Nalbandian vs Tsonga vs Shapovalov: Who has the greatest raw talent?

Most talented player

  • Nalbandian > Tsonga > Shapovalov

    Votes: 35 45.5%

  • Nalbandian > Shapovalov > Tsonga

    Votes: 16 20.8%

  • Tsonga > Nalbandian > Shapovalov

    Votes: 13 16.9%

  • Tsonga > Shapovalov > Nalbandian

    Votes: 3 3.9%

  • Shapovalov > Nalbandian > Tsonga

    Votes: 7 9.1%

  • Shapovalov > Tsonga > Nalbandian

    Votes: 3 3.9%
  • Total voters
    77
King No1e

King No1e

G.O.A.T.
Here's my stroke-by-stroke analysis:
Serve: Tsonga > Shapovalov > Nalbandian
Return: Nalbandian > Shapovalov > Tsonga
Forehand: Tsonga > Shapovalov > Nalbandian
Backhand: Nalbandian > Shapovalov > Tsonga 2H > Tsonga 1H
Slice: Nalbandian > Tsonga > Shapovalov
Net Game: Tsonga > Nalbandian > Shapovalov
Movement: Tsonga > Shapovalov > Nalbandian
Speed/Athleticism: Tsonga > Shapovalov > Nalbandian
Mentality: Tsonga > Nalbandian > Shapovalov
Peak Level: Nalbandian > Shapovalov > Tsonga

Shapo obviously hasn't had enough time to fully develop as a top player yet, but I think it's safe to say he's only going to get better in these departments, especially the mentality. Out of the 3, who is the greatest talent in your opinion?
 
StANDAA said:
bro look up a definition of raw talent
Click to expand...
42l27l.jpg
 
King No1e said:
Here's my stroke-by-stroke analysis:
Serve: Tsonga > Shapovalov > Nalbandian
Return: Nalbandian > Shapovalov > Tsonga
Forehand: Tsonga > Shapovalov > Nalbandian
Backhand: Nalbandian > Shapovalov > Tsonga 2H > Tsonga 1H
Slice: Nalbandian > Tsonga > Shapovalov
Net Game: Tsonga > Nalbandian > Shapovalov
Movement: Tsonga > Shapovalov > Nalbandian
Speed/Athleticism: Tsonga > Shapovalov > Nalbandian
Mentality: Tsonga > Nalbandian > Shapovalov
Peak Level: Nalbandian > Shapovalov > Tsonga

Shapo obviously hasn't had enough time to fully develop as a top player yet, but I think it's safe to say he's only going to get better in these departments, especially the mentality. Out of the 3, who is the greatest talent in your opinion?
Click to expand...
Good list. My suggested edits: Underrating Nalbandian's forehand, overrating Shap's (in a fh-fh rally, Nalby wins every time). Underrating Shap's movement.
I read that Nalbandian could do a standing backflip (before Fat Dave era), but not sure if that is enough to push his athleticism over the other 2.
 
Why is Denis even mentioned in the same breath as Nalby or Tsonga? He's 21 and has won one lowly event in his entire career.

Both Nalby and Tsonga are in another hemisphere of talent compared to Shapovalov. Denis may end up having a great career (and I hope he does), but his talent level is more on par with guys like Lendl or Davydenko: hard workers who maximized what talent they had. Guys like Mac and Fed were born ridiculously innately talented. Shapo isn't in the discussion.
 
Mainad said:
Raw talent is only relevant when it converts into results:

1. Nalbandian: 1 Slam Final, 1 YEC, 2 M1000., highest ranking #3.

2. Tsonga: 1 Slam Final, 0 YEC, 2 M1000, highest ranking #5.








3. Shapovalov: 0 Slam Final, 0 YEC, 0 M1000, highest ranking #13.
Click to expand...

Tsonga > Nalbandian. He faced much stronger competition.

Slam QF/SF/F played against ATGs:

Tsonga 14
Nalbandian 3
 
Nalbandian is one of the greatest raw talents ever - the clean ball striking, the touch for the finer shots, the cleverness of his point constructing, the reflexes for returns, the shot selection, reaction, also his footwork(not fitness though :laughing:). Plus quite strong physically, for his size.

The other two are very talented too, of course.
 
If it wasn't for his subpar backhand, Tsonga would be a multislam winner. He just has 1 huge weakness, while Nalbandian was mediocre in several facets. Not sure why Shapovalov is on this list, he's done nothing remarkable in any slam ever.
 
Tsongerer said:
If it wasn't for his subpar backhand, Tsonga would be a multislam winner. He just has 1 huge weakness, while Nalbandian was mediocre in several facets. Not sure why Shapovalov is on this list, he's done nothing remarkable in any slam ever.
Click to expand...
Agreed on Jo. No point having 2 backhands if neither one can do damage.
Shapovalov is in this thread more for the eye-test factor - when he's on his A game, he can really do anything with the ball. He just doesn't have a solid B game and crumbles easily.
 
