What makes Nalbandian so good at rallying?

2

2slik

Semi-Pro
I am not talking about his strokes, angles or his placement. I am talking about how he decided to construct a rally against his opponents and where he is thinking about placing the next ball.

IMO he is up there with Lendl as one of the greatest ralliers of all time (GROAT)

Nalbandian has been able to beat the GOAT, Federer at times in his peak years including two masters finals (Paris 2007 and TMC 2005.) He has also been able to easily beat arguably the greatest clay courter of all time in his peak years (most notably in 2007.)

I understand the way he plays Nadal as he does these things. He also did this against Murray at Paris 2008:

1) Crush that second serve - one of the weakest in the Top 10
2) Play behind Nadal when he's running to cover the open court
3) Drop shot his 3 m behind the baseline ass
4) Anticipate cross-court forehand passing shot and come in against it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz23EpwXdF0

I think Number 2 is the key point when he plays Nadal as Nadal always wants get to everything he can but it just so happens that Nalbandian is great at finding those angles to play behind him.

I don't understand thought how Nalbandian rallies against Federer as Federer does not really have a flaw that Nalbandian can expose like Nadal's topspin forehand. I understand that Nalbandian can beat Federer BH for BH but this does not affect Federer as much as he is able to hit winners from all over the court.

Nalbandian does tend to drag Federer wide on his backhand and then play behind his backhand but that cannot be the only reason why he has beaten him.

Nalbandian vs Federer TMC 2005

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjL7JASDfQA

Look at the first two points of the match. He attacks his forehand as well as his backhand. He also finish both points with two similar cross court FH winner to Federer's FH side. This is why I do not understand how Nalbandian in particular constructs his choice of shots against Federer.

He also attacked his forehand at the Paris Masters 2007

I find it very confusing to understand, could someone interpret these two points?

I usually hear people say, the way to beat Federer is to attack his backhand as much as possible like Nadal would. Murray tried this at the AO 2010 and it did not work. The other way people say Federer can beat beaten is by playing crazy aggressive like Safin at the AO 2005. I think Nalbandian is one of the few plays who can play cross court shots in a rally and still win the point.

People say Federer has the best forehand in the game so that is the reason why I found it strange that Nalbandian can still play to his forehand and win the point. If Nadal did this, he would not have a superior head to head record against Federer.
 
Last edited:
Has better anticipation and shot selection than anyone else, so even if he doesn't move exceptionally fast, he still gets to the ball in time with a variety of shots to choose from. When he plays pushers like Murray and Nadal he doesn't give them the same ball twice, so they don't find any rhythm. When he plays Federer the only real tactic is to stay away from his forehand, attack the backhand and try to come into net. Their matches always have a ton of crosscourt backhand rallies, but Nalbandian does more with a neutral ball and has a far better down the line backhand.

Really the best thing about Nalbandian is that when he's playing well, the game is played on his terms.
 
His movement is underrated.

Because he has a couple of kilos extra people write him off in that department, but to me he has always had good coverage of the court despite not being the most fit of them all.

He also doesn't need a lot of time to prep for his groundstrokes, which is vital against players like Federer for example.
 
PascalMariaFan said:
Has better anticipation and shot selection than anyone else, so even if he doesn't move exceptionally fast, he still gets to the ball in time with a variety of shots to choose from. When he plays pushers like Murray and Nadal he doesn't give them the same ball twice, so they don't find any rhythm. When he plays Federer the only real tactic is to stay away from his forehand, attack the backhand and try to come into net. Their matches always have a ton of crosscourt backhand rallies, but Nalbandian does more with a neutral ball and has a far better down the line backhand.
Really the best thing about Nalbandian is that when he's playing well, the game is played on his terms.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Fed has been "killed" a number of times with this shot from Nalbandian. Plus Nalby is such a pure striker of the ball that his opponents probably find his shots coming over the net with pace and precision. Fed said as much, complementing David with regard to his purity of strike.
 
