Nalbandian vs Davydenko

[Pheasant]

Both of these players were great ball strikers. I like Nalbandian’s game more; especially his better play at the net. However,
Davydenko was more consistent and he earned about 40% more in prize money. He won 21 titles to Nalbandian’s 11.

I think that Nalbandian peaked higher. He made the semis of all 4 majors and his versatility brought him to a Wimbledon final. But Davydenko was clearly more consistent.

Which one was greater?

 

[skaj]

serve: tie
return: Nalbandian
forehand: tie
backhand: Nalbandian
net: Nalbandian
mobility: Davydenko
tactics: Nalbandian
consistency: Davydenko

 

[forehandblast]

Nalbandian by far. Nalbandian has a way better overall game, equally strong from the baseline but much superior in other aspects, and mentally both are equally suspect.

 

[forehandblast]

serve: tie
return: Nalbandian
forehand: tie
backhand: Nalbandian
net: Nalbandian
mobility: Davydenko
tactics: Nalbandian
consistency: Davydenko

Nalbandian has a better serve for sure. I would probably give forehand to Davydenko.

 

[skaj]

Nalbandian has a better serve for sure. I would probably give forehand to Davydenko.

Not sure about the serve.
Their forehands were a bit different I would say, at least the way they were using them. Nalbandian's was not only an attacking forehand that goes for winners, but also a shot that constructs points. Davydenko on the other hand was usually trying to hit hard off that side. Both technically sound and able to generate power.

 

[Pheasant]

I went with Nalbandian, since he peaked higher. Davydenko was more consistent, however.

Hip surgery and all of those knee surgeries effectly ended Nalbandian's prime sometime in 2009. Prior to 2009, Nalbandian was a blast to watch. He had a pretty game with a very nice touch at the net.

 

[BGod]

On their best day it's Nalbandian 9 times out of 10.

Davydenko's direct advantage would be on clay or slow hard.

 

[prostaff1]

Nikolay by far. More wins. More titles. More weeks at the top. More loot.

 

[hoodjem]

This duality reminds me of the Rodgers vs. Brady (American pro football quarterbacks) debate: one has better numbers, higher stats, percentages, and seems more talented, and thus is called "better," and the other has a better record of accomplishments and thus is called "greater."

 

[fezer]

Nalbandian better vs Federer
Davydenko better vs Nadal

 

[King No1e]

Nalbandian. His career wasn't as consistent but he won a WTF (like Davy) and made a Slam final, which Davy never did. Also had superior results at the big titles overall.

If we want to dissect their games (which is different from who's the better player, ex: Tsonga has better game than Ferrer but Ferrer was overall better):
Serve: Davydenko
Return: Nalbandian
Forehand: tie
Backhand: Nalbandian
Slice: Nalbandian
Net game: Nalbandian
Defense: Davydenko
Movement: Davydenko
Strategy: Nalbandian
Mentality: Davydenko
Consistency: Davydenko

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Nalbandian was more talented but Davydenko ended up better because he actually performed well in BO5 (outside Wimbledon) while Nalbandian was a massive headcase with plenty of ricockulous losses.

 

[skaj]

Nalbandian. His career wasn't as consistent but he won a WTF (like Davy) and made a Slam final, which Davy never did. Also had superior results at the big titles overall.

If we want to dissect their games (which is different from who's the better player, ex: Tsonga has better game than Ferrer but Ferrer was overall better):
Serve: Davydenko
Return: Nalbandian
Forehand: tie
Backhand: Nalbandian
Slice: Nalbandian
Net game: Nalbandian
Defense: Davydenko
Movement: Davydenko
Strategy: Nalbandian
Mentality: Davydenko
Consistency: Davydenko

I agree on all the shots/game elements, only if by movement you mean movement technique Nalbandian's is, alongside Federer's of course, probably the best in his era. Of course he was overweight and unfit most of the time, so his movement overall suffered from that.
I would also add touch: Nalbandian.

