courter, period.

Vilas won the '74 Masters on grass, over Nastase. Look at some of his tournament wins on non-clay surfaces. Two wins over Connors on carpet finals, a win over Mac on HC, etc. 18 non-clay titles. That's not TOO shabby.

Nalbandian wouldn't dominate on a natural surface, ever. On hardcourts he'd be one of many contenders. He likely wouldn't dominate, though. His serve was WAY too attackable, and his forehand, while very good, isn't a big weapon. And he's not particularly impressive athletically.

cc0509
10-30-2012, 06:44 PM
Well I never implied Nalbandian dominated of course. Nor did he even have a better career than any of Sabatini, Vilas, Del Potro, who all never dominated as well. I am only talking about potential. Someone like Vilas maximized his potential completely, in fact he was probably an overachiever. So he couldnt have possibly done any better than what he did when he played.

I also dont think of Vilas as a 4 slam winner, really a 2 slam winner. Just like people dont recognize Court as a 24 slam winner with those 11 Australian Opens, even though technically she is. The Australian Open in the 60s and 70s, especialy the late 70s was not a slam, it was a joke. The other winners those few years were Kerry Melville, Barbara Jordan, Roscoe Tanner, Vitas Gerulatis, and the infamous Chris O Neill, who has a 19-52 career pro record, was ranked in the 100s, and would never make it past the 2nd round of any future slam. Vilas was also never good enough to win a slam (a REAL slam) on grass, as his extremely bad Wimbledon record shows. He was a clay courter, period.


But a very good clay court player. Much better than any of Nadal's clay court competition throughout his career that is for sure.

Federer20042006
10-30-2012, 06:48 PM
Del Potro will never dominate. Not a chance. He's 6'6," plays with a hangdog expression, and in a battle with Djokovic, he's doomed.

Nalbandian never would have dominated either, but he should've won 3-5 slams.

NadalAgassi
10-30-2012, 06:49 PM
But a very good clay court player. Much better than any of Nadal's clay court competition throughout his career that is for sure.

I rate Federer as a greater clay courter than Vilas. He has a better French Open record, more Masters 1000 equivalent titltes (6 to 5), and he was much more competitive with the undisputed clay GOAT Nadal than Vilas was with Borg. Vilas played a ton of tiny clay events with weak fields, but his performances in the full field clay events show he did not even dominate the field on clay outside Borg the way Federer did outside Nadal. I have no doubt prime to prime Federer would regularly defeat Vilas on clay, and as you know I am no Federer fan, and that Nadal would consistently destroy him with ease on clay just as Borg did.

For what it is worth Vilas is definitely a better clay courter than Nalbandian, but Nalbandian had more potential on any other surface (heck as it was he probably was better and had better results on any other surface, considering what a joke the meaningless Australian Open in the late 70s was, despite his huge waste of potential, but Vilas's clay court achievements alone still make him much greater as it is).

NadalAgassi
10-30-2012, 06:52 PM
Del Potro will never dominate. Not a chance. He's 6'6," plays with a hangdog expression, and in a battle with Djokovic, he's doomed.

Nalbandian never would have dominated either, but he should've won 3-5 slams.

I think Nalbandian had the potential for atleast 6 slams, but 3-5 is a reasonable opinion too. Even a career such as that would have made him much more a dominant player than any past Argentine player though.

cc0509
10-30-2012, 06:53 PM
Well I never implied Nalbandian dominated of course. Nor did he even have a better career than any of Sabatini, Vilas, Del Potro, who all never dominated as well. I am only talking about potential. Someone like Vilas maximized his potential completely, in fact he was probably an overachiever. So he couldnt have possibly done any better than what he did when he played.

I also dont think of Vilas as a 4 slam winner, really a 2 slam winner. Just like people dont recognize Court as a 24 slam winner with those 11 Australian Opens, even though technically she is. The Australian Open in the 60s and 70s, especialy the late 70s was not a slam, it was a joke. The other winners those few years were Kerry Melville, Barbara Jordan, Roscoe Tanner, Vitas Gerulatis, and the infamous Chris O Neill, who has a 19-52 career pro record, was ranked in the 100s, and would never make it past the 2nd round of any future slam. Vilas was also never good enough to win a slam (a REAL slam) on grass, as his extremely bad Wimbledon record shows. He was a clay courter, period.

You talk about Nalbandian's potential but the way I see it that is a cop-out. For me, if a player is really that talented he or she will win lots of titles. Lots of players have potential and real talent but it does not mean anything if they can't produce. At the end of the day Vilas had over sixty titles and Nalbandian has how many? I don't even know but for me, potential or no potential Vilas > Nalbandian by leaps and bounds. And if I had to pick one out of those two who would be more likely to dominate I would have to go with Vilas.

PCXL-Fan
10-30-2012, 06:54 PM
Nalbandian - relative to the tennis greats (eg Sampras, Nadal, Federer, Borg, McEnroe, Connors) mentally weak (choking often) and mentally undisciplined (not willing to put in the effort to maintain top condition.

He gets way way way to much praise on these forums.

NadalAgassi
10-30-2012, 06:57 PM
You talk about Nalbandian's potential but the way I see it that is a cop-out. For me, if a player is really that talented he or she will win lots of titles. Lots of players have potential and real talent but it does not mean anything if they can't produce. At the end of the day Vilas had over sixty titles and Nalbandian has how many? I don't even know but for me, potential or no potential Vilas > Nalbandian by leaps and bounds. And if I had to pick one out of those two who would be more likely to dominate I would have to go with Vilas.

