Is Nalbandian as great a player as Wawrinka?

isabelle

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
4,673
Reactions
634
Points
113
Broken_Shoelace said:
isabelle said:
Stan did what Nalby never did : Naked pictures in a paper !!!

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

I didn't want to see Stan naked either but he didn't ask my opinion
 

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
federberg said:
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

No no no. He clearly said "moving a lot better." That's not an evidence of anything? Forget the injury for a second. You have always maintained that he was moving fine against Soderling in 2009. It's actually your whole point of contention.

So you're telling me Nadal was moving well at the 200 FO, but was moving THAT much better in 2010? So he took his already elite movement to a whole new level? He might as well have competed in the Olympics a couple of years later then.

Only you would say "moving a lot better" is not evidence that he wasn't moving great.

Also, this is a Cali argument: His movement was fine but he was hitting the ball short. Uh...why do you think he was hitting the ball short? Maybe because he was getting to it a touch later than usual? But oh, it's Soderling's weight of shots? That's fair. Did Soderling's weight of shots somehow decrease the following year? Also, conditions were actually quite cool in the 2010 final as well.
 

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
PS: I guess I shouldn't be shocked you don't think this is evidence. I mean, you guys don't think him pulling out of Wimbledon is evidence. So there's that.
 

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,570
Reactions
5,661
Points
113
Broken_Shoelace said:
federberg said:
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

No no no. He clearly said "moving a lot better." That's not an evidence of anything? Forget the injury for a second. You have always maintained that he was moving fine against Soderling in 2009. It's actually your whole point of contention.

So you're telling me Nadal was moving well at the 200 FO, but was moving THAT much better in 2010? So he took his already elite movement to a whole new level? He might as well have competed in the Olympics a couple of years later then.

Only you would say "moving a lot better" is not evidence that he wasn't moving great.

Also, this is a Cali argument: His movement was fine but he was hitting the ball short. Uh...why do you think he was hitting the ball short? Maybe because he was getting to it a touch later than usual? But oh, it's Soderling's weight of shots? That's fair. Did Soderling's weight of shots somehow decrease the following year? Also, conditions were actually quite cool in the 2010 final as well.

I don't see any inconsistency here. He could easily have moved well enough to beat one player, but been exposed against another player. You look good when you win easy generally. And at that time Soderling was clearly the 3rd best player at RG. Nothing wrong with having any deficiencies exposed by a guy like that. But let's focus on what Norman said. It was a relative statement. No talk of injuries, he just made his qualitative assessment of Rafa's performance. Let's face it, if it wasn't to do with RG, where Rafa has always been king, the fact that he got taken out by a basher like Soderling wouldn't be that much of an issue. It's happened time and time again. There just seems to be this emotional belief held by Rafa-fans that no one should beat him there. I have an entirely neutral (indifferent?) perspective on it. Even top players lose occasionally, I see no reason at all to make anything of it, and I'm certainly not going to have any Nadal-fan reverence for Rafa's putative dominance at Roland Garros.

As an aside.. the season that Roger had the 5 setter against the Russian guy. Can't remember his name but begins with an 'A', at Flushing, and he went on to win the title. I want to say 2009, but that can't be right as that was the Delpo fiasco, so probably 2008... He was stinking up the place on hardcourts all year, but got it together at Cincy I think. His movement was a shocker, something was badly wrong. This might have been the year he smashed his racquet in Miami, playing against Novak. He wasn't injured, but something was wrong technically. It happens. Doesn't have to be injury
 

kskate2

Administrator
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
31,032
Reactions
10,045
Points
113
Age
55
Location
Tampa Bay
While this all seems spellbinding, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Get back to Wawrinka and Nalbandian.
 

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
federberg said:
Broken_Shoelace said:
federberg said:
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

No no no. He clearly said "moving a lot better." That's not an evidence of anything? Forget the injury for a second. You have always maintained that he was moving fine against Soderling in 2009. It's actually your whole point of contention.

So you're telling me Nadal was moving well at the 200 FO, but was moving THAT much better in 2010? So he took his already elite movement to a whole new level? He might as well have competed in the Olympics a couple of years later then.

Only you would say "moving a lot better" is not evidence that he wasn't moving great.

Also, this is a Cali argument: His movement was fine but he was hitting the ball short. Uh...why do you think he was hitting the ball short? Maybe because he was getting to it a touch later than usual? But oh, it's Soderling's weight of shots? That's fair. Did Soderling's weight of shots somehow decrease the following year? Also, conditions were actually quite cool in the 2010 final as well.

