Down the T #4: David Nalbandian Interview

[brokenshoelace]

One thing to this day that I will never forgive is the asinine decision on the part of the Argentine captain to not have Nalbandian play Nadal in the opening singles match of the 2011 final in Seville. It would have been a classic and Nalbandian would have had a legitimate shot of winning it.

Sure he would... Months after getting straight setted by Nadal on fast hard courts, he would have a legitimate shot to beat him on clay.

Absolutely, he schooled Nadal for most of the first set at the US Open before Nadal's BS comeback.

And have you ever seen how passionate and intense Nalbandian was in Davis Cup matches? He was almost like a different person.

Yeah, I wonder how far that passion would have gotten him with a barely functioning hip, on clay, in Spain, against a physical freak who's only lost 1, yes ONE, best out of 5 set clay court match in his entire career.

Uhhhh, get your facts straight. We are talking about the end of 2011, not 2012. Nalbandian's hip was fine at the end of 2011.

And with Nalbandian we are not talking about just any player. He has more in the way of shotmaking weapons than anyone.

LOL, yeah, Nalbandian's hip was really fine in 2011. It's not like he had a torn hamstring and hernia too. In that year, he only missed the following tournaments: Indian Wells, Miami, Monte Carlo, Madrid and Rome and the Paris masters (which takes place just a few weeks before the Davis Cup finals). He got mopped up in the second round of the Shanghai masters too. And yet, just a few weeks after that, he's physically fine to go against Nadal on clay in a best of five set match, and have a legitimate chance of beating him. Sure buddy.

Listen Cali, it's fine to admit when you're wrong. It's really better than to let your ego get in the way and make you look stupid, because you're really not in general.

 

[calitennis127]

Sure he would... Months after getting straight setted by Nadal on fast hard courts, he would have a legitimate shot to beat him on clay.

Absolutely, he schooled Nadal for most of the first set at the US Open before Nadal's BS comeback.

And have you ever seen how passionate and intense Nalbandian was in Davis Cup matches? He was almost like a different person.

Yeah, I wonder how far that passion would have gotten him with a barely functioning hip, on clay, in Spain, against a physical freak who's only lost 1, yes ONE, best out of 5 set clay court match in his entire career.

Uhhhh, get your facts straight. We are talking about the end of 2011, not 2012. Nalbandian's hip was fine at the end of 2011.

And with Nalbandian we are not talking about just any player. He has more in the way of shotmaking weapons than anyone.

LOL, yeah, Nalbandian's hip was really fine in 2011. It's not like he had a torn hamstring and hernia too. In that year, he only missed the following tournaments: Indian Wells, Miami, Monte Carlo, Madrid and Rome and Paris (which takes place just a few weeks before the Davis Cup finals). He got mopped up in the second round of the Shanghai masters too. And yet, just a few weeks after that, he's physically fine to go against Nadal on clay in a best of five set match, and have a legitimate chance of beating him. Sure buddy.

Listen Cali, it's fine to admit when you're wrong. It's really better than to let your ego get in the way and make you look stupid, because you're really not in general.

I am not wrong. Unlike, for example, huntingyou, I actually understand my favorite player. And apparently you don't understand your second favorite player.

As we both know, Nalbandian has had bad losses throughout his career. For goodness sake, he lost to Arnaud Clement at Vienna before he went on his Madrid-Paris run in 2007. So if you are looking for some kind of indicator of form, Nalbandian has never been like any other player in that regard. He could lose to #100 one week and then beat #1 the next.

So to say "he lost to Mayer in Shanghai, how would he beat Nadal on clay?" is just irrelevant.

Furthermore, Nalbandian had one of his best performances of the season in Stockholm against Dodig at the end of 2011. That was Dodig's best year, headlined by his win over Nadal at Montreal. Nalbandian put on what you would call a "sublime" shotmaking display against him.

