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

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

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.

1. I've seen many great talents have shitty serves and some untalented players have great ones. It seems that more than natural gifts, you need a bulletproof technique along with the right physique.

2. Athleticism is athleticism. If Federer being a better jock means he is a better talent for the game for you, go ahead. I always thought those kind of things are viewed seperately. Also, if you watched some more matches between him and Nalbandian you would see Federer getting drop shotted and wrongfooted a lot.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by dangalak

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.

Crushing Nadal indoors is not an astonishing feat. How many guys have done it, I have lost count now, LOL! His Paris win over Federer was amazing, probably his best ever performance, but the Madrid final was a 3 set win and while he still played very well he definitely benefited from FedError appearing after getting blown out in the 1st set. So really the Paris match with Federer was the only one I would say was spectacular, crushing Nadal indoors is just too easy for anyone in the top 15 to do most times.

[TheFifthSet]

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?

Three of those matches were incredibly close. How is that "making him look silly"?

[TheFifthSet]

1. I've seen many great talents have shitty serves and some untalented players have great ones. It seems that more than natural gifts, you need a bulletproof technique along with the right physique.

Of course physique is a factor. It's a factor in virtually everything. You don't see many 145 pounders with heavy forehands, or 5'7 guys serving 140. But Nalbandian wasn't a piece of bologne. He was 5'11 and pretty strong. He didn't have much pace, but he also wasn't a very crafty serve. His slice and kick serves weren't exactly weapons. Rod Laver wasn't the biggest guy but he had a great serve. There are plenty of examples of small guys who weren't big but could compensate for it. Tipsarevic has some pop on his serve. Benjamin Becker is 5'11 yet he was a big server.

Also, bulletproof technique, huh?? Isn't that what makes any great stroke? The serve is the most important stroke in tennis along with the forehand. There's no way it doesn't take talent to be a great server. If Nalbandian didn't have great technique on his serve, it's a point against him in the talent department.

2. Athleticism is athleticism. If Federer being a better jock means he is a better talent for the game for you, go ahead. I always thought those kind of things are viewed seperately. Also, if you watched some more matches between him and Nalbandian you would see Federer getting drop shotted and wrongfooted a lot.

Federers footwork is unparalled. Gael Monfils, James Blake etc are more "freakish" athletes yet their footwork isn't even close to being as good.

But even disregarding that, if "talent" is something that you are born with, then how does movement/balance/coordination/footwork/ATHLETICISM not fall into that category? It seems as if your criteria for talent is made entirely to support your argument. I'd say footwork can be just as hard to teach as ballstriking.

Federer does things with his God-given athleticism that help him win matches better than other people do (for example Blake), it's not just for show and it's not merely a superfluous advantage. Therefore how can it not be considered a part of talent?

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

Three of those matches were incredibly close. How is that "making him look silly"?

The way he made Federer look in some points, it's almost like he was Roddick, in a sense that he didn't know what was going to happen next. How Federer typically beats his opponents, he did it to him.

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

Of course physique is a factor. It's a factor in virtually everything. You don't see 145 pounders with heavy forehands, or 5'7 guys serving 140. But Nalbandian wasn't a piece of bologne. He was 5'11 and pretty strong. He didn't have much pace, but he also wasn't a very crafty serve. His slice and kick serves weren't exactly weapons. Rod Laver wasn't the biggest guy but he had a great serve. There are plenty of examples of small guys who weren't big but could compensate for it. Tipsarevic has some pop on his serve. Benjamin Becker is 5'11 yet he was a big server.

Also, bulletproof technique, huh?? Isn't that what makes any great stroke? The serve is the most important stroke in tennis along with the forehand. There's no way it doesn't take talent to be a great server.




Federers footwork is unparalled. Gael Monfils, James Blake etc are more "freakish" athletes yet their footwork isn't even close to being as good.

