That has become utterly ridiculous... A person actually claiming Nalbandian was as quick and athletic as Nadal. That point at 3:50 was pathetic, Nadal could do that at 60%. Nalbandian doesn't even come CLOSE to the speed/athletcism of Nadal, Djokovic or even Federer. .
That is simply absurd.....how would Nalbandian have started his career 5-0 against Federer (including wins OUTDOORS) if he was nowhere "CLOSE" to the speed of Federer? What do you think he did - just stand still and hit 110 mph backhands all match?
How can you honestly look at Nalbandian's matches against Federer when they were both in their early twenties and say that Federer was in a totally different athletic class? What are you smoking?
Now you have really lost it cali. Nalbandian could NEVER get to the types of balls Novak or Nadal could get to and he could NEVER do as much with those balls as Novak or Nadal could, on a consistent basis. .
A few points here:
1) I fully acknowledge that Djokovic is in a class of his own with the gumby-like extension on the baseline. But when I am talking "athleticism" here I am talking about quickness side-to-side, explosive motion, and fluidity of movement. Broken doesn't understand this because he still tends to be a corny cliché-spouter and is very often incompetent, but you may be capable of understanding this Mike. If you watch Nalbandian beating Kuerten in 2004, how in the world can you say that Federer or young Nadal were just on another level athletically? I ask that question seriously based on the eye test. But I'm not sure you're even looking.
2) Nalbandian was not strictly an offensive player with no defensive skills. He did play very good defense and was a great all-around player. In my view, he was not offensive enough very often (especially with the forehand). So this idea that all he could do was stand in the middle of the court and hit incredible shots when the ball was looped down the middle into his wheelhouse is total BS.
3) The big difference here between Nalbandian and Djokovic/Nadal is not a matter of natural quickness or explosiveness but ENDURANCE/STAMINA and DURABILITY. These qualities might not be as glamorous to talk about as "explosiveness," but they are significant. And have I ever denied that Djokovic and Nadal demonstrated better stamina and durability than Nalbandian? No.
4) When Mike says that Nalbandian did not get to balls like Djokovic and Nadal on a consistent basis, he is kind of right, but not for the reason he is alleging (which is that they were more athletic). The reason Nalbandian did not get to those balls and do damage as consistently is a) his endurance wasn't as good, and b) he didn't have to. He was so dominant in rallies that he did not have to chase opposing shots around as much as those two. Nalbandian never got bitch-slapped in rallies the way Djokovic did by Wawrinka or the way Nadal has by numerous players on hard courts. When he lost it was for other reasons.
You, more than anyone, must understand that it's about doing it consistently. Nadal and Djokovic CONSISTENTLY are able to run down balls and do something with the shots MUCH MORE often than Nalbandian..
Because they have had better stamina/durability and because they play more defensively.
Nalbandian could NEVER stretch for backhands as Djokovic does, he didn't have the speed, length or flexibility... FACT, NOT OPINION. .
I have always conceded that Djokovic had more length and flexibility, but I don't consider those to be core athletic traits on the same level as explosiveness and side-to-side quickness. Wawrinka is also bulkier than Djokovic and stronger in the upper body. Does that mean he is more athletic than Djokovic? No. In fact, Wawrinka and Verdasco both hit a bigger ball than Djokovic. I have seen Verdasco practice and he clearly hits with more pop than both Djokovic and Nadal.
You can't just zero in on one attribute and say it defines everything. Djokovic's length/flexibility are not everything.
Also, I challenge you to show me a single match where Nalbandian ever lost because he couldn't get to balls? Please show me one. That was never his problem.
Nalbandian could NEVER stretch for backhands or forehands like nadal could or run down drop shots like Nadal.
Nalbandian never lost a match because he couldn't get to balls or was out-classed in terms of movement. That was never his problem. And he didn't need to be as excellent on defense as Nadal did because he was a superior offensive shotmaker.
Don't use straw man's now, Nalbandian wasn't slow, he wasn't unathletic. He was quick and athletic in his own right but when compared to Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Federer is wasn't in the same league and to argue he was is now truly getting worrisome... I mean, this is just nuts.
Watch the 2004 Nalbandian-Kuerten highlights or Fed-Nalbandian 2003 US Open highlights and tell me with a straight face that Federer or young Nadal were in a totally different athletic class.
I challenge you. Unlike Broken, you're willing to talk details instead of cliché generalities. So I look forward to your response.