Also, Nalbandian played a very high quality match against Murray in Tokyo before Murray bossed Nadal in the final. The rallies were long and high-level throughout. Did you forget about that one?

The highlights of both the Dodig match and Murray match are on YouTube.

Oh, and did I forget to point out that at one point in the first set of the US Open match Nalbandian had 18 winners to Nadal's 4?

 

[brokenshoelace]

So a win over Dodig (Lol) and a losing performance against Murray, as well as a set against Nadal (which he also lost, shockingly) are indicators that he would have had a real chance against Nadal on clay in a best of five match, despite a laundry list of injuries. Got it.

 

[calitennis127]

So a win over Dodig (Lol) and a losing performance against Murray, as well as a set against Nadal (which he also lost, shockingly) are indicators that he would have had a real chance against Nadal on clay in a best of five match, despite a laundry list of injuries. Got it.

Just like one quarterfinal in all of 2007 was a perfect indicator of what would happen in Madrid and Paris.

 

[calitennis127]

Also, Broken, your thinking here is basically petty, just as it was in early 2013 with Nadal. Repeatedly during the Golden Swing you stated that "you weren't sure" if Nadal is "back" yet.

I on the other hand told you he was back after watching a couple of his matches at Vina del Mar. I didn't need to watch him play 7 tournaments to see it.

 

[brokenshoelace]

So a win over Dodig (Lol) and a losing performance against Murray, as well as a set against Nadal (which he also lost, shockingly) are indicators that he would have had a real chance against Nadal on clay in a best of five match, despite a laundry list of injuries. Got it.

Just like one quarterfinal in all of 2007 was a perfect indicator of what would happen in Madrid and Paris.

Except 2011 is four years after 2007, and times had changed, as did Nalbandian's level.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Also, Broken, your thinking here is basically petty, just as it was in early 2013 with Nadal. Repeatedly during the Golden Swing you stated that "you weren't sure" if Nadal is "back" yet.

I on the other hand told you he was back after watching a couple of his matches at Vina del Mar. I didn't need to watch him play 7 tournaments to see it.

Yeah, except this is an awful analogy. The guy in question was Nadal, a proven champion. I underestimated him. I ignored his history, determination, hard work, ability, etc...

With Nalbandian, I think I'm estimating him just about right, given his history. Sorry, saying that he stood no chance in a best of five set against Nadal on clay sounds pretty reasonable, and the fact that you gotta use a completely unrelated analogy (Nadal's comeback in 2013...what the two have in common, I'll neverk now) to boost your point pretty much seals it.

PS: I wouldn't bring up the golden swing this year, since that's when you assured us that Nadal's meeting with Nalbandian in the final was some potential classic, and swore left, right and center that Nalbandian is not a shadow of his former self, and went into long, elaborate posts to explain why. You assured us that the match would be competitive and Nalbandian had a real chance... How did that one turn out? Yeah, I'll go ahead and assume you'd have been just as wrong about their hypothetical 2011 meeting.

 

[calitennis127]

So a win over Dodig (Lol) and a losing performance against Murray, as well as a set against Nadal (which he also lost, shockingly) are indicators that he would have had a real chance against Nadal on clay in a best of five match, despite a laundry list of injuries. Got it.

Just like one quarterfinal in all of 2007 was a perfect indicator of what would happen in Madrid and Paris.

Except 2011 is four years after 2007, and times had changed, as did Nalbandian's level.

Yeah, times change.

Such a huge difference between Nalbandian v. Moya in Cincinnati 2007 versus Nalbandian v. Dodig at Stockholm 2011:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_BpYf9NRSw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZokyX842LJo

Also, such a huge difference between how Federer lost to Nadal in Dubai in 2006 and how he subsequently lost to him.

Also, such a huge difference between how Nadal would hit 2 winners per set at the World Tour Finals in 2009 or 2010 versus 3 in 2011.

Things change so much.

