samprasvsfederer123
Banned
if would have been in his best like federer was 04-07, what could nalbandian have done.:shock:
He could have taken a few slams away from Federer during the years in which players simply laid down for him.
But no, he could not have become an all-time great.
No. He could have had a better career but not been an all time great. His best surface by far is indoors which there are no grand slams played on. The only slam surface he has any shot of winning slams is outdoor hard courts, and he would have a hard time beating Federer in best 3-of-5 set matches on outdoor hard courts during his 2004-2007 prime regardless how hard he worked or competed. Still he could have won a few slams. He could have won a couple slams just by not choking though, the 2003 U.S Open, maybe 1 of the 2004 French or 2006 Australian Open.
2006 AO is up in the air, I think Davy had a better chance at it than him.
Though if there was an indoor slam Safin would have locked that up during Nalby's era.
Well Safin was pretty much done after early 2005 anyway so Nalbandian wouldnt have had to worry too much about him from 2005-2008 even if there was any indoor slam.
I am not sure on the 2006 Australian Open either which is why I said maybe on that. Federer was vurnerable at that particular slam, of all the slams he won from 2003-2007 it was probably his least impressive performance. In fact he played much worse there than the 2005 and 2009 Australian Opens he didnt win. Losing sets to everyone he played in the last 4 rounds even with a pretty easy draw. Losing sets to all of a past his prime Haas, Kiefer, Baghdatis, and looking very scratchy in doing so.
If Nalbandian had played him in the final given Federer's poor form it would be close to 50-50 IMO. I think the Federer-Davydenko quarterfinal match in hindsight was also close to 50-50, really could have gone either way despite being 4 sets. I dont know what would happen if Davydenko-Nalbandian play, they usually have great matches on every surface.
Ehh I don't know what could he have taken? No wimbledons. I am thinking maybe an Aussie. What I think he could have really stolen was some french open finals from fed. I guess the problem I have is I say Nalby could win 2 or 3 but then it is like okay well which 2 or 3. Grass is out the picture. I am left thinking maybe 2004 French Open...and I still struggle to figure it out.
If he wasn't such a flake he would have won the 2003 US Open.
No. He could have had a better career but not been an all time great. His best surface by far is indoors which there are no grand slams played on. The only slam surface he has any shot of winning slams is outdoor hard courts, and he would have a hard time beating Federer in best 3-of-5 set matches on outdoor hard courts during his 2004-2007 prime regardless how hard he worked or competed. Still he could have won a few slams. He could have won a couple slams just by not choking though, the 2003 U.S Open, maybe 1 of the 2004 French or 2006 Australian Open.
He could have taken some USOs and some Aussie's, probably winning the USO in 2005, 2006 and the Aussie in 2004, 2006, 2007.
He is not better than Federer on clay. He isn't even that strong on clay. Hardcourt is where he shines.
Agree with you that he could (and probably should) have won a few slams by now. However, he had chances on all surfaces to collect that first GS, not just outdoor hard courts. In fact his best surface used to be clay before he really started to excel on hard courts.
Well I dont really see when he ever could have won Wimbledon. Yes he made the final of Wimbledon 2002 which was a huge shock at the time as he was a relative unknown back then. He still never had a shot vs Hewitt in the final really as Hewitt was by far the better player at that particular point in time. Then from 2003-2005 he never could have beaten Federer or Roddick (or pretty even still Hewitt as well)there, and from 2006-now Federer or Nadal there. I am not even sure how to evaluate his abilities on grass since he has very few good results on the surface, yet made a Wimbledon final with an easy draw in a year well before his prime. Either way cant think of any year he could have ever won there.
At the French Open his best shot was definitely 2004. He could have beaten Gaudio and a nervous/choking Coria potentialy. He didnt really become a real contender again until the 2003 U.S Open though (he went back for awhile after his Wimbledon final) so cant think of any other year. From 2005 onwards Nadal ruled the French Open of course, even if Nalbandian matches up well with Nadal I cant see him beating him on clay, maybe he could beat him a best 2-of-3 but not in a best 3-of-5 at the French Open. 2005 was probably the year Nadal was most beatable there though, but of course there was Federer to deal with too, and Coria as well (despite that Coria was upset by Davydenko that year).