Most people think Nalbandian is more talented than Nadal, and Nalbandian is a 0 slam winner and Nadal an 11 time. Nadal is generally regarded by people as a huge overachiever with an insane historic level of mental fortitude, dedication to fitness, and work ethic (which I can somewhat agree with) while Nalbandian a huge underachiever. I dont know if you disagree with this or not, but clearly talent and potential does not always equate to results, there is much more that goes into it than that. It is up to each player to fulfill what their potential is, and it isnt easy to fulfill and live up to all your potential and takes alot of hard work and smart decision making, and everything coming together just right. Do you think Jim Courier was more talented than Marcelo Rios. Heck Michael Chang even more talented than Marcelo Rios (Chang had a much better career and was a much greater player despite never reaching #1 in the end). Lendl more talented than Agassi. Wilander more talented than Becker. You get the idea.

cc0509
10-30-2012, 07:00 PM
I rate Federer as a greater clay courter than Vilas. He has a better French Open record, more Masters 1000 equivalent titltes (6 to 5), and he was much more competitive with the undisputed clay GOAT Nadal than Vilas was with Borg. Vilas played a ton of tiny clay events with weak fields, but his performances in the full field clay events show he did not even dominate the field on clay outside Borg the way Federer did outside Nadal. I have no doubt prime to prime Federer would regularly defeat Vilas on clay, and as you know I am no Federer fan, and that Nadal would consistently destroy him with ease on clay just as Borg did.


I love Federer and he is my favorite player but I don't think so. Grass and HC Federer is the man, but on clay? Nope. It is only because the clay competition has been zilch that Federer was able to get so far on clay. Plus you are saying Borg beat Vilas easily on clay but Borg was a much better clay court player than Federer is. I would rank Vilas as a better cc player than Federer. Vilas won 45 clay titles, Mickey Mouse titles or not, that is a lot of clay titles.

NadalAgassi
10-30-2012, 07:09 PM
I love Federer and he is my favorite player but I don't think so. Grass and HC Federer is the man, but on clay? Nope. It is only because the clay competition has been zilch that Federer was able to get so far on clay. Plus you are saying Borg beat Vilas easily on clay but Borg was a much better clay court player than Federer is. I would rank Vilas as a better cc player than Federer. Vilas won 45 clay titles, Mickey Mouse titles or not, that is a lot of clay titles.

You are entitled your opinion but I think most would rate Federer higher than Vilas on clay. There have been some lists done by experts who rate the best clay courters ever and Federer often is around 7th or 8th (a bit high IMO) while Vilas is practically never in the top 10.

I dont see any basis for considering Vilas better than Federer on clay. At the only events that matter for a top player, Federer has performed better on clay. Also one just compares the competitiveness of the matches of Federer vs Nadal on clay to Borg vs Vilas and one can easily see who is better, especialy when Nadal is just as bad a matchup for Federer in general as Borg is for Vilas. That is unless you are going to argue Borg's level on clay was way higher than Nadal's.

Lastly tournament title counts are always heavily in favor of players from the 70s and earlier. I am not one of those who thinks the game is way better today, and the fields and competition always better, etc...but the game is definitely alot more physicaly today. It is virtually impossible to win the # of titles players used to. Margaret Court won 199, and Laver won something like 150. Would you say Federer needs to double his tournament title count to even be considered against Laver in GOAT debates. Lendl and Connors both won about 100, and while both are major all time greats neither is even a strong GOAT candidate. Virginia Wade who isnt even that great a player (she did win 3 slams but in her era she is light years behind all of Evert, Court, King, Goolagong, Navratilova, Bueno, and even Ann Jones) won 55 career titles, more than any women of the last 15 years outside of Steffi Graf. You will simply never see the kind of #s in regular tournament wins as you once did. The game is too physically taxing to play as regularly and as long as players used to be able to.

cc0509
10-30-2012, 07:13 PM
Most people think Nalbandian is more talented than Nadal, and Nalbandian is a 0 slam winner and Nadal an 11 time. Nadal is generally regarded by people as a huge overachiever with an insane historic level of mental fortitude, dedication to fitness, and work ethic (which I can somewhat agree with) while Nalbandian a huge underachiever. I dont know if you disagree with this or not, but clearly talent and potential does not always equate to results, there is much more that goes into it than that. It is up to each player to fulfill what their potential is, and it isnt easy to fulfill and live up to all your potential and takes alot of hard work and smart decision making, and everything coming together just right. Do you think Jim Courier was more talented than Marcelo Rios. Heck Michael Chang even more talented than Marcelo Rios (Chang had a much better career and was a much greater player despite never reaching #1 in the end). Lendl more talented than Agassi. Wilander more talented than Becker. You get the idea.

What does Feliciano Lopez say in his Wilson commercial? "Some people are stupid, estúpido."

I understand the point you are trying to make but it is my opinion that if Nalbandian was really that talented he would have won more. Mental toughness and determination are a big part of what makes a player great and that is where Nalbandian was weak. For me the player who is tougher mentally and has some talent is the greater player. You need both talent and mental toughness to be great and win titles. All this talk about Nalbandian's potential and raw talent is pointless. He didn't produce the goods at the end of the day. There are tons of talented players out there.

Mustard
10-30-2012, 07:22 PM
It seems virtually nobody feels Sabatini, Vilas, or Coria ever had potential to be a dominant player.

What's all this "nobody feels" stuff? Vilas was dominant in the second half of 1977. There's no "feeling" about it, it's objective fact, as winning 72 out of 73 matches shows. It is also objective fact that when Coria beat Henman to reach the 2004 French Open final, Coria had won 48 out of his last 50 matches on clay going back to the start of 2003 Hamburg, which is impressive.

Prisoner of Birth
10-30-2012, 07:24 PM
What's all this "nobody feels" stuff? Vilas was dominant in the second half of 1977. There's no "feeling" about it, it's objective fact, as winning 72 out of 73 matches shows. It is also objective fact that when Coria beat Henman to reach the 2004 French Open final, Coria had won 48 out of his last 50 matches on clay going back to the start of 2003 Hamburg, which is impressive.

Who were Coria's losses to? One was Federer, right?

cc0509
10-30-2012, 07:27 PM
What's all this "nobody feels" stuff? Vilas was dominant in the second half of 1977. There's no "feeling" about it, it's objective fact, as winning 72 out of 73 matches shows.