 

[quirotkicks]

I don't see how this is a question. Nalbandian had higher peak level play. Both won Masters but Nalbandian's were more impressive including Fedalovic in back to back to back matches in one. Nalbandian won the YEC, a far bigger tournament. Nalbandian made all the slam semis and made a slam final with Davydenko didn't even though both were slam underachievers, Nalbandian still did better. Nalbandian both better player and better career.

 

[forehandblast]

Nalbandian was more talented but Davydenko ended up better because he actually performed well in BO5 (outside Wimbledon) while Nalbandian was a massive headcase with plenty of ricockulous losses.

Davydenko does not have better slam results. That isn't even subjective, it is a fact. At best Davydenko is the same except for not reaching a slam final as Nalbandian did.

Slam finals- Nalbandian 1, Davydenko 0
Slam semis- Nalbandian 5, Davydenko 4
Slam quarters- Nalbandian 10, Davydenko 10
Slam semis at all 4 slams- Nalbandian yes, Davydenko no

What you say is subjective, both have some bad losses in slams, and both generally lost to good people in slams in their prime years. The only sense in that Nalbandian seems worse is he seems to have had more potential to beat a lot of those people he lost, including in later years, so comparatively he seems more disappointing, but that would just be an argument for him being better anyway. The actual results are no worse as shown above.

 

[skaj]

Davydenko does not have better slam results. That isn't even subjective, it is a fact. At best Davydenko is the same except for not reaching a slam final as Nalbandian did.

Slam finals- Nalbandian 1, Davydenko 0
Slam semis- Nalbandian 5, Davydenko 4
Slam quarters- Nalbandian 10, Davydenko 10
Slam semis at all 4 slams- Nalbandian yes, Davydenko no

What you say is subjective, both have some bad losses in slams, and both generally lost to good people in slams in their prime years. The only sense in that Nalbandian seems worse is he seems to have had more potential to beat a lot of those people he lost, including in later years, so comparatively he seems more disappointing, but that would just be an argument for him being better anyway. The actual results are no worse as shown above.

Nalbandian was also in the semi finals of all 4 slams, Davydenko only Roland Garros and US Open.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Davydenko does not have better slam results. That isn't even subjective, it is a fact. At best Davydenko is the same except for not reaching a slam final as Nalbandian did.

Slam finals- Nalbandian 1, Davydenko 0
Slam semis- Nalbandian 5, Davydenko 4
Slam quarters- Nalbandian 10, Davydenko 10
Slam semis at all 4 slams- Nalbandian yes, Davydenko no

What you say is subjective, both have some bad losses in slams, and both generally lost to good people in slams in their prime years. The only sense in that Nalbandian seems worse is he seems to have had more potential to beat a lot of those people he lost, including in later years, so comparatively he seems more disappointing, but that would just be an argument for him being better anyway. The actual results are no worse as shown above.

Hmm, Bandy's peak slam results are better than I thought, but still Denko put forth a higher performance at 3/4 slams (like 2006 AO, of course giving Federer a very close match in QF is better than losing SF from two sets up to Pugdatis in all but ranking points), and Nalbandian's WB final was entirely due to mug draw (demonstrably one of the weakest, that's not subjective) and then he got destroyed by the only strong opponent he faced. Close but Denko ahead still, and as he's ahead at the YEC (two finals beats one, one win beating healthy fed beats beating anklerer, that only thanks to BO5 while Denko won in BO3 - a rare case where BO5 detracts from the win lol), and nominally ahead at the masters (3>2 though Nalbandian reached a higher level in his epic double, but Davydenko's Miami and Shanghai wins over the nadal and the djokovic were pretty cool too), and a lot more prolific in lesser tournaments (18 titles vs 8), the comparison is clear.

