Is Nalbandian as great a player as Wawrinka?

[Carol]

Everytime tennis players compete against each other, the play in the same conditions...

Disagree, it depends on diferent factors and that's why some times they win and they lose too and of course the main factor is what well prepared they are at that time mentally and physically
It's not the same to watch a match through the tv lying on the sofa than playing

Sorry but you're not making much sense. When tennis players play against each other they experience exactly the same conditions as each other. Why do I even have to explain this to you? uzzled

Sorry but you are the one not making any sense. My point is not difficult to understand. Players with
more talent and better game can lose against other with LESS talent and LESS game depending diferent situations. In one word and maybe you CAN understand better....Nabaldian was better player than Wawrinka though he never won a GS, word!
Oh wait, maybe we should think that Wawrinka is better player and omore talented than Federer, Novak and Nadal because his last results? really?

 

[calitennis127]

^Different conditions. Different surface. Why would you think this is supports Nalbandian's case?

The backhand-down-the-line is a shot that works on all surfaces and Nalbandian (as well as Djokovic) have demonstrated that time after time. Where was that from Djokovic in the final against Wawrinka?

Nowhere.

Nalbandian's point construction translated to all four surfaces. That is why he made the semis of all four Slams at a very young age.

I can show you a clip or Federer bagelling Rafa at the ATP finals, what on earth would that have to do with facing Nadal at RG? The same applies here mate.

Again, Nalbandian's overall point construction translated to all surfaces. That was not an issue for him.

If you want an example of his clay-court prowess, then here you go. This is a match he frankly should have won against Federer in his best season, on clay at Rome:

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x06zG-FODxo[/video]

 

[calitennis127]

Wawrinka, and it isn't particularly close.

If greatness were solely defined by how pretty your game is then Nalbandian was greater than Nadal. But greatness has other components and prettiness is not particularly high on the list. One important factor is mental toughness, which Stan has in spades and Nalby had very little of.

It's funny how you love numbers so much, but you don't have the even-handedness to mention that Wawrinka started off his series against Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal with a combined record, I think, of 0-35. Nalbandian, on the other hand, started out 5-0 on Federer, 2-0 on Nadal, and 2-0 on Murray. That should tell you something about the natural talent Nalbandian and Wawrinka each started with.

I think psychology is understated in discussions of greatness - it really can't be overstated, to be honest. I imagine that the truly great players are able to abate their nervousness in pressure situations and focus on the point at hand.

And not all of Nalbandian's mindset was bad - far from it, actually. His general mindset within points and especially when returning serve was excellent. He didn't have the best frame of mind for preparing well and having a coherent plan for big moments, but there were other elements of his mindset which were superlative.

 

[calitennis127]

Ironically, these two met in the first round of Roland Garros, in 2006, where Daveed won 6-2, 7-6, 6-4.

Proof positive, surely, for Cali's assessment that Nalbandian would have withstood Stan's assault on Nole in this year's final. I'm converted anyway, to this logic...

Kieran, once again, I never guaranteed that Nalbandian would have won the match. What I said and what I stand by is that he would not have gone down in the manner that Djokovic did, getting schooled in the rallies and being unable to do anything with Wawrinka's pace except watch more and more winners fly by.

As for your "stage" argument, let me once again make the point that Nalbandian's losses at all tournaments - 250's, 500's, Masters, and Slams - fit a pattern. His problems were not specific to the big stadiums when the lights were brightest. He often lost in the same way in the smaller events that he did in the more significant ones.

Let me ask you this:

1) Do you think that Nalbandian lost to Seppi in the 2013 Belgrade semifinals 6-2, 2-6, 5-7 because the stage was too big? It was pretty much the exact same type of loss as the one he had to Baghdatis. Fail to close out the match because of inexcusably erratic serving and no plan for the big points.

2) Do you think that Nalbandian lost to Simon in the 2010 Montpellier Round of 16 match 63, 67(5), 57 because the stage was too big? Again, it was pretty much the exact same type of loss as the one he had to Baghdatis. Fail to close out the match because of inexcusably erratic serving and no plan for the big points.

 

[brokenshoelace]

The bright side of any Nalbandian discussion around these forums is I get to see some pretty cool Youtube clips of some top notch tennis.

