The Nalbandian Conundrum

bjk

bjk

Hall of Fame
Possibly the most surprising Federer H2H is his 11-8 record vs Nalbandian. In fact he lost his first 4 matches to David. And it's not as if Nalbandian was a veteran taking advantage of a new player on tour, Nalbandian is actually younger than Fed. Up until 2007 the H2H was actually even at 8-8.

So does anybody have an idea why Fed had so much trouble against Nalbandian / Nalbandian was able to dominate Fed early in his career?

https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/pla...d/david-nalbandian-vs-roger-federer/N301/F324
 
bjk said:
Possibly the most surprising Federer H2H is his 11-8 record vs Nalbandian. In fact he lost his first 4 matches to David. And it's not as if Nalbandian was a veteran taking advantage of a new player on tour, Nalbandian is actually younger than Fed. Up until 2007 the H2H was actually even at 8-8.

So does anybody have an idea why Fed had so much trouble against Nalbandian / Nalbandian was able to dominate Fed early in his career?

https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/pla...d/david-nalbandian-vs-roger-federer/N301/F324
Click to expand...
Because Nalbandian is the polar opposite of Roddick.
 
Nalbandian attacked Federer's 2nd serve better than anyone bar Nadal on clay, simple as that. When Federer improved his serve and clutchness, Nalbandian's own serve deficiency began to matter more, and Federer only lost to him 3 more times since 2004, which is still great, of course. Improved ground game, becoming more consistent at taking the ball early, also helped. But serve/return was key.
 
Nalbandian actually won their first 5 matches.

Early Fed was inconsistent and was having trouble against many players, not just Nalbandian. David was simply one of many bad match-ups for Roger.

Roger at one point had losing records against Hewitt, Henman and Agassi as well before he turned those around. He figured out Nalbandian too later on.
 
Nalbandian attacked Federer's 2nd serve better than anyone bar Nadal on clay, simple as that. When Federer improved his serve and clutchness, Nalbandian's own serve deficiency began to matter more, and Federer only lost to him 3 more times since 2004, which is still great, of course. Improved ground game, becoming more consistent at taking the ball early, also helped. But serve/return was key.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bjk
AnOctorokForDinner said:
Nalbandian attacked Federer's 2nd serve better than anyone bar Nadal on clay, simple as that. When Federer improved his serve and clutchness, Nalbandian's own serve deficiency began to matter more, and Federer only lost to him 3 more times since 2004, which is still great, of course. Improved ground game, becoming more consistent at taking the ball early, also helped. But serve/return was key.
Click to expand...
2004-2007 Fed was 7-3 against Nalbandian.

But to give David credit, he was only the 3rd player after Djokovic and Nadal to beat peak Fed in non-clay finals, which was something that did not happen too often .
 
I'm no expert here, but from what I've seen and heard Nalbandian was a great returner and great mover when fully healthy(which sadly wasn't always the case). Couple this with increadible ball striking abilities and great all court game and you had a formidable tennis player. At his best he could go toe-to-toe with Fed from the baseline in pretty much every department(even on the forehand in some cases), and that backhand was quite possibly the best I've seen.

The big difference was in the serve though. Fed's serve>>>Nalbandian's serve. Top Spin 3 also seems to agree here ;)
 
Last edited:
mike danny said:
2004-2007 Fed was 7-3 against Nalbandian.

But to give David credit, he was only the 3rd player after Djokovic and Nadal to beat peak Fed in non-clay finals, which was something that did not happen too often .
Click to expand...

Federer still usually found Nalbandian tough, most wins were competitive, at least until Nalbandian ran out of fitness. Federer truly destroyed Nalbandian twice in 2003 TMC RR and 2006 Madrid Indoors playing some sublime tennis, plus a dominant stomping in USO 2005, but Nalby wasn't up to it there, Hewitt and Agassi competed much better.
 
Nalbandian was a ####ing amazing player.

And amazing players trouble everybody. But Fed's pattern against him was the same it was against numerous other amazing players: Murray, Henman, Nadal, etc. They trouble him to the extent his existing strengths and gameplans don't successfully counter their games...

...until he figures them out, adapts, and then dominates them for all time. It's happened with literally every player he's faced numerous times. Many, he dominates right from the start, and keeps on dominating. Others, he figures out, and then dominates. But he's figured them all out, and once he does, he owns them mind, body, and soul. Players he gets the best of typically never really trouble him again. Even Nadal, who hasn't troubled Federer for literally years now.

Nalbandian was simply one of the many who were good enough to trouble Fed, but not good enough to keep doing it.
 
mike danny said:
Nalbandian actually won their first 5 matches.

Early Fed was inconsistent and was having trouble against many players, not just Nalbandian. David was simply one of many bad match-ups for Roger.

Roger at one point had losing records against Hewitt, Henman and Agassi as well before he turned those around. He figured out Nalbandian too later on.
Click to expand...

This.
 
Nalbandian was clean and consistent ball striker. Excellent counterpuncher. As good as Hewitt when in shape and could even strike the ball more offensively than Hewitt IMO.
 
in one sentence - when he was on, he was an amazing player. but not just that, I think his game did work well against Federer's.

- he had one of the best returns ever, which is important when facing one of the finest servers.
- he could keep up with Federer in baseline rallies - his groundstrokes were first class(depth, power, angles, variety, hit early... off both wings) and he moved well, even later in his career when he wasn't too fit, thanks to his excellent footwork, great court sense and amazing anticipation
- he had an answer for Federer's net game - very good passing shots and fabulous lobs
- he was a fine volleyer himself, and in general an all-court player with plenty of variety and finesse, so he was winning a lot of those points too, which is rarely the case against the swiss maestro
- he was a great tactician as well as great instinctive player with a quick reaction, not many players could outsmart Roger Federer on a regular basis

all in all, he was the only one from that generation, who's talent was in the same league as Federer's(maybe Safin in a way). of course he never had the needed drive and consistency, otherwise the mid 2000s would have been a much more exciting period in men's tennis history(not to mention more beautiful, their matches were a joy to watch, two of the prettiest playing styles ever)
 
Last edited:
mike danny said:
2004-2007 Fed was 7-3 against Nalbandian.

But to give David credit, he was only the 3rd player after Djokovic and Nadal to beat peak Fed in non-clay finals, which was something that did not happen too often .
Click to expand...

yes, but except for Nadal, how many players beat Federer more than once in that period?
 
mike danny said:
Nalbandian actually won their first 5 matches.

Early Fed was inconsistent and was having trouble against many players, not just Nalbandian. David was simply one of many bad match-ups for Roger.

Roger at one point had losing records against Hewitt, Henman and Agassi as well before he turned those around. He figured out Nalbandian too later on.
Click to expand...

Nalbandian was inconsistent throughout his career. also it was not the same case as it was with Hewitt, Henman, Agassi, David was winning against him later in Federer's prime years too, so it is not like Roger figured him out and never lost to him again.
 
skaj said:
Nalbandian was inconsistent throughout his career. also it was not the same case as it was with Hewitt, Henman, Agassi, David was winning against him later in Federer's prime years too, so it is not like Roger figured him out and never lost to him again.
Click to expand...
After that initial 0-5, Fed went 11-3 against David. David still obtained some victories over Federer, but Fed won the vast majority of matches.
 
He took the ball early, created unreal angles off both wings, and took the initiative on the second serve return like no one else. Had a pretty good first serve when it was on, even though the first serve percentage wasn't that amazing. Also had brilliant disguise to his shots, in some of his matches, he had his opponents off balance and wrong footed so very often, was quite something to witness.
 
Nalbandian was a really good player who got into his stride earlier than Federer did. It's as simple as that. 5 of his 8 wins came before 2004 when Federer really truly became Federer, and a 6th in that famous end of season match in 2005 when Federer had been on crutches a couple of weeks before the tournament started. There were a number of guys during Federer's prime years who had good head to head records against him because they'd played him a bunch before he got consistently strong, Nalbandian is maybe the most glaring example of this because they played so relatively much.