I am with you on this one Mustard! :)

Mustard
10-30-2012, 07:50 PM
Who were Coria's losses to? One was Federer, right?

Correct. The two losses were to Verkerk in the 2003 French Open semi finals and to Federer in the 2004 Hamburg final.

Prisoner of Birth
10-30-2012, 07:52 PM
Correct. The two losses were to Verkerk in the 2003 French Open semi finals and to Federer in the 2004 Hamburg final.

Darn, can't believe I didn't think of the freaking French Open!

Mustard
10-30-2012, 07:54 PM
Still trying to argue even freaking Coria as a dominant player, LOL! You are pathetic beyond words.

Coria was the king of clay at the time, with those 48 wins out of 50 clay-court matches. Are you denying this?

The only reason I spare you my ignore list is I would miss the comedic value of your posts. Arent you the same poster who even tries to argue assertively that Monica Seles is the female tennis GOAT?

I think Seles was on her way to dominating women's tennis for years, but we shall never know thanks to what Parche did in Hamburg that day. What stands out about the pre-stabbing Seles was her enthusiasm and love for everything to do with tennis. It was infectious. The stabbing changed Seles as a person, making her much more philosophical and a lot less giggly.

Mustard
10-30-2012, 08:18 PM
I dont see any basis for considering Vilas better than Federer on clay.

46 titles to 10 on said surface?

At the only events that matter for a top player, Federer has performed better on clay. Also one just compares the competitiveness of the matches of Federer vs Nadal on clay to Borg vs Vilas and one can easily see who is better, especialy when Nadal is just as bad a matchup for Federer in general as Borg is for Vilas. That is unless you are going to argue Borg's level on clay was way higher than Nadal's.

Nadal exploits the one clear weakness in Federer's style, high balls to his backhand side. Borg just did everything Vilas could do, a little bit better, proving correct the old saying "if you know an opponent's strengths and can overcome them, they become weaknesses". When Borg and Vilas actually played, the matches did feel close and epic, but because Borg was slightly better in all departments, the scorelines ended up being one-sided. When Vilas finally beat Borg at the 1980 World Team Cup, for the first time in 4 and a half years, he finally mixed up his play more, becoming less predictable, and was able to outplay Borg on the day.

For Vilas, playing against Borg was like playing against a superior version of himself, and that's pretty deadly, as no matter what you can do, your opponent will always do those things better. I had this vibe with Djokovic vs. Nadal in 2011, that Djokovic was doing everything that Nadal could do, slightly better.

NadalAgassi
10-30-2012, 09:07 PM
Coria was the king of clay at the time, with those 48 wins out of 50 clay-court matches. Are you denying this?

Yes I absolutely deny this. In his best year on clay he won only 1 of the 3 Masters (lost one, didnt play one, won the other) and didnt win the French Open. In his second best year on clay he won only 1 of 3 Masters (the one the clay king at the time Ferrero did not answer) and didnt make the final of the French Open. The vast majority of the events you refer to are again minor events which most of the top players didnt even play, which you grossly overvalue in general btw. In 2003 Ferrero was by far the king of clay. In 2005 it was Nadal. In 2004 it was really nobody, hard to call a guy who wins only 1 of the 4 most important clay events of the year, and it isnt the French, as king of clay. Even if he were it would be largely by default (I would give it to Gaudio by default probably since he won the French, and nobody else could even win more than 1 Masters), and certainly not dominant.

Anyway you cant be dominant just by dominating on one surface, and ignoring all matches in between. Atleast Vilas you can legitimately argue dominated half a year, even if nearly all the events of that win streak were on clay. With Coria you are talking about only ONE surface, and having to exclude a bunch of periods of time and tournaments on other surfaces in between all those clay wins, all which he was not winning of course, to present your argument. A guy who never gets higher than #4 in the World, never wins a slam, and in his best year ever wins 1 Masters title and no slam is not dominant on any planet, sorry.



I think Seles was on her way to dominating women's tennis for years

I highly doubt that. Best case scenario I see her sharing dominance of womens tennis from 1993-1995 with Graf, nothing like her late 1990-early 1993 streak of success though, and then winning only the occasional slam from 96-98 while Graf (96), Hingis (97), and nobody (1998 ) dominated, and no slams from 1999 onwards. Even if I am wrong though I still dont see her ever becoming the GOAT. Becoming the GOAT would require her to win atleast 3 Wimbledons (she would have been lucky to have eked out 1), have longevity of atleast 12 years at the top of the game and winning slams (which would mean winning a slam in 2002 or later, not a chance), and to win atleast 20 slams total (I doubt that as well). The stabbing did not prevent Seles from being GOAT, she was never going to be that, all it did was help Steffi Graf become the GOAT which she also probably wouldnt have become, but that is a whole other topic. With Seles stabbed, Graf got the same free ride that for a few yeras that Seles got in the early 90s with Graf slumping and barely even playing Seles. Both are vastly overrated compared to Court, Evert, Navratilova, Connolly, Lenglen, Wills, and Serena, but mainly just Graf now, as Seles is now rightly viewed where she belongs, about #10 all time, an honorable spot, while Graf is ridiculously viewed as the consensus female GOAT now which IMO is absurd, rather than somewhere from 4-7 where she belongs.

hersito
10-31-2012, 12:48 PM
To respond OP no way. Vilas and Sabatini were way more dominant than he was. Coria had tons of potential just that his mind and body wasn't up to it, he had the tennis. He was what Nadal became afterward, run and hit back every ball. Delpotro is already making a better career than Nalbandian did, more titles and many good years to come against an already declining nalbandian. (I'm argentinian by the way).

