David Nalbandian retires from tennis.

[the AntiPusher]

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.

Djoker's backhand is better at playing the pressure points especially on the bigger stage(Grand Slams and Master Series) than Nalbandian. Jason and Rob K commented about the comparisons of these two during the Djoker vs Monfils match this morning.

 

[Moxie]

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.

Dude, I appreciate the consideration of this post. I have been trying to argue to first part bolded above, (the definition of "talent,") with Cali for years. While I also think that "talent" in tennis is a multi-faceted thing, I'll be surprised if you can convert him on that one.

As to the rest of your argument, and in particular the part that I bolded, it was never one I could make, as a Nadal fan, and you make it compellingly. I doubt Cali will buy it, but to the wider world, you make very intelligent points, (and one amusing Indiana Jones comparison,) about the difference between "pretty" and "effective" tennis. Sometimes, you're not going to win if you bring a knife to a gunfight. I appreciate that you can say that however much you don't love a certain kind of tennis, it works.

 

[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?

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.

I passionately root for Federer in all his matches against Nadal, but it doesn't mean I don't hate him.

So, should we take your new guy is Delpo?

 

[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?

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.

So, there are different opinions and this should make a good thread some day.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

I passionately root for Federer in all his matches against Nadal, but it doesn't mean I don't hate him.

So, should we take your new guy is Delpo?

I always wondered who you hate more, Federer or Nadal. Glad it's the latter.

 

[El Dude]

Dude, I appreciate the consideration of this post. I have been trying to argue to first part bolded above, (the definition of "talent,") with Cali for years. While I also think that "talent" in tennis is a multi-faceted thing, I'll be surprised if you can convert him on that one.

As to the rest of your argument, and in particular the part that I bolded, it was never one I could make, as a Nadal fan, and you make it compellingly. I doubt Cali will buy it, but to the wider world, you make very intelligent points, (and one amusing Indiana Jones comparison,) about the difference between "pretty" and "effective" tennis. Sometimes, you're not going to win if you bring a knife to a gunfight. I appreciate that you can say that however much you don't love a certain kind of tennis, it works.

Thanks for the kind words, Moxie! The irony here is that Cali didn't reply to this one, perhaps partially because I said, "I agree, but..." Anyhow, the more I think about it the more I feel the Indiana Jones comparison is not just amusing, but quite apt.

One of the things about tennis history that I enjoy is that each new generation is, in a way, a response to the previous generation. In a way Roger Federer was the culmination of late 20th century tennis - he took the best of the greats of the Open Era, combined them into a whole that was greater than the sum of the parts. In other words, we could say that Roger Federer was a summation of the best of tennis so far, and in some sense we couldn't imagine a better "grand finale" to 20th century tennis.

But then Rafa came along and "answered" Roger's perfection, showing us that even perfection can be beaten. Rafa brought a different kind of game - not necessarily new, but he did certain things better than anyone else had ever before. As with any great player, we can't reduce Rafa's greatness to one or two capacities (and this is why Nalbandian was, in the end, not a great player). But for me his most impressive quality (to my relatively amateurish eye) is the incredible spin he gets on the ball and how, coupled with his defense and endurance, he makes it so hard to beat him. I honestly can't imagine how difficult it must be simply to return one of his groundstrokes.

Novak and Andy are different players, but they seem in the same general "lineage" of defense-first, and power from the baseline.

But here's where I'm excited: How will the next generation "answer" Rafa, Novak, and Andy? The current younger generation - age 20-24 - doesn't seem to have an answer for them. They seem to be confused about who they are. Are they trying to continue the tradition of the current Big Three or harken back to the artistry of Federer and Nalbandian? As relatively disappointing as the Raonic/Janowicz/Dimitrov/Tomic generation has been so far, at least we can say that they have variation.

But it may not come from that generation. It might be the next group - those current in their teens - who "answer" the style of Rafa, Novak, and Andy. Or, if we're unlikely, it might take even longer. Tennis for the next decade or so could be a quagmire of competing styles,all trying to answer the first great truly 21st century generation - Rafa, Novak, and Andy - even when they're gone. But even that would be quite interesting, as players try to develop a new style of play. I'm excited to find out.