What makes Nalbandian so good at rallying?

Superior anticipation, movement and technical abilities. He makes the difficult look routine. That comes from practice, talent and great development.
 
David L said:
What makes Nalbandian so good at rallying?

Superior anticipation, movement and technical abilities. He makes the difficult look routine. That comes from practice, talent and great development.
Click to expand...

That sums up a lot of thing.
 
Li Ching Yuen said:
His movement is underrated.

Because he has a couple of kilos extra people write him off in that department, but to me he has always had good coverage of the court despite not being the most fit of them all.

He also doesn't need a lot of time to prep for his groundstrokes, which is vital against players like Federer for example.
Click to expand...

Completely agree with this. His movement is underrated.
 
Gustavo Kuerten said:
He puts his weight in the ball.
Click to expand...

You can bet that's effective as he's got lots of it!

I think Nalby's movement is actually really important. He's always in position and balanced, that's why his shots come out with such high quality. Just because he's a overweight (I don't actually know if he still is) doesn't mean his movement completely sucks.
 
Nalbandian vs Federer TMC 2005

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjL7JASDfQA

Look at the first two points of the match. He attacks his forehand as well as his backhand. He also finish both points with two similar cross court FH winner to Federer's FH side. This is why I do not understand how Nalbandian in particular constructs his choice of shots against Federer.

He also attacked his forehand at the Paris Masters 2007

I find it very confusing to understand, could someone interpret these two points?
 
2slik said:
Nalbandian vs Federer TMC 2005

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjL7JASDfQA

Look at the first two points of the match. He attacks his forehand as well as his backhand. He also finish both points with two similar cross court FH winner to Federer's FH side. This is why I do not understand how Nalbandian in particular constructs his choice of shots against Federer.

He also attacked his forehand at the Paris Masters 2007

I find it very confusing to understand, could someone interpret these two points?
Click to expand...
What don't you understand?
 
2slik said:
I am not talking about his strokes, angles or his placement. I am talking about how he decided to construct a rally against his opponents and where he is thinking about placing the next ball.
Click to expand...
Okay, I think I see what you are getting at. Don't read too much into it when commentators talk about point construction. The choices you see taken in a rally are not premeditated 5, 4, 3 or even 2 shots in advance, because you never know what your opponent is going to do before the fact or how well they are going to connect with the ball. It's an illusion that points are constructed so far in advance. Most of the time players are improvising, making split second decisions from one shot to the next. There may be a general game plan, but decisions about a shot are being made in the blink of an eye as the ball approaches. It's a very instinctive thing and not very cerebral. The cerebral part will be the general game plan before the match starts, but in the moment, decisions are made on the fly. There is no time for anything else. If your shot happens to go past for a winner, because you tried to be aggressive and hit it into the corner, then it's all good, but you should be ready for a possible response in case it comes back.

When Federer or Nalbandian play a great point or hit a winner, they will know about it at about the same time as the crowd. They are living it in real time, not in advance. In his book, Borg talked about how many of the winners he hit were unintentional. That's not to say they were lucky, just that he was not going for an out and out winner or did not see one in advance before it happened. As a player, you look to hit the ball to various locations in the court, at various speeds, angles and trajectories, then wait for the response. You can make a calculation to cover the percentage response or hedge you bets against an unpredictable opponent, but you never quite know what the quality of the response will be until its been hit. If you know an opponent very well or have studied them, educated guessing might help you anticipate some of their choices, but this is all spur of the moment stuff.