The story really ended up being exactly the opposite of what you're asking. Why Nalbandian, clearly so freaking talented, could more than go toe to toe with Federer for a set or two, and then completely throw match after match after match away.
 
mike danny said:
After that initial 0-5, Fed went 11-3 against David. David still obtained some victories over Federer, but Fed won the vast majority of matches.
Click to expand...

yes, that is by now well known in the thread, we are done with figures and in analytical phase, I am not getting the point of your post.
 
ibbi said:
Nalbandian was a really good player who got into his stride earlier than Federer did. It's as simple as that. 5 of his 8 wins came before 2004 when Federer really truly became Federer, and a 6th in that famous end of season match in 2005 when Federer had been on crutches a couple of weeks before the tournament started. There were a number of guys during Federer's prime years who had good head to head records against him because they'd played him a bunch before he got consistently strong, Nalbandian is maybe the most glaring example of this because they played so relatively much.

The story really ended up being exactly the opposite of what you're asking. Why Nalbandian, clearly so freaking talented, could more than go toe to toe with Federer for a set or two, and then completely throw match after match after match away.
Click to expand...

it is not quite as simple as that. no other player won more than one match against Federer from 2004-2007, except Nadal of course. also, in 2005 finals, Federer managed not to lose to anyone else(won 6:0 6:0 in the semis) except - Nalbandian. and Hewitt for example played more matches against Federer before he became consistently strong, and was dominating their head to head, but won only once after 2004(and it was in c.2011 in a smaller tournament).

as for the talent, talent is not enough. it takes dedication, determination, ambition etc. to win consistently.
 
ibbi said:
Nalbandian was a really good player who got into his stride earlier than Federer did. It's as simple as that. 5 of his 8 wins came before 2004 when Federer really truly became Federer, and a 6th in that famous end of season match in 2005 when Federer had been on crutches a couple of weeks before the tournament started. There were a number of guys during Federer's prime years who had good head to head records against him because they'd played him a bunch before he got consistently strong, Nalbandian is maybe the most glaring example of this because they played so relatively much.

The story really ended up being exactly the opposite of what you're asking. Why Nalbandian, clearly so freaking talented, could more than go toe to toe with Federer for a set or two, and then completely throw match after match after match away.
Click to expand...

it is not quite as simple as that. no other player won more than one match against Federer from 2004-2007, except Nadal of course. also, in 2005 finals, Federer managed not to lose to anyone else(won 6:0 6:0 in the semis) except - Nalbandian. and Hewitt for example played more matches against Federer before he became consistently strong, and was dominating their head to head, but won only once after 2004(and it was in c.2011 in a smaller tournament).

as for the talent, talent is not enough. it takes dedication, determination, ambition etc. to win consistently.
 
skaj said:
it is not quite as simple as that. no other player won more than one match against Federer from 2004-2007, except Nadal of course. also, in 2005 finals, Federer managed not to lose to anyone else(won 6:0 6:0 in the semis) except - Nalbandian. and Hewitt for example played more matches against Federer before he became consistently strong, and was dominating their head to head, but won only once after 2004(and it was in c.2011 in a smaller tournament).

as for the talent, talent is not enough. it takes dedication, determination, ambition etc. to win consistently.
Click to expand...
Nalbandian wouldn't have beaten Fed on a consistent basis IMO after 2003 because of his inferior serve. Fed would have exploited that a lot of the time.

Hewitt finally beat Fed in Halle in 2010.
 
Very simple, once Federer started to seriously improve his backhand(late 2004), he became unbeatable except against Nadal and then later Djokovic(2011-2016 when his backhand became worse).
 
skaj said:
it is not quite as simple as that. no other player won more than one match against Federer from 2004-2007, except Nadal of course. also, in 2005 finals, Federer managed not to lose to anyone else(won 6:0 6:0 in the semis) except - Nalbandian. and Hewitt for example played more matches against Federer before he became consistently strong, and was dominating their head to head, but won only once after 2004(and it was in c.2011 in a smaller tournament).

as for the talent, talent is not enough. it takes dedication, determination, ambition etc. to win consistently.
Click to expand...

