David Nalbandian retires from tennis.

[calitennis127]

Here's an interview. He says that he was perfectly fine playing from the baseline, but after a day of serving, he could no longer lift up his arm.





Q: A lot of people think that in 2006 you could've been number one. What was missing?

David: I've had the fortune and the misfortune to meet basically two of the best tennis players of alltime. That's how I'll summarise it for you, short and to the point. For me, it's about Federer and Nadal. Roger broke all the records and Rafa is on the brink of doing it. To have shared that great era with them, to have won, lost and to have been at that kind of level has been an honour.

So, Cali, now that you have heard it from YOUR horses' mouth, maybe a bit more respect towards these two?

Interesting that you bring this up, because I was actually going to address that quote.

I disagree with Nalbandian, needless to say. This quote buttresses Kieran's argument that in a significant sense Nalbandian was not cut out for "greatness", or else he wouldn't think such thoughts. To me, this comment about Federer and Nadal is a convenient, but completely illogical, excuse on Nalbandian's part. He makes no sense. I see it as him just rationalizing his own failures, in particular his own failure to prepare himself properly for gametime.

To be more specific, it would make much more sense for Andy Murray or Andy Roddick, let's say, to make this comment, because they have regularly put themselves in position late in Slams against Federer and Nadal, coming with their best level and playing with the best they could muster.

Can Nalbandian even remotely make that claim? The answer is a resounding "no".

Was it Nadal who was beating Nalbandian at clay events for 6 years? Does Nadal have a 11-0 record on clay against Nalbandian like he does Ferrer? No, Nalbandian was either hurt or losing to opponents he should never have been losing to. Nadal wasn't getting in the way of anything.

After 2006, Federer and Nalbandian hardly even played. And, even in 2006, it wasn't Federer who beat Nalbandian at the Australian Open. It was Nalbandian who gave away a 2 sets to 0 lead on Baghdatis and failed to make the final.

So, to answer your question 1972murat, no, Nalbandian's illogical and self-rationalizing nonsense does not change my views one bit. Nalbandian was the player to challenge Federer on grass, to challenge Nadal on clay, and he should have been #1 over each of them, based strictly on talent. But he never even got himself in that position because he was losing to the likes of Davide Sanguinetti in the Toronto first round 6-2, 6-1 out of indifference.

So, this quote makes no sense.

 

[Moxie]

Nalbandian is 2-5 against Rafa - that's an even worse ratio than Roger. Still advice is cheap and Roger is a rich man...

Three of Nadal's wins over Nalbandian were lucky, cheap wins that Nalbandian gave away with a second-set meltdown. They had nothing to do with Nalbandian being deficient in rallies, which is what Federer could use a little bit of help with.

Three out of 5. "Lucky." ("Cheap" I'll ignore, because it's just a derogatory and purely editorial.) I'll invite you to back that up, if you like, but I also want you to try hard to come up with another example of two players, one who has a similar H2H v. the other, whose majority victories came, in your opinion, via "luck." I'm sure you must pay attention to this, since it insults you, so. Or is Nadal the only lucky man, (and surely by your definition the luckiest,) in tennis?

Nalbandian was decidedly the better player for the first two sets of both of their Indian Wells matches. Each of those matches should have been over in 2, especially the 2009 one, though the 2012 match was no less inexcusable a collapse on Nalbandian's part.

In the Miami 2010 match, it was just vintage Nadal: be outplayed and then pull out one game by holding a couple breakpoints, turn up the stamina heat and make the opponent hit an extra ball every time, and then mix in one or two opportunistic winners. Nalbandian should've won the 5th game of the second set to go up 3-2 when he was up 15-40 on Nadal's serve, and from there he should have taken the set 6-3. It was right there for him. He had been the superior match to that point, but lost because of Nadal's stamina and persistence, and his own lack of a gameplan for key deciding points.

Since this will be our last chance to spar over the Nadal-Nalbandian rivalry on the ATP forum, before David conversation moves over to the Compare Eras, I'll bite. While I'll give you that Nalbandian should by rights have won their 2009 encounter in IW, (as you might say Nadal was "lucky," though I'd say he out-played Nalbandian in the right moments,) Nalby lost the first set of their next encounter 4-6, so I'm not sure how you say he was out-playing Nadal in the early stages of that match. And in the Miami match, he lost the 2nd and 3rd sets 2 and 2. I don't see how you can blame that on blind luck, or fitness. Your notion of what is "superior," and what is only garnered by "stamina" is full of puncture holes, and that pontoon has been sinking for a long time.

