What the hell is talent?

[Ricardo]

Nalbandian absolutely dominated Nadal at IW in 2009, up until he blew the second set and collapsed with the third. Cali is insane but we don't have to change facts.

Asking Moxie not to change facts would be impossible, it's like asking Sharapova to play silently. Girls do what they do, that's a fact.

 

[Ricardo]

David had 5 match points at what really ended up being the middle of the 2nd set. Because Nadal saved them, they played 4 more games and a TB, which Nadal won. Here's their history up until that match: they had played 2 matches, and Nalbandian had made short work of Nadal in both. Nadal has since admitted to being nervous before that match, and not sure of what his game plan was. He'd never broken Nalbandian. But, with his back totally against the wall, (as you pointed out) #1 Nadal rose to the occasion, fought off MPs on his own serve, then did what he hadn't yet done, which was to break Nalbandian's serve in the next game, then they both held to force the TB, which Nadal won (5). He subsequently broke Nalbandian in every one of his service games in the 3rd, and also beat Nalbandian in the next 3 matches that they played, to finish with a 5-2 H2H when Nalby retired. Sure, Nalbandian was great for a set and a half in that match, and sure, with a bit of luck, he'd have won that one. But he didn't, so you can't make overmuch of Nalbandian outdoors based on a match he didn't win. It doesn't work that way.

oh well, you just have to make it up as you go to suit your agenda, as usual. Do you ever feel embarrassed? or your conscience tells you not to do that all the time? It was on David's racquet, he didn't need luck to have won that one, if he didn't choke. No player needs to play and dictate all the way to match points, then win the match point with 'luck'...….he needs just to execute one more point, the same way he did all the time prior. You make it sound like Nadal found a secret formula to suddenly break David, and break time and again at will (like the 3rd set)….fact is, David lost his mind and couldn't play. David broke himself, simple as that.

Its truly ugly you make it up all the time, just so you want to win an argument.

 

[Ricardo]

Fatbandian was talented but his problem was that he didn't have a weapon with which he could consistently dominate opponents, like Fed's serve + FH, dull's moonball and faker's return + moving wall.

not sure how moonball is ever classified as a weapon, but Nadal has a big forehand especially the inside out. He is also a moving wall, as we all know the surface these days suit a moving wall.

 

[Ricardo]

funny how the thread is dominated by the Nalbandian debate, yet again. Lets just agree that, when he was on, he was truly wicked. He could tear apart Nadal like nobody can, as if he was several levels better. The way he dominated in those matches was just ridiculous, not matched by anyone else.

 

[Moxie]

Nalbandian absolutely dominated Nadal at IW in 2009, up until he blew the second set and collapsed with the third. Cali is insane but we don't have to change facts.

I didn't change any facts. I watched that match as it happened. I have said that Nalbandian totally had Rafa's number for a set and a half, but you may see the outcome as a complete choke and roll over, I didn't see it that way. For sure he blew the match, but he had plenty of time to make up for it and yet got steamrolled.

EDIT: It occurs to me that we changed the forum rules, or at least for this thread, whereby only experts get to have opinions, and I'm the only one who cited a tennis writer on that IW match, so I guess my "expert" prevails.

 

[MikeOne]

funny how the thread is dominated by the Nalbandian debate, yet again. Lets just agree that, when he was on, he was truly wicked. He could tear apart Nadal like nobody can, as if he was several levels better. The way he dominated in those matches was just ridiculous, not matched by anyone else.

Federer destroyed nadal 3,0 in 2011, on indoors, so you are wrong, not only nalbandian could do this.

Djokovic destroyed nadal 1,2 in doha 2016. After the match, nadal claimed he played a person playing the highest level ever. So again, not only nalbandian could do this.

Nadal’s weakest court has always been indoors and nalbandian’s strongest indoors so the result had a lot to do with surface, anyone can see that.

 

[calitennis127]

I didn't get a fact wrong, I only made a wrong guess, not having memorized Goodall's commentary as you have. But surely it came before 5-3 in the 2nd, when Nadal began to turn the match around. I'd didn't "conveniently" omit that Nadal saved 5 match points.

Yes, you did omit it. You did not mention it. That is the very meaning of omission.

I actually thought it wasn't worth revisiting the details of a match that is 10+ years old. But, hey...if you want to. I can't remember the exact sequence, but I think Nadal saved 4 MPs when he was serving a 3-5 in the 2nd, and another one on Nalby's serve at 4-5.

Good job. If only you were so attentive to detail and fact when discussing politics.

The funny thing to me is that you have brought up this match before, as some example of how good Nalbandian is. Whereas this match has been used as an example in a profile piece in the NYTimes on Nadal, and also in a book (either the Wertheim one or Nadal's bio,) as an example of how gritty and never-say-die Nadal is. Sure, in any one of 5 MPs against, Nadal could have been in the locker room and out of the tournament, but it was a lot on him that he saved them.