 

[forehandblast]

Hmm, Bandy's peak slam results are better than I thought, but still Denko put forth a higher performance at 3/4 slams (like 2006 AO, of course giving Federer a very close match in QF is better than losing SF from two sets up to Pugdatis in all but ranking points), and Nalbandian's WB final was entirely due to mug draw (demonstrably one of the weakest, that's not subjective) and then he got destroyed by the only strong opponent he faced. Close but Denko ahead still, and as he's ahead at the YEC (two finals beats one, one win beating healthy fed beats beating anklerer, that only thanks to BO5 while Denko won in BO3 - a rare case where BO5 detracts from the win lol), and nominally ahead at the masters (3>2 though Nalbandian reached a higher level in his epic double, but Davydenko's Miami and Shanghai wins over the nadal and the djokovic were pretty cool too), and a lot more prolific in lesser tournaments (18 titles vs 8), the comparison is clear.

I did not realize Davydenko had that many more regular titles. That is a tougher choice than I thought.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I did not realize Davydenko had that many more regular titles. That is a tougher choice than I thought.

I figure you may give Nalbandian a slight advantage in slams (though I don't think it's fair considering that Wimbledon draw and the final exposure), but Davydenko consistently wins at all lesser levels so he still gets a clear nod to me. Nalbandian had a higher peak at his disposal but failed to utilise it.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

Nalbandian was more talented but Davydenko ended up better because he actually performed well in BO5 (outside Wimbledon) while Nalbandian was a massive headcase with plenty of ricockulous losses.

удивительно как он имел лучшие показатели в BO5 учитывая его телосложение был щупленький слабенький такой вроде бы плешивенький (словно из чернобыля), ан нет, налбандян вроде как крепкий был такой чувак наподобие вавринки и должен был в таком формате крепче быть,

 

[skaj]

удивительно как он имел лучшие показатели в BO5 учитывая его телосложение был щупленький слабенький такой вроде бы плешивенький (словно из чернобыля), ан нет, налбандян вроде как крепкий был такой чувак наподобие вавринки и должен был в таком формате крепче быть,

Nalbandian had more power, but Davydenko's fitness level was much much higher.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Nalbandian was more talented but Davydenko ended up better because he actually performed well in BO5 (outside Wimbledon) while Nalbandian was a massive headcase with plenty of ricockulous losses.

@AnOctorokForDinner, your location is Moscow. You’re only saying Davydenko is better because he’s Russian.

Nalbandian reached at least the semis of all four slams, and won the YEC vs Federer in a 5-set match (yes, I’m aware of the latter’s injury). So I think his Bo5 record exceeds Davydenko’s. Let’s not forget his Masters titles in late 2007 when he beat all of the big 3 either.

The only “ricockulous” one is you, the wannabe linguist and tennis analyst. A person who severely overestimates their own intelligence.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Hmm, Bandy's peak slam results are better than I thought, but still Denko put forth a higher performance at 3/4 slams (like 2006 AO, of course giving Federer a very close match in QF is better than losing SF from two sets up to Pugdatis in all but ranking points), and Nalbandian's WB final was entirely due to mug draw (demonstrably one of the weakest, that's not subjective) and then he got destroyed by the only strong opponent he faced. Close but Denko ahead still, and as he's ahead at the YEC (two finals beats one, one win beating healthy fed beats beating anklerer, that only thanks to BO5 while Denko won in BO3 - a rare case where BO5 detracts from the win lol), and nominally ahead at the masters (3>2 though Nalbandian reached a higher level in his epic double, but Davydenko's Miami and Shanghai wins over the nadal and the djokovic were pretty cool too), and a lot more prolific in lesser tournaments (18 titles vs 8), the comparison is clear.

Mate, Davydenko didn’t get further at a single slam than Nalbandian -so enough with your “higher performance at 3/4 slams” bollocks. Let’s not forget that Nalbandian reached the Wimbledon final in his first ever grass court tournament - the Russian could only dream of such a feat.

I hope you’re not a lawyer or in another profession where you have to use debating skills in the real world. You’d get destroyed - and wouldn’t have the option of asking your opponent to “please stop talking to me”.