I don't see any inconsistency here. He could easily have moved well enough to beat one player, but been exposed against another player. You look good when you win easy generally. And at that time Soderling was clearly the 3rd best player at RG. Nothing wrong with having any deficiencies exposed by a guy like that. But let's focus on what Norman said. It was a relative statement. No talk of injuries, he just made his qualitative assessment of Rafa's performance. Let's face it, if it wasn't to do with RG, where Rafa has always been king, the fact that he got taken out by a basher like Soderling wouldn't be that much of an issue. It's happened time and time again. There just seems to be this emotional belief held by Rafa-fans that no one should beat him there. I have an entirely neutral (indifferent?) perspective on it. Even top players lose occasionally, I see no reason at all to make anything of it, and I'm certainly not going to have any Nadal-fan reverence for Rafa's putative dominance at Roland Garros.

As an aside.. the season that Roger had the 5 setter against the Russian guy. Can't remember his name but begins with an 'A', at Flushing, and he went on to win the title. I want to say 2009, but that can't be right as that was the Delpo fiasco, so probably 2008... He was stinking up the place on hardcourts all year, but got it together at Cincy I think. His movement was a shocker, something was badly wrong. This might have been the year he smashed his racquet in Miami, playing against Novak. He wasn't injured, but something was wrong technically. It happens. Doesn't have to be injury

That's one strawman post. You said Nadal was moving fine against Soderling, and it's an evidence that he wasn't hurting. Of course Norman is not going to mention an injury nor would he know if there was one, but he did strongly imply that Nadal wasn't moving well. Add him pulling out of Wimbledon, put 2 and 2 together, and you get your answer.

The guy you're referring to is Andreev. It was in 2008. Yes, you can move poorly without being injured and then find your movement. It happened with Nadal in the clay season last year, where he looked poor, then found his movement in the second week of RG.

That's still a strawman, because it doesn't take into account that you can also move poorly BECAUSE you're injured. Now, how do we know whether Nadal was actually injured against Soderling? Well, he skipped Wimbledon, and it wasn't due to bad movement, it was due to pain.

But, you're still refusing to acknowledge that he was moving poorly against Soderling to begin with so the disconnect is deeply rooted.

Anyway, moving on.
 

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
kskate2 said:
While this all seems spellbinding, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Get back to Wawrinka and Nalbandian.

Wawrinka is still the greater player, as he was a week ago when this thread was made.
 

GameSetAndMath

The GOAT
Joined
Jul 9, 2013
Messages
21,141
Reactions
3,398
Points
113
Nalby just lost narrowly to Joey Chesnut in Nathan's Hot Dog eating contest. Nalby has so much unfulfilled potential.
 

isabelle

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
4,673
Reactions
634
Points
113
GameSetAndMath said:
Nalby just lost narrowly to Joey Chesnut in Nathan's Hot Dog eating contest. Nalby has so much unfulfilled potential.

Here is the list of players who didn't fulfill their potential : Gulbis, Gasquet, Tsonga, Ferrer, Safin, Delpo, Blake .....feel free to add who you want. various reasons can explain that. All players should have done better if .....
 

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
isabelle said:
GameSetAndMath said:
Nalby just lost narrowly to Joey Chesnut in Nathan's Hot Dog eating contest. Nalby has so much unfulfilled potential.

Here is the list of players who didn't fulfill their potential : Gulbis, Gasquet, Tsonga, Ferrer, Safin, Delpo, Blake .....feel free to add who you want. various reasons can explain that. All players should have done better if .....

Ferrer has even exceeded his potential. He's an overachiever, if anything.

I think Tsonga and Gasquet more or less fulfilled their potential. Richard has a gorgeous game but it's severely flawed and he's hardly a slam winner caliber player, especially in the Fedal era, when he was at his peak. Tsonga had a bit of a higher ceiling but he still reached a major final and was/is a consistent top 10 player. He did beat the big guns in majors but lacked consistency. He could have done better but not by much.

I don't think much of Gulbis but I guess he's better than what he did his entire career so you're right. Del Potro on the other hand, is just a victim of injuries.

On that list, Safin is the most obvious example of unfulfilled potential for sure, though.

And you're right about Blake. His mentality was his undoing. He refused to play anything other than ballbashing and it cost him.
 

isabelle

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
4,673
Reactions
634
Points
113
Broken_Shoelace said:
isabelle said:
GameSetAndMath said:
Nalby just lost narrowly to Joey Chesnut in Nathan's Hot Dog eating contest. Nalby has so much unfulfilled potential.

Here is the list of players who didn't fulfill their potential : Gulbis, Gasquet, Tsonga, Ferrer, Safin, Delpo, Blake .....feel free to add who you want. various reasons can explain that. All players should have done better if .....

Ferrer has even exceeded his potential. He's an overachiever, if anything.