Both propositions can be true. It can be true that Nalbandian dominated Nadal OUTDOORS for two sets and also that Nadal demonstrated exceptional resilience and mental strength in saving the match points.

Then he won the TB, and ran away with the 3rd set. Whenever we talk about matches that Nadal won that you think he shouldn't have, you tell me I am some version of "oblivious to the emotions of sports," or unaware of how sports psychology works.

Yes, and I fully stand by that.

That's really an easy and cheap out for you,

No, it's just the plain truth about your assessments much of the time.

 

[calitennis127]

I didn't change any facts. I watched that match as it happened. I have said that Nalbandian totally had Rafa's number for a set and a half,

A set and a half? How is getting to 6-3, 5-3 with 4 match points only dominating for a set and a half? Can you count?

For sure he blew the match, but he had plenty of time to make up for it and yet got steamrolled.

Perfect example of how oblivious Moxie is to the psychology of sports. So let's clarify once again: the reason Nalbandian got blown out in the third set was three-fold:

1) He had just experienced the devastation of losing 5 match points.
2) Nadal has much better endurance.
3) Nalbandian was 2 months from hip surgery.

 

[calitennis127]

Federer destroyed nadal 3,0 in 2011, on indoors, so you are wrong, not only nalbandian could do this.

Djokovic destroyed nadal 1,2 in doha 2016. After the match, nadal claimed he played a person playing the highest level ever. So again, not only nalbandian could do this.

Nadal’s weakest court has always been indoors and nalbandian’s strongest indoors so the result had a lot to do with surface, anyone can see that.

Mike why are you dodging the question about how Nalbandian dominated Nadal at Indian Wells in 2009 (when Nadal was #1 and had just won the Australian Open) if he could only play at the level indoors?

Don't you have any explanation for that?

 

[britbox]

Mike why are you dodging the question about how Nalbandian dominated Nadal at Indian Wells in 2009 (when Nadal was #1 and had just won the Australian Open) if he could only play at the level indoors?

Don't you have any explanation for that?

Did you watch half the match?

 

[MikeOne]

Mike why are you dodging the question about how Nalbandian dominated Nadal at Indian Wells in 2009 (when Nadal was #1 and had just won the Australian Open) if he could only play at the level indoors?

Don't you have any explanation for that?

Nalbandian dominated a match where he got bagelled in last set? I’m confused

 

[calitennis127]

Nalbandian dominated a match where he got bagelled in last set? I’m confused

He got the match to 6-3, 5-3 and had a total of 5 match points to win in straights. According to your stupid theory about Nalbandian only being elite indoors, that never could have happened. So what is your explanation for it?

 

[calitennis127]

Did you watch half the match?

I watched the entire match. And Nadal did a great job saving the 5 match points but that doesn’t change the fact that Nalbandian dominated him up to that point and was 1 point away from straight-setting him the exact same way he had indoors in Madrid and Paris, which totally refutes Mike’s idiotic theory that Nalbandian was only elite indoors.

 

[monfed]

not sure how moonball is ever classified as a weapon, but Nadal has a big forehand especially the inside out. He is also a moving wall, as we all know the surface these days suit a moving wall.

So Nadal's relentless moonballing to a right hander's BH specially on high bouncing surfaces like PC or clay in general isn't a weapon? Where do you guys come up with this stuff?

 

[monfed]

that's why he beat your arrogant idol 8 times...no weapons (backhand ? return of serve ? point's construction ? any other idea ? )

 

[MikeOne]

He got the match to 6-3, 5-3 and had a total of 5 match points to win in straights. According to your stupid theory about Nalbandian only being elite indoors, that never could have happened. So what is your explanation for it?

It’s not a theory, it’s fact. Nalbandian won madrid and paris, how many IW,miami did he win? Or monte carlo, rome? How many AO, UsO? It is fact, not theory

 

[MikeOne]

So Nadal's relentless moonballing to a right hander's BH specially on high bouncing surfaces like PC or clay in general isn't a weapon? Where do you guys come up with this stuff?

He has won 3 USO, two wimbledons, 1 AO.

That moonball tennis must work on all surfaces... even enough to beat federer and djokovic on these surfaces.

Get outta here you toad..

 

[brokenshoelace]

Cali still hasn't had time to watch that video. Or, in typical Cali fashion, he conveniently ignores it like a wuss.

 

[Moxie]

Watching Fognini v. Paul, and given we're talking about Nalbandian again, I'm thinking of how much Fognini reminds me of Nalbandian. Long torso, short legs. Seemingly lazy, but great shot-maker. Can't be counted on, but thrilling when on song.

 

[monfed]

He has won 3 USO, two wimbledons, 1 AO.

That moonball tennis must work on all surfaces... even enough to beat federer and djokovic on these surfaces.

Get outta here you toad..

on slowed down surfaces so it doesn't count