Down the T #4: David Nalbandian Interview

[scoop]

Nice interview. Nalbandian was such a unique and smart player. He could play magical tennis which was sometimes too much for even Federer and Nadal to handle.

 

[isabelle]

He'll play his "farewell tour" next wekk end.....some exh in south America with Nadal, Nole, Monaco and Massu.
Just for fun of course but a last chance to see his beautiful backhand

 

[scoop]

We just knew Del Potro wouldn't be a part of the farewell

 

[isabelle]

We just knew Del Potro wouldn't be a part of the farewell

Sure...Nalby and Delpo wasn't very good friends....they hate each other like Vilas and Clec used to do

 

[Moxie]

NYTimes with an interesting one on Nalbandian's career and retirement.

 

[calitennis127]

NYTimes with an interesting one on Nalbandian's career and retirement.

Nalbandian's comment about the era of Federer and Nadal has to go down as one of the most illogical pieces of analysis you will ever read. Frankly it borders on pure moronism.

"I lost to Victor Troicki in the first round because I rolled out of bed 1 hour before the match, but Federer and Nadal were just too good for me because they each made the semifinals and one of them won the tournament."

"I lost to Mardy Fish because I served 3 double faults when serving for the match. But the next day Federer was too good for me because he lost to Fish 3-6, 2-6."

"I lost to Fernando Verdasco in the third round of the US Open, but Nadal was just too strong for me because he beat Verdasco in the quarterfinals."

I understand now David.

Thanks for the explanations.

 

[calitennis127]

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

Silly, irrelevant argument.

Nalbandian was always a more versatile player than Blake, and this was clear. Most significant, he had a two-handed backhand that was rock-solid and very consistent in long, strenuous rallies. Blake's backhand was an insurmountable obstacle to having any significant success on clay. It was erratic on every surface, even hardcourts, but on clay it was simply too big a problem to overcome.

The point I was making is that in late 2011 it was completely evident that Nalbandian's baseline game was firmly intact. There is no question that he would have been ready to make the Seville match with Nadal a 5-set war.

The fact that Broken doesn't see this is to be expected, given his occasional bouts of such mental triviality that he fails to acknowledge what you would expect to be obvious to him.

Nalbandian's readiness for a Nadal rally war on clay was also shown by his performance in the matches against Nadal in Indian Wells (ultra-slow hardcourts) and Murray in Rome a few months after the Davis Cup final. But apparently certain members of our board community have lost memory of those matches.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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

Silly, irrelevant argument.

Nalbandian was always a more versatile player than Blake, and this was clear. Most significant, he had a two-handed backhand that was rock-solid and very consistent in long, strenuous rallies. Blake's backhand was an insurmountable obstacle to having any significant success on clay. It was erratic on every surface, even hardcourts, but on clay it was simply too big a problem to overcome.

The point I was making is that in late 2011 it was completely evident that Nalbandian's baseline game was firmly intact. There is no question that he would have been ready to make the Seville match with Nadal a 5-set war.

The fact that Broken doesn't see this is to be expected, given his occasional bouts of such mental triviality that he fails to acknowledge what you would expect to be obvious to him.

Nalbandian's readiness for a Nadal rally war on clay was also shown by his performance in the matches against Nadal in Indian Wells (ultra-slow hardcourts) and Murray in Rome a few months after the Davis Cup final. But apparently certain members of our board community have lost memory of those matches.

So this "intact" baseline game in 2011 saw him lose to inferior players than Nadal, fail to gather a single respectable win, beat any significant player, lose to Nadal in 3 sets at the US Open, but would have somehow seen him genuinely threaten Nadal in a best 5 set match on clay?

Yes, I'm the one who's showing mental triviality.

PS: An "intact" baseline game hardly means that Nalbandian would physically be able to keep up for 5 sets, since you know, these are two different things.

But yeah, I'm trivial. Or maybe you're just delusional.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Wait, it actually occurred to me that while analyzing their hypothetical 2011 Davis Cup meeting, I completely neglected to take Nalbandian's aesthetic edge into consideration. My mind is now changed. He would have beaten Nadal on clay.