If you watch that 2005 YEC final again you'll notice how Federer wilted after the first 2 sets, he was physically done just like this year against Goffin. You wonder how Roger won 6 of those titles.
 
mike danny said:
Nalbandian wouldn't have beaten Fed on a consistent basis IMO after 2003 because of his inferior serve. Fed would have exploited that a lot of the time.

Hewitt finally beat Fed in Halle in 2010.
Click to expand...

exactly, in 2010, in a small tournament, Federer was also beaten by Soderling in a tournament before, and Berdych in a tournament after(both slams). Nalbandian won against him 3 times in 2004-2007 period.
 
smoledman said:
If you watch that 2005 YEC final again you'll notice how Federer wilted after the first 2 sets, he was physically done just like this year against Goffin. You wonder how Roger won 6 of those titles.
Click to expand...

you can also notice Nalbandian's big belly ;)
 
Nalbandian was beating Federer comprehensively at the start of their RG 06 semi, but had to retire injured. Federer was getting more and more into the match as it went on though.

His most impressive wins for me were the Madrid and Paris 07 wins, totally outplayed an inform Federer, who book ended those loses either side with a USO and TMC title.
 
smoledman said:
Very simple, once Federer started to seriously improve his backhand(late 2004), he became unbeatable except against Nadal and then later Djokovic(2011-2016 when his backhand became worse).
Click to expand...

not quite, in 2008 many people started beating him, and before that(and after 2004) he wasn't unbeatable against Nalbandian either, who won against him 3 times in that period. and it wasn't his backhand that was the problem before 2004.
 
I remember Federer v Nalbandian Rome 06, one of Federer's best clay forms, they went to a final set tie break. So Nalbandian just knew how to play Federer.
 
skaj said:
not quite, in 2008 many people started beating him, and before that(and after 2004) he wasn't unbeatable against Nalbandian either, who won against him 3 times in that period. and it wasn't his backhand that was the problem before 2004.
Click to expand...

You can point to all of Roger's bad periods since 2008 started and notice his backhand is ****e. Whenever his backhand had little resurgences he won titles. Funny that.
 
skaj said:
exactly, in 2010, in a small tournament, Federer was also beaten by Soderling in a tournament before, and Berdych in a tournament after(both slams). Nalbandian won against him 3 times in 2004-2007 period.
Click to expand...

Halle isn't a small tournament for Federer, it was also in the final. It was a good match you should check it out if you haven't seen it. Hewitt got Federer in Brisbane in 2014 ad well - again in a final.

Nalbandian was in crazy good form indoors in 2007 and took Federer out in back to back tournaments. Probably few players in the last 15 years could pull off that run of victories, imo just Nalbandian, Safin, Djokovic and Federer himself.
 
smoledman said:
You can point to all of Roger's bad periods since 2008 started and notice his backhand is ****e. Whenever his backhand had little resurgences he won titles. Funny that.
Click to expand...

true, it is his main, or actually only weakness, even in his best periods. but before 2004, it wasn't his backhand, it just all had to come together, that's all. and it sure did, somewhere in late 2003 I think.
 
It goes without saying that you don't win elite ATP titles & slams without having a complete game + super fitness. Nalbandian never had an elite level serve which is why he topped out at 0 slams, 2 MS-1000 titles, 1 YEC.
 
NatF said:
Halle isn't a small tournament for Federer, it was also in the final. It was a good match you should check it out if you haven't seen it. Hewitt got Federer in Brisbane in 2014 ad well - again in a final.

Nalbandian was in crazy good form indoors in 2007 and took Federer out in back to back tournaments. Probably few players in the last 15 years could pull off that run of victories, imo just Nalbandian, Safin, Djokovic and Federer himself.
Click to expand...

yes, I saw the both matches, but those are small tournament for Federer, even though Halle is dear to his heart probably, it is a small tournament for a big player like him.
my point was just that Nalbandian's game, when he was on, was definitely a greater trouble for Federer than Hewitt's(and most other people's).
 
smoledman said:
It goes without saying that you don't win elite ATP titles & slams without having a complete game + super fitness. Nalbandian never had an elite level serve which is why he topped out at 0 slams, 2 MS-1000 titles, 1 YEC.
Click to expand...

serve is not the reason, Nadal's serve is not elite, he won 16.
 