Here's an interview. He says that he was perfectly fine playing from the baseline, but after a day of serving, he could no longer lift up his arm.

Q: A lot of people think that in 2006 you could've been number one. What was missing?

David: I've had the fortune and the misfortune to meet basically two of the best tennis players of alltime. That's how I'll summarise it for you, short and to the point. For me, it's about Federer and Nadal. Roger broke all the records and Rafa is on the brink of doing it. To have shared that great era with them, to have won, lost and to have been at that kind of level has been an honour.

So, Cali, now that you have heard it from YOUR horses' mouth, maybe a bit more respect towards these two?

Interesting that you bring this up, because I was actually going to address that quote.

I disagree with Nalbandian, needless to say. This quote buttresses Kieran's argument that in a significant sense Nalbandian was not cut out for "greatness", or else he wouldn't think such thoughts. To me, this comment about Federer and Nadal is a convenient, but completely illogical, excuse on Nalbandian's part. He makes no sense. I see it as him just rationalizing his own failures, in particular his own failure to prepare himself properly for gametime.

To be more specific, it would make much more sense for Andy Murray or Andy Roddick, let's say, to make this comment, because they have regularly put themselves in position late in Slams against Federer and Nadal, coming with their best level and playing with the best they could muster.

Can Nalbandian even remotely make that claim? The answer is a resounding "no".

Was it Nadal who was beating Nalbandian at clay events for 6 years? Does Nadal have a 11-0 record on clay against Nalbandian like he does Ferrer? No, Nalbandian was either hurt or losing to opponents he should never have been losing to. Nadal wasn't getting in the way of anything.

After 2006, Federer and Nalbandian hardly even played. And, even in 2006, it wasn't Federer who beat Nalbandian at the Australian Open. It was Nalbandian who gave away a 2 sets to 0 lead on Baghdatis and failed to make the final.

So, to answer your question 1972murat, no, Nalbandian's illogical and self-rationalizing nonsense does not change my views one bit. Nalbandian was the player to challenge Federer on grass, to challenge Nadal on clay, and he should have been #1 over each of them, based strictly on talent. But he never even got himself in that position because he was losing to the likes of Davide Sanguinetti in the Toronto first round 6-2, 6-1 out of indifference.

So, this quote makes no sense.

This seems to be the height of hubris, disloyalty, and a blinkered belief in your one-note opinion. Now you won't even believe what your own favorite player says.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Here's an interview. He says that he was perfectly fine playing from the baseline, but after a day of serving, he could no longer lift up his arm.





Q: A lot of people think that in 2006 you could've been number one. What was missing?

David: I've had the fortune and the misfortune to meet basically two of the best tennis players of alltime. That's how I'll summarise it for you, short and to the point. For me, it's about Federer and Nadal. Roger broke all the records and Rafa is on the brink of doing it. To have shared that great era with them, to have won, lost and to have been at that kind of level has been an honour.

So, Cali, now that you have heard it from YOUR horses' mouth, maybe a bit more respect towards these two?

Interesting that you bring this up, because I was actually going to address that quote.

I disagree with Nalbandian, needless to say. This quote buttresses Kieran's argument that in a significant sense Nalbandian was not cut out for "greatness", or else he wouldn't think such thoughts. To me, this comment about Federer and Nadal is a convenient, but completely illogical, excuse on Nalbandian's part. He makes no sense. I see it as him just rationalizing his own failures, in particular his own failure to prepare himself properly for gametime.

To be more specific, it would make much more sense for Andy Murray or Andy Roddick, let's say, to make this comment, because they have regularly put themselves in position late in Slams against Federer and Nadal, coming with their best level and playing with the best they could muster.

Can Nalbandian even remotely make that claim? The answer is a resounding "no".

Was it Nadal who was beating Nalbandian at clay events for 6 years? Does Nadal have a 11-0 record on clay against Nalbandian like he does Ferrer? No, Nalbandian was either hurt or losing to opponents he should never have been losing to. Nadal wasn't getting in the way of anything.

