Is Nalbandian as great a player as Wawrinka?

[Front242]

Er, maybe you don't want to call it injured but off crutches from an ankle injury just a few weeks before that match if that suits you better. Call it lacking match play due to not being able to walk. Seems about right to me.

 

[tennisville]

wasnt 2005 that masters where so many players pulled out because of injury that the ATP had to force Federer to play in it

 

[Federberg]

^I don't think they forced him, but he was a good sport and decided to come back from injury a bit sooner than was wise. It's actually amazing that he should probably have won the whole thing

 

[Fiero425]

^I don't think they forced him, but he was a good sport and decided to come back from injury a bit sooner than was wise. It's actually amazing that he should probably have won the whole thing

SO that's twice Roger's gone all out in the WTF while injured huh?! Well that may have hurt him down the rode late at a championship! "Was it worth beating Stan in that semi last year Rog?" uzzled :nono :angel:

 

[El Dude]

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

I have no idea about 2005, but Federer played through an injury for much of 2013 that clearly impacted his performance. Or there was mono in 2008. He's known to suck it up and play. The 2014 WTF final was a rarity - he must have really been hurting.

 

[Front242]

I think she meant never injured when Nalbandian beat him.

 

[Fiero425]

I think she meant never injured when Nalbandian beat him.

Well she's wrong! It came right out of Roger's mouth in an interview that his ankle was injured! He toughed it out, actually bolting to a 2 sets to 0 lead, but Nalbandian found his game, hung in there, and just waited Roger out, winning it all in a 5th set TB! It was a very long match from what I remember of it with 3 TB's in totality! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Kieran]

It's not like Roger to mention an injury after a defeat...

 

[Fiero425]

It's not like Roger to mention an injury after a defeat...

It was just in passing, years later he mentioned it in an interview! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Kieran]

It's not like Roger to mention an injury after a defeat...

It was just in passing, years later he mentioned it in an interview! :angel: :dodgy:

Course he did...

 

[Tennis Miller]

I think it is safe to say that there are those who feel that Federer, in the long course of his career, could not possibly have ever lost a match due to injury [e.g., back or ankle] or illness [lingering effects of non-existent mono]. And that he has always been 100% fit whenever he lost a match.

I don't agree with them, and the statistical odds of him never once losing a match in over 12 years due to injury or illness are astronomically against such a conclusion. Those who believe otherwise are entitled to their opinion, however, despite those odds.

I would say the same thing to those who believe Rafa never lost a match due to injury, for clearly he has.

 

[Fiero425]

I think it is safe to say that there are those who feel that Federer, in the long course of his career, could not possibly have ever lost a match due to injury [e.g., back or ankle] or illness [lingering effects of non-existent mono]. And that he has always been 100% fit whenever he lost a match.

I don't agree with them, and the statistical odds of him never once losing a match in over 12 years due to injury or illness are astronomically against such a conclusion. Those who believe otherwise are entitled to their opinion, however, despite those odds.

I would say the same thing to those who believe Rafa never lost a match due to injury, for clearly he has.

Who ever doubted that? For the most part, the more obnoxious fans of Nadal will say "the only time Rafa loses is due to injury!" Heaven knows when winning a point, he's running like a deer, "drum majoring" around the court, but if run like a chicken with his head cut off, the next winning shot against him is accompanied by Rafa holding the back of his thigh; then a distinct limp! uzzled :nono :angel: Some say the same of Nole! Federer normally above that type of gamesmanship; for the most part! :angel:

 

[Federberg]

I think it is safe to say that there are those who feel that Federer, in the long course of his career, could not possibly have ever lost a match due to injury [e.g., back or ankle] or illness [lingering effects of non-existent mono]. And that he has always been 100% fit whenever he lost a match.

I don't agree with them, and the statistical odds of him never once losing a match in over 12 years due to injury or illness are astronomically against such a conclusion. Those who believe otherwise are entitled to their opinion, however, despite those odds.

I would say the same thing to those who believe Rafa never lost a match due to injury, for clearly he has.

Who ever doubted that? For the most part, the more obnoxious fans of Nadal will say "the only time Rafa loses is due to injury!" Heaven knows when winning a point, he's running like a deer, "drum majoring" around the court, but if run like a chicken with his head cut off, the next winning shot against him is accompanied by Rafa holding the back of his thigh; then a distinct limp! uzzled :nono :angel: Some say the same of Nole! Federer normally above that type of gamesmanship; for the most part! :angel:

At the risk of provoking another Fedal war. That's about how I see it too :snicker

 

[Tennis Miller]

I think it is safe to say that there are those who feel that Federer, in the long course of his career, could not possibly have ever lost a match due to injury [e.g., back or ankle] or illness [lingering effects of non-existent mono]. And that he has always been 100% fit whenever he lost a match.

