David Nalbandian retires from tennis.

[El Dude]

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.

I don't deny that. But you seem to be in denial of the nature of the game as it is. The simple fact is that Nalbandian's weaknesses in other aspects of the game have kept him from being truly great.

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.

If Greg Maddux had thrown 100 mph in addition to his pinpoint control then he would have been the greatest pitcher in baseball history. But he didn't, so he wasn't (although he was still pretty damn good).

You're creating a "what if" scenario that is essentially meaningless, because serving is a major aspect of the game that--according to you--Nalbandian never could master. Sure, if he had mastered it we might be talking about him along with the other greats, but it just wasn't the 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.
[/quote]

Only if you remove all other aspects of the game. Tennis is not just certain aspects of the game, the one's Nalbandian excelled at, which is seemingly what you wish it was. I mean, if acting was only looks and body then Megan Fox would be a great actress, but no one will know her name 20 years from now while Meryl Streep will always be known as one of the greatest actresses in the history of cinema. Whether we're talking about baseball, tennis, or acting, complex activities have a variety of skills that go into performing them. The greatest tennis players, as far as I can tell, are those that combine incredible strengths with no major weaknesses. Nalbandian had incredible strengths but unlike a, say, Rafael Nadal, wasn't able to overcome or circumvent his weaknesses.

EDIT: Note that I said no major weaknesses. All players have weaknesses, but what I'm arguing is that one of the qualities of greatness is being able to either significantly improve one's weaknesses, or find ways to circumvent them.

 

[BalaryKar]

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.

I don't deny that. But you seem to be in denial of the nature of the game as it is. The simple fact is that Nalbandian's weaknesses in other aspects of the game have kept him from being truly great.

Please, the aforebolded talent were rarely maintained over entire matches, leave alone complete tournaments. And since the said talent levels were not sustained over entire matches, there is implication that if the so-called weakness were overcome, it would have automatically translated into greatness. It seems like a joke that players Roddick, Safin, and Hewitt were simply kidding around and not serious to win slams. They were always there serious to win slams. All the success they wanted was simply snatched away from them, be it Fed, Nadal, or Djokovic. Put Nalbandian in 10 straight matches against Isner, and you will then see that the aforementioned lobs would be like 6, 6, 4, 3, 1, 0, 0,1, 4, 0. I can look at Fed acing Nadal at the beginning of a match, and then not another for the last two sets. Where do those aces go? They are killed by Nadal and not that Fed does not want to hit them. Nalbandian does those hardest parts in the beginning, and later it is these things abandoning him and not the mere decline of serve percentages which were not great to begin with.

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.

If Greg Maddux had thrown 100 mph in addition to his pinpoint control then he would have been the greatest pitcher in baseball history. But he didn't, so he wasn't (although he was still pretty damn good).

You're creating a "what if" scenario that is essentially meaningless, because serving is a major aspect of the game that--according to you--Nalbandian never could master. Sure, if he had mastered it we might be talking about him along with the other greats, but it just wasn't the case.

Yes, and pit that 70% server Nalbandian version against 2004 Wimbledon/USO version of Fed, or against the 2008 FO Nadal version. There is a reason why Fed has bagelled Nalbandian many times over and never allowed Nalbandian to return the favor. Peak Nalbandian Vs Peak Fed or Peak Nadal would be an all time peak embrassment, for Nalbandian.

No matter how one tries to slice and dice it, things more or less converge to the truth, and the truth here is Nalbandian is no more good than the two Masters + 1 WTF. Why? You may say that it is my hatred for Nalbandian/Calitennis. No, it is not. See, the peak Baghdatis, the peak Gonzalez, the peak Gaudio are all better than the best Nalbandian. It is naive to think that way, however, it is not naive to think that peak Nalbandian is better or more talented than some of the best players ever.

And for one of the earlier joke that it was somehow only for good that Nalby never won a slam perspective. For a guy to be straight-setted in the only GS final he made by Hewitt, and then loosing so meekly in quater-finals, semis, to heralded and not-so-heralded players, it is only a practical joke that Nalby would have won a slam. Asked to repeat the 2007 Masters double feat one more time, almost everybody will reckon that it is simply impossible for Nalby to do it. Let us just leave it at that, Nalby is simply good at 2Masters, nothing more, nothing less. People forget, and rightly so, one slam wonders, leave alone a loosing finalist.

