Donkus_Reborn
Semi-Pro
Uh, Nalbandian was on his way to beating Federer at FO 2006 then got injured.
Is Zverev the next Nalbandian?
- Thread starter OldschoolKIaus
- Start date
Uh, Nalbandian was on his way to beating Federer at FO 2006 then got injured.
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
Insulting is an art in its own right.
Subway Tennis
G.O.A.T.
The only two things that link Zverev and Nalbandian are:
1. They both didn’t/haven’t won a major
2. Neither was ever unquestionably the best player in the world.
Besides the above, I can’t think of two more contrasting players.
Even the broader context of the direction the game was taking during their respective careers is/was vastly different.
Nalbandian was the unluckier of the two for sure. His best chance was to snag a major early in his career while he was able to leverage an early power imbalance in his matchup with Federer.
The trouble is he only had a microscopic window of about two years where he was beating Federer regularly, fast courts were still a reality, and the era was still considered transitional.
During this time he was unlucky enough to be maturing at the same time as Hewitt who was an absurdly early developer and an absolute demon on the same fast hardcourts and grass that Nalbandian preferred.
External circumstances never helped Nalbandian. The slowing down of hard courts designed to hobble servebots had unintended additional negative effect of handicapping players like Nalbandian who weaponised fast surfaces with fluid ball striking, improvisation and taking the ball early.
In Zverev’s case, the current game couldn’t be more suited to his playing style. The only negative circumstances he has ever had to deal with is the fact that there have always been 5-6 players better then he is and to win a major he has always had to play at least 2 of them over the 7 match format.
1. They both didn’t/haven’t won a major
2. Neither was ever unquestionably the best player in the world.
Besides the above, I can’t think of two more contrasting players.
Even the broader context of the direction the game was taking during their respective careers is/was vastly different.
Nalbandian was the unluckier of the two for sure. His best chance was to snag a major early in his career while he was able to leverage an early power imbalance in his matchup with Federer.
The trouble is he only had a microscopic window of about two years where he was beating Federer regularly, fast courts were still a reality, and the era was still considered transitional.
During this time he was unlucky enough to be maturing at the same time as Hewitt who was an absurdly early developer and an absolute demon on the same fast hardcourts and grass that Nalbandian preferred.
External circumstances never helped Nalbandian. The slowing down of hard courts designed to hobble servebots had unintended additional negative effect of handicapping players like Nalbandian who weaponised fast surfaces with fluid ball striking, improvisation and taking the ball early.
In Zverev’s case, the current game couldn’t be more suited to his playing style. The only negative circumstances he has ever had to deal with is the fact that there have always been 5-6 players better then he is and to win a major he has always had to play at least 2 of them over the 7 match format.
Dane_is_Finnish_OJ
Legend
Maybe, but he's still a better player than Nalbandian.
Dominic & Andrey
Legend
Nalbandian is overrated a little though. I think peak servebot Zverev could probably beat him. Or at least it would be very close.
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
It takes a lot of talent to be a top tennis player with the diet and conditioning plan that Nalbandián employed.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
What do you mean at least be very close. Zverev will beat him majority of times.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
Even peak is now becoming questionable. Without serve the peak will always be a bit lower.
Dominance ratio at least 1.5 (very dominant)
Zverev 174 already and he can keep adding 50
Nalbandian 108
Double of what nalby could do.
BauerAlmeida
Legend
Yeah, I'd take peak Nalbandian but Zverev is undoubtedly much more consistent.
Results-wise he is the best player not to win a slam for sure by now over Nalbandian, Ríos, Davydenko, Mecir, Ferrer, Okker, etc.
Looking at Zverev's H2Hs against other players in the category of "best player to never win a Major":
6-10 against Tsitsipas
5-3 against Ferrer
2-4 against Berdych
3-2 against Ruud
1-2 against Tsonga
Overall: 17-21
With Nalbandian very much in this category, I'm going to go with 11-9 in either direction, possibly 10-10.
Pheasant
Legend
Those are interesting. I think that clay would ultimately tilt this rivalry in Zverev’s favor. But you make a compelling case with those numbers. So I gotta respect that.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
Zverev can realistically beat Sinner this week if that happens.
He would have won ATP finals beating Fedkovic back to back and now Sineraz in same tournament as well. Along with Djokovic/Meddy back to back.
He would have won ATP finals beating Fedkovic back to back and now Sineraz in same tournament as well. Along with Djokovic/Meddy back to back.
MissileBackHand99
Professional
Nalbandian more talented, played in a tougher era IMO
Similar threads
- Poll