I don't agree with them, and the statistical odds of him never once losing a match in over 12 years due to injury or illness are astronomically against such a conclusion. Those who believe otherwise are entitled to their opinion, however, despite those odds.

I would say the same thing to those who believe Rafa never lost a match due to injury, for clearly he has.

Who ever doubted that? For the most part, the more obnoxious fans of Nadal will say "the only time Rafa loses is due to injury!" Heaven knows when winning a point, he's running like a deer, "drum majoring" around the court, but if run like a chicken with his head cut off, the next winning shot against him is accompanied by Rafa holding the back of his thigh; then a distinct limp! uzzled :nono :angel: Some say the same of Nole! Federer normally above that type of gamesmanship; for the most part! :angel:

Of course the most obnoxious Nadal fans think that. My post was referring to the opposite bunch, the Nadal injury deniers.

 

[BalaryKar]

That a pre-2013 Wawrinka led 6-3 over Nalbandian despite losing the first two matches in early 2006, confirms a well-known adage. Mere talent is nowhere sufficient to win, not against players of the Big-4 club, not against 2-slam mug champions like Wawrinka

 

[bobvance]

It's not like Roger to mention an injury after a defeat...

At least he's not also mentioning it before and during defeats (and victories).

 

[Kirijax]

Wawrinka and Nalbandian no longer belong in the same sentence. Wawrinka has entered the furthermost southern reaches of Murray territory. When I think of someone similar to Nalbandian, Berdych comes to mind. So much talent, so little results. At least Nalbandian has that 2005 WTF to keep him warm at night.

 

[Federberg]

I agree Kiri. When it comes down to it, I don't see much difference between Nalbandian and Davydenko. I haven't looked but I wouldn't be surprised if Nikolai achieved much more. I honestly feel sometimes that all this talk about Nalby is just a p1ss take! I could understand loads of threads about Marat, there would be far more substance to that.

PS, I'm well aware I've now contributed to over-threading Nalby :snicker

 

[Moxie]

Wawrinka and Nalbandian no longer belong in the same sentence. Wawrinka has entered the furthermost southern reaches of Murray territory. When I think of someone similar to Nalbandian, Berdych comes to mind. So much talent, so little results. At least Nalbandian has that 2005 WTF to keep him warm at night.

I quote you, Kirijax, partly because I think the phrase I bolded above is excellent! Personally, I would dispute the parallel with Berdych, as I find him less talented, though more consistent than Nalbandian; likely a similar "tier," though, as El Dude would have it.

I agree Kiri. When it comes down to it, I don't see much difference between Nalbandian and Davydenko. I haven't looked but I wouldn't be surprised if Nikolai achieved much more. I honestly feel sometimes that all this talk about Nalby is just a p1ss take! I could understand loads of threads about Marat, there would be far more substance to that.

PS, I'm well aware I've now contributed to over-threading Nalby :snicker

Not a bad comparison. Both had 1 YEC, I think, and Davy had 3 MS1000 to David's 2, though Davydenko had far more titles, overall. And he does have the distinction of a winning H2H over Nadal with more than a match or two played.

You know why we have so many discussions about Nalbandian: because Cali can't get over his favorite. Those of us who loved Marat and his game have accepted the past and moved on. There's no inclination to put him in matches he'll never play and imagine how he'd have done. Those two Slams probably makes moving on easier. :angel:

 

[Fiero425]

Wawrinka and Nalbandian no longer belong in the same sentence. Wawrinka has entered the furthermost southern reaches of Murray territory. When I think of someone similar to Nalbandian, Berdych comes to mind. So much talent, so little results. At least Nalbandian has that 2005 WTF to keep him warm at night.

I quote you, Kirijax, partly because I think the phrase I bolded above is excellent! Personally, I would dispute the parallel with Berdych, as I find him less talented, though more consistent than Nalbandian; likely a similar "tier," though, as El Dude would have it.

I agree Kiri. When it comes down to it, I don't see much difference between Nalbandian and Davydenko. I haven't looked but I wouldn't be surprised if Nikolai achieved much more. I honestly feel sometimes that all this talk about Nalby is just a p1ss take! I could understand loads of threads about Marat, there would be far more substance to that.

PS, I'm well aware I've now contributed to over-threading Nalby :snicker

Not a bad comparison. Both had 1 YEC, I think, and Davy had 3 MS1000 to David's 2, though Davydenko had far more titles, overall. And he does have the distinction of a winning H2H over Nadal with more than a match or two played.

You know why we have so many discussions about Nalbandian: because Cali can't get over his favorite. Those of us who loved Marat and his game have accepted the past and moved on. There's no inclination to put him in matches he'll never play and imagine how he'd have done. Those 2 Slams probably makes moving on easier. :angel:

IMO; one of the most talented players ever! Too bad he had helium inside his head! :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover