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

[roberttennis54]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

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.

Yes he beat Hewitt when he was about to get married or shortly after if I remember straight. As you said he also beat a declining Safin who had been wrecked by injuries.

To say he cared most about the Davis Cup is probably true, but he cared an awful lot about slams too and that's why he choked in a few.

He lost to Hewitt at the Wimbledon final and he lost to Hewitt at the Australian Open.
He manged to beat Safin once at the French and lost every other time, before Marat's injury.
He never beat Coria on clay and lost to Gaudio the one time they played.

Nalbandian was a fantastic ball striker, who matched up well with Federer, but where are his slams going to come from if he was dedicated? No French Opens, No Wimbledons. He was the third best player indoors of his generation and perhaps the second best all round on every surface. However, he was never the best at a slam surface and so was never going to have the career some like to imagine even if there was no Federer.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by roberttennis54

Yes he beat Hewitt when he was about to get married or shortly after if I remember straight. As you said he also beat a declining Safin who had been wrecked by injuries.

To say he cared most about the Davis Cup is probably true, but he cared an awful lot about slams too and that's why he choked in a few.

He lost to Hewitt at the Wimbledon final and he lost to Hewitt at the Australian Open.
He manged to beat Safin once at the French and lost every other time, before Marat's injury.
He never beat Coria on clay and lost to Gaudio the one time they played.

Nalbandian was a fantastic ball striker, who matched up well with Federer, but where are his slams going to come from if he was dedicated? No French Opens, No Wimbledons. He was the third best player indoors of his generation and perhaps the second best all round on every surface. However, he was never the best at a slam surface and so was never going to have the career some like to imagine even if there was no Federer.

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.

[90's Clay]

Safin and Nalbandian obviously were going to suffer many bad losses in their career because tennis came secondary (or less so) for the importance in their life. You aren't going to be great at the top level of a sport unless it consumes you and is the most important thing to you.. You just aren't. Everyone who achieved greatness at the highest level of their sport no matter how talented they were, eat sleep and breathed the game. Whatever it was.

Just imagine how much Nalbandian and Safin would have accomplished if tennis was the most important thing in their lives.


They should have took their fair share of slams away from other guys without a doubt..

Heck they half arssed 90 percent of their career and took down some of the biggest names in the history of tennis

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

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.

This

He could've easily won a few USO and AO, specially before the surfaces were slowed down. And maybe in Wimbledon if there was no Federer.

[roberttennis54]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

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.

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by roberttennis54

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.

In RG 2006 Nalbandian was leading easily a set and a break up and he got injured. 2004 AO was a very close match, could've gone either way. Specially if Nalbandian had won the first set where he had his chances. Considering Ferrero was in the SF and Safin could barely move in the final, it wouldn't be crazy to say he could've won there. And even in RG 2006, Nadal wasn't the beast he was later on and Nalbandian match-ups well with him. In USO 2005 Federer won very comfortable.

And about this:

"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."

He defeated Fed in both HC slams, so he can win against him there. Also on clay the matches Fed won were close and Nalby won some. He can beat Hewitt or Roddick everywhere. Against Safin and Fed he wouldn't be the favorite on HC but he can beat them, and he did. Don't see him beating Nadal on clay, or Fed on grass obviously.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by roberttennis54

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.

A committed Nalbandian is a different beast altogether. He could've beaten Federer on any surface and would've been much better than Roddick and Hewitt in general. Anyway, my "10 Gland Slam" case is if Federer weren't around.

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

A committed Nalbandian is a different beast altogether. He could've beaten Federer on any surface and would've been much better than Roddick and Hewitt in general. Anyway, my "10 Gland Slam" case is if Federer weren't around.

Exactly. And yes, he wouldn't win 10 slams, but he would have won a few HC slams.

But if Fed wasn't around a focused Nalbandian/Safin would win most of the slams bar Roland Garros where Nadal would still dominate. They would even do better than Roddick/Hewitt at Wimbledon I think.

[90's Clay]

We never saw a truly "committed" Nalbandian so who knows.. He could have won 10 slams if he was truly committed and taken a ton away from Rafa and Roger. He was that talented. He could beat Rafa and Federer on his day as he showed.

Its not some nutty fancy speculation or other worldly to think Nalbandian couldn't have won a crap ton of slams if he was committed.

Talent Wise, he just as good as anyone. From a pure ability standpoint. If guys like Berdych, Tsonga, Djoker and some others couldn't take Fed out a good share of times at slams or guys like Ferrer, DJoker, even Rasol or some others take Nadal out at slams..

Why the hell couldn't a "committed" Nalbandian do so? From a pure ability, talent standpoint hes just as good as any of those guys if not moreso then most. I think in terms of raw ability hes superior to Djokovic. At least from a weapons standpoint. .. Hes certainly more talented then Berdych or Tsonga were as well.