 

[Moxie]

Dude, I appreciate the consideration of this post. I have been trying to argue to first part bolded above, (the definition of "talent,") with Cali for years. While I also think that "talent" in tennis is a multi-faceted thing, I'll be surprised if you can convert him on that one.

As to the rest of your argument, and in particular the part that I bolded, it was never one I could make, as a Nadal fan, and you make it compellingly. I doubt Cali will buy it, but to the wider world, you make very intelligent points, (and one amusing Indiana Jones comparison,) about the difference between "pretty" and "effective" tennis. Sometimes, you're not going to win if you bring a knife to a gunfight. I appreciate that you can say that however much you don't love a certain kind of tennis, it works.

Thanks for the kind words, Moxie! The irony here is that Cali didn't reply to this one, perhaps partially because I said, "I agree, but..." Anyhow, the more I think about it the more I feel the Indiana Jones comparison is not just amusing, but quite apt.

One of the things about tennis history that I enjoy is that each new generation is, in a way, a response to the previous generation. In a way Roger Federer was the culmination of late 20th century tennis - he took the best of the greats of the Open Era, combined them into a whole that was greater than the sum of the parts. In other words, we could say that Roger Federer was a summation of the best of tennis so far, and in some sense we couldn't imagine a better "grand finale" to 20th century tennis.

But then Rafa came along and "answered" Roger's perfection, showing us that even perfection can be beaten. Rafa brought a different kind of game - not necessarily new, but he did certain things better than anyone else had ever before. As with any great player, we can't reduce Rafa's greatness to one or two capacities (and this is why Nalbandian was, in the end, not a great player). But for me his most impressive quality (to my relatively amateurish eye) is the incredible spin he gets on the ball and how, coupled with his defense and endurance, he makes it so hard to beat him. I honestly can't imagine how difficult it must be simply to return one of his groundstrokes.

Novak and Andy are different players, but they seem in the same general "lineage" of defense-first, and power from the baseline.

But here's where I'm excited: How will the next generation "answer" Rafa, Novak, and Andy? The current younger generation - age 20-24 - doesn't seem to have an answer for them. They seem to be confused about who they are. Are they trying to continue the tradition of the current Big Three or harken back to the artistry of Federer and Nalbandian? As relatively disappointing as the Raonic/Janowicz/Dimitrov/Tomic generation has been so far, at least we can say that they have variation.

But it may not come from that generation. It might be the next group - those current in their teens - who "answer" the style of Rafa, Novak, and Andy. Or, if we're unlikely, it might take even longer. Tennis for the next decade or so could be a quagmire of competing styles,all trying to answer the first great truly 21st century generation - Rafa, Novak, and Andy - even when they're gone. But even that would be quite interesting, as players try to develop a new style of play. I'm excited to find out.

Great post, Dude. Since Cali seems done with this one, we may as well at least wrap it up with 'what comes next.'

I don't completely agree that there's nothing "new" about Nadal's game, or those of his ilk. It is rather 21st C. It combines the new technology of the racquets and strings with the power of the new strength and fitness in the players. I don't think he invented that buggy-whip FH, but he perfected it. And he's done a very good job of combining new play and "old school." This, I would guess, might be the future...an amalgamated style.

Rafa has had to improve and adapt his game to play against Roger, and Novak and Andy have had to raise their games to compete, as a consequence. But they're all extremely talented, anyway. The field seems to be trying to raise the bar, too. I don't know why the "lost generation" isn't coming up with the goods, whether a talent-gap, or they're stuck in between styles that they grew up with, and what changes, but I suspect that the next world-beater is a teenager, who is combining everything in terms of old- and new-school.

 

[Ricardo]

Dude, I appreciate the consideration of this post. I have been trying to argue to first part bolded above, (the definition of "talent,") with Cali for years. While I also think that "talent" in tennis is a multi-faceted thing, I'll be surprised if you can convert him on that one.

As to the rest of your argument, and in particular the part that I bolded, it was never one I could make, as a Nadal fan, and you make it compellingly. I doubt Cali will buy it, but to the wider world, you make very intelligent points, (and one amusing Indiana Jones comparison,) about the difference between "pretty" and "effective" tennis. Sometimes, you're not going to win if you bring a knife to a gunfight. I appreciate that you can say that however much you don't love a certain kind of tennis, it works.

