In terms of actual skill, who is more talented between Federer and young Nalbandian?

[NadalAgassi]

I am no Nalbandian fan and I find him comically overrated on this forum at times but I do agree with dangalak he is undoubtably one of the cleanest and overall best ball strikers of the last decade. As for compared to Federer, he is atleast as good of one I would say (even though overall he isnt half the player Federer turned out to be).

[World Beater]

Originally Posted by dangalak

sigh

I SAID HITTING THE BALL WITH THE CENTER OF YOUR RACQUET

Missing the court doesn't mean you can't strike the ball. Hantuchova is one of the cleanest strikers of the ball and she routinely makes over 50 UEs.

Berdych for example is also a better striker of the ball than Federer. He also makes lots of errors. Agassi. Safin. Baghdatis. Davydenko. THOSE guy strike the ball cleanly. Not Federer. Him and Nadal don't hit the ball that cleanly at all.

ok, so your definition is

clean = flat?

[fps]

Federer. Absolutely ridiculous question. Talent does not exist in a vacuum. So because Nalbandian never fulfilled his potential he has infinity talent does he? Talent is not only impossible to define separate from dedication and hard work, but overrated on these boards, and achievement is underrated.

Those suggesting Nadal and Federer do not strike the ball cleanly know nothing about tennis. Literally nothing. Your opinions are discounted.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by World Beater

ok, so your definition is

clean = flat?

Well these days you need to be a ridiculously clean hitter to be able to hit flat.

But Nalbandian doesn't hit that flat, he can come up with spin as well. Similar with Haas. On the women's side, Seles struck the ball really cleanly, but hit with alot of spin.

It's basically one way of being able to hit shots, most guys would be afraid of. Yeah, I know Federer can do that too, but not because his hitting is really clean.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XOBP3N1ejc

Watch the first point even and see the difference between their shots. That is what is talked about.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by fps

Federer. Absolutely ridiculous question. Talent does not exist in a vacuum. So because Nalbandian never fulfilled his potential he has infinity talent does he? Talent is not only impossible to define separate from dedication and hard work, but overrated on these boards, and achievement is underrated.

Those suggesting Nadal and Federer do not strike the ball cleanly know nothing about tennis. Literally nothing. Your opinions are discounted.

If you do not think talent is important, why did you pollute this thread with your presence?

Nalbandian is by far one of the biggest talents in this sport. Cry about it.

[Andres]

Originally Posted by World Beater

ok, so your definition is

clean = flat?

Clean = sweetspot or close.

[roberttennis54]

Federer at every age was more talented than Nalbandian. When they were younger they split their two most important matches, but Federer won 2 big tourmanents, but Bandy just 1. As they got older Federer continued to be the bigger talent. He could beat better players than Nalbandian.

Nalbandian whilst being a fantastic ball striker is vastly overrated as a player. He was never as good as Roddick, Hewitt or Safin. Coria was better on clay and Davydenko was his equal.

Federer, Safin and Agassi are the three most talented players for me. Stich and Sampras make up the top 5. In my time the last 22 years.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by roberttennis54

Federer at every age was more talented than Nalbandian. When they were younger they split their two most important matches, but Federer won 2 big tourmanents, but Bandy just 1. As they got older Federer continued to be the bigger talent. He could beat better players than Nalbandian.

Nalbandian whilst being a fantastic ball striker is vastly overrated as a player. He was never as good as Roddick, Hewitt or Safin. Coria was better on clay and Davydenko was his equal.

Federer, Safin and Agassi are the three most talented players for me. Stich and Sampras make up the top 5. In my time the last 22 years.

Nalbandian is definitely overrated on this board. You are right he is not as good a player as Roddick, Hewitt, or Safin. Even Coria owned him when they played, and not just on clay.

In terms of natural talent, which he didnt fulfill, he might be more talented than Roddick and Hewitt, but by nowhere near as much as some people seem to think, and up with Federer or Safin in overall talent, not even close.

[Nathaniel_Near]

Originally Posted by dangalak

Ballstriking skills, Nalbandian, that's for sure.