 

[calitennis127]

Please, the aforebolded talent were rarely maintained over entire matches, leave alone complete tournaments.

Total, shear, complete, ignorant, counter-factual, counter-empirical nonsense.

Nalbandian's problems never had to do with executing the most advanced and difficult shots from the baseline. He always did this with consistency and regularity. To deny this is to admit that you didn't watch his matches all that much.

So thank you for admitting that you don't know much about the topic being addressed here.

It is very clear.

 

[calitennis127]

El Dude,

I think our disagreement is mainly one of semantics. There is no arguing that Nalbandian's lack of achievements disqualifies him from the discussion of all-time greats, whose place in history is solidified by their titles.

However, talent-wise Nalbandian at his best was above everybody in my view, when you look at the whole package of tennis skill and tennis competency.

On that note, I have never seen a player excite so much admiration and praise in the "experts" of the sport when he was playing well. In any sport, you will hear commentators and analysts rave about certain players when they are in the zone, saying that "so-and-so is a great example to young players; that's exactly how you execute a (fill in the blank)."

So, for instance, commentators will say during a Llodra match that if you're learning how to volley or teaching someone how to volley, you should study Llodra.

Now I have seen the Big 4 complimented in this way over the years. However, I have never seen a player just cause tennis aficionados, coaches, analysts, commentators, etc. to exude this super-excited sense of "THAT IS HOW YOU DO IT. THAT IS TEXTBOOK. THAT IS HOW YOU CONSTRUCT A POINT!!!!" more than Nalbandian. Never.

Of course, this is something you only notice from watching zillions of matches, but having watched so many, I think I am qualified to make this kind of "people judgment"/psychoanalysis. No one has ever made tennis minds be in more awe from a technical and execution standpoint than Nalbandian. They have regarded his execution as ideal and flawless.

In fact, no less a tennis aficionado than our very own Kieran once remarked to me in a PM, after I had sent him highlights of the Nalbandian v. Haas 2012 Cincinnati match, that I should send the video to Novak and Murray, so they can see "how it's done" when closing on the net. Mr. Kieran seems to like volleys and players executing at the net, judging by his appended Tennis Frontier photograph. He looked at Nalbandian's execution as an ideal model of sorts, as "textbook".

This is something to note on this matter as well.

 

[Kieran]

In fact, no less a tennis aficionado than our very own Kieran once remarked to me in a PM, after I had sent him highlights of the Nalbandian v. Haas 2012 Cincinnati match, that I should send the video to Novak and Murray, so they can see "how it's done" when closing on the net. Mr. Kieran seems to like volleys and players executing at the net, judging by his appended Tennis Frontier photograph. He looked at Nalbandian's execution as an ideal model of sorts, as "textbook".

This is something to note on this matter as well.

Well this is true, and from memory it was in 2012, after Wimbledon, where I'd witnessed Novak being absolutely clueless on what to do with a short ball that even paid his fare to the net, but he balked. He'd scamper back to the safety of the baseline and drag the point out interminably. Murray was similar. Whereas in that video, yes, Nalbandian had shown how the ancient game could and should be played...

 

[brokenshoelace]

The idea that because Nalbandian had excellent ground strokes, and hit the "difficult" shots very well, he just as easily could do the "easier" things well is flawed at best. A service has nothing to do with a backhand. You can be great at the latter, and mediocre at the former, without it being attributed to laziness or lack of dedication. Simply put, the serve is a shot that has just never "clicked" for you.

 

[El Dude]

I think our disagreement is mainly one of semantics. There is no arguing that Nalbandian's lack of achievements disqualifies him from the discussion of all-time greats, whose place in history is solidified by their titles.

Good. Glad we got that cleared up

However, talent-wise Nalbandian at his best was above everybody in my view, when you look at the whole package of tennis skill and tennis competency.

This where we start to diverge and it may have to do with your lack of clarity--or at least my lack of understanding--about what you mean by "at his best." Do you mean in a given point, game, set, his best match? What sort of time frame are we talking about?

