David Nalbandian retires from tennis.

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

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 He'd been on crutches with an ankle ligament damage a couple of weeks earlier and had withdrawn from Basel, Madrid and Paris...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

Federer missed 6 weeks before..if it had been the other way round with fed at top level and nalbandy had missed 6wks it would ve been 6-3, 6-0, 6-0.

federers injury beforehand just gave nalbandy a better chance to win which he did...just.

 

[Ricardo]

you guys need to get the right perspective on this, and let me show you how - lesson one about objective thinking.

Fed was indeed injured prior to 2005 WTF so he was NOT 100% healthy, but at the same time it didn't stop him from playing some of his best tennis. Remember Gaston Gaudio? the guy may be a hack in some people's eyes and was perhaps a little fortunate to make the semi, but beating him 6-0 6-0 is totally amazing and as much as people can belittle the poor guy, Fed never beat him like that before (or anyone else) in any other WTF matches. So the fact is, Nalby did beat Federer who was playing great tennis in every way (but he was not totally healthy).

I suppose Cali's point is valid if you only zoom in on peak Nalby vs other peak top dogs, that David can bring a level as good or better than whatever other top dogs can. If i ignore 95% of David matches and only focus on 5% where he excelled, i can see that he plays equal or even slightly higher level 'tennis' than peak Federer, and he is maybe a notch better than peak Djoker and maybe a couple notches higher than peak Nadal however........ wait, it still doesn't mean he will win those matches where he appears to be the guy playing better tennis.

That's the problem..... it's really about winning, and better 'tennis' is only part of it while ability to stay sharp and focused, not getting tight, defend when you have to, maintain your level when it becomes a long and close match, stay within do-able range even when your opponent is playing better (like hang in there close enough) ...... those things can win you matches not just great shot-making. Only recently Fog showed this, his tennis was clearly better than Rafa's for two sets, had multiple chances to finish the second set 6-0....... only he failed to do so because Rafa was better in every other aspect.

Unfortunately for David, people don't zoom in on 5% of matches from a historical POV. People like El Dude will give their career stats and that's that, they will not look into or even care about the 'interesting' details...... David was simply a slam-less player who had a few notable MS wins and hovered inside the top 10 for some time, that's how they'll remember him.

 

[Mastoor]

I don't wan to repeat wha was already said here. I jus have 2 questions.

Firstly, I guess we probably don't need another thread checking if people think Nalbandian is the best who never won the slam. Do we have a consensus on this?

Secondly and most importantly, now when Nalbandian retired and Federer will probably do the same soon, who will be Cali's new favourite? I know that he hates Nole and we "love" Nadal equally, so I guess his options are Murray, Delpo, Tsonga or who?

 

[britbox]

^ I'd agree Nalbandian is the best not to have bagged a slam - he just edges the big cat Miloslav Mecir for me.

 

[britbox]

you guys need to get the right perspective on this, and let me show you how - lesson one about objective thinking.

Fed was indeed injured prior to 2005 WTF so he was NOT 100% healthy, but at the same time it didn't stop him from playing some of his best tennis. Remember Gaston Gaudio? the guy may be a hack in some people's eyes and was perhaps a little fortunate to make the semi, but beating him 6-0 6-0 is totally amazing and as much as people can belittle the poor guy, Fed never beat him like that before (or anyone else) in any other WTF matches. So the fact is, Nalby did beat Federer who was playing great tennis in every way (but he was not totally healthy).

I suppose Cali's point is valid if you only zoom in on peak Nalby vs other peak top dogs, that David can bring a level as good or better than whatever other top dogs can. If i ignore 95% of David matches and only focus on 5% where he excelled, i can see that he plays equal or even slightly higher level 'tennis' than peak Federer, and he is maybe a notch better than peak Djoker and maybe a couple notches higher than peak Nadal however........ wait, it still doesn't mean he will win those matches where he appears to be the guy playing better tennis.