That is why I see his best chances of course coming on hard courts. You have to look at what players he would have had to beat. On hard courts his only major obstacle for awhile would have been Federer, and he even plays Federer well.
To this day I can't believe Nalbandian blew a two set lead against a very unfit player like Baghdatis in the AO semi final, after such a tough loss its no wonder he hasn't done anything at the slams since.
As a Nalby fan, I say no. To be an all time great you not only need the talent (which Nalby has in a lot of aspect of his game but with a big weakness in todays game that is an ok forehand (not a winning forehand) and an unreliable serve) but you really really have to want it, that is, have an urge and a burning desire to be at the top. Seeing Nalby's career is obvious he doesn't have that urge. Still, that doesn't take away the fact that is a joy to see him play when his mind is into it.
Well I dont really see when he ever could have won Wimbledon. Yes he made the final of Wimbledon 2002 which was a huge shock at the time as he was a relative unknown back then. He still never had a shot vs Hewitt in the final really as Hewitt was by far the better player at that particular point in time. Then from 2003-2005 he never could have beaten Federer or Roddick (or pretty even still Hewitt as well)there, and from 2006-now Federer or Nadal there. I am not even sure how to evaluate his abilities on grass since he has very few good results on the surface, yet made a Wimbledon final with an easy draw in a year well before his prime. Either way cant think of any year he could have ever won there.
At the French Open his best shot was definitely 2004. He could have beaten Gaudio and a nervous/choking Coria potentialy. He didnt really become a real contender again until the 2003 U.S Open though (he went back for awhile after his Wimbledon final) so cant think of any other year. From 2005 onwards Nadal ruled the French Open of course, even if Nalbandian matches up well with Nadal I cant see him beating him on clay, maybe he could beat him a best 2-of-3 but not in a best 3-of-5 at the French Open. 2005 was probably the year Nadal was most beatable there though, but of course there was Federer to deal with too, and Coria as well (despite that Coria was upset by Davydenko that year).
That is why I see his best chances of course coming on hard courts. You have to look at what players he would have had to beat. On hard courts his only major obstacle for awhile would have been Federer, and he even plays Federer well.
Nalbandian even being in the 2002 Wimbledon final was a joke. He isnt that good a grass court player at all. Has he even made the quarters any other year at Wimbledon? He can play some really good tennis on indoors, hard courts, and once in awhile even on clay, but he is probably the worst grass court player to be in a Wimbledon final since Chris Lewis. Even Washington is better. He made the Wimbledon final since that was one of the worst Wimbledons in history. The quarterfinal lineup made me gag that year. Even with a total joke draw he still would have lost if Wayne Arthurs or Xavier Malisse had played their normal tennis on grass. Both those guys fell apart with nerves when they played Nalbandian and I think still went to 5 sets if I remember correctly.
As for the final he didnt have a prayer in hell even if he played his best. That was Hewitt at his peak, it was not Nalbandian in his prime yet, and it was on grass where Hewitt is vastly superior. If Nalbandian played the match of his life at that point he might have gotten 8 games instead of 4. Please do not confuse Nalbandian's potential play and ability of 2005-2007 on a hard court to Nalbandian's potential play in 2002 on a grass court. There is a world of difference.
I think Nalbandian's second greatest achievement on grass is the semis of Queens. There he managed to eat a bagel and breadstick from Novak Djokovic, and Djokovic isnt even in the league of Federer or Nadal on grass at this point.
Yea seriously if anyone thinks Nalbandian could have possibly could have won that wimbleodn is nuts. He beat nobody higher ranked than 22 prior to the final. His QF and SF opponent it was also both of their best runs at wimbledon. That tournament was awful in the bottom half. The top was were the better players all wound up. The hewitt-henman match should have been the final
since he lost wimbly final...all down hill.