But even disregarding that, if "talent" is something that you are born with, then how does movement/balance/coordination/footwork not fall into that category? It seems as if your criteria for talent is made entirely to support your argument.

1. Eh, I'd say it's because of the repetition. It isn't something like point construction or anticipation that can hardly be trained (at least compared to the serve) Seems like the serve is more like a shot where you need to get the mechanics right.

It's a little different with groundstrokes and volleys, since your talent can win your points there. I struggle to see how talent could buy you a great serve. Seems more about practice than gift to me. (and in case you say that no amount of hard work would give Nalby the serve of Federer, that is true, but in this case that is impossible. Guy is already a pro. Federer OTOH nailed his technique before it was too late. It's more of a technical problem.

2. I dunno, does that mean that guys like Blake and Monfils are also talented? I always thought that being able to run fast and hit hard were more physical abilities and talent is innate SKILL.

[TheFifthSet]

The way he made Federer look in some points, it's almost like he was Roddick, in a sense that he didn't know what was going to happen next. How Federer typically beats his opponents, he did it to him.

Yeah, some points. If Federer was as befuddled as you make him out to be, it wouldn't be as close as it was.

1. Eh, I'd say it's because of the repetition. It isn't something like point construction or anticipation that can hardly be trained (at least compared to the serve) Seems like the serve is more like a shot where you need to get the mechanics right.

Well now this is just semantics. Surely you can concede that some talent is necessary to be a great server. Every shot requires mechanics that were tinkered, plus practice and repitition. No shot is perfect on the surface. I doubt Nalby and Feds mechanics are the same now as when they first picked up a racquet.

It's a little different with groundstrokes and volleys, since your talent can win your points there. I struggle to see how talent could buy you a great serve. Seems more about practice than gift to me. (and in case you say that no amount of hard work would give Nalby the serve of Federer, that is true, but in this case that is impossible. Guy is already a pro. Federer OTOH nailed his technique before it was too late. It's more of a technical problem.

2. I dunno, does that mean that guys like Blake and Monfils are also talented? I always thought that being able to run fast and hit hard were more physical abilities and talent is innate SKILL.

NO! You don't get it. I'm saying Federer does things with his athleticism that are conducive to winning matches. His footwork, his grace afoot, those are the marks of a talented mover. He's not just fast or athletic. His movement is amazingly suited for tennis, unlike Blake or Monfils. Those guys are FAST. But they're NOT talented movers.

Also, going by your serve logic, footwork would have to be the antithesis of the serve then right? Because it's not something you can really practice. I mean sure you can work on it (footwork drills, strengthening your legs), but I don't see how any amount of tinkering would make Nalbandian even in the same league as a mover.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

Yeah, some points. If Federer was as befuddled as you make him out to be, it wouldn't be as close as it was.




Well now this is just semantics. Surely you can concede that some talent is necessary to be a great server. Every shot requires mechanics that were tinkered, plus practice and repitition. No shot is perfect on the surface. I doubt Nalby and Feds mechanics are the same now as when they first picked up a racquet.

[/b]


NO! You don't get it. I'm saying Federer does things with his athleticism that are conducive to winning matches. His footwork, his grace afoot, those are the marks of a talented mover. He's not just fast or athletic. His movement is amazingly suited for tennis, unlike Blake or Monfils. Those guys are FAST. But they're NOT talented movers.

Also, going by your serve logic, footwork would have to be the antithesis of the serve then right? Because it's not something you can really practice. I mean sure you can work on it (footwork drills, strengthening your legs), but I don't see how any amount of tinkering would make Nalbandian even in the same league as a mover.

I dunno, I think the main difference between Nalbandian and Federer's movement isn't footwork, it's speed. I mean Federer might be better, but that isn't the slam dunk. The speed is.

I personally felt that Nalbandian typically outsmarted him more often than the reverse, in those matches. He certainly didn't overpower him.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by dangalak

I dunno, I think the main difference between Nalbandian and Federer's movement isn't footwork, it's speed. I mean Federer might be better, but that isn't the slam dunk. The speed is.