All you are seeing in the rally between Federer and Nalbandian, is each player either trying to stay in the rally or put their opponent under pressure. In the 1st 2 points, Nalbandian simply takes the opportunity to hit a few aggressive crosscourt forehands to Federer. The speeds and angles he achieves on the last shot in each rally are enough to produce winners. On another occasion, this might not work. Maybe he misses, the angle is not as good, the pace is not as good or Federer anticipates and responds effectively. For each shot you see in that rally, a different one could have been hit, which would have resulted in a different response from the other and, subsequently, a completely different rally. All these two are doing are vying for position, trying to apply pressure and create openings, then hopefully capitalizing. Nalbandian takes his chances in the first two points and it pays off. There's no great secret or master plan to it, other than trying to take the ball early, mix it up and apply pressure. Improvisation is the watch word.

So, to answer your question, a lot of what makes Nalbandian so good at rallying is his level of execution. Other players may want to or think to do what he does, but simply cannot execute at his level as regularly or at all. Also, when you have the array of shots and ability Nalbandian does, your options increase, which will have an impact on the level of creativity and enterprise you bring to the court mentally.
 
Last edited:
roundiesee said:
I agree with this. Fed has been "killed" a number of times with this shot from Nalbandian. Plus Nalby is such a pure striker of the ball that his opponents probably find his shots coming over the net with pace and precision. Fed said as much, complementing David with regard to his purity of strike.
Click to expand...

I would agree that Nalbandian does move very well, takes the ball early and is generally a clean ball striker. Another attribute that cannot be overlooked is the fact that he can create his own pace or use his opponents pace to build a rally or disrupt the rhythm of his opponent. But, I believe that his ability to hit flat or with angled spin on the run (by instinct) and disguise his down the line backhand (as you stated) separates him from other players.
 
David L said:
Okay, I think I see what you are getting at. Don't read too much into it when commentators talk about point construction. The choices you see taken in a rally are not premeditated 5, 4, 3 or even 2 shots in advance, because you never know what your opponent is going to do before the fact or how well they are going to connect with the ball. It's an illusion that points are constructed so far in advance. Most of the time players are improvising, making split second decisions from one shot to the next. There may be a general game plan, but decisions about a shot are being made in the blink of an eye as the ball approaches. It's a very instinctive thing and not very cerebral. The cerebral part will be the general game plan before the match starts, but in the moment, decisions are made on the fly. There is no time for anything else. If your shot happens to go past for a winner, because you tried to be aggressive and hit it into the corner, then it's all good, but you should be ready for a possible response in case it comes back.

When Federer or Nalbandian play a great point or hit a winner, they will know about it at about the same time as the crowd. They are living it in real time, not in advance. In his book, Borg talked about how many of the winners he hit were unintentional. That's not to say they were lucky, just that he was not going for an out and out winner or did not see one in advance before it happened. As a player, you look to hit the ball to various locations in the court, at various speeds, angles and trajectories, then wait for the response. You can make a calculation to cover the percentage response or hedge you bets against an unpredictable opponent, but you never quite know what the quality of the response will be until its been hit. If you know an opponent very well or have studied them, educated guessing might help you anticipate some of their choices, but this is all spur of the moment stuff.

All you are seeing in the rally between Federer and Nalbandian, is each player either trying to stay in the rally or put their opponent under pressure. In the 1st 2 points, Nalbandian simply takes the opportunity to hit a few aggressive crosscourt forehands to Federer. The speeds and angles he achieves on the last shot in each rally are enough to produce winners. On another occasion, this might not work. Maybe he misses, the angle is not as good, the pace is not as good or Federer anticipates and responds effectively. For each shot you see in that rally, a different one could have been hit, which would have resulted in a different response from the other and, subsequently, a completely different rally. All these two are doing are vying for position, trying to apply pressure and create openings, then hopefully capitalizing. Nalbandian takes his chances in the first two points and it pays off. There's no great secret or master plan to it, other than trying to take the ball early, mix it up and apply pressure. Improvisation is the watch word.

So, to answer your question, a lot of what makes Nalbandian so good at rallying is his level of execution. Other players may want to or think to do what he does, but simply cannot execute at his level as regularly or at all. Also, when you have the array of shots and ability Nalbandian does, your options increase, which will have an impact on the level of creativity and enterprise you bring to the court mentally.
Click to expand...

Thank you

I usually hear people say, the way to beat Federer is to attack his backhand as much as possible like Nadal would. Murray tried this at the AO 2010 and it did not work. The other way people say Federer can beat beaten is by playing crazy aggressive like Safin at the AO 2005. I think Nalbandian is one of the few plays who can play cross court shots to the FH and BH in a rally and still win the point.

People say Federer has the best forehand in the game so that is the reason why I found it strange that Nalbandian can still play to his forehand and win the point. If Nadal did this, he would not have a superior head to head record against Federer.
 
Last edited:
with regards to the weight issue, when i was at his match against Troicki last week, he definitely looked thin. Especially in his face.

He's definitely one of the greats to watch in person. His point construction and execution is awesome to see.
 
2slik said:
Thank you

I usually hear people say, the way to beat Federer is to attack his backhand as much as possible like Nadal would. Murray tried this at the AO 2010 and it did not work. The other way people say Federer can beat beaten is by playing crazy aggressive like Safin at the AO 2005. I think Nalbandian is one of the few plays who can play cross court shots in a rally and still win the point.

People say Federer has the best forehand in the game so that is the reason why I found it strange that Nalbandian can still play to his forehand and win the point. If Nadal did this, he would not have a superior head to head record against Federer.
Click to expand...
Okay, I see what you are trying to say, but you are not going to beat Federer if you only hit it to his backhand. This would make you predictable. You have to mix it up. Also bear in mind that Federer looks for any opportunity to use his biggest weapon (his forehand) off the ground and often leans to his backhand side so he can use it on the ad side. This opens up the deuce side, which gives opponents the opportunity to get Federer on the move. Federer moves well enough to cover the deuce side, but it does open that side up to aggressive attack. Yes, if you're going to go to his forehand, you have to go in hard, but this does not guarantee a successful outcome.

Federer has the best forehand in the game, but it's not infallible and there are others who have pretty good forehands too, Nalbadian being one of them. All of these players are human, so they can all falter at any given time. Nalbandian has done well against Federer over the years, but his record against him over the past 7 years has not been much better than others. Federer has won 10 of their last 13 meetings. It was really before Federer became No.1 that Nalbandian had the upper hand, but since Federer has been preeminent, even Nalbandian has not found a secret strategy he can bottle and reproduce at will.

Nadal is a lefty, so engaging Federer's forehand in a lot of cross court battles with his backhand would be suicide. He has to go to Federer's backhand. Federer's backhand is good, but Nadal's forehand is better, so that crosscourt match-up makes more sense for Nadal.
 
Nalbandian is an inconsistent player because he bases his shot selection entirely on which shots will give the opponent the most trouble, without taking into account how likely he is to make those shots in the first place. Meanwhile Roddick is the opposite, hitting shots that he thinks he is least likely to make an error on. Federer in his prime was a perfect balance of these two styles. As a result of Nalbandian's shot selection, he often has the most highlights in any match he plays, especially in baseline rallies. Here's some examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8dFaCcMqhM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq066-sAEW0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x06zG-FODxo (he loses this match but looks slightly ahead in rallies)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-LqJNv1oCc

You can see how Nalbandian is almost always in control of baseline rallies, regardless of whether or not he wins the match.
 
Nalbandian is 3-10 vs prime Federer so this idea he owns any version of Federer other than the early mentally unstable one is hogwash. All 3 of his wins come indoors too, Nalbandian's best surface by far, and even there he trails 3-4 in that time span.

As for the thread question he has very good timing, quite good technique and doesnt break them technically on either side very often (mentally is another matter), and he has very good directional control off both side.
 
davey25 said:
Nalbandian is 3-10 vs prime Federer so this idea he owns any version of Federer other than the early mentally unstable one is hogwash. All 3 of his wins come indoors too, Nalbandian's best surface by far, and even there he trails 3-4 in that time span.