And even then, is it a meaningful phrase? Using a phrase like "at his best" is, at best, inexact; at worst, it is obfuscating to the point of worthless.

Every professional tennis player can play at a very high level "at his best." Lukas Rosol and Steve Darcis are living proof of this.

If we're talking about such a narrow range, then it is nearly impossible to talk about how different players rank "at their best." I mean, can we really say that Nalbandian "at his best" was better than Federer "at his best?" I suppose we can analyze their best matches, and look at their winners and such, but even then it would be an enormously subjective call. It just seems to me that the truly great players are all very similar "at their best." Think Federer and Nadal at the 2008 Wimbledon. Nadal won, but it could have gone either way. They played at a very similar level. Or Nadal and Djokovic at Roland Garros this year.

As I've said, my view is that "greatness" has to do with being able to manifest one's "best" as frequently as possible. Maybe Federer, Nalbandian, and Rosol all have had moments - at their very best - that are essentially interchangeable in terms of level. "Inspired tennis," we can call it. We see this in all sports - players, no matter how great (or not) having great games, or parts of games.

Indulge me as I talk baseball for a moment. I used the analogy of Mike Benjamin in a PM, I believe, who I imagine no one has ever heard of, even diehard baseball fans. Benjamin was a lifetime .229 hitter, which is not good at all, especially playing as he did in the high scoring 1990s. Yet Benjamin has the major league record for most hits in three consecutive games with 14. Tony Gwynn, a multiple batting champion and lifetime .338 hitter, the highest since Ted Williams, who retired 41 years prior to Gwynn, never had 14 hits in three consecutive games.

From a certain perspective we can conclude that Mike Benjamin, "at his best," was better than Tony Gwynn. But this is completely absurd. Benjamin was a mediocre bench player, while Gwynn is a Hall of Famer and one of the greatest hitters for average in the history of the game. Benjamin had a truly inspired few games, but it was a brief blip on the radar.

This is not to say that David Nalbandian is akin to Benjamin - he's not; in the tennis world, a Mike Benjamin would be like a perennial #100-300 player who upset a top 10 player in a Grand Slam. Someone like Sergiy Stakhovsky, Lukas Rosol, or Steve Darcis - and maybe not even that.

Nalbandian was one of the ten or so best players during the "Aughties" and is, in my mind, akin to what some baseball fans call the "Hall of the Very Good"--players worthy of remembering, who had long and excellent careers, but were never truly great, except for perhaps brief moments of brilliance. The Hall of the Very Good is generally comprised of either very good players with tremendous longevity, or almost-great players who don't quite have enough, or have too many weaknesses, to be great, or some combination of both - which is what Nalbandian was, with an emphasis on the latter.

But again, to use like "at his best" is very problematic, both because of how inexact it is, but because of the simple fact that ALL players, "at their best," play a very high level. A truly great player, like Federer or Nadal, is able to manifest that level quite frequently over a decade or so of time.

On that note, I have never seen a player excite so much admiration and praise in the "experts" of the sport when he was playing well. In any sport, you will hear commentators and analysts rave about certain players when they are in the zone, saying that "so-and-so is a great example to young players; that's exactly how you execute a (fill in the blank)."

I have two thoughts about this. One is simply that--and I don't mean to offend you--we tend to hear what we want to hear. I don't know if you're qualified to be the judge of this, Cali, because of your love of Nalbandian. It isn't that different than being a parent; I have a hard time being "objective" about my two daughters, who are the two most beautiful beings in the world to me. In truth, I can't be "objective" at all (nor do I want to be!)

The other thing is, even if what you say is true, we can't divorce it from the context of the player. Analysts might say that about Nalbandian precisely because of the interesting combination of factors that he represents: An under-achiever who oscillates between elite brilliance and foolish mediocrity. In other words, it stands out when they complement Nalbandian in a way that it doesn't with Federer or Nadal, because they're far more consistently great.

 

[Kieran]

Cali, there's a difference between hitting the target 10 times out of 10 on a shooting range - and hitting it 10 outta 10 when the target is firing back at you...