I personally felt that Nalbandian typically outsmarted him more often than the reverse, in those matches. He certainly didn't overpower him.

Well okay, I think we've hit an impasse our views on this issue are pretty set I'd say and I don't think we'll convince each other that the other person is wrong, so I'll stop here. It was nice debating with you though.

[emilyhex]

Nalbandian vs. Ditka

...Ditka

[svijk]

wow so may responses already....these Nalby threads make me wanna puke....these threads over glorifying him are really sad !!

[smoledman]

Maybe Federer isn't the most freakish athlete in tennis, but his dedication to creating perfect footwork and a perfect serve over the last 10 years shows a superior mind at work.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by svijk

wow so may responses already....these Nalby threads make me wanna puke....these threads over glorifying him are really sad !!

Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it.

[mental midget]

Originally Posted by nereis

Anyone who has seen Nalbandian's match with Federer in the 2003 Australian Open and in their indoor matches would agree that David has the better pure ballstriking skills. Despite being 5'11 (at best) he just has the ability to outhit just about anyone on tour once shotmaking becomes more important than movement as is in an indoor tournament.

Federer has been so successful due to his superior mental toughness, match fitness and movement.

his being better at tennis has also served him well.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by mental midget

his being better at tennis has also served him well.

Too bad you can't shoot people over the internet.

Listen, genius: he was analyzing HOW EXACTLY he is better at tennis.

Please log off, and never post again.

[mental midget]

i think federer's ability to actually win matches has blinded a lot of people to the fact that he's got a more outrageous highlight reel than any of the various tormented, 'mercurial geniuses' that have passed in and out of this sport over the years.
this is an absurd debate. nalbandian is a dangerous player. federer is a towering freaking genius.

[smoledman]

Originally Posted by mental midget

i think federer's ability to actually win matches has blinded a lot of people to the fact that he's got a more outrageous highlight reel than any of the various tormented, 'mercurial geniuses' that have passed in and out of this sport over the years.
this is an absurd debate. nalbandian is a dangerous player. federer is a towering freaking genius.

Federer just might have figured out this tennis thing.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by mental midget

i think federer's ability to actually win matches has blinded a lot of people to the fact that he's got a more outrageous highlight reel than any of the various tormented, 'mercurial geniuses' that have passed in and out of this sport over the years.
this is an absurd debate. nalbandian is a dangerous player. federer is a towering freaking genius.

Blake and Gonzalez alsohave tons of highleight reels. Are they great talents as well?

My God, would you stop sucking up to Federer for a second?

[Federer20042006]

Nalbandian was the one player who, shotmaking vs. shotmaking, could beat Federer even when he was playing well.

Nadal owns Federer, but he does it by forcing Federer to play badly.

With Djokovic, it's usually also a matter of Djokovic forcing Federror to appear.

Same with Murray.

So it's close in terms of pure talent. Federer's always been much better mentally, physically, and he has a better go-to play with the serve-forehand than Nalbandian.

[mental midget]

Originally Posted by dangalak

Blake and Gonzalez alsohave tons of highleight reels. Are they great talents as well?

My God, would you stop sucking up to Federer for a second?

neither of them come close in the highlight reel department, i think you know that. and how is acknowledging the objective brilliance of his game 'sucking up'?

what are you so mad about? you know, looking for meaning where there is none simply because you feel short-changed by the status quo, and assuming the contrarian mantle as a proxy for a coherent and defensible opinion doesn't make you an interesting person.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by mental midget

neither of them come close in the highlight reel department, i think you know that. and how is acknowledging the objective brilliance of his game 'sucking up'?

what are you so mad about? you know, looking for meaning where there is none simply because you feel short-changed by the status quo, and assuming the contrarian mantle as a proxy for a coherent and defensible opinion doesn't make you an interesting person.

Spectacularity isn't really all that much of an indicator of talent, basically.