Is Nalbandian as great a player as Wawrinka?

[brokenshoelace]

Stan did what Nalby never did : Naked pictures in a paper !!!

Don't think anyone would have wanted to see David naked :eyepop

 

[Federberg]

http://en.espn.co.uk/tennis/sport/story/253281.html

I for one am not making any excuses for Roger's loss to Nalbandian in that tennis masters cup final. The fact that he tuned Gaudio shows he was playing well enough to win. No hypocrisy on my part. I think my stance is fairly well known. If you're playing there's no excuse. I did make the point that he was a good sport for actually playing the event seeing as he was on crutches just weeks before. But we all know Roger, he's always careful. If he felt able to play then the injury should have nothing to do with anything

 

[brokenshoelace]

I actually think Roger was, to some extent, hurting. I was just pointing out some inconsistencies in Front's reasoning.

 

[Federberg]

I actually think Roger was, to some extent, hurting. I was just pointing out some inconsistencies in Front's reasoning.

Ah ok. Fair enough. When he couldn't close the deal out in straights, I got increasingly depressed. I was actually surprised it went to a tie break. A real champions fight. I guess his reasoning was sound, the season was over after that match so why not just leave it all out there. That was as bad a tournament as I can remember with top stars dropping out. I always wondered if they gave ole Roger a bonus for making the effort to turn up :snicker

 

[Kirijax]

I remember that tournament being hit by a lot of injuries as well. Nadal was out. Agassi dropped out and Federer really shouldn't have been there. Again, my memory might be hazy but that's the way I remember it. Federer could have been in a wheelchair and Gaudio wouldn't have had a chance against him. Federer struggled in the round robin and then double-bageled Gaudio but Nalabndian was just too tough. Still, Nalabandian played the match of his life in coming back the way he did. Too bad he was never able to repeat that success but a lot of players shine brightly for an instant and never repeat it. Some are lucky enough to do it at a Slam, while some don't.

 

[Federberg]

I remember that tournament being hit by a lot of injuries as well. Nadal was out. Agassi dropped out and Federer really shouldn't have been there. Again, my memory might be hazy but that's the way I remember it. Federer could have been in a wheelchair and Gaudio wouldn't have had a chance against him. Federer struggled in the round robin and then double-bageled Gaudio but Nalabndian was just too tough. Still, Nalabandian played the match of his life in coming back the way he did. Too bad he was never able to repeat that success but a lot of players shine brightly for an instant and never repeat it. Some are lucky enough to do it at a Slam, while some don't.

Yes agreed. To be honest, I did this thread as a joke as to my mind there is simply no contest between Stan and Nalby. Hands down for Stan. A more apt comparison would actually be Davydenko, who was also a tremendous talent. Check it out... (from Wiki)

Nalbandian:

Singles
Career record 383–191
Career titles 11
Highest ranking No. 3 (20 March 2006)
Grand Slam Singles results
Australian Open SF (2006)
French Open SF (2004, 2006)
Wimbledon F (2002)
US Open SF (2003)
Other tournaments
Tour Finals W (2005)
Olympic Games 3R (2008)

And Nikolai:

Singles
Career record 482–329
Career titles 21
Highest ranking No. 3 (6 November 2006)
Grand Slam Singles results
Australian Open QF (2005, 2006, 2007, 2010)
French Open SF (2005, 2007)
Wimbledon 4R (2007)
US Open SF (2006, 2007)
Other tournaments
Tour Finals W (2009)
Olympic Games 2R (2008, 2012)

 

[Kirijax]

I remember that tournament being hit by a lot of injuries as well. Nadal was out. Agassi dropped out and Federer really shouldn't have been there. Again, my memory might be hazy but that's the way I remember it. Federer could have been in a wheelchair and Gaudio wouldn't have had a chance against him. Federer struggled in the round robin and then double-bageled Gaudio but Nalabndian was just too tough. Still, Nalabandian played the match of his life in coming back the way he did. Too bad he was never able to repeat that success but a lot of players shine brightly for an instant and never repeat it. Some are lucky enough to do it at a Slam, while some don't.

Yes agreed. To be honest, I did this thread as a joke as to my mind there is simply no contest between Stan and Nalby. Hands down for Stan. A more apt comparison would actually be Davydenko, who was also a tremendous talent. Check it out... (from Wiki)

Nalbandian:

Singles
Career record 383–191
Career titles 11
Highest ranking No. 3 (20 March 2006)
Grand Slam Singles results
Australian Open SF (2006)
French Open SF (2004, 2006)
Wimbledon F (2002)
US Open SF (2003)
Other tournaments
Tour Finals W (2005)
Olympic Games 3R (2008)

And Nikolai:

Singles
Career record 482–329
Career titles 21
Highest ranking No. 3 (6 November 2006)
Grand Slam Singles results
Australian Open QF (2005, 2006, 2007, 2010)
French Open SF (2005, 2007)
Wimbledon 4R (2007)
US Open SF (2006, 2007)
Other tournaments
Tour Finals W (2009)
Olympic Games 2R (2008, 2012)

Good comparison. I don't think anyone in their right mind would think Nalbandian is better than Wawrinka anymore (except for the forehand :snicker) so the thread title did make me laugh a bit but it's good to remember how good Nalbandian actually was. And his name was so cool. Very Game of Thrones.