 

[forehandblast]

I figure you may give Nalbandian a slight advantage in slams (though I don't think it's fair considering that Wimbledon draw and the final exposure), but Davydenko consistently wins at all lesser levels so he still gets a clear nod to me. Nalbandian had a higher peak at his disposal but failed to utilise it.

Yeah after you did the breakdown of their careers I have to change my mind and give Davydenko the better career atleast, even with Nalbandian's Wimbledon final. Better player is still a close call for me.

I guess we both learnt something new from each other, Nalbandian's slam stats were a lot better than you realized, but Davydenko's non slam stats blew Nalbandian's away in a way I had no idea they did.

 

[forehandblast]

Mate, Davydenko didn’t get further at a single slam than Nalbandian -so enough with your “higher performance at 3/4 slams” bollocks. Let’s not forget that Nalbandian reached the Wimbledon final in his first ever grass court tournament - the Russian could only dream of such a feat.

I hope you’re not a lawyer or in another profession where you have to use debating skills in the real world. You’d get destroyed - and wouldn’t have the option of asking your opponent to “please stop talking to me”.

Yeah the higher performance at 3/4 slams it the one thing that doesn't come into play much. It is a similar argument that Federer fans will try to use in Nadal vs Federer, and I can ensure you if Nadal gets to 21 it won't go very far. I mean Connors arguably has a higher performance than Nadal at 3/4 slams to put it into perspective and its lack of meaning.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

@AnOctorokForDinner, your location is Moscow. You’re only saying Davydenko is better because he’s Russian.

Nalbandian reached at least the semis of all four slams, and won the YEC vs Federer in a 5-set match (yes, I’m aware of the latter’s injury). So I think his Bo5 record exceeds Davydenko’s. Let’s not forget his Masters titles in late 2007 when he beat all of the big 3 either.

The only “ricockulous” one is you, the wannabe linguist and tennis analyst. A person who severely overestimates their own intelligence.

You are a bad faith actor with no interest in POVs other than your own. Buzz off, narcissist.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Yeah the higher performance at 3/4 slams it the one thing that doesn't come into play much. It is a similar argument that Federer fans will try to use in Nadal vs Federer, and I can ensure you if Nadal gets to 21 it won't go very far. I mean Connors arguably has a higher performance than Nadal at 3/4 slams to put it into perspective and its lack of meaning.

Well Nadal has a uniquely superior, probably unbeatable performance at a single slam, which may be viewed as more impressive than significant advantage at two other slams (not so much at the USO now, sad). Nalbandian and Davydenko happen to be closely matched in slam success, barring Bandy's WB final, which is as flukey as they come. As I said, Davydenko is slightly more impressive at the other three slams, and the YEC, and masters, and much more prolific in lesser tournaments, so he edges it overall.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Well Nadal has a uniquely superior, probably unbeatable performance at a single slam, which may be viewed as more impressive than significant advantage at two other slams (not so much at the USO now, sad). Nalbandian and Davydenko happen to be closely matched in slam success, barring Bandy's WB final, which is as flukey as they come. As I said, Davydenko is slightly more impressive at the other three slams, and the YEC, and masters, and much more prolific in lesser tournaments, so he edges it overall.

Are you really forgetting Nalbandy's epic 2007 indoor run? Sorry, when has Davy EVER done anything like that? I like both but Nalbandian clearly had more upside. Davy was more consistent but, barring Nadal, generally folded against the biggies. Nalbandian could take it to the biggies on his day. The days didn't come often but he was spectacular when they did in a way that Davy never was.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Nalbandian was more talented but Davydenko ended up better because he actually performed well in BO5 (outside Wimbledon) while Nalbandian was a massive headcase with plenty of ricockulous losses.

Of all the arguments you could think of for Davy, this is the weakest because Nalbandian actually beat Fed at the YEC when it had a BO5 final and reached semis in every slam too (including a final which Davy never could).

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Are you really forgetting Nalbandy's epic 2007 indoor run? Sorry, when has Davy EVER done anything like that? I like both but Nalbandian clearly had more upside. Davy was more consistent but, barring Nadal, generally folded against the biggies. Nalbandian could take it to the biggies on his day. The days didn't come often but he was spectacular when they did in a way that Davy never was.