 

[BalaryKar]

Total, shear, complete, ignorant, counter-factual, counter-empirical nonsense.

Nalbandian's problems never had to do with executing the most advanced and difficult shots from the baseline. He always did this with consistency and regularity. To deny this is to admit that you didn't watch his matches all that much.

So thank you for admitting that you don't know much about the topic being addressed here.

It is very clear.

You don't understand basic terms such as consistency and regularity. According to you Nalby played the same class of most advanced and difficult shots that he did in first two sets (albeit the last two games) of IW09 as he did in the third set too. Why? Because Nalby is consistent and regular. And still he lost 6-0. :laydownlaughing

Put it the other way, if Nadal played the same way as in third set in the first two sets, the last one would not be even played. So Cali, understand basic meaning of the words first, grip them, and then we will speak about tennis. :blush:

 

[isabelle]

Total, shear, complete, ignorant, counter-factual, counter-empirical nonsense.

Nalbandian's problems never had to do with executing the most advanced and difficult shots from the baseline. He always did this with consistency and regularity. To deny this is to admit that you didn't watch his matches all that much.

So thank you for admitting that you don't know much about the topic being addressed here.

It is very clear.

You don't understand basic terms such as consistency and regularity. According to you Nalby played the same class of most advanced and difficult shots that he did in first two sets (albeit the last two games) of IW09 as he did in the third set too. Why? Because Nalby is consistent and regular. And still he lost 6-0. :laydownlaughing

Put it the other way, if Nadal played the same way as in third set in the first two sets, the last one would not be even played. So Cali, understand basic meaning of the words first, grip them, and then we will speak about tennis. :blush:

A lot of players lost a match 6/0 or 6/1 in the 3rd set, nos more gas in the tank, tireness or anythnig else.
It doesn't automatically mean that X or Y is unconsistant
If Nalby wasn't consistant, he wouldn't have had the career he had. he stayed several years in top 10, was selected several years in a row to play DC. I guess it's easier to have a career like Monfils, Nieminen or Benneteau than to have a career like Nalby. maybe I'm wrong but I can't imagine some unconsistant guy winning Masters Cup in 5 sets vs N°1 or 2 MS in a row, beating the best players in the process, he also reached N°3, how would it be possible without being consistant ? If so, guys like Dolgo, Paire or anyone else would have done it like Nalby
Daveeeed isn't the more consistant but not the less either

 

[BalaryKar]

A lot of players lost a match 6/0 or 6/1 in the 3rd set, nos more gas in the tank, tireness or anythnig else.
It doesn't automatically mean that X or Y is unconsistant
If Nalby wasn't consistant, he wouldn't have had the career he had. he stayed several years in top 10, was selected several years in a row to play DC. I guess it's easier to have a career like Monfils, Nieminen or Benneteau than to have a career like Nalby. maybe I'm wrong but I can't imagine some unconsistant guy winning Masters Cup in 5 sets vs N°1 or 2 MS in a row, beating the best players in the process, he also reached N°3, how would it be possible without being consistant ? If so, guys like Dolgo, Paire or anyone else would have done it like Nalby
Daveeeed isn't the more consistant but not the less either

You have nailed it Isabella. I agree with you that Nalbandian is consistent. The only disagreement, not with you but with Cali, is about the level of consistency. Despite all the success that Nalby had, even taking out the injuries time out, the reason Nalby did not achieve the success that was expected out of him, and who knows this better than Nalby fans, was essentially the level of consistency. Yes, and the lack of luck sometimes really sucks. Only if del Potro had arrived a few years ago, or Nalby could have carried a couple years more, the Davis Cup would have reached in who is now the "Best Player to Never be Part of WInning Davis Cup".

 

[tenniskiosk]

David Nalbandian has announced his retirement today.

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/news/atp-tennis/david-nalbandian-retires-from-tennis/

A sad but inevitable day for the sport. Age and niggling injuries.

I'll leave it to Cali to write a more in depth "retirement obituary"... but he will be missed.

Well, i guess Lleyton Hewitt might be next in line for retirement, or Roger might also call it quits too:cry

 

[isabelle]

David Nalbandian has announced his retirement today.

