What the hell is talent?

[calitennis127]

This is too preposterous to entertain. Find one person who agrees with you and I'll do it. There is no cowardice in refusing to entertain that Nadal is an infinitely superior athlete. It's called common sense. You, being a borderline illiterate idiot (which by the way, qualifies you to be president), don't see it. But it doesn't mean I have to waste my time on it.

Yup, no substance, just insults. I bring up specific details, ask you to point at particular points in a match that would demonstrate what you are asserting and you can't do it. You ask me to look at a video and I do. I ask you to look at another one and you don't. Just the same cliché-spouting tool you have always been.

You have answer for how Nalbandian could have started his career 5-0 against Federer if Federer was such a naturally "superior athlete"? I guess Nalbandian just hit 45 aces in each of those 5 wins.

And for you of all people to taunt someone about wasting time on the boards? You are always on them and you just made numerous posts taunting me for not responding to your video of Nadal highlights within 2 days you stupid f-ing clown.

"Cali won't respond! Cali won't respond! He's a coward!"

"Cali responded! Now I don't want to talk about it or waste my time! I'll just waste my time talking to someone else on this board so meh at Cali!"

 

[calitennis127]

No he won't, because there's nothing he can say about that that doesn't ruin his anti-Nadal narrative.

Oh, but he did watch it and he did address it. But Broken had no rational or logical reply to his analysis of it.

Good call, Moxie. Good call. Keep at it.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Yup, no substance, just insults. I bring up specific details, ask you to point at particular points in a match that would demonstrate what you are asserting and you can't do it. You ask me to look at a video and I do. I ask you to look at another one and you don't. Just the same cliché-spouting tool you have always been.

You have answer for how Nalbandian could have started his career 5-0 against Federer if Federer was such a naturally "superior athlete"? I guess Nalbandian just hit 45 aces in each of those 5 wins.

And for you of all people to taunt someone about wasting time on the boards? You are always on them and you just made numerous posts taunting me for not responding to your video of Nadal highlights within 2 days you stupid f-ing clown.

"Cali won't respond! Cali won't respond! He's a coward!"

"Cali responded! Now I don't want to talk about it or waste my time! I'll just waste my time talking to someone else on this board so meh at Cali!"

Federer hadn't peaked yet? Nalbandian is a phenomenal ball striker? Being 5-0 against someone doesn't mean your their athletic equal? I mean shit, Davydenko makes Nadal look more pedestrian than anyone, I guess he's a similar caliber athlete.

Also, it's more like "Cali responded with something so preposterous it legitimately isn't worth answering." I'm all for debate but if it involves a claim that Nalbandian is as quick and explosive as Nadal then there's really no point in having it. We have to maintain basic sanity and that's already being desecrated.

 

[calitennis127]

Federer hadn't peaked yet? Nalbandian is a phenomenal ball striker? Being 5-0 against someone doesn't mean your their athletic equal?

Lol.....so I guess Federer magically got more athletic between the 2003 US Open and the 2003 Masters Cup when he got his first win over Nalbandian. And at that point Nalbandian couldn't handle his superior athleticism. Did Federer have a growth spurt that year? What happened between September and November, Broken? I guess Federer went home everyday and really ate his Wheaties for two months.

The more significant point is that if you look at the way their first 5 matches were played, they entailed long rallies from the baseline and a ton of movement and defense. No one in their right mind could watch those matches and say either was in another athletic class from the other.

Federer won his first Wimbledon in 2003. In that same year, Nalbandian beat him three times OUTDOORS (twice at Slams and once at a Masters event). So much for Mike's theory that he couldn't be elite outdoors.

It's also funny how Broken always said Federer was declining in his late twenties and not moving as well. Now he's saying that Federer in his early twenties was not yet fully athletic. So I guess this was Nalbandian being in the same athletic class as Federer before he became more athletic:

I mean shit, Davydenko makes Nadal look more pedestrian than anyone, I guess he's a similar caliber athlete.

In terms of quickness, he is. In terms of strength, he is not. But the main reason he got the better of Nadal on hardcourts was that he gobbled up the moonballs for a stream of winners.

Also, it's more like "Cali responded with something so preposterous it legitimately isn't worth answering."