 

[Carol]

What I'm wondering is why you wanted to have this discussion with the Nalbandian Fanclub of Two, federberg. uzzled:lolz:

Or Wawrinka Fanclub? :snicker

 

[Federberg]

Disagree, it depends on diferent factors and that's why some times they win and they lose too and of course the main factor is what well prepared they are at that time mentally and physically
It's not the same to watch a match through the tv lying on the sofa than playing

Sorry but you're not making much sense. When tennis players play against each other they experience exactly the same conditions as each other. Why do I even have to explain this to you? uzzled

Sorry but you are the one not making any sense. My point is not difficult to understand. Players with
more talent and better game can lose against other with LESS talent and LESS game depending diferent situations. In one word and maybe you CAN understand better....Nabaldian was better player than Wawrinka though he never won a GS, word!
Oh wait, maybe we should think that Wawrinka is better player and omore talented than Federer, Novak and Nadal because his last results? really?

In your mind. I'll take achievement over fantasy.

 

[Federberg]

^Different conditions. Different surface. Why would you think this is supports Nalbandian's case?

The backhand-down-the-line is a shot that works on all surfaces and Nalbandian (as well as Djokovic) have demonstrated that time after time. Where was that from Djokovic in the final against Wawrinka?

Nowhere.

Nalbandian's point construction translated to all four surfaces. That is why he made the semis of all four Slams at a very young age.

I can show you a clip or Federer bagelling Rafa at the ATP finals, what on earth would that have to do with facing Nadal at RG? The same applies here mate.

Again, Nalbandian's overall point construction translated to all surfaces. That was not an issue for him.

If you want an example of his clay-court prowess, then here you go. This is a match he frankly should have won against Federer in his best season, on clay at Rome:

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x06zG-FODxo[/video]

Should have. But I'm guessing he didn't? (I don't remember myself ) Doesn't that tell you something? What is it that you don't understand about sport? Talent is ONLY one component. Having the will and mentality to win is another. Even if we concede that Nalbandian has more talent than Wawrinka, that does not make him a better the player. The better player is the guy who wins the titles mate. At the end of the day that's what matters in sports, WINNING. If you don't like that, stick to ballet or something else that's subjective :angel:

 

[DarthFed]

I'm not suffering through a bunch of Cali posts on this topic. The obvious answer is a big fat NO

 

[isabelle]

Stanimal is a late bloomer, that's why he's not often injured, his body is still "fresh" for a guy of his age. Nalby was an early bloomer, he won USO junior at the age of 16, he played at a hight level much younger than Stanimal. he was only 23 when he won Masters in 2005. His body was damaged early, he had several surgeries before 30. You can't compare them because they didn't play their best tennis at the same age.

 

[Federberg]

^By that argument we can't compare the greatness of Sampras to Federer I have no problem with that if that's your stance. But by implication this was always about the body of work (achievement) of each player

 

[isabelle]

^By that argument we can't compare the greatness of Sampras to Federer I have no problem with that if that's your stance. But by implication this was always about the body of work (achievement) of each player

Sampras and Federer aren't the same generation, Stanimal and Nalby are. Nalby retired Stanimal didn't so I guess the Swiss wonder still can win some big titles.

 

[Federberg]

^By that argument we can't compare the greatness of Sampras to Federer I have no problem with that if that's your stance. But by implication this was always about the body of work (achievement) of each player

Sampras and Federer aren't the same generation, Stanimal and Nalby are. Nalby retired Stanimal didn't so I guess the Swiss wonder still can win some big titles.

Not sure I can understand that logic. We can compare Sampras to Federer, but not Nalbandian and Wawrinka uzzled

 

[Fiero425]

^By that argument we can't compare the greatness of Sampras to Federer I have no problem with that if that's your stance. But by implication this was always about the body of work (achievement) of each player

Sampras and Federer aren't the same generation, Stanimal and Nalby are. Nalby retired Stanimal didn't so I guess the Swiss wonder still can win some big titles.

Not sure I can understand that logic. We can compare Sampras to Federer, but not Nalbandian and Wawrinka uzzled

How can anyone compare these 2? There's the shared abilities, but Stan is light years ahead of Nalby; his results and work ethic! :cover :nono :angel: - OTTH Nalby's claim to fame is taking a WTF over an injured Fed in '05 and being "disqualified" out of Queens final a few years ago when he was winning over Cilic! :nono :cover

 

[El Dude]

Stanimal is a late bloomer, that's why he's not often injured, his body is still "fresh" for a guy of his age. Nalby was an early bloomer, he won USO junior at the age of 16, he played at a hight level much younger than Stanimal. he was only 23 when he won Masters in 2005. His body was damaged early, he had several surgeries before 30. You can't compare them because they didn't play their best tennis at the same age.