That's the problem..... it's really about winning, and better 'tennis' is only part of it while ability to stay sharp and focused, not getting tight, defend when you have to, maintain your level when it becomes a long and close match, stay within do-able range even when your opponent is playing better (like hang in there close enough) ...... those things can win you matches not just great shot-making. Only recently Fog showed this, his tennis was clearly better than Rafa's for two sets, had multiple chances to finish the second set 6-0....... only he failed to do so because Rafa was better in every other aspect.

Unfortunately for David, people don't zoom in on 5% of matches from a historical POV. People like El Dude will give their career stats and that's that, they will not look into or even care about the 'interesting' details...... David was simply a slam-less player who had a few notable MS wins and hovered inside the top 10 for some time, that's how they'll remember him.

I really enjoyed watching Nalbandian and some of the matches going back with Federer particularly, were superb viewing. Nobody (I think) has ever argued he's not a talented player, dangerous on his day and has a game easy on the eye.

I've just never got Cali's view that you can home in on the odd match, even individual sets and make exaggerated proclamations.

Every player will have showcase reels where they redline or look fantastic and in some cases bordering on the unplayable.

I've never disputed that Nalbandian isn't talented, an exquisite shotmaker or a joy to watch but if you look at the overall package, warts and all then some of the stuff written is an exaggeration.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Did cali ever write the official obituary of Nalby? I don't remember seeing one.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I don't wan to repeat wha was already said here. I jus have 2 questions.

Firstly, I guess we probably don't need another thread checking if people think Nalbandian is the best who never won the slam. Do we have a consensus on this?

Secondly and most importantly, now when Nalbandian retired and Federer will probably do the same soon, who will be Cali's new favourite? I know that he hates Nole and we "love" Nadal equally, so I guess his options are Murray, Delpo, Tsonga or who?

I am not ready to give "the best to never won a slam" title to Nalby Mastoor. Not with only 11 titles, 7 of which are 250s. I am still with Rios, with 18 titles, 5 of which are 1000s. Also Mecir would be my second choice, with 3 Masters 1000 wins and an Olympic gold.

For me, Masters 1000 tournaments are really tough ones where you start playing good players right off the bat. That's why Rios gets my vote but I just cannot explain his short-comings at slams, beyond mental issues...

 

[Moxie]

Did cali ever write the official obituary of Nalby? I don't remember seeing one.

He didn't. He's just been batting around small issues, as per usual. I guess the initial one is the one we're going to get.

 

[britbox]

I don't wan to repeat wha was already said here. I jus have 2 questions.

Firstly, I guess we probably don't need another thread checking if people think Nalbandian is the best who never won the slam. Do we have a consensus on this?

Secondly and most importantly, now when Nalbandian retired and Federer will probably do the same soon, who will be Cali's new favourite? I know that he hates Nole and we "love" Nadal equally, so I guess his options are Murray, Delpo, Tsonga or who?

I am not ready to give "the best to never won a slam" title to Nalby Mastoor. Not with only 11 titles, 7 of which are 250s. I am still with Rios, with 18 titles, 5 of which are 1000s. Also Mecir would be my second choice, with 3 Masters 1000 wins and an Olympic gold.

For me, Masters 1000 tournaments are really tough ones where you start playing good players right off the bat. That's why Rios gets my vote but I just cannot explain his short-comings at slams, beyond mental issues...

Yeah, Rios has a pretty good claim to that title also. Rios, Nalbandian and Mecir.

 

[calitennis127]

Did cali ever write the official obituary of Nalby? I don't remember seeing one.

He didn't. He's just been batting around small issues, as per usual. I guess the initial one is the one we're going to get.

I never knew that I was up against a deadline, editor.

Doesn't Nalbandian have some exhos against Mr. Nadal pretty soon? I'll get to it eventually. I am not going to do it on the cheap.

 

[calitennis127]

I don't wan to repeat wha was already said here. I jus have 2 questions.

Firstly, I guess we probably don't need another thread checking if people think Nalbandian is the best who never won the slam. Do we have a consensus on this?

Secondly and most importantly, now when Nalbandian retired and Federer will probably do the same soon, who will be Cali's new favourite? I know that he hates Nole and we "love" Nadal equally, so I guess his options are Murray, Delpo, Tsonga or who?