 

[calitennis127]

Also, Broken, your thinking here is basically petty, just as it was in early 2013 with Nadal. Repeatedly during the Golden Swing you stated that "you weren't sure" if Nadal is "back" yet.

I on the other hand told you he was back after watching a couple of his matches at Vina del Mar. I didn't need to watch him play 7 tournaments to see it.

Yeah, except this is an awful analogy.

No, it is not. My analogy is strictly based on observation and empirical analysis. What I am saying is that the same way one could see that Nadal's game was "back" after just 1 or 2 tournaments in the Golden Swing, one could also see that Nalbandian had the game at the end of 2011 to beat Nadal in the Davis Cup final.

That is my analogy.

The guy in question was Nadal, a proven champion. I underestimated him. I ignored his history, determination, hard work, ability, etc...

I'm happy to see you that you understand Nadal almost as poorly as huntingyou.

More than anything, what separates him from the field is a mentality within matches that I really have not seen in anyone else. It is just a totally different mindset, centered on persistence and unwavering constancy. You combine this with his natural stamina and athleticism, and you have a guy who will always be relevant and always be present. But his comeback does not just come down to "determination" and "hard work". Yes, that was a part of it, but all players are determined and work hard. Being that way isn't what separates Nadal.

With Nalbandian, I think I'm estimating him just about right, given his history.

His history of ending the hot streaks of top players when no one thought they could lose?

His history of "unexpected" tournament runs and individual wins?

His history of making the top-ranked guys look like the JV to his Varsity?

That history?

Sorry, saying that he stood no chance in a best of five set against Nadal on clay sounds pretty reasonable, and the fact that you gotta use a completely unrelated analogy (Nadal's comeback in 2013...what the two have in common, I'll neverk now) to boost your point pretty much seals it.

What I said at the top should make the analogy very clear.

PS: I wouldn't bring up the golden swing this year, since that's when you assured us that Nadal's meeting with Nalbandian in the final was some potential classic, and swore left, right and center that Nalbandian is not a shadow of his former self, and went into long, elaborate posts to explain why.

The Sao Paolo final was one of the most unique clay matches Nadal has ever played. If you just go by the scoreline, it seems routine. However, if you watched the match, you could see just how comfortable Nalbandian was in the rallies and how he actually dictated many of them.

How many Nadal clay matches can that be said about? Very few.

Moreover, how many times does someone get a double break on Nadal on clay? Nalbandian did in the second set.

The match was very peculiar and very unique. You could see that all of the elements were there for major problems for Nadal if he had played Nalbandian routinely on the surface.

That said, it was not a "classic match", but that doesn't mean it couldn't have been either. Classic matches are very hard to predict and they often come when you don't expect them. To hold that against me doesn't make much sense. "You didn't call that classic match right" is a pretty meaningless statement.

You assured us that the match would be competitive and Nalbandian had a real chance... How did that one turn out? Yeah, I'll go ahead and assume you'd have been just as wrong about their hypothetical 2011 meeting.

Again, who gets a double break against Nadal on clay? Who clearly gets a psychological edge over Nadal in terms of controlling rallies on clay?

Virtually no one.

The Sao Paolo match may have been disappointing in terms of duration, but if you have watched a lot of tennis, you could see that it was one of the most peculiar and unique matches Nadal ever played on clay and that elements were there for seriously troubling his clay-court game, which makes Nalbandian's absence from the Roland Garros scene in recent years all the more disappointing.

And, if you don't think that Nalbandian (injuries aside) wasn't capable of an absurdly high level in 2013, watch the first set of his match against Ferrer in Buenos Aires. One of the best sets of clay-court tennis I have ever witnessed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzpQggvTYwI

Nalbandian could have beaten Nadal in the Davis Cup final of 2011, and THAT match was much more likely to be a classic than a surprise final in Sao Paolo, given the passion Nalbandian had for Davis Cup as well as Nadal's penchant for playing well on the biggest stages, especially in clay-court matches.