Nalbandian beat Big 3 five times in two months... Davydenko beat Big 3 six times in three months... No big difference. Denko didn't beat all of the Big 3 in one tournament though.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Of all the arguments you could think of for Davy, this is the weakest because Nalbandian actually beat Fed at the YEC when it had a BO5 final and reached semis in every slam too (including a final which Davy never could).

Federer was injured and basically gave away two sets, Davydenko's 2009 win was better. Also do tell when Davydenko had such a silly draw to a slam final as Nalbandian did at that Wimbledon. He would never make Wimbledon final even with such a nice draw, sure, but at any other slam he could and probably would if he didn't keep running into Federer.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Oh well, no good getting incensed by a person who basically called me a disgusting heartless monster not long ago (not interested in denying you meant it on some level). Bye bye, find some other contemptible person you love to look down on.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Federer was injured and basically gave away two sets, Davydenko's 2009 win was better. Also do tell when Davydenko had such a silly draw to a slam final as Nalbandian did at that Wimbledon. He would never make Wimbledon final even with such a nice draw, sure, but at any other slam he could and probably would if he didn't keep running into Federer.

Oh sure, a draw is all Davy needed to convert a best finish of R4 to a final. Nalbandy made a QF again at Wimbledon in 2005. Davy only made the 4th round once.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Oh well, no good getting incensed by a person who basically called me a disgusting heartless monster not long ago (not interested in denying you meant it on some level). Bye bye, find some other contemptible person you love to look down on.

Whatever, you don't have an argument, I get it. So run along.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

Federer was injured and basically gave away two sets, Davydenko's 2009 win was better. Also do tell when Davydenko had such a silly draw to a slam final as Nalbandian did at that Wimbledon. He would never make Wimbledon final even with such a nice draw, sure, but at any other slam he could and probably would if he didn't keep running into Federer.

anyway david is the winner here .. they have close numbers at slams yeah, but overall david has more balanced resume..wimbledon is the decider (7 losses for nikolasha in 1st round)...masters 1000: david 6 finals (2 titles) - nikolay 3 finals (3 titles)

 

[Dolgopolov85]

anyway david is the winner here .. they have close numbers at slams yeah, but overall david has more balanced resume..wimbledon is the decider (7 losses for nikolasha in 1st round)

I will cut to the chase, he hates Nalby for beating Fed and he loves Davy for beating Nadal. Rest, just slice and dice however you want until the facts somehow match your opinion. Vintage TT.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

*create a strawman of another person as a stupid deluded POS*

*attack said strawman*

*act appalled when said person refuses to interact with you*

Rational behaviour.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

*create a strawman of another person as a stupid deluded POS*

*attack said strawman*

*act appalled when said person refuses to interact with you*

Rational behaviour.

The one who did that in that thread was you and you are at it again now. I never even called you the things you said above that I did, you liar. Stop projecting and take a chill pill.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

The one who did that in that thread was you and you are at it again now. I never even called you the things you said above that I did, you liar. Stop projecting and take a chill pill.

Quote:

your utter lack of understanding or empathy.

I find it absolutely disgusting

So there. Don't pretend it was deserved; you saw what I said differently from what was meant and attacked me on that basis, not the basis of what I actually meant, which I tried to make clearer but apparently it didn't work, probably everyone's fault (admittedly I'm not the best explainer either). I also got triggered and attacked you doubting your fandom - that turned out a wrong course of action so I apologise here.

Still, if a person who says stuff like that to me and sticks to it even after heads have the time to cool off, that person must hate or despise me - no way you may consider someone unempathetic and capable of disgusting acts, yet not look down on them heavily, what sort of doublethink would that be? so either you retract that wording, or you do indeed think I'm a worm so there's no good for me in discussing anything with you.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Quote:




So there. Don't pretend it was deserved; you saw what I said differently from what was meant and attacked me on that basis, not the basis of what I actually meant, which I tried to make clearer but apparently it didn't work, probably everyone's fault (admittedly I'm not the best explainer either). I also got triggered and attacked you doubting your fandom - that turned out a wrong course of action so I apologise here.