As for the thread question he has very good timing, quite good technique and doesnt break them technically on either side very often (mentally is another matter), and he has very good directional control off both side.
Click to expand...
Nalbandian is even younger than Federer so why would you ignore his victories against fed in early years? he beat fed in 2003 Aus open and 2003 Us open. Both slams could have easily went to fed aswell as wimbledon of that year went to fed if it wasn't by nalbo.

Can't minimize those victories.
 
Last edited:
davey25 said:
Nalbandian is 3-10 vs prime Federer so this idea he owns any version of Federer other than the early mentally unstable one is hogwash. All 3 of his wins come indoors too, Nalbandian's best surface by far, and even there he trails 3-4 in that time span.

As for the thread question he has very good timing, quite good technique and doesnt break them technically on either side very often (mentally is another matter), and he has very good directional control off both side.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with your comments. What Nalbandian can do that bothers Federer is to rush him. That is what Agassi tried to do and Davydenko plays him that way as well. The fact that these players take the ball early gives them the confidence at times to hit to Federer's forehand but believe me Federer can adjust. Nalbandian has beaten Federer in some relatively big matches but in no way does he "own" him.
 
_maxi said:
Nalbandian is even younger than Federer so why would you ignore his victories against fed in early years? he beat fed in 2003 Aus open and 2003 Us open. Both slams could have easily went to fed aswell as wimbledon of that year went to fed if it wasn't by nalbo.

Can't minimize those victories.
Click to expand...

It is pretty simple, Federer took a big jump to a new level, Nalbandian did not. Of course Nalbandian deserves his early victories, but they have no realistic basis to how they matchup with both in their primes. Nalbandian was basically already in his prime level all of 2003 as he never really improved from that point, just stayed the same, which is why he never fulfilled his potential. Federer hit a new level entirely.

Federer would never have won the 2003 Australian Open. Just look at his other results in early 2003 on hard courts- two smallish titles, a loss to a hip crippled Kuerten at Indian Wells, a loss to Max Mirnyi indoors, a loss to Albert Costa at the big Miami hard court event. And Federer back then wasnt like now when he was coasting through the Masters and could win any slam. Nalbandian after beating Federer at that Aussie went on to lose to Schuettler. If Federer played Agassi at that years Australian he would have had no chance at all, and there are several others who could have beaten him besides Nalbandian too.

It is possible he could have won the 2003 U.S Open I suppose. Then again Federer hadnt won a title since Wimbledon, and in addition to a loss to Nalbandian in Cincinnati had lost to Roddick in Canada, had to save a bunch of match points vs Draper in Cincinnati, and lost the Gstaad final on clay to Jiri Novak. So I wouldnt say it was likely he was going to win the U.S Open either.
 
pjonesy said:
I totally agree with your comments. What Nalbandian can do that bothers Federer is to rush him. That is what Agassi tried to do and Davydenko plays him that way as well. The fact that these players take the ball early gives them the confidence at times to hit to Federer's forehand but believe me Federer can adjust. Nalbandian has beaten Federer in some relatively big matches but in no way does he "own" him.
Click to expand...

Yes that is a good accessment.
 
David L said:
Okay, I think I see what you are getting at. Don't read too much into it when commentators talk about point construction. The choices you see taken in a rally are not premeditated 5, 4, 3 or even 2 shots in advance, because you never know what your opponent is going to do before the fact or how well they are going to connect with the ball. It's an illusion that points are constructed so far in advance. Most of the time players are improvising, making split second decisions from one shot to the next. There may be a general game plan, but decisions about a shot are being made in the blink of an eye as the ball approaches. It's a very instinctive thing and not very cerebral. The cerebral part will be the general game plan before the match starts, but in the moment, decisions are made on the fly. There is no time for anything else. If your shot happens to go past for a winner, because you tried to be aggressive and hit it into the corner, then it's all good, but you should be ready for a possible response in case it comes back.