GO watch Nalbandian playing Fed in 2007 at the end of the year and tell me he doesn't have more raw ability and talent then some of those guys. ROFL

Heck watch some of his earlier matches with Nadal and see how easily he just bullied Nadal around from the baseline when he was on his game.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Just for the record, I don't think Nalbandian is as talented as Federer. But he's pretty close. Safin was closer.

[svijk]

Always get a chuckle when these pointless Nalbandian threads come up...some people just find so much stupid consolation by simply mentioning him and Federer in the same sentence...lol

[TheFifthSet]

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.

Yup.

Federer is the more talented player for sure. Better athlete, better anticipation, better footwork, more variety, etc. I think the thing that people forget with Nalbandian is that, despite his talent as a ballstriker, he misses out on the two strokes absolutely imperative for success in this era: serve and forehand. His serve is pretty average technically. And while his forehand is a good shot, it's not really a "kill" shot, and it's not as penetrating as Federers.

PS, kudos for giving Stich a shout in an earlier post. He had a beautiful game.

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

Yup.

Federer is the more talented player for sure. Better athlete, better anticipation, better footwork, more variety, etc. I think the thing that people forget with Nalbandian is that, despite his talent as a ballstriker, he misses out on the two strokes absolutely imperative for success in this era: serve and forehand. His serve is pretty average technically. And while his forehand is a good shot, it's not really a "kill" shot, and it's not as penetrating as Federers.

PS, kudos for giving Stich a shout in an earlier post. He had a beautiful game.

Well, everybody knows his serve was very average. In fact it's one of the things everybody mentioned was holding him down.

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Just for the record, I don't think Nalbandian is as talented as Federer. But he's pretty close. Safin was closer.

Marat was the most talented of the 3 IMO. No real weakness. Nalbandian had the serve, Fed ocassionally the backhand. Safin had everything. Huge serve, great forehand, GOAT backhand, he could volley well and despite his height he had good movement.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

Well, everybody knows his serve was very average. In fact it's one of the things everybody mentioned was holding him down.

Yeah but many people don't seem to take that into account when evaluating "talent". There's a bundle of talent necessary to be a great server. When you compare Federer and Nalby that's definitely part of the "talent" equation. Nalbandian proponents often seem to leave that out, only focusing on his ball-striking.

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

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.

He wasnt winning anything on grass either, regardless of Federer's existence. Tons of guys better than him there- Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Murray, Djokovic, heck even someone like Haas. What was his best ever Wimbledon performance, making that one final but beating guys like Malisse, Lapentti, and Arthurs in 5 sets to do it, then getting 5 games off Hewitt in the final. Obviously that was his grass peak as it was all downhill on the surface from there, apart from one great Davis Cup performance. So you have tons of faith in his ability to dominate on hard courts, that is all I can say.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

Yup.

Federer is the more talented player for sure. Better athlete, better anticipation, better footwork, more variety, etc. I think the thing that people forget with Nalbandian is that, despite his talent as a ballstriker, he misses out on the two strokes absolutely imperative for success in this era: serve and forehand. His serve is pretty average technically. And while his forehand is a good shot, it's not really a "kill" shot, and it's not as penetrating as Federers.

PS, kudos for giving Stich a shout in an earlier post. He had a beautiful game.

No way, he often outguessed Federer.

[TheFifthSet]

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.

Why is serve not a part of talent? If you're gonna say it's height, well they're only two inches apart. And even so, Nalbandian is an average server of someone who is 5'11, yet Federer is an amazing server for somebody who is 6'1.


Also, athleticism/movement is definitely correlated with talent. Tennis isn't a stationary sport. It doesn't matter how hard, or cleanly you can theoretically hit the ball if you can't get into position to hit it. How often do you see Federer handcuffed, drop-shotted, lobbed, or not in a position to hit the ball? Rarely, because he's an innately gifted mover and light on his feet, something that's hard to teach.

[paulorenzo]

ballstriking isn't the measure of talent, and hitting more clean shots shouldn't be the absolute measure of shotmaking. however, in AO 04, back when federer was so much more of a shotmaker than today, young nalbandian comfortably kept up with him in the shotmaking department, and perhaps then some.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near

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

Eh, I feel the serve is one of the shots where great talent isn't always necessary (Roddick, Raonic) but where great talent cannot buy you a serve as it can buy you a good net game and anticipation. It#s a stroke that just needs to be rock solid for the most part.

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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.

I think it was the WAY he did it. He utterly crushed some of the worlds best players. (hey, considering the fact that it was 2007, beating Gasquet was also an achievement) And unlike, say, Nadal in the USO, they weren't exactly ailing.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by dangalak

No way, he often outguessed Federer.

It's somewhat close, and I won't argue that Nalby doesn't have fantastic anticipation, but I think Federer has him beat here. Altho yes its not a landslide. The other ones are.

I don't think he "often outgessed Federer". One thing Nalby does uncannily is generate otherwordly angles on the CC backhand -- it could make a lot of people look like fools at times.