Still, if a person who says stuff like that to me and sticks to it even after heads have the time to cool off, that person must hate or despise me - no way you may consider someone unempathetic and capable of disgusting acts, yet not look down on them heavily, what sort of doublethink would that be? so either you retract that wording, or you do indeed think I'm a worm so there's no good for me in discussing anything with you.

Yes, I said you lack empathy, which I stand by completely. What I never said was that you are a heartless monster. You are deliberately magnifying what I said to play victim. That's what you did then and that's what you are doing now. And your need to do so is so great that you keep coming back for more punishment having twice said you don't want to discuss further with me. If you don't want to, don't discuss. Do you think you are the Emperor of China of something that I should feel disappointed by that? Sorry to hurt your feelings and say no, snowflake. Stay triggered.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Back to the topic at hand... okay let's do a detailed comparison. It's surely too simplistic to just throw numbers without context, so draws will be examined, noting quality of wins (beating good players) and quality of losses (losing a competitive match to a great player > losing a competitive match to a good player > getting dominated).

Nalbandian has: 1 F, 4 SF, 5 QF, 4 4R.

Final (WB): really mug draw, not a single top 20 seed faced. Played five sets vs Lapentti and Malisse, then got crushed by Hewitt. So no particular great level prior to the final and a no-show in the final. One of the weakest slam final runs in the OE (barring demoted AOs, of course), little better than Anderson's much-maligned USO 2017 run.

Semis (1 AO, 2 RG, 1 USO):

2006 AO: looked pretty good throughout (though the draw was easy), but ended up imploding badly against unheralded Baghdatis in SF - not only from two sets up, but also from 4-2 up in the final set, and that was a bad choke. Second worst way to lose imo (worst being a rout).

2004 RG: looked great before SF, but again an implosion. Gaudio was playing quite well, so it ended in straight sets. Nalbandian was *5-2 up in the second set (double break lead), lost in TB then got bagelled.

2006 RG: goated for a set and a half vs Fedr (up 6-3 3-0), lost the plot (again!), eventually got overwhelmed by stomach cramps and retired down a double break in the third set.

2003 USO: best career run - beat solid Federer and Aynaoui and almost outclutched peak Roddick in straight sets... right until the match point. MP lost, tiebreak lost, next two sets lost 6-1 6-3 without much fight.

Quarters (3 AO, 1 WIM, 1 USO):

2003 AO: good win over young Fedr, then... WTH was that? 6-1 6-0'd by Rainer Schüttler? Terrible loss.

2004 AO: reached QF in straights and lost a competitive four-setter to peak Fed, strong run.

2005 AO: lost 10-8 in the fifth to peak Hewitt. An up and down match, but still a great effort, worth being called a strong run.

2005 USO: lost easily to Federer, nothing special.

2005 WIM: nice win over young Gasquet, but lost easily to Johansson after the first set.

Fourth rounds (1 AO, 2 RG, 1 WIM):

decent losses ay WIM 03 and RG 07 - close four-setters vs Henman and Davydenko respectively. 6-1 6-2'd by Hanescu at RG 05 - no good, fairly easy loss to Haas after taking the first set - no good either.

--------

Davydenko has: 4 SF, 6 QF, 4 4R.

Semis (2 RG, 2 USO):

2005 RG: nice wins over Coria and Robredo, lost in five to Dopuerta also wasting 4-2 (in the fourth set). Dopuerta was better than Baghs though.

2007 RG: beat Bandy en route, lost a very close straight-setter to Federer; Denko was close to winning each set but couldn't make it, serious set-level choking but still running peak Fed close is alright.

