Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by SuperDuy, Oct 31, 2009.
Who wins? Remember, at their best plays, im going for Federer.
what kind of question is that?
the only person who can beat best federer is best nadal only on clay.
Agreed, but only soderling can beat a mediocre nadal on clay
Silly thread, Federer at his best destroys Nalbandian.
Not so sure about that.
2003 AO - Nalbandian
2003 USO - Nalbandian
2007 Paris Masters - Nalbandian
In each of these matches, both players were at their best and Nalbandian prevailed. Nalbandian is simply the biggest waste of talent in tennis history.
as much as this contributes to nalbandian being one the most overrated players in recent years i'm saying it would be a 50-50 match
nalbandian playing his best is just awesome to see
LOLZ! Nalbandian would get his ass kicked. Nalbandian and Safin are soo overrated on this website. :lol:
50/50 for me. What is guaranteed is that Federer-Nalbandian with both playing at their best are the most beautiful tennis matches one can get.
How is he overrated if he is "awesome to see" at his best?
Anyway, it would probably be 50/50. Nalbandian seems to be a bad matchup to Federer for some reason when he's at his best, and he has a godly level of talent. Just no mental strength at all to back it up.
i'm just saying he's done so little in his career that it doesn't back me up giving him a very good chance at a winning against a 15 slam winner playing at his best
Some of the players that have the highest peak level out there today have never won a slam. Examples are Tsonga, Soderling, Nalbandian, Verdasco and Safin.
These players can play at a ridiculous level when they are on, but can't string it together consistently to win a slam.
Didn't they play '04 Australian Open. I vote Federer.
Nalbandian does best against Federer when he's the underdog. Davide is mentally weak, and you can't discount the mental aspect of a player's arsenal. All things being equal, Nalbandian would play Federer close, but at the key moments he would either choke, or find some other way to give up.
Federer will hand him a triple bagel. And Nalby will continue playing so he can get a couple of breadsticks to go with the bagels...
reading comprehension issues much?
Federer at his very best was 2006/07 AO nalbandian can't touch federer in that form.
When Fed and Nalbo are playing their best I just want to know which time and which channel,who ultimately wins is irrelevant.
Nalbandian wins a few times playing out of his mind and people just assume Federer must be at his best in those matches. why? because Federer has a base level of performance 5 leagues higher than David. Federer's best is not of this earth.
Nalbandian v Federer is definately the best matchup - along with Roddick v Karlovic and Safin v Federer.
I could somewhat agree with Paris 2007, but those 2003 matches were NOT EVEN CLOSE to the best of Federer. Not even close.
Federer at his best beats anyone, that is why he is the GOAT.
Matches from 2003 can hardly be considered Federer's "best" form. That was his breakthrough year. And wasn't the end of 2007 when he was having back problems?
Nope, he didn't beat Nadal much in 2004,2005,2006,2007,2008 oh and 2009.
That's why Nadal leads H2H
He was having back problems end of last year ( 2008 ).
Yes... 2005 Roger Federer wiped out Nalbandian when they met at the US Open.
2003 was pre-prime Fed. 2007 Fed was in his prime sure, but considering how Nalbandian is an indoor god, he gets the immediate edge.
2005 TMC final. Fed said that his ankle was ok and didn't provoque him problems.
Their H2H is pretty even. I'd say Fed would take the mayority of the matches, but It's difficult. When nalbo is on, he has no weaknesses. 65% fed 35% nalbo
<3 that 360 hit by Nalbandian LOL.
Federer or nalbandian???
talking about nalbandian at his best is like talking about safin at his best- Once in a blue moon.
When was Nalbandian "at his best" outside of Paris/Madrid 07?
Best Federer: 7-6, 6-4,6-3
Whoa calm down with the insults. Being here for 2 years doesnt make you any better than anyone else. GOAT debate will never be solved but I can guarantee 100 % that Laver, brought back from his prime playing with his own wood racket, will recieve the beating of his life against Federer of 2005 and even Sampras for that matter.
Fixed for you
Calm down, I'm just stating a known fact. Just because I don't have as many posts as you doesn't mean I know nothing about tennis.
I voted for Fed: he can beat Nalby on grass or hard-court (although Nalbandian did beat Fed at the 2005 Shanghai Masters final on hard-court in 5 sets, three of which were tiebreakers). Fed is up 6-5 versus Nalbandian on hard courts.
Nalby has done very well against Fed indoors, but I would say that in those instances Fed was not playing his best, though David probably was. Nalbandian is ahead 2-1 on carpet.
On clay I take Fed. At the 2006 FO Fed was up against Nalbandian in the semis 5-2 in the third set (the first two were split 2-6, 6-4), when David retired because of a strained abdominal muscle. Fed is ahead 3-1 on clay.
Fed is up 10-8 head-to-head against Nalby.
LOL so true. I bet if Rod Laver himself made an account here, the veteran posters would probably call him out on his tennis knowledge. :lol:
and what is that implying? You know what you are trying to say. You are pretty much saying that since you are new, I am much smarter than you and know more about tennis. This is complete BS. Are the worlds best coaches and players on this forum? I dont think so. You can be prefectly knowledgeable about the game without receiving biased knowledge from other posters on an internet forum
Exactly. This forum is a good place to share opinions and look up information, but it is not the only source of tennis knowledge.
I voted for Fed. Fed is up 6-5 versus Nalbandian on hard courts. Nalbandian is ahead 2-1 on carpet. Fed is ahead 3-1 on clay. Fed is up 10-8 in total head-to-head against Nalby.
On clay and Indoors Id like to favor Nalbandian actually. He could beat Fed at his best and he did. Every other surface Fed
I really dislike the term "at his/her best" when it implies that it is the ultimate, theoretical best that a player can play. It just doesn't make sense. Unless a player hits zero unforced errors, executes every stroke perfectly, makes no mental mistakes, there really is no such thing as a player playing the best they absolutely, possibly can . . . i.e, Federer was broken in his match vs. Roddick at the AO a few years back, Agassi served at 44% at the '99 Wimby final yet Sampras could "only" break him 3 times, Nadal was broken 8 times at RG '08 . . . bottom line, there is always room for improvement. People take the term "at his best" way too seriously around here, as if a player could not possibly play better than they did in the best match they ever played thus far.
Safin?? maybe you need to watch more tennis if you say he never won a slam..
Their 2005 TMC Final was one of the most high quality matches ever. They can both strike the ball super cleanly. Nalby would definately make it tough for Federer if he was playing at his best.
OK that's the one time I remember seeing Nalby outside of Madrid/Paris07 where he was playing at the top of his game. EXCELLENT MATCH.
Yeah I shouldn't have included Safin..brainfart on my part.
But he should have won a lot more slams than he did with his talent!
Both Federer and Nalbandian played their best in this match.
Well hey, at least he's not in Nalbandian's situation. But yeah Safin definitely underperformed for most of his career.
Federer would beat Nalbandian more often if he tried to do more serve and volley.
Separate names with a comma.