Both are more or less evenly talented in terms of tennis, but Federer is the better athlete.

Let's not even get into things like mental toughness, dedication and serve.

Are you implying that serving and talent are unrelated or that the ability to serve well is not a tennis specific talent/ability...

[Nathaniel_Near]

Originally Posted by roberttennis54

Federer at every age was more talented than Nalbandian. When they were younger they split their two most important matches, but Federer won 2 big tourmanents, but Bandy just 1. As they got older Federer continued to be the bigger talent. He could beat better players than Nalbandian.

Nalbandian whilst being a fantastic ball striker is vastly overrated as a player. He was never as good as Roddick, Hewitt or Safin. Coria was better on clay and Davydenko was his equal.

Federer, Safin and Agassi are the three most talented players for me. Stich and Sampras make up the top 5. In my time the last 22 years.

Great post.

[Iron Man]

Originally Posted by dangalak

Oh Internet tough guys.

Nalbandian has made him look silly on numerous occasions. AO 03, Shanghai 05, Madrid 07, Paris 07.

Also, what in the 7 hells of tartarus is "we are entitles to our opinion" supposed to mean? Did I ever state that you are legally banned from stating uninformed nonsense. Your opinion is wrong. And I am entitles to THAT opinion.

U mad?

I'm mad maybe but you're definitely silly

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Nalbandian is definitely overrated on this board. You are right he is not as good a player as Roddick, Hewitt, or Safin. Even Coria owned him when they played, and not just on clay.

In terms of natural talent, which he didnt fulfill, he might be more talented than Roddick and Hewitt, but by nowhere near as much as some people seem to think, and up with Federer or Safin in overall talent, not even close.

I can't think of anyone besides those two more talented in recent years.

And he is up there. He lacked a lot of other things, dedication, fitness, consistency, a good serve, etc. But in terms of talent he was stunning. Nothing over-rated at all.

If a guy can beat Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in the same tournament, he is something special definitely. And if 2 weeks later he defeats Nadal and Federer again, and he did all this only losing one set.....well, take your own conclusions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjL7JASDfQA

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by roberttennis54

Federer, Safin and Agassi are the three most talented players for me.

Agree, but I'd add Nalbandian too.

[90's Clay]

Tough to say.. Nalbandian really showed how talented he was vs. Fed during some of those indoor finals at the end of the year in 2006 or 2007 where he beat Roger. Whatever year that was.


Its just one guy had focus and a career direction.. The other guy's focus was on hitting the next Krispy Kreme factory in town

[roberttennis54]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Tough to say.. Nalbandian really showed how talented he was vs. Fed during some of those indoor finals at the end of the year in 2006 or 2007 where he beat Roger. Whatever year that was.


Its just one guy had focus and a career direction.. The guy's focus was on hitting the next Krispy Kreme factory in town

Sorry this is just untrue. Nalbandian lost virtually every time to Roddick, Hewitt and Safin when they were at their primes. Nalbandian was not always unfit either. Nalbandian was just lucky to match up well with Federer. It's true he was a phenomenal ball striker and probably had more pure tennis talent than most of the others, but even if he was dedicated he would never have come close to the career of Federer.

[SStrikerR]

Nalbandian has some of the greatest talent I've seen when it comes to ball striking. He is also a very good shot maker. However, federer is the better shot maker.

From there, it depends on how you define talent. Does it include mental talent, ie, the ability to figure out how best to defeat your opponent and switch game plans before and mid match in order to win? In that case, Federer.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

If a guy can beat Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in the same tournament, he is something special definitely.

Del Potro beat Federer and Nadal and would have also beaten Djokovic too had they played at the 2009 U.S Open, and Federer in the final is probably the only close match he would have had (Djokovic would have lost in straights or 4 at most to DP there IMO). Murray has beaten those 3 players all tons of times over, it isnt his fault he was ranked too high, too consistently where he only gets to beat 2 in a row, not 3. I doubt he could beat all 3 in a row in a slam, but then again you know Nalbandian wouldnt either, heck he hasnt beaten any of the 3 in a slam any year from 2004 onwards. Djokovic did crush Nalbandian, beat Roddick, beat Nadal, and beat Federer all in a row to win a tournament at 19, it isnt his fault he couldnt play himself too, LOL! So while such a feat shows Nalbandian has talent but I dont see how it shows he is more talented than those others.