Thanks for the kind words, Moxie! The irony here is that Cali didn't reply to this one, perhaps partially because I said, "I agree, but..." Anyhow, the more I think about it the more I feel the Indiana Jones comparison is not just amusing, but quite apt.

One of the things about tennis history that I enjoy is that each new generation is, in a way, a response to the previous generation. In a way Roger Federer was the culmination of late 20th century tennis - he took the best of the greats of the Open Era, combined them into a whole that was greater than the sum of the parts. In other words, we could say that Roger Federer was a summation of the best of tennis so far, and in some sense we couldn't imagine a better "grand finale" to 20th century tennis.

But then Rafa came along and "answered" Roger's perfection, showing us that even perfection can be beaten. Rafa brought a different kind of game - not necessarily new, but he did certain things better than anyone else had ever before. As with any great player, we can't reduce Rafa's greatness to one or two capacities (and this is why Nalbandian was, in the end, not a great player). But for me his most impressive quality (to my relatively amateurish eye) is the incredible spin he gets on the ball and how, coupled with his defense and endurance, he makes it so hard to beat him. I honestly can't imagine how difficult it must be simply to return one of his groundstrokes.

Novak and Andy are different players, but they seem in the same general "lineage" of defense-first, and power from the baseline.

But here's where I'm excited: How will the next generation "answer" Rafa, Novak, and Andy? The current younger generation - age 20-24 - doesn't seem to have an answer for them. They seem to be confused about who they are. Are they trying to continue the tradition of the current Big Three or harken back to the artistry of Federer and Nalbandian? As relatively disappointing as the Raonic/Janowicz/Dimitrov/Tomic generation has been so far, at least we can say that they have variation.

But it may not come from that generation. It might be the next group - those current in their teens - who "answer" the style of Rafa, Novak, and Andy. Or, if we're unlikely, it might take even longer. Tennis for the next decade or so could be a quagmire of competing styles,all trying to answer the first great truly 21st century generation - Rafa, Novak, and Andy - even when they're gone. But even that would be quite interesting, as players try to develop a new style of play. I'm excited to find out.

while this post appears impressive, i am afraid the content is wrong. Federer like Sampras, is a offense-based player who wants to win the point at the first opportunity he gets. Of course his defense significant better than Sampras's, so he is able to weather the storm more when things don't go well. When ATP decided to slow it down (either with surface or use bigger balls) he has to adapt, by playing mainly baseline tennis and as a result his S&V never improved, in fact it got worse. The way he plays is simply one of the all court styles that's based on ultra offense and great defense without getting too physical - he rarely goes into a 20+ rally war with his opponents, he either wins (hitting a winner or force an error) or loses (normally UE) quickly. In any case it's just one style, not 'summation of the best of tennis so far' sorry but it sounds ridiculous.

Another thing is, Nadal wasn't beating 'perfection'. Nadal was beating Federer with mainly two things, first is the unique match-up advantage he has with his fh to Fed's single hander. In fact it applies to all single handers, i see that his fh is at advantage to any single hander no matter how good. It's simply physics, the limitation of a single BH is that it will never handle Nadal's highly spun high bouncing FH as effectively as a great double-handed BH - watch Djoker, Delpo, Murray and all the other good double BHs. It's why it's much more difficult for Fed to beat Nadal with that natural built-in disadvantage, and it explains why he is much more successful against Nadal when it's a low bouncing situation (like those WTF it's a lot easier for his single bh). Of course Nadal is already one of the best ever, but Djoker and Murray are no slouch either yet it's a lot easier for Fed to play them without that particular match-up issue.

Secondly Nadal is one of the few players who are truly better fighter and competitor than Fed. I do not remember anyone else who can bring high level intensity almost each and every time, and i think it unsettles Federer knowing this. He would know what Nadal would bring each time they play, and he knows Nadal is almost never 'off'. It's just about a guarantee that Nadal's high bouncing fh will trouble his bh yet again, even if he isn't playing great because it's always got a big margin for error.

Like Toni said it's easy when it comes to Nadal vs Federer, just pound that bh with Rafa's high bouncing fh; there is no need to ever change that strategy. In general Fed has slightly better game, well obviously not now, and it just happens that Rafa owns him with the match-up issue and relentlessness. Rafa wasn't beating 'perfection', he was beating a guy who can't handle his high bouncing fh like the double handers can.