I think Tsonga and Gasquet more or less fulfilled their potential. Richard has a gorgeous game but it's severely flawed and he's hardly a slam winner caliber player, especially in the Fedal era, when he was at his peak. Tsonga had a bit of a higher ceiling but he still reached a major final and was/is a consistent top 10 player. He did beat the big guns in majors but lacked consistency. He could have done better but not by much.

I don't think much of Gulbis but I guess he's better than what he did his entire career so you're right. Del Potro on the other hand, is just a victim of injuries.

On that list, Safin is the most obvious example of unfulfilled potential for sure, though.

And you're right about Blake. His mentality was his undoing. He refused to play anything other than ballbashing and it cost him.


Gasquet should have won at least 1 500pts or even a MS with the talent he has, it's a shame to see such a waste
If Gulbis was less nuts, he could have done some great things too
They all have their reason : injuries, madness, weak mental etc....
 

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,160
Reactions
5,842
Points
113
I just have to echo what BS said about Ferrer. He's on the opposite side of the spectrum from players like Gulbis - he more than fulfilled his talent and even over-achieved.

"Second tier" players like Tsonga and Berdych are hard to assess because on one hand they're so close but don't quite get the Slam trophy, but on the other hand someone has to be second tier. I do think Tsonga should have won one, though - that his best level is a tad higher than Berdych's.

I agree with BS about Gasquet. Maybe he is a second tier talent with a third tier career, that he should have been up there with Berdych and Tsonga but is more like Robredo or Simon. But I don't see him have ever having had Slam-winning talent, at least not in this era. Maybe in the late 90s to early 00s he could have slipped one in.

If we're including injury-ruined careers, we shouldn't forget Soderling. Also, Mario Ancic and Joachim Johansson both looked promising but saw their careers end quite early due to injuries.
 

isabelle

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
4,673
Reactions
634
Points
113
El Dude said:
I just have to echo what BS said about Ferrer. He's on the opposite side of the spectrum from players like Gulbis - he more than fulfilled his talent and even over-achieved.

"Second tier" players like Tsonga and Berdych are hard to assess because on one hand they're so close but don't quite get the Slam trophy, but on the other hand someone has to be second tier. I do think Tsonga should have won one, though - that his best level is a tad higher than Berdych's.

I agree with BS about Gasquet. Maybe he is a second tier talent with a third tier career, that he should have been up there with Berdych and Tsonga but is more like Robredo or Simon. But I don't see him have ever having had Slam-winning talent, at least not in this era. Maybe in the late 90s to early 00s he could have slipped one in.

If we're including injury-ruined careers, we shouldn't forget Soderling. Also, Mario Ancic and Joachim Johansson both looked promising but saw their careers end quite early due to injuries.


What about the A'Rod ? Should have he done better ?
 

DarthFed

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,724
Reactions
3,477
Points
113
I think Tsonga is a slight underachiever. If his backhand was even consistently average instead of usually bad his career might look different. But even with a pretty weak backhand he could've done more. I agree with what everyone's saying about Gasquet. People see that beautiful backhand and they think he has tons of talent but that was never the case. Gulbis on the other hand is definitely an underachiever because he hasn't even had a Gasquet-like career. Ernie wasn't going to be a major winner but he should've been a consistent top 20 player at the very least.
 

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,160
Reactions
5,842
Points
113
isabelle said:
What about the A'Rod ? Should have he done better ?

For a moment I thought you meant Alex Rodriguez!

I don't consider Roddick an under-achiever. He's about as clear an example of a player whose career was hugely impacted by a rival, namely Roger Federer. As some have said, if Roger had become a watch-maker or banker then Andy almost certainly would have won at least a couple more Slams - I think in the 3-5 range. Consider that Roger was 8-0 vs. Roddick in Slams, including four finals, three semifinals and one quarterfinal. Let's say that Andy wins half of those finals against other opponents, and wins the championship of only one of the other four and he's got 4 career Slam titles rather than 1, tied with Vilas and Courier in the category of "lesser greats."

But an under-achiever? No. He just couldn't beat Roger.
 

calitennis127

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
4,947
Reactions
459
Points
83
El Dude said:
isabelle said:
What about the A'Rod ? Should have he done better ?

For a moment I thought you meant Alex Rodriguez!

I don't consider Roddick an under-achiever. He's about as clear an example of a player whose career was hugely impacted by a rival, namely Roger Federer. As some have said, if Roger had become a watch-maker or banker then Andy almost certainly would have won at least a couple more Slams - I think in the 3-5 range. Consider that Roger was 8-0 vs. Roddick in Slams, including four finals, three semifinals and one quarterfinal. Let's say that Andy wins half of those finals against other opponents, and wins the championship of only one of the other four and he's got 4 career Slam titles rather than 1, tied with Vilas and Courier in the category of "lesser greats."