Classic Broken when confronting a non-conventional argument that he can't refute: it's "not worth answering." You see, nothing that isn't a cliche is "worth answering" to him, especially when he does not know how to refute it.

I'm all for debate but if it involves a claim that Nalbandian is as quick and explosive as Nadal then there's really no point in having it.

I know dude. Only a lunatic would suggest that a guy who beat Federer three times on outdoor hardcourts in 2003 and beat a three-time French Open champ in the quarters - doing so WITH movement and long rallies - could possibly be in Nadal's class of quickness and explosion. What an absurd idea.

You know what the issue is? You don't want to settle for just saying that Nadal had more stamina and durability because it doesn't sound as glamorous as saying that he was more explosive. That's all this is. You want to glamorize the difference between the two in terms of movement when the difference is actually very practical.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Cali is now discussing Nalbandian vs. Federer in terms of athleticism because Nalbandian vs. Nadal is too insane even for him. And if Nalbandian is on par with Federer for winning 5 straight then please explain Federer winning 11 out of the next 14. I hope you realize how stupid to look at athleticism in terms of results, as if it's the only factor in tennis. You can't simultaneously claim Nalbandian is so talented and a phenomenal ball striker then attribute his wins to...athleticism.

 

[calitennis127]

Cali is now discussing Nalbandian vs. Federer in terms of athleticism because Nalbandian vs. Nadal is too insane even for him.

No, I'm not talking about that because you refused to discuss it. I asked you to cite a single specific from the Miami video and you refused to do so.

And if Nalbandian is on par with Federer for winning 5 straight then please explain Federer winning 11 out of the next 14.

THAT'S NOT THE POINT. The point is that Nalbandian and Federer were both in their early twenties, pre-any surgery or major injuries. It was just their raw physical ability out on the court. If you look at their highlights from 2003, you see hardly any difference in terms of quickness and explosive movement.

I hope you realize how stupid to look at athleticism in terms of results, as if it's the only factor in tennis.

I was referring to the results of Nalbandian v. Federer IN THE CONTEXT OF HOW THOSE MATCHES WERE PLAYED AND WHEN THEY WERE PLAYED. Both of them were in their early twenties and the matches entailed constant rallies where movement was tested.

You can't simultaneously claim Nalbandian is so talented and a phenomenal ball striker then attribute his wins to...athleticism.

Never said that. What I said was that if you watch his early matches with Federer when they were in their early twenties you see hardly any difference in natural athleticism between them. Nalbandian could not have beaten Federer the way he did in the types of matches he did if athletically he was nowhere near Federer's level.

 

[MikeOne]

Federer won his first Wimbledon in 2003. In that same year, Nalbandian beat him three times OUTDOORS (twice at Slams and once at a Masters event). So much for Mike's theory that he couldn't be elite outdoors.

Cali, you make some sense when you don’t speak about nalbandian but when on the topic of nalbandian, you just become incoherent.

So here you are, making a big fuss about nalbandian beating federer a few times before 04, when federer started to dominate.

Everyone knows federer’ arrival at the scene was 03 Wimbledon and his second stamp of arrival was when be won 03 eoy masters. By 04, he was a different player.

Nalbandian arrival was 02 Wimbledon so any logical person will see that nalbandian, in 03, was more accomplished than federer. It’s like me looking at federer thumping djokovic in 07 AO and claiming ‘see, federer > djokovic’ which makes no sense.

Now that you mention it, in 03, nalbandian did what on outdoors? Where did he show he was elite? He needed a marathon 5 setter to beat a young federer? Then what? He got annihilated by rainer schlueter, 0,1 in final two sets in next round? Oh.. he was tired right? Sorry but if it were federer of 04-07 against schlueter, federer would've absolutely crushed him and you know it.

Then what did nalbandian do for rest of the year that shows he was elite?

He wasn’t elite outside of indoors, wherebhe actually won 3 big titles. How many slam finals? Just 1? Heck, hewitt and roddick and stan make nalbandian look like a 3rd tier player in terms of results outside of indoors.

So 1 slam final and zero big titles outside of indoors - you call that elite? Your reasoning is so out of whack that all you can point to are wins nalbandian had vs 02-03 federer, how he was up 2 sets on baghdatis at AO before losing, how he dominated nadal at IW before getting bagelled, how he was up on federer at french, before retiring... just think, if this is all you can point to in an entire career, is there a part of you cali that may be able to knock some sense into you? This is all far from elite... even kevin anderson has done more than nalbandian outside of indoors!