2006 USO: beat Haas in QF, lost SF to Fred in straights, not that close though Fed didn't entirely cruise.

2007 USO: beat Haas again and lost to Fed in straights again, that was close for two sets though rather messy.

Quarters (4 AO, 2 RG):

2005 AO & 2009 RG: lost in easy straights (Roddick, Söderling).

2006 AO: a very close four-setter against a subpar but still peak age Federer. Choke moment at the end of the third, strong stuff otherwise.

2006 RG: so-so four-set loss to Nalbandian.

2007 AO: lost 7-5 in the fifth to Haas.

2010 AO: led Federer up a set, a break and BP for a double break, then imploded to lose 11 straight games. Recovered to make the fourth set competitive though.

Fourth rounds:

Nothing special. First two sets of 2009 USO vs Söderling were good but Davydenko got hurt in the third and retired.

-----

Conclusion:
Nalbandian clearly had a higher peak (as I mentioned before), but kept running out of gas or succumbing to nerves at the end of his best runs, starting strong but eventually melting down. Out of his QF+ runs, the only two losses where that didn't happen were 2004 & 2005 AO; those two Nalbandian finished as well as he started, Federer/Hewitt was just better all in all.
Davydenko happened to run into Federer in 3 of his 4 SF losses so that skews the picture. He lost all those in straight sets, but 6 of the 9 sets were 7-5 or 7-6 - close but no cigar. I'd say it's better than Nalby's RG semis though, and the lolbledon final run. Nalbandian's USO 03 does stand out as the best slam campaign for either player, the closest they got to winning a slam (just one more point, and Ferrero in the final), but the total meltdown once Roddick snatched the set detracts from it. Davydenko's quarters were clearly better (4 good vs 2 good). Nalbandian's fourth rounds were better. Seems close as it is, slight edge to Bandy at most but imo better called even.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Mugsters:

Nalbandian 2 W, 4 F, 5 SF, 8 QF
Davydenko 3 W, 0 F, 5 SF, 10 QF

19 QF vs 18 QF in total - tiny difference. Nalbandian reached 6 finals to Davydenko's 3, but Davydenko won all 3 to Nalbandian's 2.

Bandy's strong points: the famous 2007 fall double beating Big 3 five times, very high level. A strong run as a defending champion in 2008 Paris, beating Murray and Davydenko and taking a set off Tsonga. Weak points: lost the other three finals in easy straight sets. No great wins en route to those (best would be Costa and Ljubicic). Other than those three, most of Nalbandian's QF+ runs ended in getting pwned; exceptions: 2006 Rome Federer, 2008 IW Fish, 2013 IW Nadal - those were close and David could have won them.

Kolya's strong points: one more masters title. All three were good runs: 2008 Miami - started slow, narrowly squeaking by Gulbis and Ancic, but powered up and finished by comfortably beating Roddick and crushing Nadal. 2009 Shanghai - beat Djokovic and Nadal back-to-back. First title at 2005 Paris had a weak field for lack of Fedal, but Davydenko performed very strongly, not losing more than three games per set but once (one set lost). Also played a great match against Nadal in Rome 07 SF. Didn't get destroyed as much as Bandy, but fewer close losses too, Nadal Rome 07 as mentioned and Ancic Hamburg 06, that's it.

Conclusion: Davydenko has 3>2, while Nalbandian's wins were more impressive. Nalbandian has more final runs though they were less impressive, but overall he has 3 nice runs outside of his best 3, Davydenko has 2 but his individual best non-final run is more impressive. Seems too close to call definitively, again. Nalbandian's top runs look more impressive by opponent/scoreline/level, but should 3>2 factor in still?

 

[Deleted member 758560]

Mugsters:

, but should 3>2 factor in still?

probably not, 3-2 is not a big deal at all + david had 4 additional finals that should even it up, and his legendary run in madrid,

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

YEC:

Nalbandian: W, SF, RR
Davydenko: W, F, SF, 2xRR

Nalbandian won in 2005, beating Ljubicic, Coria, Davydenko and Anklerer who was subpar for 2.5 sets - though Bandy did push Fred to two TBs before he got bad, so he was playing well.
He then reached SF in 2006 with a 1-2 record (def Roddick, lost a tight one to Ljubicic, double breadsticked by Fred), and was dominated by Blake. Earlier, he lost in RR with a 1-2 record in 2003 (crushed Ferrero, crushed by Federer, lost a tight one to Agassi).