Since when do I "hate" Djokovic? I have always liked his game and I root for him passionately in all of his matches against Nadal.

Out of the others you listed, I like Delpo the most when he is in the zone, but his mopey demeanor and slovenly attitude have really gotten on my nerves over the years. Those factors hold him back in his career. He walks too slow between points and exudes far too much of a sense of jadedness in his overall attitude.

 

[calitennis127]

I really enjoyed watching Nalbandian and some of the matches going back with Federer particularly, were superb viewing. Nobody (I think) has ever argued he's not a talented player, dangerous on his day and has a game easy on the eye.

I've just never got Cali's view that you can home in on the odd match, even individual sets and make exaggerated proclamations.

Every player will have showcase reels where they redline or look fantastic and in some cases bordering on the unplayable.

I've never disputed that Nalbandian isn't talented, an exquisite shotmaker or a joy to watch but if you look at the overall package, warts and all then some of the stuff written is an exaggeration.

Britbox, as I have been explaining to El Dude in PMs, this argument in response to my contentions is deeply misguided. My argument is not "hey look at this one set where Nalbandian beat Federer or Nadal really bad - this makes him more talented than they are. Ha ha ha ha."

You and El Dude are setting up a very convenient straw man for yourselves to knock down, because ultimately it is based on statistical results, and in that category I as a Nalbandian fan/advocate have plenty of justifying to do, as to why his bottom line isn't so convincing.

The problem is - that's not my argument. My argument is a purely tennis-skill-oriented and tennis-talent-oriented argument. Let me make this simple: you can take sets that Nalbandian LOST 6-3 or 6-4 and still find in them evidence that he was more talented than Federer or Nadal.

Now, how in the world could that be, you are probably asking?

Well, again, let me keep this simple: Nalbandian frequently lost sets for the most petty, shoot-yourself-in-the-foot type of reasons that are simply inexcusable for any professional player, let alone a perennial Top 10 player such as he was for the better part of a decade. Basically it comes down to a) first-serve percentage and b) double faults and c) what those problems reflected - namely, a lack of rigorous commitment to detail in preparation and possessing a high fitness level.

Even in sets that Nalbandian lost - if you really understand the game - you could see plenty of evidence for why he was the most talented player of this generation. And that leads to my next important point to raise here, which is DEGREE OF DIFFICULTY. The shots and rally construction that Nalbandian routinely demonstrated match after match, whether he won on a particular day or not, were utterly brilliant. He would have games, for instance, in which he would hit 4 or 5 shots that would be the highlight reel of a Wimbledon final, only to lose the game because of two or three double faults and not hitting a first serve in. His problems were very correctable, while his strengths are pretty much the hardest and most advanced aspects of tennis.

As I said to El Dude: the argument that Nalbandian, like all Top 20 players, had some of those moments in the sun where he looked great but that we shouldn't say that this was his real identity - this frankly misses the point quite severely. I am not basing my argument on a small handful of matches against the Big 4 where Nalbandian had a great day because, indeed, with the Big 4 having played so many matches a number of players have had their "day" against them, ranging from Tsonga and Davydenko to Berdych and especially Del Potro. My argument is much deeper and far-reaching than that, namely, that if you take any match Nalbandian played you will see him doing what is hardest about the game of tennis better than anyone and with more ease than anyone.

If Nalbandian had a game in which he hit 5 winners, comprised of a BH down-the-line and two exquisite volleys and a BH inside-out and then a cross-court forehand, but then he lost the game because he hit two double faults, one cheap error into the net, and he didn't make a single first-serve, then I am not going to conclude that he isn't as "talented" as the Big 4. Patently to anyone who watches tennis, hitting an inside-out backhand or a sliced drop volley is much more difficult than making a first serve or not hitting a double fault.

The ridiculous position of you and El Dude is that not hitting 9 double faults in a 3-set match is as much an indicator of talent as hitting the most difficult and advanced baseline shots, as well as dictating rallies with variety and impeccable skill and ball-striking. That position is preposterous.