 

[Federberg]

^:laydownlaughing
Would he have been a Dothraki?

 

[Kirijax]

^:laydownlaughing
Would he have been a Dothraki?

I'm thinking Asshai. :snicker

 

[Front242]

I actually think Roger was, to some extent, hurting. I was just pointing out some inconsistencies in Front's reasoning.

I didn't say one thing about him being injured. I merely stated the obvious, that he couldn't train while being on crutches so was lacking match play. I never once mentioned injury for the loss. Nothing inconsistent about anything I said.

 

[Front242]

By the way, Federer actually beat Nalbandian in Round Robin play earlier in the same tournament (in the same week!). I don't disagree that Fed was injured but I'm just saying, that puts a major dent in the above logic.

So, that's best of 3, Fed was up 2 sets to love in the final which was best of 5. Did he bagel Nalbandian twice? No. So, no it doesn't put even 0.0000001% of a dent in that logic. Good try though.

Umm, you're not going to double bagel prime Nalbandian under any circumstances. What kind of nonsense is this?

How bad could the injury have been if he actually beat Nalbandian, destroyed Gaudio who, like it or not, was a top 8 player at the time and it made it to the semis, and beat Ljubicic and Coria as well? What kind of injury is so severe that you beat 4 top 8 players in the world in the same week?

What kind of injury is so severe that he almost straight setted Nalbandian in the final?

The hypocrisy is unbelievable. But no, you guys never make excuses.

Read above. No injury mentioned and no hypocrisy. He was lacking match play, he was beaten fairly. FFS.

 

[brokenshoelace]

So, that's best of 3, Fed was up 2 sets to love in the final which was best of 5. Did he bagel Nalbandian twice? No. So, no it doesn't put even 0.0000001% of a dent in that logic. Good try though.

Umm, you're not going to double bagel prime Nalbandian under any circumstances. What kind of nonsense is this?

How bad could the injury have been if he actually beat Nalbandian, destroyed Gaudio who, like it or not, was a top 8 player at the time and it made it to the semis, and beat Ljubicic and Coria as well? What kind of injury is so severe that you beat 4 top 8 players in the world in the same week?

What kind of injury is so severe that he almost straight setted Nalbandian in the final?

The hypocrisy is unbelievable. But no, you guys never make excuses.

Read above. No injury mentioned and no hypocrisy. He was lacking match play, he was beaten fairly. FFS.

This lack of match-play really seemed to matter when he beat 4 top 8 players, including Nalbandian, that same week.

 

[Front242]

Last reply to this 'cos you seriously don't get it. Most top 10 players weren't hard to beat for prime Federer who lost something like 24 matches from 2004 to 2007. Think dopes like Tsonga and Ferrer who Roger NEVER lost to back then. Nalbandian is a massive departure from those guys in terms of toughness and hence why he lost to him in the final. He had the fitness to beat him in 2 sets earlier in the round robin stage but clearly he wasn't sharp enough to beat him in best of 5 having been on these (see below, maybe it will make things clearer) just 3 weeks prior. It's not rocket science.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Last reply to this 'cos you seriously don't get it. Most top 10 players weren't hard to beat for prime Federer who lost something like 24 matches from 2004 to 2007. Think dopes like Tsonga and Ferrer who Roger NEVER lost to back then. Nalbandian is a massive departure from those guys in terms of toughness and hence why he lost to him in the final. He had the fitness to beat him in 2 sets earlier in the round robin stage but clearly he wasn't sharp enough to beat him in best of 5 having been on these (see below, maybe it will make things clearer) just 3 weeks prior. It's not rocket science.

But washed up Lleyton Hewitt is hard for Nadal to beat on clay? Since you know, it was the big piece of evidence you kept using as to why there's nothing wrong with him against Soderling.

Actually, it's not that I don't get it. I do. I actually believe Federer was hurt. And I believe that even injured world class tennis players find ways to win, which is why I never bought the "he won so there was nothing wrong with him" excuse. I was basically leading you into contradicting yourself re: your arguments about Nadal's 2009 injury and well, it worked.

 

[Federberg]

^I don't see the relevance of this. And it's pointless bringing this up again unless you're proposing to have pages and pages of Fedal wars in a thread that has nothing to do with them. Both Front and I (I'm presuming to speak on his behalf), will maintain forever that we saw nothing wrong with Rafa's movement against either Hewitt or Soderling. Indeed his main failing against Soderling was a surfeit of short balls against a big hitter, and he got duly punished. The fact that the conditions on that day were perfect for Soderling merely reinforces the point. I believe Roger ran out of gas against a Nalbandian that fought his way into the match. He lost, big deal. Rafa lost to the better player that day, big deal.. it happens to the best of them

 

[kskate2]

NO.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

I'd really love to see a "posts per win" or "thread per title" stats. now that'd be something Nalbs could dominate like a breakfast buffet.