 

[calitennis127]

Mike, quick question: do you think Federer demonstrated more natural athleticism than Nalbandian in their matches in 2003 when both were in their early twenties?

 

[MikeOne]

Mike, quick question: do you think Federer demonstrated more natural athleticism than Nalbandian in their matches in 2003 when both were in their early twenties?

Pointing to one match of highlights that don't show every point is worthless, what does a highlight reel comprise of? great shots by both... what about all the other shots? we have to look to look at their careers, what they did day in day out.

Federer is one of the greatest athletes to ever play tennis, Nalbandian is not.

The problem is you seem to have the wrong notion of what athleticism is, you claim it's just speed... like how fast a player gets from point A to point B. Perhaps Federer didn't have much of advantage here but to dare say this is what athleticism is about, is worthy of a spanking, something you are in need of.

Back to the basketball discussion we were having. What made Michael Jordan probably the greatest athlete to ever live? He surely wasn't the fastest player nor did he have the best vertical leap, what he had was - body control, flexibility, coordination, supreme balance and he had length - long arms, big hands. This is what made Micheal Jordan exceptional. How many basketball players do you see that are as fast as Jordan was and could jump as high? MANY.. but why can't they seem to hang in the air, find the opening, switch hands and control body like Michael could? you think that isn't athleticism and anyone can just work on that? WRONG... How the mind and body are connected is innate, not everyone can control their body like Jordan could, i have seldom seen anyone do it. If we only look at how Jordan ran from point A to point B, he would be AVERAGE.

Now back to tennis. Federer had exceptional balance, flexibility, coordination, agility, speed and wingspan. He could do things Nalbandian simply couldn't do. Federer had speed but he could also create incredible shots from impossible positions, seemingly out of balance (see backhands vs Blake 06 masters, 07 roddick AO). He could come in and get to a drop shot but also come in and stretch for volley winners with a display of body control and balance that not many can replicate. Why is it that Roddick looked so awkward at the net? He simply didn't have the athleticism of Federer... Another amazing athlete was Sampras, if you see how Sampras came to net and pulled off ridiculous volleys routinely, it was special. Nalbandian couldn't do that as he lacked the athleticism, Federer could, as he showed in 01 Wimbledon vs Sampras. As a Sampras fan, what honestly impressed me about Fed in that 01 match was his athleticism, he looked like he could S&V if he wanted to (not something Nalbandian could do nearly as-well) or stay back and he was running down incredible shots. None of his shots stood out more than his raw athleticism and this is what i saw in him that could potentially help him be great. It's one of the first things i look at when assessing potential, why i think Tsitsipas could be great, he's a great athlete.

So when you take all of the athletic traits in totality Federer >>>> Nalbandian. Don't just talk to me about speed, there is a lot more to it than just speed or else Micheal jordan would've just been a subpar athlete.

 

[MikeOne]

Blake destroying nalbandian at TMC 06.. too much firepower for nalbandian and david seemed to have been playing well. Blake could expose nalbandian for having bad defensive skills, which is required to fend off blake’s power. He just pummeled a helpless nalbandian. Then federer absolutely crushed blake in finals and it was because federer used defensive skills to neutralize blake’s firepower and then turn defense to offense, something nalbandian simply couldn’t do. Blake was 2-0 vs nalbandian because he could dictate play against a nalbandian and expose nalbandian for being 1 dimensional, no defense.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Pointing to one match of highlights that don't show every point is worthless, what does a highlight reel comprise of? great shots by both... what about all the other shots? we have to look to look at their careers, what they did day in day out.

Federer is one of the greatest athletes to ever play tennis, Nalbandian is not.

The problem is you seem to have the wrong notion of what athleticism is, you claim it's just speed... like how fast a player gets from point A to point B. Perhaps Federer didn't have much of advantage here but to dare say this is what athleticism is about, is worthy of a spanking, something you are in need of.