Hitman said:
Nalbandian was beating Federer comprehensively at the start of their RG 06 semi, but had to retire injured. Federer was getting more and more into the match as it went on though.

His most impressive wins for me were the Madrid and Paris 07 wins, totally outplayed an inform Federer, who book ended those loses either side with a USO and TMC title.
Click to expand...
You have to wonder what would have happened if Nalbandian had qualified for the 2007 YEC.
 
skaj said:
it is not quite as simple as that. no other player won more than one match against Federer from 2004-2007, except Nadal of course. also, in 2005 finals, Federer managed not to lose to anyone else(won 6:0 6:0 in the semis) except - Nalbandian. and Hewitt for example played more matches against Federer before he became consistently strong, and was dominating their head to head, but won only once after 2004(and it was in c.2011 in a smaller tournament).

as for the talent, talent is not enough. it takes dedication, determination, ambition etc. to win consistently.
Click to expand...
Man, if the final of the Tennis Masters Cup in 2005 had been best of 3 sets like all the other matches were he wouldn't have lost that one either :p

Hewitt couldn't play tennis the way Nalbandian did in the indoor swing of 2007, that's why he had far less success against Federer at his best.
 
David Nalbandian was great at returning serve and had a lethal down the line backhand.

Players with these attributes tend to fair better against Roger. They can force him to hit the running forehand and that's a shot that Fed, sometimes, struggles with.

Nalbandian could take him out of his comfort zone and make him hit shots that he wasn't comfortable with. Thus it took Roger a while to figure out how to win against him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bjk
Hitman said:
Nalbandian was beating Federer comprehensively at the start of their RG 06 semi, but had to retire injured. Federer was getting more and more into the match as it went on though.

His most impressive wins for me were the Madrid and Paris 07 wins, totally outplayed an inform Federer, who book ended those loses either side with a USO and TMC title.
Click to expand...

Funny how Nalbandian never qualified for the YEC that year given he had been on such a roll indoors. Obviously he hadn't been consistent enough earlier in the year. Lack of overall consistency was such a drawback for Nalbandian in his career!
 
ibbi said:
Man, if the final of the Tennis Masters Cup in 2005 had been best of 3 sets like all the other matches were he wouldn't have lost that one either :p

Hewitt couldn't play tennis the way Nalbandian did in the indoor swing of 2007, that's why he had far less success against Federer at his best.
Click to expand...
Nalbandian couldn't keep his weight down like Lleyton, so that's why he never enjoyed the success he had on tour.

And for all this talk of how freaking great a counterpuncher Nalbandian was; guy was 3-3 against Hewitt himself with 3 of the matches specifically favoring Nalbandian.

Went 5 sets with an unseeded Hewitt at the 2011 AO, Nalbandian had just come back to form and he just managed to squeeze a win out.

Yes, when Nalbandian was 'on' he was a great player. But a lot of the time he needed everything to be clicking, serve, forehand, backhand - even movement. If one of those things weren't working guy could lose to absolute mugs.

Whereas with Hewitt, he might not be as "talented" in a conventional sense but he didn't need absolutely everything to be clicking to come through matches. That's where this BS about him "being a fighter with no weapons" comes from - because of his uncanny ability to push himself through matches where he isn't at his best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bjk
The Nalbandian Conundrum
Replies
3
Views
532
crazyups
crazyups
jamesblakefan#1
  • Poll Poll
Roger Federer or David Nalbandian: Who's the better indoors player?
Replies
14
Views
2K
joeri888
J
W
Match Stats/Report - Federer vs Nalbandian, Rome semi-final, 2006
Replies
2
Views
754
The Big Foe fan
The Big Foe fan
K
Federer Nalbandian rivalry
Replies
6
Views
743
Galvermegs
Galvermegs
W
Match Stats/Report - Nalbandian vs Federer, Year End Championship final, 2005
Replies
3
Views
2K
HetTheGreaterer
HetTheGreaterer
Back
Top