 

[Ricardo]

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.

Djoker's backhand is better at playing the pressure points especially on the bigger stage(Grand Slams and Master Series) than Nalbandian. Jason and Rob K commented about the comparisons of these two during the Djoker vs Monfils match this morning.

what a load of... :laydownlaughing , Djoker is simply a better pressure player than Nalby ever was. Under pressure, Djoker's serve, fh and bh are all better more often than not. When Nalby is feeling the pressure, all of his wheels fall off - not just the bh. How do you come up with this kind of 'things' every time?

 

[Moxie]

while this post appears impressive, i am afraid the content is wrong. Federer like Sampras, is a offense-based player who wants to win the point at the first opportunity he gets. Of course his defense significant better than Sampras's, so he is able to weather the storm more when things don't go well. When ATP decided to slow it down (either with surface or use bigger balls) he has to adapt, by playing mainly baseline tennis and as a result his S&V never improved, in fact it got worse. The way he plays is simply one of the all court styles that's based on ultra offense and great defense without getting too physical - he rarely goes into a 20+ rally war with his opponents, he either wins (hitting a winner or force an error) or loses (normally UE) quickly. In any case it's just one style, not 'summation of the best of tennis so far' sorry but it sounds ridiculous.

Another thing is, Nadal wasn't beating 'perfection'. Nadal was beating Federer with mainly two things, first is the unique match-up advantage he has with his fh to Fed's single hander. In fact it applies to all single handers, i see that his fh is at advantage to any single hander no matter how good. It's simply physics, the limitation of a single BH is that it will never handle Nadal's highly spun high bouncing FH as effectively as a great double-handed BH - watch Djoker, Delpo, Murray and all the other good double BHs. It's why it's much more difficult for Fed to beat Nadal with that natural built-in disadvantage, and it explains why he is much more successful against Nadal when it's a low bouncing situation (like those WTF it's a lot easier for his single bh). Of course Nadal is already one of the best ever, but Djoker and Murray are no slouch either yet it's a lot easier for Fed to play them without that particular match-up issue.

Secondly Nadal is one of the few players who are truly better fighter and competitor than Fed. I do not remember anyone else who can bring high level intensity almost each and every time, and i think it unsettles Federer knowing this. He would know what Nadal would bring each time they play, and he knows Nadal is almost never 'off'. It's just about a guarantee that Nadal's high bouncing fh will trouble his bh yet again, even if he isn't playing great because it's always got a big margin for error.

Like Toni said it's easy when it comes to Nadal vs Federer, just pound that bh with Rafa's high bouncing fh; there is no need to ever change that strategy. In general Fed has slightly better game, well obviously not now, and it just happens that Rafa owns him with the match-up issue and relentlessness. Rafa wasn't beating 'perfection', he was beating a guy who can't handle his high bouncing fh like the double handers can.

I think your objection is more semantic than substantive to what Dude wrote. I disagree that Roger's S&V got worse, only that he began to use it less, as an adaptation to what he was encountering. And by what you yourself write, it seems like Roger was the 'summation of the best of tennis so far,' as the one who adapted to the new game. I also object to the notion that Federer has "one style." This is the greatness of him. I'll give two quick examples: 2006-8 Wimbledon finals, Federer played Nadal at the baseline game and prevailed twice. 2009 Wimbledon was a completely different tactic v. Roddick, much more S&V. We all agree he probably has the most clubs in the bag. A lot of ink has been spilled over the years in tribute to the 'perfection' of that game, and Dude isn't wrong to say the same.

So if he says that Nadal was beating that perfection, it's not "wrong," per se, but I take your point about breaking it down to it's earthly parts, and extricating it from the more ethereal notion of the Clash of Titans that their rivalry was, for a time.

All of that countered, what are you really objecting to?

 

[El Dude]

Ricardo likes to tell people that they're wrong. No big deal. But you covered most of what I would have said, Moxie.

By the way, I didn't say "there is nothing new" about Nadal but that his style wasn't "necessarily new." A subtle difference but an important one. My point was that whatever newness Nadal brought to the table wasn't the dominant feature of his greatness - it was that he did (and does) certain things better than anyone else before.

