Australian Open Final 2018: Federer v Cilic

[Ricardo]

When you have results you are great, with no results you are talented, happy? I know which one a player would rather be.

 

[the AntiPusher]

@shawnbm said it well, but I will add a few things. @calitennis127 , it seems that you're essentially saying that in a neutral context--one without any pressure, like a practice session--David Nalbandian is actually a technically superior player to Roger Federer. That the difference in their accomplishments mainly boils down to Roger's ability to compete. Yes? You might agree with some of shawnbm's refinements, but you seem to generally believe that Nalbandian's technically ability is superior and, presumably, as good as the tennis world has ever seen?

This is actually somewhat of a non-falsifiable statement. In other words, it is hard to prove you wrong because there is no real way to know, unless we had a panel of knowledgable judges watch each perform in practice sessions many times.

I am also reminded of the Harlem Globetrotters, who can do all manner of things with a basketball but would get slaughtered by any professional--or college--team. Nalbandian isn't quite the Harlem Globetrotters, but the analogy serves insofar as it points out that a huge aspect of performance is the ability to compete - to translate those technical skills to a competitive match.

I would also argue that a major part of Roger's greatness is that he can do pretty much anything well. He does a few things amazingly well, but everything else he does at least very well. He has no weaknesses, no gaps in his ability. I don't think this was true of Nalbandian.

It is also interesting to compare Nalbandian and Nadal, because Nadal has been accused of being less skilled than his actual results would entail. But here's the thing: a large part of Rafa's greatness is his ability to come up with a two-handed backhand screamer across court, or one of those down the line forehands, or the right serve at the right time. Rafa is so money when it really matters - and that is talent, that is ability, that is greatness. In fact, it may be that by comparing Nalbandian and Nadal, we have the perfect context to differentiate what makes a player great vs. what makes a player simply very good (and talented).

I aint gong down that rabbit hole in regards to comparing the talents of the Swiss maestro vs the very under achieving Argentinean..we all been there way too many times with Cali. However..Kobe vs LeBron..i wouldn't say that Kobe is a better athlete but if i had to choose one player for one game or for the championship series. I would say Kobe was more clutch and closer to being compared to Jordan..

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Here is another take on talent.

Often one says that a person is talented in "something", if "something" comes naturally to the person. i.e., he did not go
through 10,000 hours of practice (Malcolm Gladwell?) to acquire the skill. So, here the measure of talent than is not
based on the absolute ability, but based on the ratio of ability to effort put in. Perhaps, Cali is saying Nalby is talented
in this sense. It may be true considering how lazy Nalby is, but is difficult to measure unless we have full data on amount
of practice and effort put in by various players in acquiring various skills.

On a related note, this ratio is of no consequence. What matters finally is what is your absolute ability and
not how you attained it? In fact, often the difference between the winner and the loser is very miniscule ( and in
tennis we often say it is a game of inches). The extra degree (Sam Parker) 212 degrees is a very nice motivational
book. The title is based on the fact that at 211 water is merely hot and at 212 it is boiling. It is that one extra degree
that matters. Similarly, for tennis players the actual accomplishments depends on even a minor advantage in
absolute ability. That is why people interested in achieving work hard to make sure that they have that advantage.
Of course, how much work you need to put in, depends on the raw talent. If you are talented, you might get away
with less hard work.

 

[Moxie]

Gary Player said: "The harder I work, the luckier I get." Derek Jeter: "Other players may be more talented than you, but there's no excuse for you not to work harder." Or the old joke: "How do you get to Carnegie Hall?" "Practice." @calitennis127 's whole vibe is that there is some pure thing called "talent," and it should be venerated for what it is. Notwithstanding results. I know Fedfans can lean on his talent a bit, in the GOAT conversation, but it doesn't seem that any one of them here is not also putting in for that nth degree, of commitment and work ethic. Roger wouldn't have merely been Dimitrov without his work ethic and commitment, but he would have likely been closer. @GameSetAndMath, I do rather like that metaphor of 211 v. 212. I think it well-describes the champion's mentality.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Gary Player said: "The harder I work, the luckier I get." Derek Jeter: "Other players may be more talented than you, but there's no excuse for you not to work harder." Or the old joke: "How do you get to Carnegie Hall?" "Practice." @calitennis127 's whole vibe is that there is some pure thing called "talent," and it should be venerated for what it is. Notwithstanding results. I know Fedfans can lean on his talent a bit, in the GOAT conversation, but it doesn't seem that any one of them here is not also putting in for that nth degree, of commitment and work ethic. Roger wouldn't have merely been Dimitrov without his work ethic and commitment, but he would have likely been closer. @GameSetAndMath, I do rather like that metaphor of 211 v. 212. I think it well-describes the champion's mentality.