After 2006, Federer and Nalbandian hardly even played. And, even in 2006, it wasn't Federer who beat Nalbandian at the Australian Open. It was Nalbandian who gave away a 2 sets to 0 lead on Baghdatis and failed to make the final.

So, to answer your question 1972murat, no, Nalbandian's illogical and self-rationalizing nonsense does not change my views one bit. Nalbandian was the player to challenge Federer on grass, to challenge Nadal on clay, and he should have been #1 over each of them, based strictly on talent. But he never even got himself in that position because he was losing to the likes of Davide Sanguinetti in the Toronto first round 6-2, 6-1 out of indifference.

So, this quote makes no sense.

I actually fully agree with this.

EDIT: With the exception of the part where Nalbandian should have been number 1 over Fed and Nadal.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Nalbandian is 2-5 against Rafa - that's an even worse ratio than Roger. Still advice is cheap and Roger is a rich man...

Three of Nadal's wins over Nalbandian were lucky, cheap wins that Nalbandian gave away with a second-set meltdown. They had nothing to do with Nalbandian being deficient in rallies, which is what Federer could use a little bit of help with.

Three out of 5. "Lucky." ("Cheap" I'll ignore, because it's just a derogatory and purely editorial.) I'll invite you to back that up, if you like, but I also want you to try hard to come up with another example of two players, one who has a similar H2H v. the other, whose majority victories came, in your opinion, via "luck." I'm sure you must pay attention to this, since it insults you, so. Or is Nadal the only lucky man, (and surely by your definition the luckiest,) in tennis?

Nalbandian was decidedly the better player for the first two sets of both of their Indian Wells matches. Each of those matches should have been over in 2, especially the 2009 one, though the 2012 match was no less inexcusable a collapse on Nalbandian's part.

In the Miami 2010 match, it was just vintage Nadal: be outplayed and then pull out one game by holding a couple breakpoints, turn up the stamina heat and make the opponent hit an extra ball every time, and then mix in one or two opportunistic winners. Nalbandian should've won the 5th game of the second set to go up 3-2 when he was up 15-40 on Nadal's serve, and from there he should have taken the set 6-3. It was right there for him. He had been the superior match to that point, but lost because of Nadal's stamina and persistence, and his own lack of a gameplan for key deciding points.

Since this will be our last chance to spar over the Nadal-Nalbandian rivalry on the ATP forum, before David conversation moves over to the Compare Eras, I'll bite. While I'll give you that Nalbandian should by rights have won their 2009 encounter in IW, (as you might say Nadal was "lucky," though I'd say he out-played Nalbandian in the right moments,) Nalby lost the first set of their next encounter 4-6, so I'm not sure how you say he was out-playing Nadal in the early stages of that match. And in the Miami match, he lost the 2nd and 3rd sets 2 and 2. I don't see how you can blame that on blind luck, or fitness. Your notion of what is "superior," and what is only garnered by "stamina" is full of puncture holes, and that pontoon has been sinking for a long time.

Here's an interview. He says that he was perfectly fine playing from the baseline, but after a day of serving, he could no longer lift up his arm.

Q: A lot of people think that in 2006 you could've been number one. What was missing?

David: I've had the fortune and the misfortune to meet basically two of the best tennis players of alltime. That's how I'll summarise it for you, short and to the point. For me, it's about Federer and Nadal. Roger broke all the records and Rafa is on the brink of doing it. To have shared that great era with them, to have won, lost and to have been at that kind of level has been an honour.

So, Cali, now that you have heard it from YOUR horses' mouth, maybe a bit more respect towards these two?

Interesting that you bring this up, because I was actually going to address that quote.

I disagree with Nalbandian, needless to say. This quote buttresses Kieran's argument that in a significant sense Nalbandian was not cut out for "greatness", or else he wouldn't think such thoughts. To me, this comment about Federer and Nadal is a convenient, but completely illogical, excuse on Nalbandian's part. He makes no sense. I see it as him just rationalizing his own failures, in particular his own failure to prepare himself properly for gametime.

To be more specific, it would make much more sense for Andy Murray or Andy Roddick, let's say, to make this comment, because they have regularly put themselves in position late in Slams against Federer and Nadal, coming with their best level and playing with the best they could muster.

Can Nalbandian even remotely make that claim? The answer is a resounding "no".