 

[calitennis127]

Facing Nadal on clay and beating him means playing a ton of long rallies.

Well look at the point construction from Nalbandian in this match at the end of 2011 against Murray. The main difference in the match was Murray's serving, but Nalbandian's baseline game was very much so in-tact:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8EpbGwhf38

It would have been a terrific match - that hypothetical DC final match between Nalbandian and Nadal. It is truly a pity that we did not get to see it.

 

[brokenshoelace]

So a win over Dodig (Lol) and a losing performance against Murray, as well as a set against Nadal (which he also lost, shockingly) are indicators that he would have had a real chance against Nadal on clay in a best of five match, despite a laundry list of injuries. Got it.

Just like one quarterfinal in all of 2007 was a perfect indicator of what would happen in Madrid and Paris.

Except 2011 is four years after 2007, and times had changed, as did Nalbandian's level.

Yeah, times change.

Such a huge difference between Nalbandian v. Moya in Cincinnati 2007 versus Nalbandian v. Dodig at Stockholm 2011:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_BpYf9NRSw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZokyX842LJo

Also, such a huge difference between how Federer lost to Nadal in Dubai in 2006 and how he subsequently lost to him.

Also, such a huge difference between how Nadal would hit 2 winners per set at the World Tour Finals in 2009 or 2010 versus 3 in 2011.

Things change so much.

Do you know what a logical fallacy is? Because this is exhibit A. Everything you offered (with the exception of MAYBE Nalbandian-Moya) is called a false analogy. Nadal and Federer looking the same five years later (even though that's not entirely true) cannot be compared to Nalbandian. These are two players who stayed on top of their game throughout the period you're referencing. Nalbandian didn't. How can you be so dense as to not see this is beyond me. The analogy about how many winners Nadal would hit at the WTF is irrelevant, since it's clay we're talking about.

You know what didn't change? Rafael Nadal mopping the competition on clay, including vastly superior players to an injured, over the hill, Nalbandian, who, if he truly was in shape to even compete against Nadal, would have likely demanded that his coach plays him.

Also, I genuinely laugh every time you reference the Dodig match. Yes, it's a conversation about beating Rafael Nadal on clay, in which you're using Ivan Dodig to highlight your point. Words fail me...not as much as your logic failed you though.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Also, Broken, your thinking here is basically petty, just as it was in early 2013 with Nadal. Repeatedly during the Golden Swing you stated that "you weren't sure" if Nadal is "back" yet.

I on the other hand told you he was back after watching a couple of his matches at Vina del Mar. I didn't need to watch him play 7 tournaments to see it.

Yeah, except this is an awful analogy.

No, it is not. My analogy is strictly based on observation and empirical analysis. What I am saying is that the same way one could see that Nadal's game was "back" after just 1 or 2 tournaments in the Golden Swing, one could also see that Nalbandian had the game at the end of 2011 to beat Nadal in the Davis Cup final.

That is my analogy.

The guy in question was Nadal, a proven champion. I underestimated him. I ignored his history, determination, hard work, ability, etc...

I'm happy to see you that you understand Nadal almost as poorly as huntingyou.

More than anything, what separates him from the field is a mentality within matches that I really have not seen in anyone else. It is just a totally different mindset, centered on persistence and unwavering constancy. You combine this with his natural stamina and athleticism, and you have a guy who will always be relevant and always be present. But his comeback does not just come down to "determination" and "hard work". Yes, that was a part of it, but all players are determined and work hard. Being that way isn't what separates Nadal.

With Nalbandian, I think I'm estimating him just about right, given his history.

His history of ending the hot streaks of top players when no one thought they could lose?

His history of "unexpected" tournament runs and individual wins?

His history of making the top-ranked guys look like the JV to his Varsity?

That history?