NadalAgassi
10-31-2012, 12:50 PM
Sabatini dominant, LOL! Dominant as far as getting her butt kicked by Graf, Seles, Navratilova, Evert, and Sanchez Vicario for years. Her slam semifinal record is 3-15, one of the worst in history by far, and managed only 1 slam title out of those 18 slam semifinal appearances. To honor her retirement Tennis Magazine wrote an article dedicated to her basically thrashing her entitled "Almost a Champion".

hersito
10-31-2012, 01:23 PM
Sabatini dominant, LOL! Dominant as far as getting her butt kicked by Graf, Seles, Navratilova, Evert, and Sanchez Vicario for years. Her slam semifinal record is 3-15, one of the worst in history by far, and managed only 1 slam title out of those 18 slam semifinal appearances. To honor her retirement Tennis Magazine wrote an article dedicated to her basically thrashing her entitled "Almost a Champion".

We are talking more dominant than nalbandian was... You said if he was the best argentinean, no he wasnt, sabatini and vilas were way better, even delpotro is better than him now, so no.

single_handed_champion
10-31-2012, 01:40 PM
I think Nalbandian had the potential for atleast 6 slams, but 3-5 is a reasonable opinion too. Even a career such as that would have made him much more a dominant player than any past Argentine player though.

:lol: Sheer insanity. Going slamless, just 1 shock final in your career when players like Gaudio, Ferrero and Roddick won Slams, and he had the potential to win 6 and dominate? No words... Hugely overrated player, one technically sound shot does not a career make.

NadalAgassi
10-31-2012, 01:50 PM
We are talking more dominant than nalbandian was... You said if he was the best argentinean, no he wasnt, sabatini and vilas were way better, even delpotro is better than him now, so no.

I did not say he was the best Argentine. Perhaps you should actually read before commenting on others comments. I said he was the one with the most potential. Needless to say the potential went unfulfilled. People like Vilas and Sabatini were as good as they could have been. Del Potro is still a work in progress.

hersito
10-31-2012, 01:58 PM
I did not say he was the best Argentine. Perhaps you should actually read before commenting on others comments. I said he was the one with the most potential. Needless to say the potential went unfulfilled. People like Vilas and Sabatini were as good as they could have been. Del Potro is still a work in progress.

No, they had the potential too, even more than Nalbandian, no one though here in argentina that he would come to be number 3 in the world, Coria in the contray yes, many thing were expected from him and from vilas and sabatini too. So no he didnt even have more potential than they did.

dominikk1985
10-31-2012, 02:00 PM
nalby never had the potential to dominate anybody. he was of course a little unlucky to fall in an era with fed and nadal but he also lost to a lot of other players even in his prime.

nalby had nice touch but he simply didn't have the power and weapons to dominate.

If any Argentine player has the potential (or maybe had before his injuries) it was DP.

NadalAgassi
10-31-2012, 02:02 PM
No, they had the potential too, even more than Nalbandian, no one though here in argentina that he would come to be number 3 in the world, Coria in the contray yes, many thing were expected from him and from vilas and sabatini too. So no he didnt even have more potential than they did.

Who was more talented than Nalbandian of his generations players? I would say only Federer and Safin, and Safin was also a huge underachiever who wasted most of his potential away, so he wouldnt have even been in Nalbandian's way much if he werent equally as big an underacheiver as Safin was. So his only huge obstacle in his prime years could have been only Federer, who Nalbandian is a tough matchup for as evidenced by how long he led their H2H, and how close their H2H still is, despite his lazy underachieving career. Roddick, Hewitt, Ferrero, were all greater and had better careers, but they certainly arent more talented.

In Sabatini's generation you had Graf, Seles, Sanchez Vicario, Pierce, Capriati, who were all more talented than she is, while even Novotna, Martinez, and Fernandez were close to her in talent. Navratilova was not really of Sabatini's generation but she played almost all of Sabatini's career, and was obviously more talented as well. Sabatini managed a combined 1 slam win over Graf, Seles, Navratilova, Evert, all combined, which shows she was never more than the nearly girl of that era, and never had potential to be any more than that. By contrast Nalbandian has beaten Federer alone twice in slams, and in the WTF final as well, which shows his unfulfilled promise.

Meanwhile amongst Vilas's generation Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Newcombe, Nastase were all greater talents than him. As others have said he basically had no chance of beating Borg from 75 onwards eithers, so could only hope to win a major event Borg wasnt even in the draw (as it was he won only 1 major with him in the draw, and it was one he retired with injury during an early round match).

Mustard
10-31-2012, 02:48 PM
Nalbandian had the talent to dominate for a while, but he would have needed a personality transplant to do so, as well as having stronger abdominal muscles.

Mainad
10-31-2012, 05:52 PM
Who was more talented than Nalbandian of his generations players? I would say only Federer and Safin, and Safin was also a huge underachiever who wasted most of his potential away, so he wouldnt have even been in Nalbandian's way much if he werent equally as big an underacheiver as Safin was. So his only huge obstacle in his prime years could have been only Federer, who Nalbandian is a tough matchup for as evidenced by how long he led their H2H, and how close their H2H still is, despite his lazy underachieving career. Roddick, Hewitt, Ferrero, were all greater and had better careers, but they certainly arent more talented.

In Sabatini's generation you had Graf, Seles, Sanchez Vicario, Pierce, Capriati, who were all more talented than she is, while even Novotna, Martinez, and Fernandez were close to her in talent. Navratilova was not really of Sabatini's generation but she played almost all of Sabatini's career, and was obviously more talented as well. Sabatini managed a combined 1 slam win over Graf, Seles, Navratilova, Evert, all combined, which shows she was never more than the nearly girl of that era, and never had potential to be any more than that. By contrast Nalbandian has beaten Federer alone twice in slams, and in the WTF final as well, which shows his unfulfilled promise.

You seem to have changed your tune re Nalbandian. Not so long ago, you were arguing that he is ridiculously overrated in these forums! :confused:

As to his potential. IMO I don't think he really did have the potential to dominate in any way simply because he didn't have the mental discipline to match his physical talent and mental discipline, as we all know, is an essential component of any tennis great's armoury. Because he was and is so mentally weak, his potential was always fatally hampered.