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/news/atp-tennis/david-nalbandian-retires-from-tennis/

A sad but inevitable day for the sport. Age and niggling injuries.

I'll leave it to Cali to write a more in depth "retirement obituary"... but he will be missed.

Well, i guess Lleyton Hewitt might be next in line for retirement, or Roger might also call it quits too:cry

Hewitt could retire soon as well as Davydenko maybe but Youngderer said he would play till 2016 except if he changes his mind

 

[calitennis127]

The idea that because Nalbandian had excellent ground strokes, and hit the "difficult" shots very well, he just as easily could do the "easier" things well is flawed at best. A service has nothing to do with a backhand. You can be great at the latter, and mediocre at the former, without it being attributed to laziness or lack of dedication. Simply put, the serve is a shot that has just never "clicked" for you.

Oh please. I am not saying that Nalbandian could have hit 22 aces a match if he just practiced. What I am saying is that he could have easily avoided hitting 9 or 10 double faults repeatedly in three-set matches, and he could have done what Nadal does with high first-serve percentage and clever placement. This would have made him untouchable.

In fact, when it comes to placement and "kickers out wide", Nalbandian was often complimented over the years (e.g. by Robby Koenig at the 2010 Basel tournament). The talent for ball-striking and precise hitting has some overlap between serving and hitting the toughest shots from the baseline. If you can hit the shots Nalbandian did from the baseline on a regular basis, you certainly have the ability to avoid hitting 9 double faults and serving at 52%.

If you're honest with yourself, you know that too. Those problems were entirely correctable.

 

[calitennis127]

Cali, there's a difference between hitting the target 10 times out of 10 on a shooting range - and hitting it 10 outta 10 when the target is firing back at you...

There's also a difference between hitting a target 8 out of 10 times on your first serve and hitting 5 to 6 times out of 10 on your first serve.

That's a lot of cheap points and advantage in rallies. Nadal v. Nalbandian right there.

 

[calitennis127]

You don't understand basic terms such as consistency and regularity. According to you Nalby played the same class of most advanced and difficult shots that he did in first two sets (albeit the last two games) of IW09 as he did in the third set too. Why? Because Nalby is consistent and regular. And still he lost 6-0. :laydownlaughing

Did you really just say something that ridiculous?

That was a complete throw-away set. Nalbandian had just lost five match points at the tail end of the second set and Nadal is a stamina freak. On top of that, Nalbandian would later reveal that his hip was torturing him in early 2009, and he went to the operating table for his first hip surgery 6 weeks after that IW match. So if you think that 3rd set was an indicator of anything significant with regard to Nalbandian, you have no idea what you are talking about. That set was a complete outlier. Go look up that word and see what you find.

Put it the other way, if Nadal played the same way as in third set in the first two sets, the last one would not be even played.

This just shows once and for all that you have no idea what you are talking about. The issue in the third set was stamina and momentum. Reading into that set would be like reading into the fourth sets of the 2011 and 2013 US Open finals as some kind of "true indicator" of the Djokovic-Nadal series. Both of those sets were momentum/stamina occasions. The player who lost had nothing left in the tank and got steamrolled. That's all that happened to Nalbandian in that third set. But it is such a minority in the scheme of all the sets he played against everyone, Nadal included, that is totally irrelevant. Not to mention the fatigue and the hip.

You have no idea what you are talking about. At all.

Why don't you look up the numbers on the Nalbandian-Nadal series and check out how many sets Nalbandian won and/or were tightly contested. Then come back and talk to me. Nalbandian was perfectly consistent from the baseline. His problem has never been baseline consistency. It was double faults and poor first serve percentage which ruined so many matches for him. Watching his matches and just checking the match stats would tell you that.

 

[BalaryKar]

Did you really just say something that ridiculous?

That was a complete throw-away set. Nalbandian had just lost five match points at the tail end of the second set and Nadal is a stamina freak. On top of that, Nalbandian would later reveal that his hip was torturing him in early 2009, and he went to the operating table for his first hip surgery 6 weeks after that IW match. So if you think that 3rd set was an indicator of anything significant with regard to Nalbandian, you have no idea what you are talking about. That set was a complete outlier. Go look up that word and see what you find.