When Federer or Nalbandian play a great point or hit a winner, they will know about it at about the same time as the crowd. They are living it in real time, not in advance. In his book, Borg talked about how many of the winners he hit were unintentional. That's not to say they were lucky, just that he was not going for an out and out winner or did not see one in advance before it happened. As a player, you look to hit the ball to various locations in the court, at various speeds, angles and trajectories, then wait for the response. You can make a calculation to cover the percentage response or hedge you bets against an unpredictable opponent, but you never quite know what the quality of the response will be until its been hit. If you know an opponent very well or have studied them, educated guessing might help you anticipate some of their choices, but this is all spur of the moment stuff.

All you are seeing in the rally between Federer and Nalbandian, is each player either trying to stay in the rally or put their opponent under pressure. In the 1st 2 points, Nalbandian simply takes the opportunity to hit a few aggressive crosscourt forehands to Federer. The speeds and angles he achieves on the last shot in each rally are enough to produce winners. On another occasion, this might not work. Maybe he misses, the angle is not as good, the pace is not as good or Federer anticipates and responds effectively. For each shot you see in that rally, a different one could have been hit, which would have resulted in a different response from the other and, subsequently, a completely different rally. All these two are doing are vying for position, trying to apply pressure and create openings, then hopefully capitalizing. Nalbandian takes his chances in the first two points and it pays off. There's no great secret or master plan to it, other than trying to take the ball early, mix it up and apply pressure. Improvisation is the watch word.

So, to answer your question, a lot of what makes Nalbandian so good at rallying is his level of execution. Other players may want to or think to do what he does, but simply cannot execute at his level as regularly or at all. Also, when you have the array of shots and ability Nalbandian does, your options increase, which will have an impact on the level of creativity and enterprise you bring to the court mentally.
Click to expand...

Thanks man.
 
Nalbandian is so overrated, it's ridiculously funny.
 
Ocean Drive said:
Nalbandian is so overrated, it's ridiculously funny.
Click to expand...
I guess you'll never learn. People LOVE Nalbandian, his gamestyle, his shots, his little (but not unimportant) acomplishments. So you better open your mind because it won't change for a few years. Even if he retired today, his backhand will be remembered as the best 2hbh ever.
 
Last edited:
2slik said:
Nalbandian is the only player I have seen make Federer look silly apart from Nadal
Click to expand...

I do not think that Nalbandian owns Fed in any way shape or form. That being said in many of Fed's losses to players not named Nadal or Nalbandian there are excuses, Fed had an "off day" or was "sick" or "didn't try his best" or "it wasn't a Fed like performance". Many of the wins Nadal has had or that Nalbandian have had even if the score was close is because they laid smackdown on Fed or simply out played him. It had nothing to with Fed not being at his best. I think that's why Nalbandian gets so much hype. He can actually beat Fed and doesn't require Fed to be shanking backhands or hitting forehands long to get the win. Thats what makes Nalbandian such an enigma. It's hard say his not at the extreme end of the talent pool with some the wins he has had and the tennis he has produced but on the other hand it's easy to say he's overrated since the results have never really been consistent over a long period and has no slams. It would be nice to see him be in the mix on a more frequent basis. Ultimately I want Fed winning the matches but it's nice to see him be challenged.
 
Those who think Nalby doesn't own fed at times are delusional. When the rallies between them are are at an insanely high level, and Nalbandian just pulls a winner out of nowhere. That IS owning, beating someone at their best (or extremely close to it), pulling the trigger with a perfect shot consistently. Nalbandian more than anyone is capable of stringing an array of 'ownage' upon federer, even when fed is playing outstanding.
 