Sorry, saying that he stood no chance in a best of five set against Nadal on clay sounds pretty reasonable, and the fact that you gotta use a completely unrelated analogy (Nadal's comeback in 2013...what the two have in common, I'll neverk now) to boost your point pretty much seals it.

What I said at the top should make the analogy very clear.

PS: I wouldn't bring up the golden swing this year, since that's when you assured us that Nadal's meeting with Nalbandian in the final was some potential classic, and swore left, right and center that Nalbandian is not a shadow of his former self, and went into long, elaborate posts to explain why.

The Sao Paolo final was one of the most unique clay matches Nadal has ever played. If you just go by the scoreline, it seems routine. However, if you watched the match, you could see just how comfortable Nalbandian was in the rallies and how he actually dictated many of them.

How many Nadal clay matches can that be said about? Very few.

Moreover, how many times does someone get a double break on Nadal on clay? Nalbandian did in the second set.

The match was very peculiar and very unique. You could see that all of the elements were there for major problems for Nadal if he had played Nalbandian routinely on the surface.

That said, it was not a "classic match", but that doesn't mean it couldn't have been either. Classic matches are very hard to predict and they often come when you don't expect them. To hold that against me doesn't make much sense. "You didn't call that classic match right" is a pretty meaningless statement.

You assured us that the match would be competitive and Nalbandian had a real chance... How did that one turn out? Yeah, I'll go ahead and assume you'd have been just as wrong about their hypothetical 2011 meeting.

Again, who gets a double break against Nadal on clay? Who clearly gets a psychological edge over Nadal in terms of controlling rallies on clay?

Virtually no one.

The Sao Paolo match may have been disappointing in terms of duration, but if you have watched a lot of tennis, you could see that it was one of the most peculiar and unique matches Nadal ever played on clay and that elements were there for seriously troubling his clay-court game, which makes Nalbandian's absence from the Roland Garros scene in recent years all the more disappointing.

And, if you don't think that Nalbandian (injuries aside) wasn't capable of an absurdly high level in 2013, watch the first set of his match against Ferrer in Buenos Aires. One of the best sets of clay-court tennis I have ever witnessed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzpQggvTYwI

Nalbandian could have beaten Nadal in the Davis Cup final of 2011, and THAT match was much more likely to be a classic than a surprise final in Sao Paolo, given the passion Nalbandian had for Davis Cup as well as Nadal's penchant for playing well on the biggest stages, especially in clay-court matches.

:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:

Saddest thing is that unlike Nadal2005, fastgrass, and those people, you have no excuse...

 

[britbox]

I concur Cali. I was watching a clip of James Blake at the 2011 US Open and there is no doubt in my mind had he played Nadal at Roland Garros that year he would have won in straight sets.

This clip proves it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiHCjwd3LiQ

 

[Riotbeard]

Back to Cali's original point about Nalbandian v. nadal in the Davis cup final. It's hard to believe Nalbandian would not have made this a more compelling match. When Nalbandian was fit and playing well, he could hurt anyone. It's insane to argue otherwise when you see how effective djokovic's down the line backhand is against Nadal, and Nabaldian's was (at times) even better. He had trouble closing out matches with Nadal (which is obviously important to winning), but when things clicked, he could really hurt Nadal.

I actually found his devotion to Davis Cup quite admirable. It showed that he had less ego and a sense of something larger than himself than most players in an individual sport.

 

[calitennis127]

Thank you Riotbeard.

It is amazing how Broken and Britbox are completely neglecting Nalbandian's Davis Cup record.

It is also even more astonishing that they are implicitly defending the Argentine Davis Cup captain's decision to have Monaco instead of Nalbandian face Nadal.

 

[Riotbeard]

Thank you Riotbeard.

It is amazing how Broken and Britbox are completely neglecting Nalbandian's Davis Cup record.

It is also even more astonishing that they are implicitly defending the Argentine Davis Cup captain's decision to have Monaco instead of Nalbandian face Nadal.