Del Potro, who has at least fulfilled his Slam potential, unlike Nalbandian, therefore has more potential to be a dominant player in my opinion. Not saying he ever will be mind mainly because I am always concerned over his physical fitness to ever go on a sustained run, but when fit he has reached the pinnacle and may do so again (if fit). Nalbandian, fit or otherwise, has never had the mental goods to fit the physical ones.

NadalAgassi
10-31-2012, 06:08 PM
You seem to have changed your tune re Nalbandian. Not so long ago, you were arguing that he is ridiculously overrated in these forums! :confused:


I do think he is overrated on this forum by some people (obviously none that are posting in this thread so far, lol). There are people who argued he was more talented than Federer, that his best tennis beats Federer and Nadal's best on all surfaces, including clay or grass for Nadal, and including grass or fast outdoor hard courts for Federer. I do think that is overrating him. Hence why I said I felt he had potential for 4-6 slams and some brief periods of dominance, and not 15+ slams which some of the posters I was arguing which previously seemed to think. Funny thing is now when I start a thread basically building up his talent it seems none of his supporters are around anymore, and only people who think he didnt even have the natural ability of Roddick or Hewitt, or enough to win a slam, even fully commiting hiimself. Go figure.

As for the rest of the post I guess it depends how much you feel the mental aspect has to come naturally and is part of ones talent. In the case it is, you are probably right. Still in his case his lack of commitment to fitness was his biggest problem, and that should be something within ones power to resolve.

TheFifthSet
10-31-2012, 06:12 PM
Brief periods of dominance? IDK, that doesn't sound right. Oxymoronic if anything. Where would he have dominated? Grass and clay, no. Hardcourts, he'd be great but hard to see him dominating.

NadalAgassi
10-31-2012, 06:18 PM
Brief periods of dominance? IDK, that doesn't sound right. Oxymoronic if anything. Where would he have dominated? Grass and clay, no. Hardcourts, he'd be great but hard to see him dominating.

I think he could have been the dominant player of 2003 fully fit and won 2 or 3 slams. IMO there is nobody that year he couldnt beat fully fit. Federer wasnt quite all there yet, and Nalbandian owned him that year anyway. We all know Nalbandian playing his best, even in poor physical shape that he almost always was, will beat Roddick. He should have beaten him at that years U.S Open in straight sets but choked badly.

2004 and beyond would be tougher with the emergence of Federer, but keep in mind Nalbandian is a tough matchup for Federer, probably the player he feared most outside of Nadal (outside of clay or grass more than Nadal). With nobody but Federer, and Nadal on clay starting in 2005, to seriously challenge Nalbandian the next couple years, he could have won several more slams from 2004-2006 as well and been Federer's biggest rival by far until Nadal became a good player on non clay surfaces for the first time starting in late 2007, Djokovic emerged.

So overall for 2003-2006 yes I would say he had potential to somewhat dominate hard courts if he were fully fit, focused, and had the mental strength. He could have won about 4 hard court majors, both in 2003, and another couple after. He would not have dominated clay or grass specifically, but before 2006 he had potential of winning a Roland Garros title too. He even had a chance to win Wimbledon, reaching the 2002 fianl.

TheFifthSet
10-31-2012, 06:51 PM
I think he could have been the dominant player of 2003 fully fit and won 2 or 3 slams.

Australian Open, Agassi was in marvelous form, and won 4 of his first 5 tournaments in 2003. I don't see that happening. Would he have won the French? He's never won an important tournament on clay. Wimbledon? No way in hell. MAYBE the US Open. But what if Agassi had reached the final instead of JCF? He undoubtedly would have been the favourite. The only way he could have had a multi-slam win year (which Vilas actually DID have) is if he would have caught every single break and played at 100% all year. That's fantasy realm. You could make this argument about a lot of top players.

IMO there is nobody that year he couldnt beat fully fit. Federer wasnt quite all there yet, and Nalbandian owned him that year anyway. We all know Nalbandian playing his best, even in poor physical shape that he almost always was, will beat Roddick. He should have beaten him at that years U.S Open in straight sets but choked badly.

Has Nalbandian ever been "fully fit"? Who's to say he wasn't in 2003?

2004 and beyond would be tougher with the emergence of Federer, but keep in mind Nalbandian is a tough matchup for Federer, probably the player he feared most outside of Nadal (outside of clay or grass more than Nadal).

Disagree. Since Federer emerged as a dominant player, he's 10-3 against Nalby. That's not too bad. One of those three wins was when Federer had a bum ankle, and in the same match he was 2 points away from winning. Another was a close three-setter, and the final win was a close straight-set match. I'd say Federer has dominated Nalby since '04.

With nobody but Federer, and Nadal on clay starting in 2005, to seriously challenge Nalbandian the next couple years, he could have won several more slams from 2004-2006 as well and been Federer's biggest rival by far until Nadal became a good player on non clay surfaces for the first time starting in late 2007, Djokovic emerged.

Hard to say that about a man who made a whopping one slam final, and never won a big outdoor tournament.

So overall for 2003-2006 yes I would say he had potential to somewhat dominate hard courts if he were fully fit, focused, and had the mental strength. He could have won about 4 hard court majors, both in 2003, and another couple after. He would not have dominated clay or grass specifically, but before 2006 he had potential of winning a Roland Garros title too. He even had a chance to win Wimbledon, reaching the 2002 fianl.

?

How can someone be somewhat dominant?

IDK, with his poor serve, merely above average forehand and non-elite court coverage, the word "dominate" doesn't have the proper ring to it. Maybe the word "scrape by with a slam" would sound better.

beast of mallorca
10-31-2012, 11:12 PM
Hard to say that about a man who made a whopping one slam final, and never won a big outdoor tournament.



?

How can someone be somewhat dominant?

IDK, with his poor serve, merely above average forehand and non-elite court coverage, the word "dominate" doesn't have the proper ring to it. Maybe the word "scrape by with a slam" would sound better.