Davydenko won in 2009, beating Nadal, Söderling, Federer and del Potro (lost a close one to Djokovic in RR). Earlier, he reached the final in 2008, beating Tsonga, del Potro and Murray. For two years, Davydenko only lost to Djokovic at the YEC (2008 RR, 2008 F, 2009 RR). Also one SF in 2005 - dominated a weak group then routed by Nalbandian; 1-2 RR loss in both 06 and 07, good matches though (2006 close losses to Nadal and Blake, 2007 lost to Federer and Roddick - the last one was poor, yep).

Davydenko with the better win, better second result, better third result and more appearances. No question here.

------

Lesser tournaments:

Nalbandian 8-8 in finals (1-1 in gold/500), Davydenko 17-6 (1-0 in gold/500). Huge advantage for Davydenko.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

probably not, 3-2 is not a big deal at all + david had 4 additional finals that should even it up, and his legendary run in madrid,

Why should reaching a final only to get crushed count as significantly better than losing in QF? It gives more ranking points, but hardly more memorable historically in terms of greatness. Do you think Nalbandian prefers losing four extra finals to one extra title?

Does Nadal's 2019 AO run add more to his legacy than 2011 AO? Arguably less, perhaps even detracts from it, as it allowed Djokovic to strengthen his grip on Nadal off clay by delivering the Spaniard his first ever straight-set beatdown in a Slam final.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Total impression: going just by Slams+Masters, Nalbandian gathers a slight advantage, but Davydenko levels at the YEC and dwarfs him in sub-masters titles, so he is deservedly ahead. Both are very much the same tier, of course, whatever it is.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Yes, I said you lack empathy, which I stand by completely. What I never said was that you are a heartless monster. You are deliberately magnifying what I said to play victim.

It's the same thing essentially, there's no moral distinction. Funny your overwheming ability to empathise hasn't yet let you grasp how this makes sense on an emotional and intellectual level.

That's what you did then and that's what you are doing now. And your need to do so is so great that you keep coming back for more punishment having twice said you don't want to discuss further with me. If you don't want to, don't discuss. Do you think you are the Emperor of China of something that I should feel disappointed by that? Sorry to hurt your feelings and say no, snowflake. Stay triggered.

And this guy accuses me of lacking empathy Thanks for demonstrating you are unreachable.

 

[Phoenix1983]

You are a bad faith actor with no interest in POVs other than your own. Buzz off, narcissist.

Pretty sure that describes yourself, mate. For instance, your unwillingness to concede that Sampras is in the same tier as Gonzales.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

Total impression: going just by Slams+Masters, Nalbandian gathers a slight advantage, but Davydenko levels at the YEC and dwarfs him in sub-masters titles, so he is deservedly ahead. Both are very much the same tier, of course, whatever it is.

окей давай теперь теперь считать бесполезные 250 титулы как решающий фактор, может еще 100 возьмем, круто, да эти все титулы вместе взятые не перевесят преимущество шлемное + мастерс, пример с надалем неудачный (то что удобно то и наденем), у них свои терки, и не отнимает от величия надаля поражение джоковичу плюс одно из самых лучших выступлений в истории его финалов, королю австралии незазорно проиграть (это почти все-равно что сказать федерер менее велик потому что проиграл надалю в париже), а эти ребята варятся в своей лиге) конечно не хотел бы давид проиграть свои финалы но здесь ты ваще не о том говоришь, вопрос в другом как ценятся эти финалы или нет объективно говоря,

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Pretty sure that describes yourself, mate. For instance, your unwillingness to concede that Sampras is in the same tier as Gonzales.

seriously, you're like antivaxxers, totally immune to reason