Back to the basketball discussion we were having. What made Michael Jordan probably the greatest athlete to ever live? He surely wasn't the fastest player nor did he have the best vertical leap, what he had was - body control, flexibility, coordination, supreme balance and he had length - long arms, big hands. This is what made Micheal Jordan exceptional. How many basketball players do you see that are as fast as Jordan was and could jump as high? MANY.. but why can't they seem to hang in the air, find the opening, switch hands and control body like Michael could? you think that isn't athleticism and anyone can just work on that? WRONG... How the mind and body are connected is innate, not everyone can control their body like Jordan could, i have seldom seen anyone do it. If we only look at how Jordan ran from point A to point B, he would be AVERAGE.

Now back to tennis. Federer had exceptional balance, flexibility, coordination, agility, speed and wingspan. He could do things Nalbandian simply couldn't do. Federer had speed but he could also create incredible shots from impossible positions, seemingly out of balance (see backhands vs Blake 06 masters, 07 roddick AO). He could come in and get to a drop shot but also come in and stretch for volley winners with a display of body control and balance that not many can replicate. Why is it that Roddick looked so awkward at the net? He simply didn't have the athleticism of Federer... Another amazing athlete was Sampras, if you see how Sampras came to net and pulled off ridiculous volleys routinely, it was special. Nalbandian couldn't do that as he lacked the athleticism, Federer could, as he showed in 01 Wimbledon vs Sampras. As a Sampras fan, what honestly impressed me about Fed in that 01 match was his athleticism, he looked like he could S&V if he wanted to (not something Nalbandian could do nearly as-well) or stay back and he was running down incredible shots. None of his shots stood out more than his raw athleticism and this is what i saw in him that could potentially help him be great. It's one of the first things i look at when assessing potential, why i think Tsitsipas could be great, he's a great athlete.

So when you take all of the athletic traits in totality Federer >>>> Nalbandian. Don't just talk to me about speed, there is a lot more to it than just speed or else Micheal jordan would've just been a subpar athlete.

Jordan not having the best vertical leap aside (if he didn't, he sure was fucking up there), this is a fantastic, FANTASTIC post.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Blake destroying nalbandian at TMC 06.. too much firepower for nalbandian and david seemed to have been playing well. Blake could expose nalbandian for having bad defensive skills, which is required to fend off blake’s power. He just pummeled a helpless nalbandian. Then federer absolutely crushed blake in finals and it was because federer used defensive skills to neutralize blake’s firepower and then turn defense to offense, something nalbandian simply couldn’t do. Blake was 2-0 vs nalbandian because he could dictate play against a nalbandian and expose nalbandian for being 1 dimensional, no defense.

Nalbandian is actually my favorite player from that generation, but Blake and Hewitt were significantly better movers, for example, even if this will lead to a Cali meltdown.

 

[MikeOne]

Jordan not having the best vertical leap aside (if he didn't, he sure was fucking up there), this is a fantastic, FANTASTIC post.

i think his vertical is exaggerated. Many list it at 48 but i think it was more like 42-44.. I remember reading an article on this but can't find it now. Still, 42-44 is very impressive. Kobe i think had 38 vertical... freaks like Derrick Rose 40in. I have a hard time believing Jordan had a 48in vertical, i think this is people stretching facts due to his mythical stature. Read up on Wilt chamberlain and you will come across some crazy stuff, like him having a 50in vertical and being so strong that he lifted 250lb men with one arm, at some point, facts get stretched.

Jordan was probably the greatest athlete but it wasn't just vertical and speed, it was balance, body control, coordination, flexibility, agility and the his body proportions - he had mitts for hands. Speed and vertical are not everything, there are many super fast, great leapers who suck at basketball.

 

[MikeOne]

Nalbandian is actually my favorite player from that generation, but Blake and Hewitt were significantly better movers, for example, even if this will lead to a Cali meltdown.

I loved to watch Nalbandian play but i just have an issue with the exaggerations about his potential. Talent <> Potential, two different things. Nalbandian had a lot of of talent, lacked potential for reasons i have explained before (lack of tools to get him wins below his best).

I like to compare him to Roddick and Hewitt to make my point clear. Clearly, at his best, Nalbandian was able to hit the ball in ways Hewitt and Roddick never could. The way Nalbandian took the ball on the rise, created those angles off both wings, used deceptive drop shots, slices, came to net and hit great volleys etc... There is no comparison, Nalbandian could produce a level of beautiful tennis these guys never could dream of. Having said this, Hewitt and Roddick had tools to win below their best, Nalbandian didn't.