Nextman916 said:
Those who think Nalby doesn't own fed at times are delusional. When the rallies between them are are at an insanely high level, and Nalbandian just pulls a winner out of nowhere. That IS owning, beating someone at their best (or extremely close to it), pulling the trigger with a perfect shot consistently. Nalbandian more than anyone is capable of stringing an array of 'ownage' upon federer, even when fed is playing outstanding.
Click to expand...

No, I would disagree here. Nalbandian's only won 3 of their past 10 meetings or somethign like that, so at most, I would say that he can play par to par with Federer. That's by no means owning, hitting one beautiful shot out of god knows how many isn't considered owning.
 
another sad thread from nalby fans who continue to live in the past. i as well as the other non-fans get it that nalby is a good talented player who had some good wins but thats no reason to come up with thread in his tribute every other day....its getting pretty lame at this point.
 
The link made me remember the fantastic matches Nalby played against Fed and Nadal a couple of years ago.

Basically I think you cannot really explain Nalby's successes back then in a simple way. Tennis is all about hitting a little deeper or with more angle, or having a faster execution than your opponent. This has a lot to do with talent, both strategically and technically.

Just about a week ago Nalby played a very good match against Nadal, in which he probably only lost because a lack of match rhythm and also because Nadal neutralized his game a little by not giving him angles and hitting mainly on the FH. Although on a good day, Nalby can move the ball around on his FH side too, as you can see in the videos.

Basically he won a couple of matches against Fed, because he was simply playing better than Fed. Outthinking, outmanoevering, outwitting Fed, something not many can say.

It is all about reading the game a little faster, about anticipating your next shot before the opponent realizes it.

Strangely indoors is Nalby's best surface, as he is a baseliner, but then again, it might not be that strange: Nalby likes to play fast, so it is quite convenient for him.

In the match(es) against Fed he won, he basically surprised Fed the whole time. Going DTL, when Fed was expecting a crosscourt, or vice versa. Playing droppers when Fed was expecting a deep ball.

Doing things that rationally do not make sense, such going for the Fed FH on a crosscourt exchange. But this shows the law of tennis: there is not a shot you have to avoid, you just have to play it in such a way your opponent will be uncomfortable when he gets there.

99% of the time Fed can have a look at a crosscourt FH coming his way and will even come up with something better. But if you can just find that angle and depth that puts him on his back foot, then you have an opening.

Nalby is strong on both sides, so when someone faces him, they normally don't really have anywhere to go. He can also play any angle and pace or spin he decides, so he will start moving you around until there is a breech in your defense.

I think Nalby on a good day is like Rios used to be the times he had his mind on tennis. A player that is immensely fun to watch.
 
svijk said:
another sad thread from nalby fans who continue to live in the past. i as well as the other non-fans get it that nalby is a good talented player who had some good wins but thats no reason to come up with thread in his tribute every other day....its getting pretty lame at this point.
Click to expand...

You're an idiot. Don't know if you're missing the point, or you're just a jackass. Either way it ends up the same.
 
OJ ROD said:
You're an idiot. Don't know if you're missing the point, or you're just a jackass. Either way it ends up the same.
Click to expand...

hahahaha....nothin like a pissed off nalby fan. i understand the pain.

anyway name calling never helps.....yes i am missing the point but what was it in the first place??? nalby WAS good at rallying?? :twisted:
 
_maxi said:
I guess you'll never learn. People LOVE Nalbandian, his gamestyle, his shots, his little (but not unimportant) acomplishments. So you better open your mind because it won't change for a few years. Even if he retired today, his backhand will be remembered as the best 2hbh ever.
Click to expand...

By whom? I don't know anybody who thinks Nalbandian has the best Double hander ever. It's not in the top 5.
 
Nextman916 said:
Those who think Nalby doesn't own fed at times are delusional. When the rallies between them are are at an insanely high level, and Nalbandian just pulls a winner out of nowhere. That IS owning, beating someone at their best (or extremely close to it), pulling the trigger with a perfect shot consistently. Nalbandian more than anyone is capable of stringing an array of 'ownage' upon federer, even when fed is playing outstanding.
Click to expand...

