Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Mike Sams, Oct 4, 2012.
it is when you're talking trophy cases.
What we can agree is that a player with David's BH and Fed's FH would be devastating of the ground:mrgreen:
Always did appreciate Nalbandian's short angles. I think using short angles and forcing a player to move forwards instead of just sideways is a tactic that is underused in the game today.
2:50 (or a bit before to see the whole point): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyftQwVk3VU
I'm not sure what is more ridiculous, the shot in the first video, or his insanity of serve and volleying match point down.
Federer is a better ball striker with just about every shot there is, I can't say the same about Nalbandian.
This is a ridiculous thread, if Federer wasn't more talented (better ball striker as well) He would not be the best player ever.
Look at the results and achievements and you'll see who is a better ball striker when it matters.
Do you think Roddick is more talented than Nalbandian as well? I mean, he did win a Slam, beating Nalbandian en route, too.
btw, is nalbandian injured?
Shanks, my friend. Shanks. :lol:
Yes, he had an abdominal injury and missed the USO and Davis Cup semifinal. I think he comes back in Basel.
oh ok, thanks buddy.
Actually he does, or at least he used to in his heyday. Federer only got anointed Sir Shank-a-lot from 2007 onwards. He hardly ever shanked balls, especially off his forehand from 2003-2006. If you disagree, please cite me a match from his prime where he was shanking as frequently as he does now, because having followed Federer since 2001, I sure don't remember any.
The only match that really comes to mind for me is the French Open final in 2006 vs. Nadal. I think that kind of laid the blueprint for how to beat Federer.
Incredible shot by Nalbandian. To hit that good a shot when he had to lose eye-contact a split second before is astonishing.
Hmm. I´m not a tennisplayer, but i´ve watched all matches available with Nalbandian and Fed on youtube plus i´ve followed Feds tennis on tv the recent years.
My impression is that Nalbandian had just as good, IF not better feel at net, their dropshots are equal, Feds better from the backhand, Nalby better from the forehand side.
Nalbandian had a fantastic topspin lob, Fed uses his slice more frequently, and i won´t argue that Nalbandian had a better slice, cause i think not, but Nalby had one of the more intelligent slices i think,
he even created Winners with it at times.
Well, in terms of depth touch i would have to go with Nalby, in terms of rallystrengh and defense, movement, and halfvolley Flicks it´s def Federer. It depends whether you prefer crazy topspin lobs, angles, and delicate dropvolleys from graceful movement, rallystrengh and halfvolley Flicks.
It´s like asking WHO having the best net game of them, Federer clearly has the better overhead and drivevolleys, he also has amazing reaction and great reach plus he also has the soft hands. BUT,
the matches they´ve played where Nalbandian was at his best, i think Nalbandian had the better skillset, not the better player thou, but more solid from the baseline, and solid at the net aswell plus that with his sick droppers.
Nalbandian is the most overrated player that has ever lived. The guy who ''should'' have won 25 slams.
The question itself is incorrect. There is a vast difference between skill and talent. They're two completely different things.
Fed and McEnroe have the most innate talent of any two top players. Prizes for skill would go to players like Lendl, Connors, etc. Mac had more talent in one finger than Lendl had in his entire body, but Lendl worked feverishly to take himself to the top of the game, so props to him.
How can someone even ask this question? Federer in terms of skill and ball-striking is arguably the most talented player that has ever lived. Things Nalbandian can do with a tennis ball, Federer can do it with a pear.
Pick someone worthy like Mcenroe to compare.
So I can take continental grip, chop the ball, and be an amazing ballstriker cause I always hit the ball in the middle of the racket?
Maybe Fed and Nads shank more because they have more advanced and complicated technique on the forehand than Nalbandian? Maybe it was easier for Nalbandian to 'strike the ball well' with his agricultural forehand? In which case he isn't really a better ballstriker, he's just not asking much of his skills.
Another garbage thread. Like all about comparing talent are and ever will be. There is absolutely no solid ground to say that Nalbandian or Federer is more or less talent than the other or probably any other player. Anyone who disagrees, take his appalling arguments, write an article about his methods about how to judge tennis talent and submit it to a good sports journal and see the result.
Nalbandian prolly. He ´s pretty much a genius, the way he builed up points and used the Whole geometry of the Court, his shotvariations, and ability to pull off the shots was pretty much avantgarde tennis in it´s finest form, heh, i´m a musician so i use musical terms heh. Well. Fed has the serve advantage and a better and more reliable game overall but, when Nalbandian was on, i´ve never seen nothing like it, Fed/Sampras looks ordinary and predictable compared to when Nalby played his best. Rios comes close thou.
I agree, but Nalbandian demonstrated in lapses better tennis imo than Federer has ever played, more unpredictable and even more fluid, and the question goes "in terms of actual skill" Look up Simon vs Nalbandian Washington, Nalbandian vs Ferrer Davis Cup 2008, Nalbandian vs Federer Masters cup 2005, Nalbandian vs Federer AO 03 and Nalbandian vs Federer Paris 2007, if you´re not convinced then, then i can´t convince you lol. : P
Separate names with a comma.