Another thing I will have to admit , Roger’s tennis IQ is off the charts.. He just so damn Smarter than anyone else since John McEnroe.. When you are 37 years old and beating guys that almost half your age, its not by accident. I always thought that one of Rafa’s greatest achievement was to be able to find a way to beat Roger and to solve the Novak riddle 2 times in his career. (I am referring to the two streaks of Novak’s mastery over Rafa). However, the way that Roger has flipped the switch on Rafa is truly admirable. Now I know how the Pistons, and other NBA fans felt when they’re teams had to face Jordan in a basketball series or game.

 

[calitennis127]

@shawnbm said it well, but I will add a few things. @calitennis127 , it seems that you're essentially saying that in a neutral context--one without any pressure, like a practice session--David Nalbandian is actually a technically superior player to Roger Federer.

Not only in a practice session, but also in a regular match, as demonstrated by his 5-0 start against Federer before the two got big reputations that became psychological weights. Federer has better serving technique but in every other area Nalbandian is equal or better. The big difference is the backhand; Nalbandian had two forehands while Federer only had one.

That the difference in their accomplishments mainly boils down to Roger's ability to compete. Yes?

No, that it mainly had to do with the fact that Federer has hit far less double faults and has made a greater percentage of first serves (and also that he was physically more durable/less prone to injury).

but you seem to generally believe that Nalbandian's technically ability is superior and, presumably, as good as the tennis world has ever seen?

Correct. But how can anyone really dispute this? It is plain as day. Steve Tignor said in a tennis.com piece during the 2010 Paris Masters that he has never seen anyone - not even Federer - look as dominant as Nalbandian when "the Argentine has it rolling." I'm not really sure what the debate is because even Federer more or less admitted that Nalbandian was a better player from the baseline.

 

[Federberg]

Nalbandian had two forehands while Federer only had one

I'm trying to figure out whether the "Camelo is better than KD" or this statement is more absurd. You've set me a monstrous challenge...

 

[El Dude]

Not only in a practice session, but also in a regular match, as demonstrated by his 5-0 start against Federer before the two got big reputations that became psychological weights. Federer has better serving technique but in every other area Nalbandian is equal or better. The big difference is the backhand; Nalbandian had two forehands while Federer only had one.

Two problems here. One, you're ignoring the other 14 matches, which Roger won 11 of. Do those not count? What it seems happened is that Nalbandian plateaued but Roger took it up another level, surpassing Nalbandian. The other problem is you're saying that the H2H is an accurate representation of overall ability. Do you think Rafa is significantly more talented than Roger?

No, that it mainly had to do with the fact that Federer has hit far less double faults and has made a greater percentage of first serves (and also that he was physically more durable/less prone to injury).

But doesn't that support ability to compete? Don't double faults have something to do with playing under pressure?

Correct. But how can anyone really dispute this? It is plain as day. Steve Tignor said in a tennis.com piece during the 2010 Paris Masters that he has never seen anyone - not even Federer - look as dominant as Nalbandian when "the Argentine has it rolling." I'm not really sure what the debate is because even Federer more or less admitted that Nalbandian was a better player from the baseline.

I don't think anyone disagrees that Nalbandian was capable of truly brilliant play...at times. But this is true of dozens of players whose talent wasn't matched by their career accomplishments. Nalbandian isn't alone in this, and I think in the end you overestimate his talent level. Yes, he had the talent of a multi-Slam winner. But to say he was more talented than a guy who won 20 Slams is just ignoring too much actual data. It is the ultimate example of confirmation bias: we see what we want to see. In the end, Nalbandian was only able to reach those heights--get "rolling," as Tignor put it--a handful of times in his career.

If nothing else he's a good example of how talent is not enough on its own.

 

[MartyB]

Not only in a practice session, but also in a regular match, as demonstrated by his 5-0 start against Federer before the two got big reputations that became psychological weights. Federer has better serving technique but in every other area Nalbandian is equal or better. The big difference is the backhand; Nalbandian had two forehands while Federer only had one.



