Before I type my magnum opus in the next couple days, I would like to make a few quick comments now off the top of my head and also reply to some of the comments already made here. But first, I would like to thank everyone for speaking well of Nalbandian in this thread and giving him praise. I know I have been very loud and obnoxious about Nalbandian for years, so I know everyone has at different times grown tired of hearing me talk him up. That said, his talent warranted every bit of noise and obnoxiousness that I provided to this board community concerning his transcendent ability, and I also think everyone knew, to varying degrees, what I was referring to when it came to Nalbandian. There was just something completely unique about his game and his mindset that no other player, no matter how accomplished or prestigious, could duplicate. Everyone saw this at some point, in some form or fashion - what they thought of it ran the gamut from resentment and hostility to adulation and highly devoted fans. But everyone saw it. Everyone had a moment or a series of moments when they simply observed Nalbandian in awe and amazement, irrespective of ranking points or round in a tournament.
There was a certain aura, brilliance, exuberance, and transcendence to Nalbandian that followed him wherever he played. He could be on Court 17 at the US Open in the second round and there was just something uniquely captivating about it, even more so than the most prominent match on Center Court. Over time I came to appreciate that his game was almost too perfect, when executed, to be true. It was almost a dabbling in the divine; in fact, I will say outright that it was a dabbling in the divine. There was nothing like it, not even in Federer's best moments. What is remarkable is that I know how devoted a fan base Nalbandian had across the world, yet compared to the greats of tennis, his resume is obviously meager. His resume is very good, but certainly not in the league of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, etc. Yet, Nalbandian inspired such passionate and devoted followers (followers is almost a better word than fans in this context) that there can be no other explanation than that there was something distinctively unique and outright transcendent in his game which drew attention to it. That is the only explanation for the unique attention he drew despite being far less accomplished than the well-known greats of the game, past and present.
Now, many people bring up the issue of being Grad Slam-less. No doubt, this is significant. However, in the past couple years I almost came to wish that Nalbandian would NOT win a Slam, because I felt that it would really trivialize his symbolism. Had he won a Slam, thousands of bandwagoners would agree with Cali on how absurdly talented he is, just because he won. Also, it would have given many people the notion that Nalbandian somehow "fulfilled" his talent by winning a Slam. This would have totally diminished him, connecting him with ordinariness.
The truth about Nalbandian was, I think, best stated by MikeOne in one of our legendary debates on Nalbandian, Nadal, and other matters. MikeOne actually said it early this year, after I posted highlights of Nalbandian hitting brilliant lob shots over Isner numerous times in their Australian Open match. This was on the Tennis Digital board; Mike said back to me "Cali, you realize that if Nalbandian hit these shots consistently, he would never lose a match and would have won 20+ Slams?" Now what did Mike mean, or what was Mike conceding here?
Many people might say that Mike was pretty much just making the point that "you can take any Top 20 player, show their best points, and say, 'here, he is the most talented'", but in this case Mike was saying no such thing. He was conceding to me that, yes, Nalbandian playing at his best was impeccable perfection on a tennis court, while of course also saying that it was irrelevant because he didn't do it enough. Nonetheless, the concession itself says a great deal. No one has been more divine playing tennis than David Nalbandian. His game when clicking was the Palace of Versailles transformed into a tennis deity. Again, there was something about Nalbandian's game that was ethereal; it just almost didn't belong here. There was such a tension with him trying to function within the confines of a regular human sporting competition where the goal was, primarily (maybe even merely), to win. His game and his aura just never seemed to comfortably fit within the confines of the mundane. But, at the same time, this impediment could have been overcome, which was very frustrating but is also inspiring. Ultimately, however, there is much more that is profoundly wonderful about Nalbandian's influence than anything else. So I will end here on a good note: the career of David Nalbandian, ultimately, is not frustrating, but joyous and inspirational. He was a symbol of what we can ideally be and ideally do.
Well, I have much more to say later, but I appreciate the kind words and I hope the discussion continues for a long time. On that note, I don't really have to hope because I'll make sure it keeps going (as I always have)!