Was it Nadal who was beating Nalbandian at clay events for 6 years? Does Nadal have a 11-0 record on clay against Nalbandian like he does Ferrer? No, Nalbandian was either hurt or losing to opponents he should never have been losing to. Nadal wasn't getting in the way of anything.

After 2006, Federer and Nalbandian hardly even played. And, even in 2006, it wasn't Federer who beat Nalbandian at the Australian Open. It was Nalbandian who gave away a 2 sets to 0 lead on Baghdatis and failed to make the final.

So, to answer your question 1972murat, no, Nalbandian's illogical and self-rationalizing nonsense does not change my views one bit. Nalbandian was the player to challenge Federer on grass, to challenge Nadal on clay, and he should have been #1 over each of them, based strictly on talent. But he never even got himself in that position because he was losing to the likes of Davide Sanguinetti in the Toronto first round 6-2, 6-1 out of indifference.

So, this quote makes no sense.

This seems to be the height of hubris, disloyalty, and a blinkered belief in your one-note opinion. Now you won't even believe what your own favorite player says.

Cali didn't say he disagrees that Federer and Nadal are two of the best tennis players ever (at least, I hope he doesn't). He said that Nalbandian can't realistically provide that justification, since it's not like he was consistently putting himself in a position to win tournaments, only to run into those two. And he's absolutely right.

 

[El Dude]

Cali, your rationalizations have reached an all-time high (or low, depending upon how you want to look at it) in this thread. I'm sure you're grieving about Nalbandian's retirement, which makes the "What Could Have Been?" questions all the more poignant, but you seem to avoid what is, in the end, the bottom line: the proof is in the pudding. The "pudding" of Nalbandian's career is that he was a very good player, even an almost-great one, but not a great one. Great at times, yes - but all professional tennis players have moments of brilliance; there is a generally consistent correlation between quantity of these moments and overall greatness and, in the end, David is as great (or not as great) a player as his record reflects.

Nalbandian is probably one of the ten best tennis players of the Aughties. In my mind, only Federer and Nadal were clearly greater. I'd say Agassi was as well, and you'd probably have to rank Safin, Hewitt, and Roddick as greater during that decade. But after that it becomes less clear and Nalbandian is definitely in the mix to make the top ten; at worst, he's in the top 15.

You speak of him as if he vies with Federer and Nadal for the greatest of the decade. Unfortunately the record tells a different story. Even if we ease up on him a bit for never winning a Slam, his results at Slams and his ATP and WTF record place him as a contender, but not better than the other mentioned players. He was probably a greater player during that time than Davydenko and I might even rank him ahead of Ferrero, because the Mosquito smacks me as a player whose best results came at a time when the field was relatively weak and in transition, whereas Nalbandian's prime was right at the same time as Federer's, and saw the rise of Nadal.

None of this is to denigrate Nalbandian. Saying that he was the 7th-10th best player of the Aughties, and probably one of the 50 or so greatest players of the Open Era, is a high complement. But to say anything more is to base one's view not on reality but fantasy.

 

[Kieran]

So, this quote makes no sense.

I actually fully agree with this.

Actually, I agree with Cali on this one as well. It's not like Nalbandian was in the discussion for winning any majors and he ran into Fedal along the way. Maybe it affected his effort, knowing they were there, but he had a good record against Federer and then dumped a 2 set lead against Baghdatis in Oz, which was a supreme act of self-negation and sabotage.

I disagree with Calbandian's assessment of the Nadal matches. Naldandian is winning then old stubborn Gnatal digs his heels in and c'est tout. Well, obviously Nadal dug his heels in - it's a competition so he's not only entitled to, he's actually expected to - but this narrative could be flipped and we say Rafa played crap at first and then improved as the stakes rose. We've seen him do it so often.

Also, matches aren't won by playing great in a single set - they're mainly won over the course of a very few crucial points, and everything else is either leading up to that - or leading away from it...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

So Cali, Nalby not being good enough to put himself in positions later in tournaments to meet and lose against Roger and Rafa somehow makes him better or make the other two worse?