Roddick was able to step on court and just bomb 140mph serves and get through many matches not quite feeling it off the ground, he would just focus on tiebreakers or breaking opponent once a set. Nalbandian NEVER had this in his toolkit, he had to work for every point.

Hewitt was a defensive wizard, a counterpuncher. He was faster than Nalbandian (watch cali even try and refute this!) and could get through matches where he just played defense, didn't miss. Meanwhile, Nalbandian was an aggressive player with poor defensive skills so he couldn't just defense his way through a match; if he wasn't feeling it, he was prone to losing to ANYONE.

So Roddick & Hewitt didn't have the ability to hit ball like Nalbandian when Nalbandian was HOT but they could win many matches below their best whilst Nalbandian did much worse below his best.

 

[calitennis127]

Pointing to one match of highlights that don't show every point is worthless, what does a highlight reel comprise of? great shots by both... what about all the other shots? we have to look to look at their careers, what they did day in day out.

Mike, one problem that you and Broken have is that you try to glamorize and romanticize very practical matters that aren't worth glamorizing or romanticizing. When you are talking about athleticism displayed throughout "their careers" or overall consistency, what you are talking about is ultimately durability and stamina. Have I ever said once that Nalbandian was as durable as Federer or had the stamina of Nadal/Djokovic? No. Part of the reason that Nalbandian underachieved is that he got hurt every 5 months and had to constantly re-start the cycle of recovery, training, getting back to a playing rhythm, etc. Then he would get hurt again and have to go back to step 1.

Federer is one of the greatest athletes to ever play tennis, Nalbandian is not.

Because of stamina and durability, not because he was naturally quicker or displayed higher-level coordination and reflexes.

Back to the basketball discussion we were having. What made Michael Jordan probably the greatest athlete to ever live? He surely wasn't the fastest player nor did he have the best vertical leap, what he had was - body control, flexibility, coordination, supreme balance and he had length - long arms, big hands. This is what made Micheal Jordan exceptional.

Indeed. And if you translate all of those same qualities to tennis, both Federer and Nalbandian had them, minus length for Nalbandian (although I would say that Jordan was among the fastest and best leapers, though not the absolute fastest or best leaper).

How many basketball players do you see that are as fast as Jordan was and could jump as high? MANY.. but why can't they seem to hang in the air, find the opening, switch hands and control body like Michael could? you think that isn't athleticism and anyone can just work on that? WRONG... How the mind and body are connected is innate, not everyone can control their body like Jordan could, i have seldom seen anyone do it. If we only look at how Jordan ran from point A to point B, he would be AVERAGE.

I wouldn't say average but I grant your overall point.

Now back to tennis. Federer had exceptional balance, flexibility, coordination, agility, speed and wingspan.

Indeed, and Nalbandian had those exact same qualities minus the wingspan.

He could do things Nalbandian simply couldn't do.

No he couldn't. You're exaggerating it because you want to romanticize/glamorize something that is much more practical than you'd like it to be.

Federer had speed but he could also create incredible shots from impossible positions, seemingly out of balance

So could Nalbandian.

He could come in and get to a drop shot but also come in and stretch for volley winners with a display of body control and balance that not many can replicate.

Nalbandian was one of the ones who could.

Why is it that Roddick looked so awkward at the net? He simply didn't have the athleticism of Federer...

Partially, although I think part of it was training and skill instruction. But for the most part I think you are right.

Another amazing athlete was Sampras, if you see how Sampras came to net and pulled off ridiculous volleys routinely, it was special. Nalbandian couldn't do that as he lacked the athleticism,

Not true at all. You obviously didn't watch Nalbandian enough. He was a sensational volleyer. What he did in some of his later Davis Cup matches was outstanding. I don't think you watched him enough to comment.

Federer could, as he showed in 01 Wimbledon vs Sampras. As a Sampras fan, what honestly impressed me about Fed in that 01 match was his athleticism, he looked like he could S&V if he wanted to (not something Nalbandian could do nearly as-well) or stay back and he was running down incredible shots.

Nalbandian ran down plenty of incredible shots through his career too. The serving and volleying was not possible because of his atrocious first-serve percentage.