 

[Ricardo]

while this post appears impressive, i am afraid the content is wrong. Federer like Sampras, is a offense-based player who wants to win the point at the first opportunity he gets. Of course his defense significant better than Sampras's, so he is able to weather the storm more when things don't go well. When ATP decided to slow it down (either with surface or use bigger balls) he has to adapt, by playing mainly baseline tennis and as a result his S&V never improved, in fact it got worse. The way he plays is simply one of the all court styles that's based on ultra offense and great defense without getting too physical - he rarely goes into a 20+ rally war with his opponents, he either wins (hitting a winner or force an error) or loses (normally UE) quickly. In any case it's just one style, not 'summation of the best of tennis so far' sorry but it sounds ridiculous.

Another thing is, Nadal wasn't beating 'perfection'. Nadal was beating Federer with mainly two things, first is the unique match-up advantage he has with his fh to Fed's single hander. In fact it applies to all single handers, i see that his fh is at advantage to any single hander no matter how good. It's simply physics, the limitation of a single BH is that it will never handle Nadal's highly spun high bouncing FH as effectively as a great double-handed BH - watch Djoker, Delpo, Murray and all the other good double BHs. It's why it's much more difficult for Fed to beat Nadal with that natural built-in disadvantage, and it explains why he is much more successful against Nadal when it's a low bouncing situation (like those WTF it's a lot easier for his single bh). Of course Nadal is already one of the best ever, but Djoker and Murray are no slouch either yet it's a lot easier for Fed to play them without that particular match-up issue.

Secondly Nadal is one of the few players who are truly better fighter and competitor than Fed. I do not remember anyone else who can bring high level intensity almost each and every time, and i think it unsettles Federer knowing this. He would know what Nadal would bring each time they play, and he knows Nadal is almost never 'off'. It's just about a guarantee that Nadal's high bouncing fh will trouble his bh yet again, even if he isn't playing great because it's always got a big margin for error.

Like Toni said it's easy when it comes to Nadal vs Federer, just pound that bh with Rafa's high bouncing fh; there is no need to ever change that strategy. In general Fed has slightly better game, well obviously not now, and it just happens that Rafa owns him with the match-up issue and relentlessness. Rafa wasn't beating 'perfection', he was beating a guy who can't handle his high bouncing fh like the double handers can.

I think your objection is more semantic than substantive to what Dude wrote. I disagree that Roger's S&V got worse, only that he began to use it less, as an adaptation to what he was encountering. And by what you yourself write, it seems like Roger was the 'summation of the best of tennis so far,' as the one who adapted to the new game. I also object to the notion that Federer has "one style." This is the greatness of him. I'll give two quick examples: 2006-8 Wimbledon finals, Federer played Nadal at the baseline game and prevailed twice. 2009 Wimbledon was a completely different tactic v. Roddick, much more S&V. We all agree he probably has the most clubs in the bag. A lot of ink has been spilled over the years in tribute to the 'perfection' of that game, and Dude isn't wrong to say the same.

So if he says that Nadal was beating that perfection, it's not "wrong," per se, but I take your point about breaking it down to it's earthly parts, and extricating it from the more ethereal notion of the Clash of Titans that their rivalry was, for a time.

All of that countered, what are you really objecting to?

what have you really countered? i am still trying to see any kind of substantiated argument. The small disagreement you have that Fed's S&V got worse, well it's worse exactly because he sort of abandoned it. Compared to the days when he S&Ved match in and match out (see Wimbledon 2003 and prior), it's reasonable that it's not as good anymore when you only do it VERY sparingly - how can he maintain the same level of consistency like that? sounds like you disagree with me just for the sake of it :lolz: but it's ok.

 

[calitennis127]

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.

The aspects of the game that Nalbandian was "immensely talented at" were the hardest aspects of the game. It is much harder to execute inside-out backhands or a short-angle forehands or 4 lobs over 6-10 John Isner in one match than to serve at 70% with minimal double faults. The latter isn't necessarily easy, but if you can do the former, you certainly have the ABILITY to do the latter. First-serve percentage and double faults are a matter of fitness and adequate preparation for any Top 20 ATP pro, not just Rafael Nadal or David Nalbandian. But elite shotmaking of Nalbandian's sort is not something that any Top 20 ATP pro can do. Big difference there.