Interestingly enough, Stan has now played 589 matches to Nalbandian's 574.

While I agree that Stan is a late bloomer, he didn't exactly start that late - he played international events as a junior starting at 14 and turned pro in 2002 at age 17. He played tons of matches early on, so got similar wear and tear as Nalbandian.

But you're right that he's a late bloomer in that he didn't reach his peak level until 2013 at the earliest, when he was 28. Age-wise Stan's 2013 is Nalbandian's 2010, when he was trying to come back from a year and a half lay-off. The decline was steep from that point on - he finished #27 that year, #64 in 2011, #81 in 2012, and #228 in 2013. Stan, on the other hand, is still inching up - #8 in 2013, #5 in 2014 and is holding steady at #3 in the Race to London rankings.

All that said, while I do think that Stan is overall greater I think we have to be careful not to be too "Slam-o-centric." There are a lot of factors that go into winning a Slam. While it certainly is the most significant factor in determining greatness, perhaps along with the rankings, there are plenty of one-Slam wonders that are inferior players and with worse overall careers than some Slamless players. For instance, no one is going to call Marin Cilic greater than Ferrer, Berdych, and Tsonga. Maybe if Cilic has a strong five-year span, but as of now he looks like he caught lightning in a bottle.

Another classic example is Sergiy Bruguera, who is the definition of "clay court specialist." He won two French Opens and made it to another Final and a Semifinal, but was probably more like a #40-50 player on grass and hard courts.

Anyhow, I'm working on a study of Generation Federer (born 1979-83) and Generation Nadal-Djokovic (1984-88) and right now I have Nalbandian ranked #8 on the former and Stan #4 on the latter, although I'm still fiddling with the relatively complex system I've devised and not entirely happy with ranking Nalbandian behind Davydenko. Intuitively and by eyeballing their records I think Nalbandian was better. But even if I pushed Nalby up a rank, he'd still be behind Federer, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Ferrer, and Ferrero, whereas Stan is only behind Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray - I have him just ahead of Berdych, del Potro and Tsonga.

 

[Riotbeard]

Wawrinka, and it isn't particularly close.

If greatness were solely defined by how pretty your game is then Nalbandian was greater than Nadal. But greatness has other components and prettiness is not particularly high on the list. One important factor is mental toughness, which Stan has in spades and Nalby had very little of. This is also probably what separates Stan from similarly talented players like Berdych and Tsonga. Stan can rise to the challenge of a Slam SF or F and play at a very high level, while Tomas and JW usually seem to fold when it matters most.

I think psychology is understated in discussions of greatness - it really can't be overstated, to be honest. I imagine that the truly great players are able to abate their nervousness in pressure situations and focus on the point at hand. This is also why we sometimes see players decline rapidly - a bit of doubt creeps in as they lose an edge off their game and, well, look at Rafa (this is also why I think Rafa still has more Slams in him, that through reclaiming the mental aspect of his game he can partially make up for lost movement...partially).

I want to bump this point. I think mental ability (presence in the big moment, etc.) is a part of a tennis player's "talent", so I would say Wawrinka is more talented than Nalbandian. He is a poorer ball striker that Nalby, but even in terms of shots, Stan has a better serve and better volleys. So from pure talent of strokes, I give a slight edge to nalby, but Wawrinka has a very large mental edge. In my opinion, Stan is the more talented when we combine physical and mental aspects of the game talent.

Greatness is about what a players have achieved IMO, in this respect, there is not even an argument.

The real question about the F.O. isn't whether Nalby would have beaten Stan. That is a comparison between Novak and David. The question is whether he would have beaten Novak in Stan's place, which is the best measure between him and Stan (because that was Stan's achievement), and the answer is no way in hell...

 

[calitennis127]

Wawrinka, and it isn't particularly close.

If greatness were solely defined by how pretty your game is then Nalbandian was greater than Nadal. But greatness has other components and prettiness is not particularly high on the list. One important factor is mental toughness, which Stan has in spades and Nalby had very little of. This is also probably what separates Stan from similarly talented players like Berdych and Tsonga. Stan can rise to the challenge of a Slam SF or F and play at a very high level, while Tomas and JW usually seem to fold when it matters most.