No, that it mainly had to do with the fact that Federer has hit far less double faults and has made a greater percentage of first serves (and also that he was physically more durable/less prone to injury).



Correct. But how can anyone really dispute this? It is plain as day. Steve Tignor said in a tennis.com piece during the 2010 Paris Masters that he has never seen anyone - not even Federer - look as dominant as Nalbandian when "the Argentine has it rolling." I'm not really sure what the debate is because even Federer more or less admitted that Nalbandian was a better player from the baseline.

I wouldn't use Steve Tignor as a tennis expert to defend your argument.Lol. Could it be possible that in the early years of Nalbandian and Fed's rivalry Fed hadn't worked out the game plan as to how to conquer him. When he did it became extremely one sided. Same can be said about Hewitt. I won't argue as to who was the better player from the back of the court. I'll give you that. I have plenty of solace as to the greatness of Fed and where his legacy is in the sport. On another note I'm glad your back on the board. Don't always agree but always like reading your posts...

 

[Federberg]

Same can be said about Hewitt

Thank you for pointing this out. If we take Cali's argument our we supposed to believe that Hewitt is also more talented that Roger? Good grief...

 

[calitennis127]

Two problems here. One, you're ignoring the other 14 matches, which Roger won 11 of. Do those not count?

They do. But the circumstances were completely different for many of those later matches. The reason the early ones are so significant is that Federer and Nalbandian were peers WITHOUT major reputations (aside from being up-and-coming talents). That means it was just one against the other based on ability. Once Federer won a few Slams and Nalbandian had begun to get a reputation for inconsistency, the dynamic in their matches was entirely different.

What it seems happened is that Nalbandian plateaued but Roger took it up another level, surpassing Nalbandian.

He surpassed Nalbandian in terms of becoming a consistent winning player against the field. He did not surpass him in terms of raw ability in the hardest aspects of the game. Big difference.

The other problem is you're saying that the H2H is an accurate representation of overall ability.

No I'm not. What I'm taking issue with is your characterization of my view in your first post that under ideal indoor circumstances with no pressure Nalbandian is better. I was saying that we have more to back up my view than a practice session. The fact that Nalbandian started off his career 5-0 against Federer playing in front of crowds, including at Majors, is more significant than him hitting with Fed on Court 17 at 10am with no one but their coaches and trainers watching.

Do you think Rafa is significantly more talented than Roger?

No, I think he has been a more complete player on clay courts and that Federer has approached those matches with stupid strategy for the most part. But that has nothing to do with the argument I was making anyway. What I was trying to say is that Nalbandian did more in his tennis career than just hit some dazzling winners in practice sessions.

Don't double faults have something to do with playing under pressure?

Yes, if you're only hitting them on set point in Grand Slam semifinals, not if you're hitting 8 per match against everybody. That has nothing to do with handling pressure or lacking talent. But it has everything to do with not being sharp and prepared.

You know what goes overlooked about Nalbandian's run at the end of 2007? It was the only time in his career that he served at Federer/Nadal percentages and did not hit a gazillion double faults. And what was the result? They could not compete with him.

What I maintained all along was that if Nalbandian served at 60-70% (like Fed and Nadal), and he kept his double faults to no more than 2-3 match (like Fed and Nadal), he was unplayable and unbeatable.

 

[calitennis127]

Thank you for pointing this out. If we take Cali's argument our we supposed to believe that Hewitt is also more talented that Roger? Good grief...

Hewitt bloomed earlier than Federer and Nalbandian. Not a sensible comparison. Federer and Nalbandian were direct peers.

 

[Federberg]

Hewitt bloomed earlier than Federer and Nalbandian. Not a sensible comparison. Federer and Nalbandian were direct peers.