Speaking of first-serve percentage: could you imagine Nalbandian losing any match, let alone a hardcourt match, by a score of 6-2, 6-4 if he served at 70% and only hit two double faults, as Nadal just did against Del Potro?

If Nalbandian ever served at 70% and only hit two double faults for a full hardcourt match, there is no one, except maybe Federer on his best day, who could beat him. I would even say that Federer is the only one of the Big 4 who would take a set off of him in that case.

"Talent" is a combination of all of those factors, how well they integrate and combine into a player's ability on the court

True, but talent can also be characterized as one's potential and one's ceiling, and if a player can do the hardest aspects of tennis (skill-wise) better than anyone else then it is totally legitimate to argue that this player is the most talented.

 

[Ricardo]

Ricardo likes to tell people that they're wrong. No big deal. But you covered most of what I would have said, Moxie.

By the way, I didn't say "there is nothing new" about Nadal but that his style wasn't "necessarily new." A subtle difference but an important one. My point was that whatever newness Nadal brought to the table wasn't the dominant feature of his greatness - it was that he did (and does) certain things better than anyone else before.

Moxie covered? hmmm she isn't exactly someone equipped to do so. I am telling it as it is because you are 'wrong' making these bold statements, without looking past the surface. It's typically what some fans do, they get into a sport shortly and talk as if they know it so well already. Time and again, i see that you mouth off like the 'weak era', or 'Roddick isn't a great player', or 'Hewitt cannot compete these days because lack of power', 'Borg retired because Mac beat him', or things you said about Nalbandian (he hasn't won much so he must be this and that), these kind of generalizing shallow stuff. Most fans are a bit more careful, not to make fool of themselves.

You noticed posters like Brit and BS, they are much more precise and willing to see it in-depth. I don't 'like' to tell people are wrong like you said, that excuse is a bit cheap.

 

[Moxie]

while this post appears impressive, i am afraid the content is wrong. Federer like Sampras, is a offense-based player who wants to win the point at the first opportunity he gets. Of course his defense significant better than Sampras's, so he is able to weather the storm more when things don't go well. When ATP decided to slow it down (either with surface or use bigger balls) he has to adapt, by playing mainly baseline tennis and as a result his S&V never improved, in fact it got worse. The way he plays is simply one of the all court styles that's based on ultra offense and great defense without getting too physical - he rarely goes into a 20+ rally war with his opponents, he either wins (hitting a winner or force an error) or loses (normally UE) quickly. In any case it's just one style, not 'summation of the best of tennis so far' sorry but it sounds ridiculous.

Another thing is, Nadal wasn't beating 'perfection'. Nadal was beating Federer with mainly two things, first is the unique match-up advantage he has with his fh to Fed's single hander. In fact it applies to all single handers, i see that his fh is at advantage to any single hander no matter how good. It's simply physics, the limitation of a single BH is that it will never handle Nadal's highly spun high bouncing FH as effectively as a great double-handed BH - watch Djoker, Delpo, Murray and all the other good double BHs. It's why it's much more difficult for Fed to beat Nadal with that natural built-in disadvantage, and it explains why he is much more successful against Nadal when it's a low bouncing situation (like those WTF it's a lot easier for his single bh). Of course Nadal is already one of the best ever, but Djoker and Murray are no slouch either yet it's a lot easier for Fed to play them without that particular match-up issue.

Secondly Nadal is one of the few players who are truly better fighter and competitor than Fed. I do not remember anyone else who can bring high level intensity almost each and every time, and i think it unsettles Federer knowing this. He would know what Nadal would bring each time they play, and he knows Nadal is almost never 'off'. It's just about a guarantee that Nadal's high bouncing fh will trouble his bh yet again, even if he isn't playing great because it's always got a big margin for error.

Like Toni said it's easy when it comes to Nadal vs Federer, just pound that bh with Rafa's high bouncing fh; there is no need to ever change that strategy. In general Fed has slightly better game, well obviously not now, and it just happens that Rafa owns him with the match-up issue and relentlessness. Rafa wasn't beating 'perfection', he was beating a guy who can't handle his high bouncing fh like the double handers can.