 

[Federberg]

^:laydownlaughing

So true!

 

[brokenshoelace]

^I don't see the relevance of this. And it's pointless bringing this up again unless you're proposing to have pages and pages of Fedal wars in a thread that has nothing to do with them. Both Front and I (I'm presuming to speak on his behalf), will maintain forever that we saw nothing wrong with Rafa's movement against either Hewitt or Soderling. Indeed his main failing against Soderling was a surfeit of short balls against a big hitter, and he got duly punished. The fact that the conditions on that day were perfect for Soderling merely reinforces the point. I believe Roger ran out of gas against a Nalbandian that fought his way into the match. He lost, big deal. Rafa lost to the better player that day, big deal.. it happens to the best of them

1- You didn't seem that concerned about the endless pages when 2 days ago, you made a post saying according to Nadal fans, Nadal only loses to injuries. Quite out of the blue, as well.

2- It's actually entirely relevant. It shows that you can be hurt and win a match despite your injury, only to lose one shortly thereafter. You guys have always used the "where was that injury when he destroyed Hewitt?" argument. Which to me, has always been flawed logic. Playing a washed up Hewitt on clay is not the same as Soderling crushing every ball, an argument that Front -- quite ironically -- used to justify Fed beating Gaudio but losing to Nalbandian (all the while forgetting that Fed had beaten Nalbandian that same tournament).

3- I remember when I replied to a post of yours re: Nadal's movement against Soderling in which I showed you a direct quote from Magnus Norman, Soderling's then coach, after the 2010 FO final, in which he mentioned how Nadal was moving much better than he was the previous year (in response to a question that asked him to note the biggest difference between the two matches). Here you go:

"Asked to compare this version of Nadal with the one Soderling defeated twice last season, Norman replied: 'He's being more aggressive. He's moving a lot better.'"

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/french10/news/story?id=5257268

4- This is, by your own admission, a joke thread. So whether we go off topic or not is hardly a point of contention. I'd argue anything I said in the post above is far more relevant than David Nalbandian.

 

[Federberg]

^I don't see the relevance of this. And it's pointless bringing this up again unless you're proposing to have pages and pages of Fedal wars in a thread that has nothing to do with them. Both Front and I (I'm presuming to speak on his behalf), will maintain forever that we saw nothing wrong with Rafa's movement against either Hewitt or Soderling. Indeed his main failing against Soderling was a surfeit of short balls against a big hitter, and he got duly punished. The fact that the conditions on that day were perfect for Soderling merely reinforces the point. I believe Roger ran out of gas against a Nalbandian that fought his way into the match. He lost, big deal. Rafa lost to the better player that day, big deal.. it happens to the best of them

1- You didn't seem that concerned about the endless pages when 2 days ago, you made a post saying according to Nadal fans, Nadal only loses to injuries. Quite out of the blue, as well.

2- It's actually entirely relevant. It shows that you can be hurt and win a match despite your injury, only to lose one shortly thereafter. You guys have always used the "where was that injury when he destroyed Hewitt?" argument. Which to me, has always been flawed logic. Playing a washed up Hewitt on clay is not the same as Soderling crushing every ball, an argument that Front -- quite ironically -- used to justify Fed beating Gaudio but losing to Nalbandian (all the while forgetting that Fed had beaten Nalbandian that same tournament).

3- I remember when I replied to a post of yours re: Nadal's movement against Soderling in which I showed you a direct quote from Magnus Norman, Soderling's then coach, after the 2010 FO final, in which he mentioned how Nadal was moving much better than he was the previous year (in response to a question that asked him to note the biggest difference between the two matches). Here you go:

"Asked to compare this version of Nadal with the one Soderling defeated twice last season, Norman replied: 'He's being more aggressive. He's moving a lot better.'"

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/french10/news/story?id=5257268

4- This is, by your own admission, a joke thread. So whether we go off topic or not is hardly a point of contention. I'd argue anything I said in the post above is far more relevant than David Nalbandian.

Here we go again! :laydownlaughing

1, I think that was Fiero mate :nono I merely agreed with him. Just being factual!

2, I wouldn't go so far as to say Hewitt was washed up. Not relevant as a top player anymore, sure. But that's a long way from being washed up. He could still compete

3, That isn't evidence of anything mate :nono Nadal can move better and play more aggressively without it having anything to do with injury. You're inferring a lot. Front and I have always maintained that he was hitting a lot of short balls. This is not disagreeing with anything Norman said. Obviously the next year he was hitting deeper, a more Rafa like ball. Conditions were very different as well. Next point please... :snicker

4, woeva!