I am not talking about his strokes, angles or his placement. I am talking about how he decided to construct a rally against his opponents and where he is thinking about placing the next ball. IMO he is up there with Lendl as one of the greatest ralliers of all time (GROAT) Nalbandian has been able to beat the GOAT, Federer at times in his peak years including two masters finals (Paris 2007 and TMC 2005.) He has also been able to easily beat arguably the greatest clay courter of all time in his peak years (most notably in 2007.) I understand the way he plays Nadal as he does these things. He also did this against Murray at Paris 2008: 1) Crush that second serve - one of the weakest in the Top 10 2) Play behind Nadal when he's running to cover the open court 3) Drop shot his 3 m behind the baseline ass 4) Anticipate cross-court forehand passing shot and come in against it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz23EpwXdF0 I think Number 2 is the key point when he plays Nadal as Nadal always wants get to everything he can but it just so happens that Nalbandian is great at finding those angles to play behind him. I don't understand thought how Nalbandian rallies against Federer as Federer does not really have a flaw that Nalbandian can expose like Nadal's topspin forehand. I understand that Nalbandian can beat Federer BH for BH but this does not affect Federer as much as he is able to hit winners from all over the court. Nalbandian does tend to drag Federer wide on his backhand and then play behind his backhand but that cannot be the only reason why he has beaten him. Nalbandian vs Federer TMC 2005 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjL7JASDfQA Look at the first two points of the match. He attacks his forehand as well as his backhand. He also finish both points with two similar cross court FH winner to Federer's FH side. This is why I do not understand how Nalbandian in particular constructs his choice of shots against Federer. He also attacked his forehand at the Paris Masters 2007 I find it very confusing to understand, could someone interpret these two points? I usually hear people say, the way to beat Federer is to attack his backhand as much as possible like Nadal would. Murray tried this at the AO 2010 and it did not work. The other way people say Federer can beat beaten is by playing crazy aggressive like Safin at the AO 2005. I think Nalbandian is one of the few plays who can play cross court shots in a rally and still win the point. People say Federer has the best forehand in the game so that is the reason why I found it strange that Nalbandian can still play to his forehand and win the point. If Nadal did this, he would not have a superior head to head record against Federer.