Couldn't agree more.

tusharlovesrafa
10-31-2012, 11:26 PM
[/B]

Couldn't agree more.

hey dude,Are you on Facebook?:)

reversef
11-01-2012, 06:55 AM
Who was more talented than Nalbandian of his generations players? I would say only Federer and Safin, and Safin was also a huge underachiever who wasted most of his potential away, so he wouldnt have even been in Nalbandian's way much if he werent equally as big an underacheiver as Safin was. So his only huge obstacle in his prime years could have been only Federer, who Nalbandian is a tough matchup for as evidenced by how long he led their H2H, and how close their H2H still is, despite his lazy underachieving career. Roddick, Hewitt, Ferrero, were all greater and had better careers, but they certainly arent more talented.

In Sabatini's generation you had Graf, Seles, Sanchez Vicario, Pierce, Capriati, who were all more talented than she is, while even Novotna, Martinez, and Fernandez were close to her in talent. Navratilova was not really of Sabatini's generation but she played almost all of Sabatini's career, and was obviously more talented as well. Sabatini managed a combined 1 slam win over Graf, Seles, Navratilova, Evert, all combined, which shows she was never more than the nearly girl of that era, and never had potential to be any more than that. By contrast Nalbandian has beaten Federer alone twice in slams, and in the WTF final as well, which shows his unfulfilled promise.

Meanwhile amongst Vilas's generation Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Newcombe, Nastase were all greater talents than him. As others have said he basically had no chance of beating Borg from 75 onwards eithers, so could only hope to win a major event Borg wasnt even in the draw (as it was he won only 1 major with him in the draw, and it was one he retired with injury during an early round match).

You have a really strange point of view.
1. Saying of a player who reached a big total of 1 slam final and 4 semi finals, who won only 2 Masters 1000 and 1 WTF that he had the ability to dominate is cocky. First, a player has to win big and then confirm his status, show that he's able to stand the pressure and work even harder to progress (because, in tennis, when you stop improving, you start regressing). Nalbandian has not even done well enough to start thinking about how he would have reacted if he had been a player with tons of expectations of his shoulders.
2. There are many ways to be talented. Vilas was known as a huge hard worker whose talent was more limited than some other players, ok. He also had a big physique, the mentality of a champion and the ability to work harder than the other players. Those qualities are also "talents" (a little different than an exquisite touch and sound technique, but certainly not less important).
3. Graf, Seles, Sanchez-Vicario :shock:, Pierce and Capriati all more talented than Sabatini? If you mean raw talent (the one that Vilas didn't have in abundance - relatively speaking, of course - ), certainly not. Ask Navratilova, ask Seles, ask Graf's coach. They will all tell you that Sabatini was actually the most gifted player of that generation. What she lacked was the mentality of a dominant player (not much mental toughness, lack of killer instinct). In other words, she had what Vilas was missing (raw talent) but not his ability to work harder than anyone nor his mental strength. Sabatini was not the best at dealing with the pressure, but she had much more expectations on her shoulders than Nalbandian has ever had. Which one of Nalbandian's caracteristics makes you think that he had the ability to do better under extreme pressure?
4. Both Vilas (despite his limited "raw talent") and Sabatini (with her lack of killer instinct) were much, much closer to dominate than Nalbandian though. Yes, they had tough opponents. Not Nalbandian? Being a bad match-up for both Federer and Nadal is not the only thing that you need to dominate the game. You need a combination of many skills and, for me, it's clear that both Vilas and Sabatini had more strengths than Nalbandian. I think that Del Potro has more as well.

BauerAlmeida
11-01-2012, 07:31 AM
Totally.

Vilas had a better career, and Del Potro will surpass him too. But in terms of potential Nalbandian is the best one. Better than Clerc, Coria or Gaudio too.

It's a pitty he was always so lazy and inconsistent.

BauerAlmeida
11-01-2012, 07:33 AM
You have a really strange point of view.
1. Saying of a player who reached a big total of 1 slam final and 4 semi finals, who won only 2 Masters 1000 and 1 WTF that he had the ability to dominate is cocky. First, a player has to win big and then confirm his status, show that he's able to stand the pressure and work even harder to progress (because, in tennis, when you stop improving, you start regressing). Nalbandian has not even done well enough to start thinking about how he would have reacted if he had been a player with tons of expectations of his shoulders.
2. There are many ways to be talented. Vilas was known as a huge hard worker whose talent was more limited than some other players, ok. He also had a big physique, the mentality of a champion and the ability to work harder than the other players. Those qualities are also "talents" (a little different than an exquisite touch and sound technique, but certainly not less important).
3. Graf, Seles, Sanchez-Vicario :shock:, Pierce and Capriati all more talented than Sabatini? If you mean raw talent (the one that Vilas didn't have in abundance - relatively speaking, of course - ), certainly not. Ask Navratilova, ask Seles, ask Graf's coach. They will all tell you that Sabatini was actually the most gifted player of that generation. What she lacked was the mentality of a dominant player (not much mental toughness, lack of killer instinct). In other words, she had what Vilas was missing (raw talent) but not his ability to work harder than anyone nor his mental strength. Sabatini was not the best at dealing with the pressure, but she had much more expectations on her shoulders than Nalbandian has ever had. Which one of Nalbandian's caracteristics makes you think that he had the ability to do better under extreme pressure?
4. Both Vilas (despite his limited "raw talent") and Sabatini (with her lack of killer instinct) were much, much closer to dominate than Nalbandian though. Yes, they had tough opponents. Not Nalbandian? Being a bad match-up for both Federer and Nadal is not the only thing that you need to dominate the game. You need a combination of many skills and, for me, it's clear that both Vilas and Sabatini had more strengths than Nalbandian. I think that Del Potro has more as well.

No way in hell Del Potro has more strenghts than Nalbandian. Vilas, hard to say, I think Nalbandian had a bit more in terms of ball-striking/shotmaking but Vilas defense and movement were huge. I still go with Nalbandian.