Nitpicking, on my side as well, leads to biased discussion. Having seen that match live and watching Nadal fend off those five match-points, the intuition just said that Nalby won't be showing at all in the third set at all. That it happened as feared does not make my intuition all the great. And this has not much to do Nalby being injured and going for surgery. Not saying this with an intent of showing Nalby in poor light though. The confidence that goes off after failing at so many match points is itself a major cause for the no-show in the third set. We have seen this too many times with too many players. This is just one of those cases of loosing consistency. The loss to Baghdatis after leading 2-0 sets in AO 06 semi, the uncharacteristic loss to Gaudio, the non-repeat of WTF05 at WTF06, not winning any Masters earlier than 07 dual in the earlier years, the Roddick drama of loosing the lead at US02 semi-finals, etc, is what I blame on not being consistent. For his records and achievements, Nalby was consistent, though I doubt seeing him in the list of Top 10 consistent players of his own decade.

Coming to the first two sets, I recall an interview where Toni admitted the Nadal camp being really nervous before the match as Nadal had lost the first two meetings comprehensively. I think Nadal admitted to be a bit nervous in the beginning of the match. So, Nadal did not play the first set as he would have really liked to. Does this matter? Or can one try to incorporate these factors? What is the point of playing the matches then, simply simulate the strengths and weakness and decide the winner on a computer than a court? Works? My guess is NO.

Next, talking about outliers, being a Statistician, identifying them day-in day-out is my business. A bagel for Nalby is not an outlier if you look at his career. Great players avoid getting bagels and breadsticks and that is in a large part to do the things they are really great at. It may be serve, return, forehand, backhand, etc. If Nalbys outstanding strengths don't help him in avoiding them, and just help him at the beginning of a match, I won't call that strength as consistent. You may call it though and I don't have a problem with that.

This just shows once and for all that you have no idea what you are talking about. The issue in the third set was stamina and momentum. Reading into that set would be like reading into the fourth sets of the 2011 and 2013 US Open finals as some kind of "true indicator" of the Djokovic-Nadal series. Both of those sets were momentum/stamina occasions. The player who lost had nothing left in the tank and got steamrolled. That's all that happened to Nalbandian in that third set. But it is such a minority in the scheme of all the sets he played against everyone, Nadal included, that is totally irrelevant. Not to mention the fatigue and the hip.

You have no idea what you are talking about. At all.

Why don't you look up the numbers on the Nalbandian-Nadal series and check out how many sets Nalbandian won and/or were tightly contested. Then come back and talk to me. Nalbandian was perfectly consistent from the baseline. His problem has never been baseline consistency. It was double faults and poor first serve percentage which ruined so many matches for him. Watching his matches and just checking the match stats would tell you that.

If a player routinely wins the first sets and then goes to lose the matches more often than not, whatever helps to win those sets, don't really matter much. Having said that, Nalby playing the latter matches did not help at all. It would have been entirely different story if they both played matches during 05-08, or even latter if Nalby was fit enough all the time.

To sum it up, I accept your overall point that Nalby was consistent with his play, the way you put it, and without a shadow of doubt they were breathtaking most of the time. From my perspective, though they were consistent at Nalby levels, they were not consistent enough to get the business done at the end of the day. I would have loved to see Nalby extend that consistency for a few more sets and matches and be done with Roddick USO SF, Gaudio FO04, Baghdatis AO 06, and a few Masters before 07, and definitely not the third set at IW09 (because he may have as well lost the next round). Purely from this point of view, Nalby was not consistent enough for me.

 

[Kieran]

Cali, there's a difference between hitting the target 10 times out of 10 on a shooting range - and hitting it 10 outta 10 when the target is firing back at you...

There's also a difference between hitting a target 8 out of 10 times on your first serve and hitting 5 to 6 times out of 10 on your first serve.

That's a lot of cheap points and advantage in rallies. Nadal v. Nalbandian right there.

The effective serve gets "cheap points" and the glorious backhand gets...glorious points? Fact is, the serve is a basic component of the game. I'd rather an effective serve that digs me out of a hole than a glorious backhand who doesn't show up when ya need him...