Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by egn, Nov 30, 2009.
Considering Davydenko's performances this year who has had the better career?
It's kind of hard to judge since they are both still at the top playing, either one can be dark horses at 3 of the slams (not Wimbledon), so it's hard to tell
Both very similar careers, really hard to judge because I think that Davy has been more consistent rankings wise, but Nalby IMO has has bigger wins when players are in their best form.
Nably has reached the semi's of all 4 GS and a final at Wimby, but Davy has not been that far yet.
I picked Nalbandian but I think I have made a mistake because if they look back on their careers today, Davydekno IMO would feel that he has got the most out of his ability and Nalbandian must surely feel that he has underachieved, therefore I think Davydenko has had the better career because he has achvieved to the best of his ability IMHO.
Thats not to say I dont think he can win a GS because I think he has the game. But Nalbandian SHOULD have won one, possibly more, a long time ago.
Wow this is like the 3rd thread on the same page with the same topic. Talk about overkill.
There was an orginal one started well before the TMC title, and my new one didnt make it clear enough it was a remake. Thus the reason egn made this one I suspect.
Davy! But I miss Nalby!
semis at all 4 grand slams + wimby final separates him from Davy
Nalby definitely. He was the only one besides Nadal and a few others who could beat Federer consistently when he was in god mode (05-06). I know i'm gonna appear whiny but I have to say it anyway: Had Fed played the YEC the same as how he played in 05-06, there's no way in hell the likes of Delpo or Davydenko could have beaten him.
LOL another statement that serves as proof how overrated Nalbandian is on this forum. Nalbandian and Federer played 7 times in 2005 and 2006 and Nalbandian actually won only 1 time. Yet that is somehow able to beat Federer of 05-06 consistently!?! If we exclude the FO semifinal where Nalbandian was injured so we dont know who would have won (Nalbandian probably would have choked after being ahead early as usual but anyway) then it is 5-1 in Federer's favor those 2 years.
Federer was injured at the 2005 YEC and it impacted his serving and movement a great deal, especialy his movement. Had the wounded Federer of the 05 YEC played at this years event he wouldnt have won more than 1 or 2 sets total given how well everyone in this years insanely strong field (other than Murray in the 3rd set) played against him. 2005 YEC was a joke field other than Federer, Nalbandian, and a pre-prime Davydenko, hence why even a hobbled Federer still nearly won.
Federer himself said that the ankle didn't bother him, and he was fresh since he didn't play a lot of that fall...
I like them both. Different styles but all enjoyable.
Nalby for the win. Plus Nalby had huge chances like Davy.Nalby since he can still achieve a lot more.
Federer himself said that his ankle didnt bother him at all in yec 2005, that nalby beat him fair and square. So why would I prefer your words?
Whatever. Think what you want, the fact is a statement Nalbandian could consistently beat prime Federer is beyond laughable, no matter how you choose to interpret that match. Federer could have played the match of his life that day (LOL at that thought but anyway) and it still wouldnt change that overall Nalbandian was in fact the one completely owned by prime Federer, especialy 2005-2006 which was the years referenced.
If a player says obviously stupid things I dont take them at face value just because of who they are. Like a 35 year old Agassi with a bad back and having trouble walking, saying he was playing at a much higher level than at any other point in his career. Or like Serena Williams saying she played at 10% of her potential after every loss. Some choose to go extreme in one direction, some in the other, but sometimes you just have to use your eyes.
There. I broke the tie. Davydenko up 13-12.
Davydenko for me in terms of achievement. No question.
Nalbandian should have won the 2003 AO + USO.
nalby will turn the trend around, he is coming back in the next few days, playing an exo tourny here in Buenos Aires. Vamos David!
Federer also said that he was not match fit and that he had not prepared for the tournament at all, leaving him not match fit. Also, he said the ankle was still bothering him in the other matches; the reason why he said it didn't bother him was because he didn't want to take credit away from Nalbandian's win.
You can spin it around in any direction you want. Federer still was in no way shape or form 100% for that match.
Nalbandian wasn't entering the tournament. He wasnt playing nor training, he was fishing, when he received the call because someone (i think roddick) left one place available for him. So talk me about not being prepared.
Again, Federer said that in that final, his ankle didnt bother him at all, I've read it on an interview that i didnt search, posted on a previous thread with the same discussion.
I think the difference is, most people don't expect Davydenko to beat Federer without it being due to Federer's fault somehow, but they believe that Nalbandian can beat Federer without it being Federer's fault.
Anyway, I'd have to say that Nalbandian has had the more "successful" career. Nalbandian has played less, but he's made about the same amount of money (give or take 3 million dollars..) as Davydenko who works his ass off by going to every tournament he possibly can.. Also, Nalbandian has had the bigger wins despite having less consistent wins in general.
Separate names with a comma.