Tsongerer said:
If it wasn't for his subpar backhand, Tsonga would be a multislam winner. He just has 1 huge weakness, while Nalbandian was mediocre in several facets. Not sure why Shapovalov is on this list, he's done nothing remarkable in any slam ever.
Click to expand...

This thread is about greatest raw talent. Shapovalov just turned 21 on April 15th, is ranked #16 (ranked as high as #13), has six top 10 wins (including beating Nadal in Canada), a title, and a final in a Masters Series event (losing to Djokovic).

Tsonga turned 21 on April 17, 2006. At that point, he was ranked #314, had 1 top 10 win, and had no finals. For the rest of 2006 and all of 2007, he added no top 10 wins and no finals. Now, there were injury issues w/Tsonga, and we clearly saw his game blossom in 2008. But you get the idea.
 
Mainad said:
Raw talent is only relevant when it converts into results:

1. Nalbandian: 1 Slam Final, 1 YEC, 2 M1000., highest ranking #3.

2. Tsonga: 1 Slam Final, 0 YEC, 2 M1000, highest ranking #5.








3. Shapovalov: 0 Slam Final, 0 YEC, 0 M1000, highest ranking #13.
Click to expand...
In Shapo's fairness, he's like 20
 
BeatlesFan said:
Why is Denis even mentioned in the same breath as Nalby or Tsonga? He's 21 and has won one lowly event in his entire career.

Both Nalby and Tsonga are in another hemisphere of talent compared to Shapovalov. Denis may end up having a great career (and I hope he does), but his talent level is more on par with guys like Lendl or Davydenko: hard workers who maximized what talent they had. Guys like Mac and Fed were born ridiculously innately talented. Shapo isn't in the discussion.
Click to expand...

I agree Denis has not yet proven he has the calibre of talent as Nalbandian or Tsonga, but style wise he is more like them than Lendl and Davydenko. He is a shotmaker and flashy player, he is not a workhorse like Davenport and even Lendl to some extent. In fact his biggest problem is his great lack of stability in his game which was never a problem for Lendl or Davydenko (apart from Davydenko's nerves in clutch time). Tsonga also had a problem with lack of stability in his game, playing the percentages, and keeping his UEs down, which was his biggest problem against the biggest guns, despite beating them all his share of times but never enough in a row to win a truly big title.
 
Mainad said:
Raw talent is only relevant when it converts into results:

1. Nalbandian: 1 Slam Final, 1 YEC, 2 M1000., highest ranking #3.

2. Tsonga: 1 Slam Final, 0 YEC, 2 M1000, highest ranking #5.








3. Shapovalov: 0 Slam Final, 0 YEC, 0 M1000, highest ranking #13.
Click to expand...

If potentials are not fulfilled, it doesn't mean they don't exist. You can't measure raw talent with titles.
 
None of them are a match against the unvarnished geniuses of GOATesque talents the likes of Tom Okker, Dennis Ralston and António Palafox....
 
Mainad said:
How else do we measure it then?
Click to expand...

First of you all, I don't think it can be measured. And many people with lesser talent achieve more, not only in tennis. For results you need more than talent - drive, dedication, hard work, health, luck sometimes...
For judging who has talent, you can see what they can do with a ball.
 
Again I don't ever confuse an aggressive game and a one-handed backhand with talent. Djokovic has much more talent in his 2hbh and movement than in the whole games of every single "pretty 1HBHer" hyped up here.
 
Clay lover said:
Again I don't ever confuse an aggressive game and a one-handed backhand with talent. Djokovic has much more talent in his 2hbh and movement than in the whole games of every single "pretty 1HBHer" hyped up here.
Click to expand...
Djokovic has much more talent than just about anyone else, so that's not really saying much.
 
skaj said:
First of you all, I don't think it can be measured. And many people with lesser talent achieve more, not only in tennis. For results you need more than talent - drive, dedication, hard work, health, luck sometimes...
For judging who has talent, you can see what they can do with a ball.
Click to expand...
King No1e said:
It can never be objectively measured, otherwise Lew would've crunched the numbers and done a thread on it.
It's a mix of having great variety, a high peak, and very good technical foundation.
Click to expand...

I agree which is why I think comparing somebody's talent to that of anybody else is a bit pointless unless we compare their results. Talent without the results to show for it is pretty pointless.
 
Mainad said:
I agree which is why I think comparing somebody's talent to that of anybody else is a bit pointless unless we compare their results. Talent without the results to show for it is pretty pointless.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understood my point. You can compare their skills as tennis players.
 
Okay I'd roughly say Nalbandian = Tsonga >> Shapovalov. Both Nalby and Tsonga had one sort of critical but funnily pretty much opposite weakness preventing them from truly having their big breakthrough.
 