 

[Moxie]

Cali, I know there's no convincing you, but however impeccable the shot-making, a tennis player has to string those shots together in the right order. And if they DF, they have to make up for it. As you like to say: "anyone who understands tennis" knows this. "Talent" is also winning the big points. And some ARE bigger than others, no matter how pretty.

 

[BalaryKar]

Cali, I know there's no convincing you, but however impeccable the shot-making, a tennis player has to string those shots together in the right order. And if they DF, they have to make up for it. As you like to say: "anyone who understands tennis" knows this. "Talent" is also winning the big points. And some ARE bigger than others, no matter how pretty.

If the opponent is week, it is easier to hit beautiful after beautiful shots, unless the opponent is too week to even return a single ball. The analogy can't be more simpler, would you marry a person who looks beautiful and gorgeous in good times and behaves badly and ugliest during the slightest of bad times, or marry somebody who does not look the awesome most at all the times but stands with you all the times no matter what the storm is. Now, who is the more beautiful person?

Any way, besides the routine argument/counter-argument, I am actually looking to Cali's full-blown tribute to Nalbandian. It will be worth the wait

 

[Denis]

I don't wan to repeat wha was already said here. I jus have 2 questions.

Firstly, I guess we probably don't need another thread checking if people think Nalbandian is the best who never won the slam. Do we have a consensus on this?

Secondly and most importantly, now when Nalbandian retired and Federer will probably do the same soon, who will be Cali's new favourite? I know that he hates Nole and we "love" Nadal equally, so I guess his options are Murray, Delpo, Tsonga or who?

Since when do I "hate" Djokovic? I have always liked his game and I root for him passionately in all of his matches against Nadal.

Out of the others you listed, I like Delpo the most when he is in the zone, but his mopey demeanor and slovenly attitude have really gotten on my nerves over the years. Those factors hold him back in his career. He walks too slow between points and exudes far too much of a sense of jadedness in his overall attitude.

Yeah I recall your support for Djokovic. You have also lauded his backhand if I am correct.

 

[britbox]

Britbox, as I have been explaining to El Dude in PMs, this argument in response to my contentions is deeply misguided. My argument is not "hey look at this one set where Nalbandian beat Federer or Nadal really bad - this makes him more talented than they are. Ha ha ha ha."

You and El Dude are setting up a very convenient straw man for yourselves to knock down, because ultimately it is based on statistical results, and in that category I as a Nalbandian fan/advocate have plenty of justifying to do, as to why his bottom line isn't so convincing.

I don't know about El Dude, but I'm not basing it purely on statistical results Cali. I've watched more than enough Nalbandian matches to base it on a little more. I've even watched some of these at the same time as you over the years and in subsequent discussions, I could have sworn I was watching a different match. (Same with Nadal matches actually).

If you aren't talking about Nalbandian and Nadal then I agree with plenty that you have to say, but those two players seem to exaggerate your views in polar opposite directions to such an extent that you seem to lose any clear sight of what you've just witnessed.

I share your opinion that Nalbandian was a talented player, but I don't agree with your synopsis that he's the "most talented", although I agree that talent and application are seperate issues... albeit with a large overlap.

There are plenty of other players along with Nalbandian to greater or lesser degrees that I like watching who can make waves out of talent alone. They don't always apply themselves consistently but like the saying "On any given sunday" you'll sit and watch thinking that they've got a shot at upsetting the apple cart by playing a blinder - guys like Safin (who IMO was more talented than Nalbandian) and lower down the ladder, guys like Marco Bagdhatis, Feliciano Lopez and a stream of others who can put in a decent days work... because you know they've got more upside than their ranking or results would suggest. Dimitrov is potentially another who might fall in this category.

The problem is - that's not my argument. My argument is a purely tennis-skill-oriented and tennis-talent-oriented argument. Let me make this simple: you can take sets that Nalbandian LOST 6-3 or 6-4 and still find in them evidence that he was more talented than Federer or Nadal.

Now, how in the world could that be, you are probably asking?