None of his shots stood out more than his raw athleticism and this is what i saw in him that could potentially help him be great.

And Nalbandian displayed just as much raw athleticism at a young age.

So when you take all of the athletic traits in totality Federer >>>> Nalbandian. Don't just talk to me about speed, there is a lot more to it than just speed or else Micheal jordan would've just been a subpar athlete.

The three traits that Federer had which Nalbandian did not were:

1) Length (I will grant that),
2) Durability, and
3) Excellent stamina/endurance

The only 1 of those 3 that you mentioned was #1, which is significant but was not impossible for Nalbandian to overcome. But if you want to talk about athleticism in the complex sense of "body control, flexibility, coordination, and supreme balance," have you ever seen a player make hitting a backhand look as effortless and natural every single time as David Nalbandian? Is that not athleticism of the high-level variety? Is that not emblematic of the integration of skill, body control, and coordination that you are talking about?

 

[calitennis127]

Jordan not having the best vertical leap aside (if he didn't, he sure was fucking up there), this is a fantastic, FANTASTIC post.

Well, I responded to it, and Mike is not giving Nalbandian enough credit. He is also committing the same error that you (and a lot of other people, to be frank) commit, which is that you romanticize/glamorize practical details that aren't as elegant or extravagant as you try to make them out to be. This is true in sports, in life, and in civilization generally.

You guys like Nadal and Sampras, respectively, so you want to believe that they were the best at everything - because, otherwise, how could they have achieved what they did? So when comparing Nadal to Nalbandian, you want to tell yourselves that there were these grand and very profound differences between them that accounts for the disparity in their results. Nadal had to have been more talented, he had to have been more athletic, etc.

But sometimes the realities are a lot more basic. Nadal has had his share of injury problems, but on the whole, he has been much more durable than most athletes, especially someone like Nalbandian who could barely go 6 months without getting hurt or having another surgery. He also has incredible stamina, which means he can simply keep a higher level going for longer. If on a scale of 1 to 10, there are two players: one can play at a 7 or 8 for 5 hours, while the other can play at a 9 or 10 for an hour and a half and then his level crashes to 5 or below in the third hour, who is going to win? Who is going to be more successful in the long run? Clearly the first player will.

This doesn't mean the first player is "more talented" but simply more stable and more consistent and has better endurance.

Think of it this way: there are a lot of wealthy people in the world who got their wealth by being boring and consistent for a long time. They're not particularly interesting or dynamic. They just showed up for work for decades, did a reasonably good job, saved a good bit, and let their 401(k)'s grow. That is a good analogy to what Nadal's game was like compared to Nalbandian's. Nadal resembled middle class values far more than Nalbandian, whose psychological state was more in line with someone gambling in Las Vegas or dealing with drug rehab. That doesn't mean that Nadal was more "talented" or athletic though. It just means he was more stable and more durable. And that is not a minor detail at all.

 

[calitennis127]

Blake destroying nalbandian at TMC 06.. too much firepower for nalbandian and david seemed to have been playing well. Blake could expose nalbandian for having bad defensive skills, which is required to fend off blake’s power. He just pummeled a helpless nalbandian. Then federer absolutely crushed blake in finals and it was because federer used defensive skills to neutralize blake’s firepower and then turn defense to offense, something nalbandian simply couldn’t do. Blake was 2-0 vs nalbandian because he could dictate play against a nalbandian and expose nalbandian for being 1 dimensional, no defense.

Mike, thanks for posting the video because those were some great highlights. But I'm not sure that you watched your own link. The first set was very tight and entailed a number of great rallies that both players won. The issue in that match was not that Blake had too much firepower but that he did a terrific job of attacking Nalbandian's second serve. Look at the highlights again. I think there were 5 or 6 winners off of Nalbandian's second serve. When the rallies went on for a while and had both players putting their best on the table, Nalbandian won plenty of those points.

(Also, regarding Blake in 2006: he straight-setted Nadal on hardcourts twice that year including at this same Masters Cup, so does that mean Nadal didn't have the same defensive skills as Federer and therefore wasn't as athletic? And I don't buy that he lost to Federer because of Federer's defense. I remember those matches well and Blake's issues was that he could not even touch Federer's service games. Fed did play some decent defense, but so did Nalbandian in this Masters Cup match. Blake's main problem against Federer was that he couldn't even get to deuce in any of Federer's service games.)