What is delusional is saying you own a player when you have lost 3 of your last 13 matches vs that player dating back to over the last 6 years. When despite a very early 5-0 head to head lead you are now trailing in the head to head. And when in your last 13 matches (6+ years) the only surface you have beaten this player is a non slam surface which is by far your favorite surface. And even on that one surface you trail 3-4 in that span, while being 0-6 on all others, and this despite avoiding playing this player even once on your own worst surface and his best to boot. Only in the land of fool is that owning for this player, LOL! If you were to say Federer has owned Nalbandian in the last 6 and a half years you would have been correct, totally so in fact.

As for beating Federer at his true best, sorry there are actually mulitiple players who have done that to Federer, and Nalbandian is not one of them. You must have been watching Safin, Nadal, Djokovic, or a few others who actually have and somehow through Nalbandiantard disease believed you were seeing Nalbandians face during those matches this happened when in fact it was not but those other players on court those days. Nalbandians first 5 wins over Federer were before Federer was Federer. The 2005 TMC was the narrowest of wins over an injured Federer who was moving at three quarter capacity at most. Then the last 2, anyone who thinks Federer has been ever bringing him best to the best of 3 tournaments in the last 2 and a half years has been living under a rock. And as it is having seen those matches Federer was at best fairly good in them for his standards, a long way from playing his best.
 
Ocean Drive said:
By whom? I don't know anybody who thinks Nalbandian has the best Double hander ever. It's not in the top 5.
Click to expand...

Of course not. Safin is recently retired and his two handed backhand is clearly better at his peak. Agassi had a better one as well. That is atleast 2 guys who have played on tour in the last 4 years alone.
 
svijk said:
hahahaha....nothin like a pissed off nalby fan. i understand the pain.

anyway name calling never helps.....yes i am missing the point but what was it in the first place??? nalby WAS good at rallying?? :twisted:
Click to expand...

I like nalbandian but not enough to be a fan. Why do you just want to miss the point all together? What's the point in that? I insulted you to get you're attetion because you're doing something seriously wrong and you're post suggest that you have a thick head. But don't worry about it, I'm the one looking like an idiot for wasting my time. I think we can agree on that.
 
svijk said:
another sad thread from nalby fans who continue to live in the past. i as well as the other non-fans get it that nalby is a good talented player who had some good wins but thats no reason to come up with thread in his tribute every other day....its getting pretty lame at this point.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about.

In the past Nalbandian still wasn't a 'great' player. He had one fluke slam final and froze like an ice pop and played the match of his life in the US open semifinals against a guy who didn't wake up until the 4th set and still lost the match! Nalbandian's biggest title was merrited to the fact that everyone withdrew from the masters cup field. Essentially, Nalbandian wasn't in the top 8 to even contest in Shanghai.
 
Anaconda said:
What are you talking about.

In the past Nalbandian still wasn't a 'great' player. He had one fluke slam final and froze like an ice pop and played the match of his life in the US open semifinals against a guy who didn't wake up until the 4th set and still lost the match! Nalbandian's biggest title was merrited to the fact that everyone withdrew from the masters cup field. Essentially, Nalbandian wasn't in the top 8 to even contest in Shanghai.
Click to expand...


Especially when Federer had a bum ankle in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

2
Is this what makes Murray so good at rallying?
Replies
13
Views
2K
The Baseline
T
bjk
The Nalbandian Conundrum
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
Mainad
Mainad
wang07
  • Poll Poll
Better player - Tsonga or Nalbandian?
2
Replies
55
Views
4K
skaj
skaj
All-rounder
Murray developing a nalbandian type backhand
Replies
5
Views
1K
35ft6
35ft6
bjk
The Nalbandian Conundrum
Replies
3
Views
394
crazyups
crazyups
Back
Top