That's irrelevant. Two players can start playing at the same time and one takes to it quicker than the other. Doesn't mean that the other doesn't become the better player. People adapt to the mens tour at varying speeds. Unlike some on here would have you believe there's no spreadsheet or algorithm that defines a set pattern. In actual fact the less talented player or the one with a more limited arsenal is often the one who is able to maximise his abilities quicker. Not saying that's the case in this discussion but it's a viable scenario

 

[Federberg]

 

[calitennis127]

That's irrelevant. Two players can start playing at the same time and one takes to it quicker than the other. Doesn't mean that the other doesn't become the better player. People adapt to the mens tour at varying speeds. Unlike some on here would have you believe there's no spreadsheet or algorithm that defines a set pattern. In actual fact the less talented player or the one with a more limited arsenal is often the one who is able to maximise his abilities quicker. Not saying that's the case in this discussion but it's a viable scenario

It is a viable scenario but Nalbandian did not jump way out ahead of Federer in their careers to a point where they were on two different levels. Federer was having substantial success and Nalbandian was still beating him.

Either way, my point to El Dude was that Nalbandian was not simply a practice player hitting nice shots off a ball machine. Starting his career 5-0 (including two Slam wins) against his direct peer Roger Federer was no joke and an indicator of immense ability. And in those matches you could see Nalbandian demonstrating a capacity for the most esoteric skills.

 

[El Dude]

What I maintained all along was that if Nalbandian served at 60-70% (like Fed and Nadal), and he kept his double faults to no more than 2-3 match (like Fed and Nadal), he was unplayable and unbeatable.

I'm just replying to this one quote because it essentializes your view. Cali, I get that DN was extremely talented and that it wasn't just practice sessions. And I get that his main problem was himself - his own dedication, discipline, mentality, etc. But where we differ is that all of that is part of the whole package, and we cannot separate it out and say, "If only this hadn't been the case, then Nalbandian would have been the GOAT."

We could do the same thing with just about any player. I mean, couldn't we be having the a similar conversation about Marat Safin? Or Marcelo Rios? Or Lew Hoad? We can do the same with Roger and Rafa, and imagine scenarios where they won 5+ more Slams.

I don't mind What If? conversations, mind you, but let's call a spade a spade: DN is your favorite player, and you have found a rather selective and sneaky way of trying to procure a slice of the GOAT pie. Or maybe it is the MTOAT? (Most Talented Of All Time).

 

[El Dude]

In other words, ask yourself this question: How many players have you seen play at a level that they looked unbeatable? What about Marin Cilic at the 2014 US Open? He was unbeatable. Rafa, Novak, and Roger have all looked unbeatable for periods of their careers. Stan Wawrinka in a few tournaments. I'm sure there are many others.

All pros, at least top 100 players, are capable of amazing tennis, which is partially why we have upsets. I'm not saying that Nalbandian is Lukas Rosol. But he's a lot closer to Cilic or Safin or Rios than he is to Rafa, Roger, and Novak.

I think I made the remark at one point that greatness isn't only about a player's highest level--because moset pros can play truly sublime tennis at times--but how often a player can find their best level.

Who knows, maybe you're right. Maybe Nalbandian's very highest level was higher than anyone else's. There's no real way to know for sure. In the end, though, his record speaks for itself. He was an immense talented player, but not a great one. A strange but important paradox.

 

[Federberg]

It is a viable scenario but Nalbandian did not jump way out ahead of Federer in their careers to a point where they were on two different levels. Federer was having substantial success and Nalbandian was still beating him.

Either way, my point to El Dude was that Nalbandian was not simply a practice player hitting nice shots off a ball machine. Starting his career 5-0 (including two Slam wins) against his direct peer Roger Federer was no joke and an indicator of immense ability. And in those matches you could see Nalbandian demonstrating a capacity for the most esoteric skills.

one could easily argue the exact opposite. Often more talented players lose to lesser player repeatedly until they get their head together. I think that's more likely to be the case in the Nalbandian - Federer match up. it makes no sense for the lesser player to figure out the lesser player later. If the talent differential is truly what you believe

 

[lob]

Nice plot on Economist.

https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2018/01/daily-chart-19

 

[Nekro]

one could easily argue the exact opposite. Often more talented players lose to lesser player repeatedly until they get their head together. I think that's more likely to be the case in the Nalbandian - Federer match up. it makes no sense for the lesser player to figure out the lesser player later. If the talent differential is truly what you believe

Just lol at Federberg and his famous eyeball test... What a useless gloryhunting mug :lulz2: and sure sure, Federer had to get his head together against the mental giant Nalbandian I mean it's common knowledge Nalbandian was one of the laziest players, he was the lesser talent too, according to Federberg... Then he had to have something he won those matches with...... must have been superior calculation skills or something like that.....