Even with a full commitment he wasnt ever going to be more than maybe a 2 slam winner IMO. We will never know for sure, but even when he burst on the scene nobody looked at him said wow this guy is going to win 6 slams. I agree he might be a bit more talented than guys like Roddick and Hewitt, but not so much more like some people seem to think. I think the phenomen of his success vs Federer, the majority of it early before Federer began dominance of the game, has greatly enhanced peoples views of him and his talent. Back in 2002 and 2003 if you had even suggested he was more talented than even Roddick and Hewitt, never mind all these other players who are more talented than Roddick and Hewitt, you would have been laughed off the block. Nobody back then thought he was some super talent to be honest. In 2002 when he made the Wimbledon final John McEnroe compared him to Chris Lewis. He was actually thought of as a grinder who played well on clay back then. In hindsight his talent was very underrated then, just as it is probably overrated now.

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by roberttennis54

Sorry this is just untrue. Nalbandian lost virtually every time to Roddick, Hewitt and Safin when they were at their primes. Nalbandian was not always unfit either. Nalbandian was just lucky to match up well with Federer. It's true he was a phenomenal ball striker and probably had more pure tennis talent than most of the others, but even if he was dedicated he would never have come close to the career of Federer.

Davis Cup is the most important tournament for Nalbandian and if you see him play there it's scary to imagine what he could've accomplished. He completely demolished Hewitt in Australia in grass. Hewitt was in his prime and he distroyed him. Next year he did the same thing in Russia against Safin, he was already declining (Marat), but it was a walk in the park for Nalbandian. He defeated Davydenko very easily in that final (Kolya was TOP 5 back then, at his peak). Unfortunately for him he didn't have great partners (outside clay) and very often he would win his singles matches but Argentina would lose the doubles and the other two singles. And now that Delpo is around he is declining. But Nalbandian when he was fit and motivated could be scary good, like the MC in 2005 (6-2 6-2 against Ljubicic, bageling Davydenko, coming back from 2 sets against Roger) or the indoor season in 2007 (defeating Roger, Djoker and Nadal in the same tournament).

But he had no dedication AT ALL, to be an elite player. He would often be found partying at 4 AM or skying in Argentina or racing with his team in Cordoba and doing all sort of stuff like Bungee Jumping, etc. Not to mention his nutrition was worse than Agassi's in his early days.

He still managed to be N3 and won some important tournamentes defeating a lot of the top players.

[90's Clay]

You would be surprised that what just what a little extra hunger, and focused combined with great TALENT can really do.. Nalbandian had more then enough talent to be an all time great. He just didn't have the other essentials which are just as important.


You gotta have all your bases covered. Safin and Nalbandian are two of the most talented guys Ive seen play the game and should have accomplished a whole helluva lot. But the problem is both just had the talent.. They didn't have the other stuff. (Focus, Drive, determination, wanting to be the best).

Both proved they could beat some of the best at their best. But they couldn't sustain because they didn't have the focus, drive or desire.

IMO both guys were just as good as anyone who's played the game when they were at their best and focused (which was 1-2 percent of their career sadly)

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

You would be surprised that what just what a little extra hunger, and focused combined with great TALENT can really do.. Nalbandian had more then enough talent to be an all time great. He just didn't have the other essentials which are just as important.


You gotta have all your bases covered. Safin and Nalbandian are two of the most talented guys Ive seen play the game and should have accomplished a whole helluva lot. But the problem is both just had the talent.. They didn't have the other stuff. (Focus, Drive, determination, wanting to be the best).

Both proved they could beat some of the best at their best. But they couldn't sustain because they didn't have the focus, drive or desire.

IMO both guys were just as good as anyone who's played the game when they were at their best and focused (which was 1-2 percent of their career sadly)

This

10This