But an under-achiever? No. He just couldn't beat Roger.


I agree with this. But what I also think that your hypothetical de-Federerized scenario should take into account is confidence and momentum that carries over from winning Slams into the smaller events, as well as the loss of confidence and zeal that Roddick clearly experienced after repeated failures against Federer on the biggest stages.

Roddick probably would have won a few more MS events than he did if he had the clout and momentum that comes with winning Slams.....that type of success breeds more success.
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,692
Reactions
14,871
Points
113
calitennis127 said:
El Dude said:
isabelle said:
What about the A'Rod ? Should have he done better ?

For a moment I thought you meant Alex Rodriguez!

I don't consider Roddick an under-achiever. He's about as clear an example of a player whose career was hugely impacted by a rival, namely Roger Federer. As some have said, if Roger had become a watch-maker or banker then Andy almost certainly would have won at least a couple more Slams - I think in the 3-5 range. Consider that Roger was 8-0 vs. Roddick in Slams, including four finals, three semifinals and one quarterfinal. Let's say that Andy wins half of those finals against other opponents, and wins the championship of only one of the other four and he's got 4 career Slam titles rather than 1, tied with Vilas and Courier in the category of "lesser greats."

But an under-achiever? No. He just couldn't beat Roger.


I agree with this. But what I also think that your hypothetical de-Federerized scenario should take into account is confidence and momentum that carries over from winning Slams into the smaller events, as well as the loss of confidence and zeal that Roddick clearly experienced after repeated failures against Federer on the biggest stages.

Roddick probably would have won a few more MS events than he did if he had the clout and momentum that comes with winning Slams.....that type of success breeds more success.

Roddick could have benefitted from being born a couple of years earlier. I'm not a fan of his game, but his focus, drive and commitment were admirable. And without Roger ripping his heart out at all of his best opportunities, he would have stayed longer in the game, IMO.
 

calitennis127

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
4,947
Reactions
459
Points
83
Moxie629 said:
calitennis127 said:
El Dude said:
For a moment I thought you meant Alex Rodriguez!

I don't consider Roddick an under-achiever. He's about as clear an example of a player whose career was hugely impacted by a rival, namely Roger Federer. As some have said, if Roger had become a watch-maker or banker then Andy almost certainly would have won at least a couple more Slams - I think in the 3-5 range. Consider that Roger was 8-0 vs. Roddick in Slams, including four finals, three semifinals and one quarterfinal. Let's say that Andy wins half of those finals against other opponents, and wins the championship of only one of the other four and he's got 4 career Slam titles rather than 1, tied with Vilas and Courier in the category of "lesser greats."

But an under-achiever? No. He just couldn't beat Roger.


I agree with this. But what I also think that your hypothetical de-Federerized scenario should take into account is confidence and momentum that carries over from winning Slams into the smaller events, as well as the loss of confidence and zeal that Roddick clearly experienced after repeated failures against Federer on the biggest stages.

Roddick probably would have won a few more MS events than he did if he had the clout and momentum that comes with winning Slams.....that type of success breeds more success.

Roddick could have benefitted from being born a couple of years earlier. I'm not a fan of his game, but his focus, drive and commitment were admirable. And without Roger ripping his heart out at all of his best opportunities, he would have stayed longer in the game, IMO.


Unfortunately, his game was a bit lacking stylistically, particularly as he got older and his backhand motion became even more brittle. No one can doubt his determination, and he was tough. In a couple of those Wimbledon losses to Federer he was a little bit unlucky too.
 

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
calitennis127 said:
Moxie629 said:
calitennis127 said:
I agree with this. But what I also think that your hypothetical de-Federerized scenario should take into account is confidence and momentum that carries over from winning Slams into the smaller events, as well as the loss of confidence and zeal that Roddick clearly experienced after repeated failures against Federer on the biggest stages.

Roddick probably would have won a few more MS events than he did if he had the clout and momentum that comes with winning Slams.....that type of success breeds more success.

Roddick could have benefitted from being born a couple of years earlier. I'm not a fan of his game, but his focus, drive and commitment were admirable. And without Roger ripping his heart out at all of his best opportunities, he would have stayed longer in the game, IMO.


Unfortunately, his game was a bit lacking stylistically, particularly as he got older and his backhand motion became even more brittle. No one can doubt his determination, and he was tough. In a couple of those Wimbledon losses to Federer he was a little bit unlucky too.

Roddick's backhand actually improved in mid-2009/early 2010. The forehand was the real issue. In a desperate effort to find solutions for Federer, he turned it from a huge power shot to a mediocre spinny, angle-less, weight-less, shot...