illkhiboy
Hall of Fame
Being a fan of someone as talented yet mercurial as Nalbandian is frustrating enough, without the added dimension of his choking symptoms. Over the years, his serve has often been his Achilles heel. Time after time, he bulldozes an opponent throughout the course of the match before it's time to serve it out.
I think it's easier for a person to get away with being a choker if he's a big server. That way when it's time to serve it out, they can rely on their weapon to get them cheap points. In the process, the big server can also avoid showing his opponent that he is nervous because he may just get away with displaying the one shot he's very confident at.
On the other hand, a player like Nalbandian has to begin that dreaded game by hitting that one stroke that's never been his strong point. Thus the opponent senses the weak server's nerves right from the start of the game and sees an opportunity to get back into the match.
Maybe that's not a valid theory to describe players in general, but works in this case. Or maybe not. However, for some reason or the other, Nalbandian has often failed to close out big matches even though often enough he ends up winning them anyway.
Here's a list of such matches (add on if I miss any),
1) Vs. Ljubicic at TMC RR, 2006
Served for the match in the second set, lost in three
2) Vs. Roddick at TMC RR, 2006
Served for the match in the second set, failed but won the tie-break.
3) Vs. Federer at Paris Masters, 2007
Served for the match in the second set, failed but won the tie-break.
4) Vs. Nadal at Indian Wells, 2009
I wouldn't necessarily call this one a choke-job, since Nadal played great tennis to save match points. He did get tight at 5-4, went down 15-40, but recovered within the same game to go up Ad, before being worn down. Anyway, he failed to serve it out and lost in three.
5) Vs. Niemenen at Sydney, 2009
Was cruising until 5-4 in the second set. Failed to serve it out before winning in three.
I think it's easier for a person to get away with being a choker if he's a big server. That way when it's time to serve it out, they can rely on their weapon to get them cheap points. In the process, the big server can also avoid showing his opponent that he is nervous because he may just get away with displaying the one shot he's very confident at.
On the other hand, a player like Nalbandian has to begin that dreaded game by hitting that one stroke that's never been his strong point. Thus the opponent senses the weak server's nerves right from the start of the game and sees an opportunity to get back into the match.
Maybe that's not a valid theory to describe players in general, but works in this case. Or maybe not. However, for some reason or the other, Nalbandian has often failed to close out big matches even though often enough he ends up winning them anyway.
Here's a list of such matches (add on if I miss any),
1) Vs. Ljubicic at TMC RR, 2006
Served for the match in the second set, lost in three
2) Vs. Roddick at TMC RR, 2006
Served for the match in the second set, failed but won the tie-break.
3) Vs. Federer at Paris Masters, 2007
Served for the match in the second set, failed but won the tie-break.
4) Vs. Nadal at Indian Wells, 2009
I wouldn't necessarily call this one a choke-job, since Nadal played great tennis to save match points. He did get tight at 5-4, went down 15-40, but recovered within the same game to go up Ad, before being worn down. Anyway, he failed to serve it out and lost in three.
5) Vs. Niemenen at Sydney, 2009
Was cruising until 5-4 in the second set. Failed to serve it out before winning in three.