I think your objection is more semantic than substantive to what Dude wrote. I disagree that Roger's S&V got worse, only that he began to use it less, as an adaptation to what he was encountering. And by what you yourself write, it seems like Roger was the 'summation of the best of tennis so far,' as the one who adapted to the new game. I also object to the notion that Federer has "one style." This is the greatness of him. I'll give two quick examples: 2006-8 Wimbledon finals, Federer played Nadal at the baseline game and prevailed twice. 2009 Wimbledon was a completely different tactic v. Roddick, much more S&V. We all agree he probably has the most clubs in the bag. A lot of ink has been spilled over the years in tribute to the 'perfection' of that game, and Dude isn't wrong to say the same.

So if he says that Nadal was beating that perfection, it's not "wrong," per se, but I take your point about breaking it down to it's earthly parts, and extricating it from the more ethereal notion of the Clash of Titans that their rivalry was, for a time.

All of that countered, what are you really objecting to?

what have you really countered? i am still trying to see any kind of substantiated argument. The small disagreement you have that Fed's S&V got worse, well it's worse exactly because he sort of abandoned it. Compared to the days when he S&Ved match in and match out (see Wimbledon 2003 and prior), it's reasonable that it's not as good anymore when you only do it VERY sparingly - how can he maintain the same level of consistency like that? sounds like you disagree with me just for the sake of it :lolz: but it's ok.

I was not at all disagreeing with you for the sake of it. I was trying to have a conversation about it. I won't reiterate my points, especially since your idea of debate is an emoticon. And your response to the Dude is similarly flippant. I really was asking what your position was, but you are going into sneer mode. I really wish you would just debate your position, firstly by making clear what it is.

 

[the AntiPusher]

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.

Djoker's backhand is better at playing the pressure points especially on the bigger stage(Grand Slams and Master Series) than Nalbandian. Jason and Rob K commented about the comparisons of these two during the Djoker vs Monfils match this morning.

what a load of... :laydownlaughing , Djoker is simply a better pressure player than Nalby ever was. Under pressure, Djoker's serve, fh and bh are all better more often than not. When Nalby is feeling the pressure, all of his wheels fall off - not just the bh. How do you come up with this kind of 'things' every time?

you are a funny "man' Mr.Bond:laydownlaughing

 

[Ricardo]

while this post appears impressive, i am afraid the content is wrong. Federer like Sampras, is a offense-based player who wants to win the point at the first opportunity he gets. Of course his defense significant better than Sampras's, so he is able to weather the storm more when things don't go well. When ATP decided to slow it down (either with surface or use bigger balls) he has to adapt, by playing mainly baseline tennis and as a result his S&V never improved, in fact it got worse. The way he plays is simply one of the all court styles that's based on ultra offense and great defense without getting too physical - he rarely goes into a 20+ rally war with his opponents, he either wins (hitting a winner or force an error) or loses (normally UE) quickly. In any case it's just one style, not 'summation of the best of tennis so far' sorry but it sounds ridiculous.

Another thing is, Nadal wasn't beating 'perfection'. Nadal was beating Federer with mainly two things, first is the unique match-up advantage he has with his fh to Fed's single hander. In fact it applies to all single handers, i see that his fh is at advantage to any single hander no matter how good. It's simply physics, the limitation of a single BH is that it will never handle Nadal's highly spun high bouncing FH as effectively as a great double-handed BH - watch Djoker, Delpo, Murray and all the other good double BHs. It's why it's much more difficult for Fed to beat Nadal with that natural built-in disadvantage, and it explains why he is much more successful against Nadal when it's a low bouncing situation (like those WTF it's a lot easier for his single bh). Of course Nadal is already one of the best ever, but Djoker and Murray are no slouch either yet it's a lot easier for Fed to play them without that particular match-up issue.

Secondly Nadal is one of the few players who are truly better fighter and competitor than Fed. I do not remember anyone else who can bring high level intensity almost each and every time, and i think it unsettles Federer knowing this. He would know what Nadal would bring each time they play, and he knows Nadal is almost never 'off'. It's just about a guarantee that Nadal's high bouncing fh will trouble his bh yet again, even if he isn't playing great because it's always got a big margin for error.

Like Toni said it's easy when it comes to Nadal vs Federer, just pound that bh with Rafa's high bouncing fh; there is no need to ever change that strategy. In general Fed has slightly better game, well obviously not now, and it just happens that Rafa owns him with the match-up issue and relentlessness. Rafa wasn't beating 'perfection', he was beating a guy who can't handle his high bouncing fh like the double handers can.

