View Single Post
Old 10-04-2012, 06:23 PM   #65
roberttennis54
Semi-Pro
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 696
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth View Post
Federer didn't hurt Nalbandian's career. Nalbandian just wasn't committed enough. I think he could've won 10 Grand Slams with Federer's commitment (and Federer's absence). He is talented enough to win anywhere, except on Clay considering the "Nadal" aspect.
Yes Federer did hurt Nalbandian's career, though I doubt he would have won those slams anyway. Federer took him out at the 2004 Australian, 2005 US Open and then 2006 French Open. 2006 French Open is hard to call. However, you are right even if he had beaten Federer he was unlikely to win any of those slams.

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

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

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

It just amazes me a guy, who had a losing record to ALL, but Davydenko of his other great peers is thought by some to be able to dominate them had he been motivated.
roberttennis54 is offline   Reply With Quote