Well, again, let me keep this simple: Nalbandian frequently lost sets for the most petty, shoot-yourself-in-the-foot type of reasons that are simply inexcusable for any professional player, let alone a perennial Top 10 player such as he was for the better part of a decade. Basically it comes down to a) first-serve percentage and b) double faults and c) what those problems reflected - namely, a lack of rigorous commitment to detail in preparation and possessing a high fitness level.

First, I think your definition of talent is very narrow. It boils down to offensive shotmaking and that alone. You never take defense into account and I'm not just talking about keeping the ball in play, how about the transitional game where you see how players like Federer, Nadal and Djokovic turn defense into offence so fluently. Nalbandian isn't on the same page, sorry. He's not chopped liver by any means but these guys are a cut above.

You also focus on players redlining, not to mention dismissing aspects of the game like the serve and ROS. Anyone can roll a serve into play (even my wife), but at the top table of the sport you've got to do something with it. It's the only shot you can totally dictate from the get go and if you've played tennis you'll understand the variations in spin, speed and placement. How you think serving requires no level of skill is totally beyond me. It's a bread and butter component of the arsenal.

Even in sets that Nalbandian lost - if you really understand the game - you could see plenty of evidence for why he was the most talented player of this generation. And that leads to my next important point to raise here, which is DEGREE OF DIFFICULTY. The shots and rally construction that Nalbandian routinely demonstrated match after match, whether he won on a particular day or not, were utterly brilliant. He would have games, for instance, in which he would hit 4 or 5 shots that would be the highlight reel of a Wimbledon final, only to lose the game because of two or three double faults and not hitting a first serve in. His problems were very correctable, while his strengths are pretty much the hardest and most advanced aspects of tennis.

Serving aside, I've seen plenty of matches where Nalbandian has stunk the joint out. Relatively speaking of course. Focusing on double faults is ridiculous. It's as ludicrous as fanboys isolating the odd shot or line call as being the reason a match was won or lost.

As I said to El Dude: the argument that Nalbandian, like all Top 20 players, had some of those moments in the sun where he looked great but that we shouldn't say that this was his real identity - this frankly misses the point quite severely. I am not basing my argument on a small handful of matches against the Big 4 where Nalbandian had a great day because, indeed, with the Big 4 having played so many matches a number of players have had their "day" against them, ranging from Tsonga and Davydenko to Berdych and especially Del Potro. My argument is much deeper and far-reaching than that, namely, that if you take any match Nalbandian played you will see him doing what is hardest about the game of tennis better than anyone and with more ease than anyone.

If Nalbandian had a game in which he hit 5 winners, comprised of a BH down-the-line and two exquisite volleys and a BH inside-out and then a cross-court forehand, but then he lost the game because he hit two double faults, one cheap error into the net, and he didn't make a single first-serve, then I am not going to conclude that he isn't as "talented" as the Big 4. Patently to anyone who watches tennis, hitting an inside-out backhand or a sliced drop volley is much more difficult than making a first serve or not hitting a double fault.

"One cheap error into the net" has the same value as an exquisite down the line back hand winner after a thirty shot rally. You choose to take the highlight over the overall picture.

The ridiculous position of you and El Dude is that not hitting 9 double faults in a 3-set match is as much an indicator of talent as hitting the most difficult and advanced baseline shots, as well as dictating rallies with variety and impeccable skill and ball-striking. That position is preposterous.

Lol.

 

[calitennis127]

I don't wan to repeat wha was already said here. I jus have 2 questions.

Firstly, I guess we probably don't need another thread checking if people think Nalbandian is the best who never won the slam. Do we have a consensus on this?

Secondly and most importantly, now when Nalbandian retired and Federer will probably do the same soon, who will be Cali's new favourite? I know that he hates Nole and we "love" Nadal equally, so I guess his options are Murray, Delpo, Tsonga or who?

Since when do I "hate" Djokovic? I have always liked his game and I root for him passionately in all of his matches against Nadal.

Out of the others you listed, I like Delpo the most when he is in the zone, but his mopey demeanor and slovenly attitude have really gotten on my nerves over the years. Those factors hold him back in his career. He walks too slow between points and exudes far too much of a sense of jadedness in his overall attitude.