 

[calitennis127]

Since this will be our last chance to spar over the Nadal-Nalbandian rivalry on the ATP forum, before David conversation moves over to the Compare Eras, I'll bite. While I'll give you that Nalbandian should by rights have won their 2009 encounter in IW, (as you might say Nadal was "lucky," though I'd say he out-played Nalbandian in the right moments,) Nalby lost the first set of their next encounter 4-6, so I'm not sure how you say he was out-playing Nadal in the early stages of that match. And in the Miami match, he lost the 2nd and 3rd sets 2 and 2. I don't see how you can blame that on blind luck, or fitness. Your notion of what is "superior," and what is only garnered by "stamina" is full of puncture holes, and that pontoon has been sinking for a long time.

In each of their first four matches, Nalbandian won the first set:

Paris and Madrid Masters 2007;
Then Indian Wells 2009 (Nalbandian won 6-3);
Then Miami 2010 (Nalbandian won 7-6)

So what match are you referring to that Nadal won 6-4 in the first set? He never won a first set 6-4 against Nalbandian in any of their matches.

 

[calitennis127]

So Cali, Nalby not being good enough to put himself in positions later in tournaments to meet and lose against Roger and Rafa somehow makes him better or make the other two worse?

Look, the question of Nalbandian being "better" than Federer or Nadal all depends on how you define "better". If you are going to define "better" as accomplished, then this conversation is a total joke. Nalbandian is a nothing compared to them, because each of them have outstanding and unimpeachable records of achievement of a scale that Nalbandian can only say he has a sliver of.

But if you are talking about talent - just the ability to play the game and make shots and win points - I maintain that Nalbandian is "better" than each, playing at his best against their best. Throw in Djokovic and Murray as well.

Frankly, if you watch a lot of tennis, I don't think there is much arguing with that. You can make the argument that Nalbandian did not sustain it and wasn't cut out mentally for greatness, and I am fine with that. However, when he was in the zone, he schooled every single one of the top players and left them helpless, and he didn't do it in what you might deem a "low-percentage" way, like going for massive forehands a la Tsonga and just being on fire in one match.

Rather, Nalbandian beat Federer, Nadal, Murray, etc. at EXACTLY what everyone says sets them apart. Take everything that Federer or Nadal are supposedly elite at, whether it is footwork or point construction or smarts within points or hitting tough angle shots or changing pace or having variety. Nalbandian showed himself superior to Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray in all of those respects. In that sense, he is "better".

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I won't push more Cali. I know these are rough times. Whatever makes you happy brother.:celeb:

 

[El Dude]

Cali, you're stretching logic beyond the breaking point. By your logic we could say that Mike Benjamin was a "better" hitter for average than Tony Gwynn at his very best because Benjamin did something Gwynn never did: had six hits in a game, and 15 total hits in four consecutive games.

But here's the rub: Mike Benjamin had a career batting average of .229, with 442 total hits. Tony Gwynn hit .338 with 3,141 total hits. Who was the better hitter for average? Benjamin had an amazing four game stretch - as if he was literally touched by grace. But ALL professional athletes have moments of greatness. A truly great player - and yes, in terms of talent as well - is one who is able to expand those moments into entire matches and tournaments and years.

I'm exaggerating to make a point. David Nalbandian was no Mike Benjamin; if we need a comparable player to Benjamin we could look at Lukas Rosol or Steve Darcis. Nalbandian was akin to a career .290 hitter who "could have been" better if he focused more on tennis; someone fated for the "Hall of the Very Good." Someone like Eric Davis - who was incredibly talent, but whose career was marred by injury and life circumstances. Whether he "could have been" better--one of the best, as you contend--is pure conjecture. We'll never know. But he's not the only player for whose results did not match his potential, so in that regard he's no different than dozens of other tennis players, and hundreds of other athletes.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Rather, Nalbandian beat Federer, Nadal, Murray, etc. at EXACTLY what everyone says sets them apart. Take everything that Federer or Nadal are supposedly elite at, whether it is footwork or point construction or smarts within points or hitting tough angle shots or changing pace or having variety. Nalbandian showed himself superior to Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray in all of those respects. In that sense, he is "better".

No.

 

[Front242]

 

[El Dude]

Cali likes to ignore my Deluge of Common Sense.

 

[tented]

And now the compare players forum will double its thread count

One of my first thoughts as well. :snigger

 

[calitennis127]

Another very significant tidbit about Nalbandian - he has thoroughly outplayed Federer, Nadal, and Murray each at some of the peak moments in their careers. Consider:

1) The 2005 Masters Cup final when Federer was riding his huge hardcourt win streak and final win streak. Nalbandian shattered both.