Red Rick said:
Okay I'd roughly say Nalbandian = Tsonga >> Shapovalov. Both Nalby and Tsonga had one sort of critical but funnily pretty much opposite weakness preventing them from truly having their big breakthrough.
Click to expand...
I think Tsonga's BH was a bigger weakness than Nalbandian's FH, if that's what you mean.

In Nalbandian's case it was the serve that was problematic.
 
mike danny said:
I think Tsonga's BH was a bigger weakness than Nalbandian's FH, if that's what you mean.

In Nalbandian's case it was the serve that was problematic.
Click to expand...
Yeah I meant serve vs backhand. Serve is Tsonga's biggest asset imo. Nalbandian was one of the top baseliners of his time but his serve stats were significantly worse than Hewitts, though I think people sleep a bit on Hewitts serve. Hewitt basically beat Nadal in 2004/2005 by servebotting by him.
 
Last edited:
Red Rick said:
Yeah I meant serve vs backhand. Serve is Tsonga's biggest asset imo. Nalbandian was one of the top baseliners of his time but his serve stats were significantly worse than Hewitts, though I think people sleep a bit on Hewitts serve. Hewitt basically beat Hewitt in 2004/2005 by servebotting by him.
Click to expand...
?
 
Red Rick said:
Yeah I meant serve vs backhand. Serve is Tsonga's biggest asset imo. Nalbandian was one of the top baseliners of his time but his serve stats were significantly worse than Hewitts, though I think people sleep a bit on Hewitts serve. Hewitt basically beat Hewitt in 2004/2005 by servebotting by him.
Click to expand...
It's why I think people think too highly of Nalbandian sometimes, like a guy who could be one of Fed's biggest rivals.

Nalbandian was good and a problematic match-up for Fed, but with that serving, he wouldn't have been one of Fed's biggest rivals, not even close. At best, he would have taken 1-2 slams away from Fed and that's assuming Fed would have also been in lousy form on those occasions.
 
No idea what Shaps is doing up here. I do like his Monfils one handers but I don't think of that as raw talent in the sense we generally think of in tennis. Agree with Red Rick, tie between Nalby and Tsonga for me. Nalby with better timing, Tsonga with better feel and also better athleticism. I mean a natural kind of athleticism here. Didn't always look like the guy was putting in a lot of work but he would still make those diving Becker-volleys.
 
Mainad said:
I did but my point is that the more skilled ones win things. That's the most important skill of all.
Click to expand...
Not really, not all the time. David Ferrer has a slam final and a masters title to his credit. Gasquet has never gone beyond an SF and has never won a Masters. This isn't about Ferrer lucking out at the Masters, he's reached more Masters finals as well and the surfaces/conditions vary from clay to slow HC (Miami) to fast HC (Shanghai) to indoors (Paris). Is Ferrer really that much more talented than Gasquet? If so, at which exact shot is he more talented than Gasquet? I might take Ferrer's forehand over Gasquet's but Gasquet's backhand is far better, he has a better slice, better net game. But Gasquet is just mentally fragile. That's not about skill but about how determined and/or courageous you are.
 
Mainad said:
I did but my point is that the more skilled ones win things. That's the most important skill of all.
Click to expand...

We are talking about talent. Working hard, being ambitious, dedicated, healthy, not to mention lucky(which is a factor sometimes), are not talents.
 
Red Rick said:
Yeah I meant serve vs backhand. Serve is Tsonga's biggest asset imo. Nalbandian was one of the top baseliners of his time but his serve stats were significantly worse than Hewitts, though I think people sleep a bit on Hewitts serve. Hewitt basically beat Nadal in 2004/2005 by servebotting by him.
Click to expand...

Their main weaknesses are their heads. There are plenty of players with more technical weaknesses who achieved more. The greatest players have weaknesses, even Federer(backhand) and Nadal(serve).
 
skaj said:
Their main weaknesses are their heads. There are plenty of players with more technical weaknesses who achieved more. The greatest players have weaknesses, even Federer(backhand) and Nadal(serve).
Click to expand...
It's crazy to think the difference between 17+ time Slam champions and 0 time Slam champions is purely mental.
 
mike danny said:
It's why I think people think too highly of Nalbandian sometimes, like a guy who could be one of Fed's biggest rivals.

Nalbandian was good and a problematic match-up for Fed, but with that serving, he wouldn't have been one of Fed's biggest rivals, not even close. At best, he would have taken 1-2 slams away from Fed and that's assuming Fed would have also been in lousy form on those occasions.
Click to expand...

Federer's main rival does not have much of a serve either. Nalbandian has one of the best returns ever to make up for it, he can match Federer from the baseline, his forehand-backhand combo is more sound than Roger's, unlike most people he can match his variety and touch, he is one of only a few players who can outsmart him both in baseline rallies and at the net. David was absolutely a biggest rival material for Federer, at least from that generation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
UFC vs. Pride debate, Upsets, et. all
Replies
41
Views
2K
35ft6
35ft6
Back
Top