NadalAgassi
11-01-2012, 07:43 AM
Sorry but show me one quote where Navratilova, Seles, or any of Graf's coaches said Sabatini is THE most talented player. Navratilova said Sabatini was more talented than Graf once in the mid 80s but Navratilova has always disliked and resented Graf so that is no surprise. She wouldnt have dared saying that once Graf began her dominance, less she look like a fool if she ever had. Navratilova would never say Sabatini is more talented than Evert or Seles I am pretty sure. As for Graf, considering she seemed to take it as a huge insult to her abilities anytime she ever lost to Sabatini, I hugely doubt she or her coach respect her to the point of thinking she is the most talented player on the planet.

In what way was Sabatini the "most talented". She certainly didnt have the best overall offense or even close to it, the best overall defense or even close to it, the most stable or consistent game or even close to it. She wasnt the best baseliner, the best net player, the best server, best mover, best all court player. She wasnt the best shotmaker. She didnt hit the best angles, have the best placements, or the cleanest ball striking. She had variety but so did Novotna, Martinez, Zvereva, Evert, Navratilova, and to some extent Graf and Seles. Most of all she was not nearly as strong as the others in the talents you credit Vilaa for having, desire to work, innate desire to win. You seem to think my including Sanchez in the list is hilarious but Sanchez's insane defense, arguably the best in history, which alot of comes naturally, is worth more than Sabatini whole overall game IMO. Anyway Sanchez is much faster, a better athlete, can hit a backhand just as well, can volley just as well, despite the perception Sabatini has better feel Sanchez has great drop shots, lobs, slices. Sabatini like Sanchez doesnt have much of a forehand or serve, so what is the edge exactly?

Sabatini never had a problem with consistency. She reached 18 slam semis in a career that ended in her mid 20s, and was a solid top 3 or top 5 player for many years. Out of 18 slam semis she managed 1 slam title. So her problem was never consistency or mental focus, it was just not being good enough.

Funny how one can say I am arrogant to claim Nalbandian (who I am NOT even a fan of) was talented enough to do things since he didnt win a slam, yet someone can claim Sabatini is more talented than a group of women with 18 or more slams, and a bunch of others who owned her for years even when she was playing her best, and it is fine.

As for Vilas I dont doubt he has impressive talents in his own right. However whatever his potential is we saw it, he if anything went beyond his potential with an insane work ethic and determination. So unless he was a dominant player (and IMO he wasnt even if he arguably dominated half a year all on clay, all not facing Borg, all while never once reaching #1, that is not enough to be called a dominant player per say) he didnt have that potential. PEople who did not use their potential like Nalbnadian (and to a much lesser extent Sabatini) atleast it is a matter of opinion what they could have been.

hersito
11-01-2012, 08:01 AM
Sorry but show me one quote where Navratilova, Seles, or any of Graf's coaches said Sabatini is THE most talented player. Navratilova said Sabatini was more talented than Graf once in the mid 80s but Navratilova has always disliked and resented Graf so that is no surprise. She wouldnt have dared saying that once Graf began her dominance, less she look like a fool if she ever had. Navratilova would never say Sabatini is more talented than Evert or Seles I am pretty sure. As for Graf, considering she seemed to take it as a huge insult to her abilities anytime she ever lost to Sabatini, I hugely doubt she or her coach respect her to the point of thinking she is the most talented player on the planet.

In what way was Sabatini the "most talented". She certainly didnt have the best overall offense or even close to it, the best overall defense or even close to it, the most stable or consistent game or even close to it. She wasnt the best baseliner, the best net player, the best server, best mover, best all court player. She wasnt the best shotmaker. She didnt hit the best angles, have the best placements, or the cleanest ball striking. She had variety but so did Novotna, Martinez, Zvereva, Evert, Navratilova, and to some extent Graf and Seles. Most of all she was not nearly as strong as the others in the talents you credit Vilaa for having, desire to work, innate desire to win. You seem to think my including Sanchez in the list is hilarious but Sanchez's insane defense, arguably the best in history, which alot of comes naturally, is worth more than Sabatini whole overall game IMO. Anyway Sanchez is much faster, a better athlete, can hit a backhand just as well, can volley just as well, despite the perception Sabatini has better feel Sanchez has great drop shots, lobs, slices. Sabatini like Sanchez doesnt have much of a forehand or serve, so what is the edge exactly?

Sabatini never had a problem with consistency. She reached 18 slam semis in a career that ended in her mid 20s, and was a solid top 3 or top 5 player for many years. Out of 18 slam semis she managed 1 slam title. So her problem was never consistency or mental focus, it was just not being good enough.

Funny how one can say I am arrogant to claim Nalbandian (who I am NOT even a fan of) was talented enough to do things since he didnt win a slam, yet someone can claim Sabatini is more talented than a group of women with 18 or more slams, and a bunch of others who owned her for years even when she was playing her best, and it is fine.

As for Vilas I dont doubt he has impressive talents in his own right. However whatever his potential is we saw it, he if anything went beyond his potential with an insane work ethic and determination. So unless he was a dominant player (and IMO he wasnt even if he arguably dominated half a year all on clay, all not facing Borg, all while never once reaching #1, that is not enough to be called a dominant player per say) he didnt have that potential. PEople who did not use their potential like Nalbnadian (and to a much lesser extent Sabatini) atleast it is a matter of opinion what they could have been.

You tanlge in your own words, I think you don't even know the point you are making or don't know how to defend it. So Nalbandian can be more talented than all the players he played against and lose but when it comes to sabatini the same argument cant be applied? Sabatini was well Known for her technique, you can say she was the Federer of her time, classy game without running too much. Graf, navratilova and seles were well know by their physical game and power more than style and technique. How many shots are called after Seles, Navratilova and graf, and who many after sabatini?

nat75
11-05-2012, 03:30 AM
Sorry but show me one quote where Navratilova, Seles, or any of Graf's coaches said Sabatini is THE most talented player. Navratilova said Sabatini was more talented than Graf once in the mid 80s but Navratilova has always disliked and resented Graf so that is no surprise. She wouldnt have dared saying that once Graf began her dominance, less she look like a fool if she ever had. Navratilova would never say Sabatini is more talented than Evert or Seles I am pretty sure. As for Graf, considering she seemed to take it as a huge insult to her abilities anytime she ever lost to Sabatini, I hugely doubt she or her coach respect her to the point of thinking she is the most talented player on the planet.