2) The 2008 Paris Masters quarterfinal against Murray. Murray had just won Cincinnati, then made the final of the US Open, then won two Davis Cup singles matches, then won the Madrid Masters (beating Federer in the semis), then won St. Petersburg, and then came into the Paris Masters quarterfinals having beaten Querrey and Verdasco in straights. In a word, Murray was on a roll. He had a 14-match winning streak going and he was rolling.

But, Nalbandian was just too good in the quarterfinals and beat him in straights (and the match was a lot closer than it needed to be, considering Nalbandian's sloppy serving).

3) The 2009 Indian Wells R16 match against Nadal. Nadal had just won his first hardcourt major and was solidly at #1. Nalbandian schooled him for the better of the first two sets before squandering 5 match points. Nadal was on a roll at this time, as he went on to win Indian Wells after his comeback against Nalbandian.

Nonetheless, these three examples are one illustration that Nalbandian at his best was better than even the Top 4 at their respective bests.

 

[britbox]

Federer at his respective best at the Masters Cup in 2005? He'd been on crutches with an ankle ligament damage a couple of weeks earlier and had withdrawn from Basel, Madrid and Paris... Don't assume just when Nalbandian happens to win a match his opponent is playing lights out tennis at 100% plus. It takes two to tango.

I don't remember the Murray match, but he lost the Nadal match. Highlighting a match he loses isn't really credible evidence. I do remember the match though and thought he should have won at the time but it's really reaching to present that as some sort of proof.

 

[isabelle]

Federer at his respective best at the Masters Cup in 2005? He'd been on crutches with an ankle ligament damage a couple of weeks earlier and had withdrawn from Basel, Madrid and Paris... Don't assume just when Nalbandian happens to win a match his opponent is playing lights out tennis at 100% plus. It takes two to tango.

I don't remember the Murray match, but he lost the Nadal match. Highlighting a match he loses isn't really credible evidence. I do remember the match though and thought he should have won at the time but it's really reaching to present that as some sort of proof.

Federer was not injured in Masters 2005. He said in presser that if he hadn't been at 100% he would have withdrew. He was fairplay and said it was a well deserved win for Nalby. An injured player wouldn't have reached final anyway. Nalby was the better player this day, that's all
If Federer didn't give any excuse to his loss, why do you ?
Nalby beat Federer 8 times, don't tell me the Swiss was injured each time
Nalby is able to beat an healthy Nadal, an healthy Federer, an healthy Nole...Master's 2005 was a well deserved win

 

[britbox]

Federer at his respective best at the Masters Cup in 2005? He'd been on crutches with an ankle ligament damage a couple of weeks earlier and had withdrawn from Basel, Madrid and Paris... Don't assume just when Nalbandian happens to win a match his opponent is playing lights out tennis at 100% plus. It takes two to tango.

I don't remember the Murray match, but he lost the Nadal match. Highlighting a match he loses isn't really credible evidence. I do remember the match though and thought he should have won at the time but it's really reaching to present that as some sort of proof.

Federer was not injured in Masters 2005. He said in presser that if he hadn't been at 100% he would have withdrew. He was fairplay and said it was a well deserved win for Nalby. An injured player wouldn't have reached final anyway. Nalby was the better player this day, that's all
If Federer didn't give any excuse to his loss, why do you ?
Nalby beat Federer 8 times, don't tell me the Swiss was injured each time
Nalby is able to beat an healthy Nadal, an healthy Federer, an healthy Nole...Master's 2005 was a well deserved win

You missed the point. The point being that whenever a top player loses to Nalbandian it's assumed they are flying at 100% playing their best tennis ever and they just can't handle Nalbandian. Cali would never attribute a Nalbandian loss in the same vein.

Federer's never been one for harping on about injuries and doesn't quit matches (he probably should have quit a YEC match versus Murray a few years later when he was clearly hampered by his back).

He had treatment in the Nalbandian match and had been on crutches a couple of weeks earlier. He'd also missed the three events before the YEC. This paints a slightly different picture than Cali's vision of "riding a huge hardcourt win streak". It might be technically true but it doesn't represent the real picture.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

^^yes..in 2005 Federer was out for 6wks and the WTF/TMC was his first tourney back..

it was amazing he ever reached the final..even then nalbandy nearly managed to screw up against a non-peak fed.