I think psychology is understated in discussions of greatness - it really can't be overstated, to be honest. I imagine that the truly great players are able to abate their nervousness in pressure situations and focus on the point at hand. This is also why we sometimes see players decline rapidly - a bit of doubt creeps in as they lose an edge off their game and, well, look at Rafa (this is also why I think Rafa still has more Slams in him, that through reclaiming the mental aspect of his game he can partially make up for lost movement...partially).

I want to bump this point. I think mental ability (presence in the big moment, etc.) is a part of a tennis player's "talent", so I would say Wawrinka is more talented than Nalbandian. He is a poorer ball striker that Nalby, but even in terms of shots, Stan has a better serve and better volleys. So from pure talent of strokes, I give a slight edge to nalby, but Wawrinka has a very large mental edge. In my opinion, Stan is the more talented when we combine physical and mental aspects of the game talent.

So why didn't Wawrinka put that mental superiority to use by doing better than 3-30 against Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal combined to start his series against them?

 

[Riotbeard]

Wawrinka, and it isn't particularly close.

If greatness were solely defined by how pretty your game is then Nalbandian was greater than Nadal. But greatness has other components and prettiness is not particularly high on the list. One important factor is mental toughness, which Stan has in spades and Nalby had very little of. This is also probably what separates Stan from similarly talented players like Berdych and Tsonga. Stan can rise to the challenge of a Slam SF or F and play at a very high level, while Tomas and JW usually seem to fold when it matters most.

I think psychology is understated in discussions of greatness - it really can't be overstated, to be honest. I imagine that the truly great players are able to abate their nervousness in pressure situations and focus on the point at hand. This is also why we sometimes see players decline rapidly - a bit of doubt creeps in as they lose an edge off their game and, well, look at Rafa (this is also why I think Rafa still has more Slams in him, that through reclaiming the mental aspect of his game he can partially make up for lost movement...partially).

I want to bump this point. I think mental ability (presence in the big moment, etc.) is a part of a tennis player's "talent", so I would say Wawrinka is more talented than Nalbandian. He is a poorer ball striker that Nalby, but even in terms of shots, Stan has a better serve and better volleys. So from pure talent of strokes, I give a slight edge to nalby, but Wawrinka has a very large mental edge. In my opinion, Stan is the more talented when we combine physical and mental aspects of the game talent.

So why didn't Wawrinka put that mental superiority to use by doing better than 3-30 against Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal combined to start his series against them?

He didn't figure it out until way later, which is before Nalbandian. There are major holes in Wawrinka's mental approach, he is not a great week-in-week-out player, but in the tale end of a major, he doesn't fall apart. It is what it is. David was a very talented player, but in the biggest moments, he flinches, and that is when matters most.

 

[Front242]

In the spirit of welcoming Cali back to the forum, I thought this would be a timely topic.

And I mean it in all seriousness. We all remember what a clean striker of the ball Nalbandian was. And I think most of us - tennis lovers at heart - think of him as a tremendous talent who could have achieved more. But the truth is that tennis is littered with huge talents who's silver cabinet is somewhat lighter than perhaps it might have been?

But on the other hand you have a player like Wawrinka who has now entered his peak, and he is producing the big W's. I don't think there's a single player out there who wants to face the Stanimal in full flight right now. As great as Nalbandian could be, I don't think Fedal, or Djokovic would have been particularly afraid of facing him at his absolute best, but I think they might just feel some apprehension facing Wawrinka at his best.

What do you think? After this recent RG, my opinion has moved decisively in favour of the Stanimal? Has yours?

Wawrinka has the 2 Slams but Nalbandian at his best had more game than Wawrinka at his best. He would have eaten Wawrinka alive if Wawrinka was playing the style he did against Djokovic in the final. He would have turned those shots around with interest.

Big fan of Nalbandian too but seriously... Shots like this? The guy played like he was possessed!

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX1hKm1Fawc[/video]

 

[isabelle]

Sampras and Federer aren't the same generation, Stanimal and Nalby are. Nalby retired Stanimal didn't so I guess the Swiss wonder still can win some big titles.

Not sure I can understand that logic. We can compare Sampras to Federer, but not Nalbandian and Wawrinka uzzled

How can anyone compare these 2? There's the shared abilities, but Stan is light years ahead of Nalby; his results and work ethic! :cover :nono :angel: - OTTH Nalby's claim to fame is taking a WTF over an injured Fed in '05 and being "disqualified" out of Queens final a few years ago when he was winning over Cilic! :nono :cover

Federer was NOT INJURED in Masters 2005, he said he was fit in presser, if not he would'n have played. Nalby beat Federer a lot of times, the Swiss was never injured