In what way was Sabatini the "most talented". She certainly didnt have the best overall offense or even close to it, the best overall defense or even close to it, the most stable or consistent game or even close to it. She wasnt the best baseliner, the best net player, the best server, best mover, best all court player. She wasnt the best shotmaker. She didnt hit the best angles, have the best placements, or the cleanest ball striking. She had variety but so did Novotna, Martinez, Zvereva, Evert, Navratilova, and to some extent Graf and Seles. Most of all she was not nearly as strong as the others in the talents you credit Vilaa for having, desire to work, innate desire to win. You seem to think my including Sanchez in the list is hilarious but Sanchez's insane defense, arguably the best in history, which alot of comes naturally, is worth more than Sabatini whole overall game IMO. Anyway Sanchez is much faster, a better athlete, can hit a backhand just as well, can volley just as well, despite the perception Sabatini has better feel Sanchez has great drop shots, lobs, slices. Sabatini like Sanchez doesnt have much of a forehand or serve, so what is the edge exactly?

Sabatini never had a problem with consistency. She reached 18 slam semis in a career that ended in her mid 20s, and was a solid top 3 or top 5 player for many years. Out of 18 slam semis she managed 1 slam title. So her problem was never consistency or mental focus, it was just not being good enough.

Funny how one can say I am arrogant to claim Nalbandian (who I am NOT even a fan of) was talented enough to do things since he didnt win a slam, yet someone can claim Sabatini is more talented than a group of women with 18 or more slams, and a bunch of others who owned her for years even when she was playing her best, and it is fine.

As for Vilas I dont doubt he has impressive talents in his own right. However whatever his potential is we saw it, he if anything went beyond his potential with an insane work ethic and determination. So unless he was a dominant player (and IMO he wasnt even if he arguably dominated half a year all on clay, all not facing Borg, all while never once reaching #1, that is not enough to be called a dominant player per say) he didnt have that potential. PEople who did not use their potential like Nalbnadian (and to a much lesser extent Sabatini) atleast it is a matter of opinion what they could have been.

Sanchez' backhand and voleys equal to sabatini's ?! Lol

NadalAgassi
11-05-2012, 10:10 AM
You tanlge in your own words, I think you don't even know the point you are making or don't know how to defend it. So Nalbandian can be more talented than all the players he played against and lose but when it comes to sabatini the same argument cant be applied? Sabatini was well Known for her technique, you can say she was the Federer of her time, classy game without running too much. Graf, navratilova and seles were well know by their physical game and power more than style and technique. How many shots are called after Seles, Navratilova and graf, and who many after sabatini?

Navratilova had incredible variety. At her peak she produced it all, drive volleys, drop volleys, leaping backhand overheads, slices, topspins, angles, down the line approaches and drives, hooked serves, jammers. How is power and strong technique not part of talent. Having a technically horrific serve (her serve was truly a joke for a top 3 player and cost her numerous big matches like the 91 Wimbledon final vs Graf, and 92 French Open semis vs Seles, because of her joke serve top players know they can easily break Sabatini at will a critical juncture if they need to), technically flawed forehand, and no single great weapon like Sabatini is more talented, lol! Seles not only hit with amazing power but the most pinpoint accuracy and extreme angles the womens had ever seen.

I never said the argument for Sabatini you are trying to use cant be applied. Simply that I disagree with it. I see no area she is more talented than the others other than possibly variety but as I said there are other non dominant players, many with similar achievements, with just as much variety- Novotna, Martinez, Zvereva. Nalbandian was the cleanest ball striker in the game for years, other than maybe Safin, and for awhile had the best returns and backhands when playing his best. You are the hypocritical one, saying Sabatini is the most talented player in an era of all time greats despite winning only 1 slam despite 18 slam semifinal appearances, and saying I cant talk about Nalbandian having greater potential than some players with more achievements (NONE who is an all time great or even a dominant player though) because he achieved less.

nat75
11-06-2012, 06:02 AM
Navratilova had incredible variety. At her peak she produced it all, drive volleys, drop volleys, leaping backhand overheads, slices, topspins, angles, down the line approaches and drives, hooked serves, jammers. How is power and strong technique not part of talent. Having a technically horrific serve (her serve was truly a joke for a top 3 player and cost her numerous big matches like the 91 Wimbledon final vs Graf, and 92 French Open semis vs Seles, because of her joke serve top players know they can easily break Sabatini at will a critical juncture if they need to), technically flawed forehand, and no single great weapon like Sabatini is more talented, lol! Seles not only hit with amazing power but the most pinpoint accuracy and extreme angles the womens had ever seen.

I never said the argument for Sabatini you are trying to use cant be applied. Simply that I disagree with it. I see no area she is more talented than the others other than possibly variety but as I said there are other non dominant players, many with similar achievements, with just as much variety- Novotna, Martinez, Zvereva. Nalbandian was the cleanest ball striker in the game for years, other than maybe Safin, and for awhile had the best returns and backhands when playing his best. You are the hypocritical one, saying Sabatini is the most talented player in an era of all time greats despite winning only 1 slam despite 18 slam semifinal appearances, and saying I cant talk about Nalbandian having greater potential than some players with more achievements (NONE who is an all time great or even a dominant player though) because he achieved less.

The 18 slam semifinals just show Gaby's remarkable consistency and talent. The one slam just shows how her mind cracked under pressure which has nothing to do with raw talent. However, some quotes from Navry, Steffi, Monica, Jennifer and Serena ,among others,show how these multiple champions saw Gaby and how they appreciated her game and that my friend is related to talent.