And you have been talking about "hitting winners from impossible positions" when it comes to Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal. Well, again, watch your own highlight package at 4:48. Nalbandian gets a difficult return in, Blake comes in and smashes a forehand inside-out, and then Nalbandian hits a clean backhand winner from 10 feet behind the baseline.

Is that the high-level "athleticism" you are talking about?

If that was Federer, Djokovic, or Nadal at 4:48 you would be talking about how they had just hit an amazing shot from an impossible position. Like I said, you and Broken are trying to glamorize/romanticize what are ultimately very practical/trivial differences between Nalbandian and those 3. The difference was not quickness, athleticism, or talent. It was durability and stamina. Look at 4:48:

 

[calitennis127]

Nalbandian is actually my favorite player from that generation, but Blake and Hewitt were significantly better movers, for example, even if this will lead to a Cali meltdown.

No they weren't, lol.

Would it lead to a Broken meltdown if I pointed out that Nadal straight-setted Blake twice in 2006, including at this same Masters Cup? I guess that means Nadal lacks Federer's defensive skills and athleticism in that case. Surely.

 

[MikeOne]

cali, let me shut you up on the athleticism thing once and for all. Since you like posting videos, i will post some of my own.

First and foremost, let me address a point you made on Blake vs Federer 06, that it was just Blake not being able to handle Federer's serve that stopped him from beating Fed. Watch the highlights again, there was even a bagel in that set so Blake also had a ton of problems holding serve. Let me also confirm for you that the reason Federer destroyed Blake was because Federer used a combination of defense/offense that Nalbandian never could produce, end of it.

Now on athleticism. Let me actually show you the things Nadal, Djokovic, Federer could do that Nalbandian couldn't.

One nice match where Federer showed his athleticism was against Sampras, watch, again, NO, Nalbandian couldn't play S&V tennis like that and it wasn't just the serve, Fed's length, reflexes, agility at the bet made him much harder to deal with than Nalbandian at the net. FACT.

But here is a match where Federer hit several athletic shots, it was a rare display of athleticism, a very fun match he played vs Suzuki at AO.



Notice the many incredible gets and winners Federer hit in this match, he hit several. Nalbandian could never play this type of athletic tennis. Some of these shots Nalbandian couldn't even replicate in his fittest state, in his best form. See 17:10, how Federer ran that ball down and hit it around net post, it was a rare combination of speed, agility, balance, flexibility and length. The one Nalbandian hit vs Nadal in 07 Paris is nowhere as difficult as this one. Nalbandian simply would've not been able to run this ball down and hit that winner. But watch the whole highlight reel, this was very athletic tennis from federer, not the type of athleticism Nalbandian ever exhibited.

Djokovic.



Nalbandian COULD NEVER do what Djokovic does in this video, some of those Nalbandian was not physically able to produce and some maybe but not as consistently as Djokovic. Djokovic is more athletic, flexible, long than Nalbandian ever was...FACT.

Nadal.



Nadal played very athletic tennis in 08 Wimbledon, take a look at that famous fh pass at 11:00. Nalbandian could've NEVER produced that type of shot, NEVER. He didn't have the speed/length/explosiveness of Nadal to pull off a shot like that. Nadal has pulled off so many shots similar to this during his career, Nalbandian NEVER was able to produce so many shots like this, not even close.

The problem with you cali is that you will not bow down and admit that Federer, Nadal, djokovic had more athletic traits than Nalbandian, but you know it's true. Granted, i may not be giving Nalbandian enough credit, he was fairly fast and coordinated but he simply WAS NOT AS ATHLETIC as these 3, it's not hard to see.

 

[calitennis127]

Before I write a detailed reply, notice how Mike did not address Blake straight-setting Nadal twice on hardcourts in 2006, including at Masters Cup where he also straight-setted Nalbandian. Does that mean Nadal isn’t as athletic as Federer because Blake manhandled him twice? Was Nadal’s defense against Blake not good enough because he lacked Federer’s athleticism? Mike did not answer these questions.

Also, notice how Mike did not address the outstanding defensive point from Nalbandian at 4:48 of the Nalbandian-Blake video.