I think your objection is more semantic than substantive to what Dude wrote. I disagree that Roger's S&V got worse, only that he began to use it less, as an adaptation to what he was encountering. And by what you yourself write, it seems like Roger was the 'summation of the best of tennis so far,' as the one who adapted to the new game. I also object to the notion that Federer has "one style." This is the greatness of him. I'll give two quick examples: 2006-8 Wimbledon finals, Federer played Nadal at the baseline game and prevailed twice. 2009 Wimbledon was a completely different tactic v. Roddick, much more S&V. We all agree he probably has the most clubs in the bag. A lot of ink has been spilled over the years in tribute to the 'perfection' of that game, and Dude isn't wrong to say the same.

So if he says that Nadal was beating that perfection, it's not "wrong," per se, but I take your point about breaking it down to it's earthly parts, and extricating it from the more ethereal notion of the Clash of Titans that their rivalry was, for a time.

All of that countered, what are you really objecting to?

what have you really countered? i am still trying to see any kind of substantiated argument. The small disagreement you have that Fed's S&V got worse, well it's worse exactly because he sort of abandoned it. Compared to the days when he S&Ved match in and match out (see Wimbledon 2003 and prior), it's reasonable that it's not as good anymore when you only do it VERY sparingly - how can he maintain the same level of consistency like that? sounds like you disagree with me just for the sake of it :lolz: but it's ok.

I was not at all disagreeing with you for the sake of it. I was trying to have a conversation about it. I won't reiterate my points, especially since your idea of debate is an emoticon. And your response to the Dude is similarly flippant. I really was asking what your position was, but you are going into sneer mode. I really wish you would just debate your position, firstly by making clear what it is.

my position should be perfectly clear, and i also stated what i disagreed with Dude's (and yours) post. if you still can't see it, i am afraid there is not much more i could do.

 

[Ricardo]

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.

Djoker's backhand is better at playing the pressure points especially on the bigger stage(Grand Slams and Master Series) than Nalbandian. Jason and Rob K commented about the comparisons of these two during the Djoker vs Monfils match this morning.

what a load of... :laydownlaughing , Djoker is simply a better pressure player than Nalby ever was. Under pressure, Djoker's serve, fh and bh are all better more often than not. When Nalby is feeling the pressure, all of his wheels fall off - not just the bh. How do you come up with this kind of 'things' every time?

you are a funny "man' Mr.Bond:laydownlaughing

u got caught out again didn't you? :laydownlaughing

 

[El Dude]

Moxie covered? hmmm she isn't exactly someone equipped to do so. I am telling it as it is because you are 'wrong' making these bold statements, without looking past the surface. It's typically what some fans do, they get into a sport shortly and talk as if they know it so well already. Time and again, i see that you mouth off like the 'weak era', or 'Roddick isn't a great player', or 'Hewitt cannot compete these days because lack of power', 'Borg retired because Mac beat him', or things you said about Nalbandian (he hasn't won much so he must be this and that), these kind of generalizing shallow stuff. Most fans are a bit more careful, not to make fool of themselves.

You noticed posters like Brit and BS, they are much more precise and willing to see it in-depth. I don't 'like' to tell people are wrong like you said, that excuse is a bit cheap.

ricardo, I have been open about the fact that I'm pretty new to serious tennis fandom, and that I was never really much of a player and therefore don't have a deep, first-hand knowledge of the game. I'm also obviously interested in historical analysis and statistics, which a couple folks seem to view in a negative light. I see it as a way to better understand the game, with limitations but also benefits.

I don't see anything wrong with voicing my opinions, especially when A) they are not strongly held and I'm continually evolving them, and B) this is a discussion forum and not a grand jury trial. You're basically saying that I'm a fool because my views are "wrong," yet in so doing all you really communicated is that you're rather judgmental and you lack a degree of nuance and seemingly see the world as black and white, right and wrong.

I would suggest that if you honestly think only those who are experts should voice their opinions and enter into discussion, then you're in the wrong place.

 

[Kieran]

El Dude, I wouldn't worry about it, your views are light years ahead and expressed more cogently and politely, so you don't need to explain yourself to anyone...