Yeah I recall your support for Djokovic. You have also lauded his backhand if I am correct.

And his overall athleticism and shotmaking ability.

 

[calitennis127]

Quickly, to Britbox: Nalbandian definitely has a better ROS shot than Federer and Nadal. One of Nadal's clear weaknesses has been his ROS over the years, and in Federer's case, his returns off of the BH have been a well-documented vulnerability.

As far as Nalbandian v. Djokovic on the ROS, is pretty much equal, though Djokovic is better at covering more court with his lunging and flexibility, while Nalbandian is better at being more offensive with the return.

 

[El Dude]

Cali, I can't speak for Britbox, but the absurd thing is that you accuse me (and him) of setting up an easy straw man, but the thing is, that this is YOUR straw man of me straw manning! I AGREED with you, but I just tried to put it in a larger context (which you absolutely refuse to acknowledge because, at least as far as I can tell, you are unwilling and unable to view David Nalbandian with any degree of objectivity).

Here's the last PM I sent to you, which you didn't reply to (which is fine; but you conveniently ignored the point of me agreeing with you, which negates your bogus "straw man" argument):

..................................................................from Oct 8............................................................

The irony here, Cali, is that you're being an instant of your own complaint - making a straw man argument. The answer to both of your questions is "no" and "no" - I am not denying or disagreeing with either of your assertions! So you're just banging your head against a wall of your own making.

I am not disagreeing that Nalbandian was immensely talented at certain aspects of the game. But the problem is, tennis isn't only those aspects. It is also serve percentages and avoiding double faults, and all sorts of other things. "Talent" is a combination of all of those factors, how well they integrate and combine into a player's ability on the court; "greatness" is how that talent translates over a career. Nalbandian's gifts are undeniable, but he didn't have the full array of factors that are required of elite talent or true greatness.

Let's put Nalbandian aside for a moment and talk about Rafa and Roger. As you know, I'm a big Roger fan - I just love watching him play - his elegance, his smooth motion, and his incredible shot-making. Then there's Rafa. I find his game less interesting - he seems to win in a more dogged way, wearing his opponents down, seemingly more about preventing them from winning points than actually winning them himself. Or let's talk about Novak - how many times has he won in an improbable manner, coming from behind and sneaking a victory?

None of this denies the fact that, right now and overall for the last several years, Rafa and Novak are better players than Roger. Furthermore, no matter what I think about Rafa's game and how I prefer Roger's style, Rafa has dominated the match-up. In other words, Rafa's game isn't as pretty but it works. Its ridiculously effective and he's arguably a greater player than Roger [career-wise].

I think this is where a lot of your frustration about Nalbandian lies - he's sort of similar to Roger in this regard, although less effective, less consistent, and with bigger flaws. Watching Roger play artfully against Rafa, but then Rafa just wear him down and get him to hit unforced errors is enormously frustrating. It feels like Rafa isn't playing "real tennis" - that he's circumventing the Proper Way to Play, sort of like when Indiana Jones pulled his gun on that scimitar wielding swordsman. But the thing is, it is real tennis, and it is dreadfully effective tennis. You and I might not like it as much as the artistry of Nalbandian and Federer, but we must accept it as a valid approach to the game.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Quickly, to Britbox: Nalbandian definitely has a better ROS shot than Federer and Nadal. One of Nadal's clear weaknesses has been his ROS over the years, and in Federer's case, his returns off of the BH have been a well-documented vulnerability.

As far as Nalbandian v. Djokovic on the ROS, is pretty much equal, though Djokovic is better at covering more court with his lunging and flexibility, while Nalbandian is better at being more offensive with the return.

Nalbandian is a better returner than Federer and Nadal, though I disagree about Fed's backhand return. In his prime, it was amazing at neutralizing huge serves. It wasn't offensive, but it didn't need to be. He chipped it back in play and let the rest of his game do the rest.

Nalbandian is probably more offensive with his return than Djokovic, but it's not enough to call it equal. Djokovic is a significantly better service reader, returns almost as good from his forehand side as he does from his backhand side, is better at handling pacy serves and returning them smack on the baseline.