Agreed, as Monaco is a classic case for Nadal of "Anything you can do I can do better." Just about anyone would have been a better match up against Rafa, and at times, Nalbandian has been a good match up against him. Not to mention David was a FO semi-finalist, so he was no hack on clay. It goes without saying that Rafa is more than just a tall order on clay, but it would have been more interesting, and maybe even close.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Back to Cali's original point about Nalbandian v. nadal in the Davis cup final. It's hard to believe Nalbandian would not have made this a more compelling match. When Nalbandian was fit and playing well, he could hurt anyone.

That's exactly my point of contention. By the end of 2011, Nalbandian was neither fit nor playing well (at least not well enough to beat Nadal on clay in a best of 5-set match, which is different from playing well enough to beat Ivan Dodig). I don't see why Cali would think it's so "amazing" that I'm not seeing this.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Thank you Riotbeard.

It is amazing how Broken and Britbox are completely neglecting Nalbandian's Davis Cup record.

It is also even more astonishing that they are implicitly defending the Argentine Davis Cup captain's decision to have Monaco instead of Nalbandian face Nadal.

I'm not defending his decision. I lament it. Why? Because if he had put Nalbandian in, he would have lost in straight sets (4 at the absolute worst), and we wouldn't be having this awful discussion. Because, as often is the case for you, it's always better when Nalbandian doesn't play a match. Why? Because then you can focus on all the hypothetical nonsense.

"If Nalbandian had played Nadal at Roland Garros in 2006 he would have won." "If he would have played him at the US Open in 2010 he would have won because he had played the highest level ever in Washington a month before." I could go on and on.

Why do you have to keep making up these hypothetical scenarios? Because when it comes to actual reality, Nalbandian hasn't done anything of the like. He hasn't beaten Nadal since that now "legendary" 2007 run. Yes, that's 6 years ago. Since then, Nadal won all their meetings. Yes, many of them were competitive. One of them Nalbandian should have won. Newsflash though, he lost all of them, further making the implication that he stood a legitimate chance at beating Nadal on clay all the more laughable. But I guess reality has never been your best ally. I've always said that for you, the best thing Nalbandian's ever done is not deliver, since he allowed you to come up with 200 different fictional scenarios in which he's the greatest thing ever.

The only arguments you can muster that are actually based on reality is "Nalbandian dominated the rallies," "he should have won that set," or my personal favorite, "his level in the first set of their 2011 US Open match was the highest in history." OKay, even if all of the above is true, they only reinforce one fact: That Nalbandian still came up short, which is exactly what would have happened had he played that Davis Cup tie, based on all the evidence.

All you can do is tell me how Nalbandian was "comfortable" in the rallies in their meeting this year (can you get more arbitrary?). Okay, but my point of contention was never whether Nalbandian would be able to hang with Nadal had they played in the Davis Cup final. My point of contention is the laughable notion that he had a real chance of beating Nadal and physically keep up with him in a best of 5 on clay, which based on reality, is absolute lunacy. And no, sorry, saying he has a knack of surprising people doesn't cut it considering the last time he did that was in 2007.

I now officially bow out of this debate, and leave you alone with your fantasies.

 

[Denis]

Read what David Nalbandian had to say in response to your questions.

Great job Moxie! Thanks for this. I wish David well.

 

[britbox]

Thank you Riotbeard.

It is amazing how Broken and Britbox are completely neglecting Nalbandian's Davis Cup record.

It is also even more astonishing that they are implicitly defending the Argentine Davis Cup captain's decision to have Monaco instead of Nalbandian face Nadal.

I have no idea where you get the notion that I agreed with the Monaco call (which i don't - it was a poor decision) or that I am neglecting Nalbandian's Davis Cup record. Nalbandian was a top DC player with a record to match.

My point was the manner in which you draw your conclusions is deeply flawed.

Maybe you should also check out Nadal's DC record if you want to fit caps on people.