What the hell is talent?

[MikeOne]

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.

EASY. I said defense/offense combination. Blake used to beat nadal back then because Nadal's offense was subpar on hardcourt, you know that. Look at how Nadal turned the h2h on Blake later. It was 0-3, then Nadal went 4-0 and even Blake has stated Nadal's offensive skills on hards improved. Remember, Nadal only won AO in 09 and USO in 2010, he was awful on hards back then. So Nadal had the defense, not the offense. Nalbandian had the offense, not the defense.... Federer had BOTH and why he made Blake look totally inadequate, he neutralized his offense with defense (what nalbandian couldn't do) and then used offense of his own to attack Blake (what nadal couldn't do.). This is simple sh$t cali.

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

EASY AGAIN. That was a GARBAGE defensive point compared to the best defensive points of Federer, Nadal and djokovic... GARBAGE. It's all relative cali, Nalbandian could play some defense but not elite defense and not consistently... nowhere near the capabilities of Nadal, Federer and djokovic.

 

[monfed]

Talent is what neither faker or dull have. HAH

 

[calitennis127]

EASY. I said defense/offense combination. Blake used to beat nadal back then because Nadal's offense was subpar on hardcourt, you know that. Look at how Nadal turned the h2h on Blake later. It was 0-3, then Nadal went 4-0 and even Blake has stated Nadal's offensive skills on hards improved. Remember, Nadal only won AO in 09 and USO in 2010, he was awful on hards back then.

I wouldn't say "awful." Nadal won 2 Masters titles in 2005 on hards (Montreal and Madrid). So he wasn't a total slouch on hardcourts by any means. Aren't you the same person who in other discussions has referred to Nadal's 2004 win over Federer at Miami as proof of how good Nadal was on hardcourts from a young age? Now you are telling us that he was terrible in 2006, even though he had already won 2 Masters events in 2005. I'm not buying it.

Also, each of Nadal's 4 wins over Blake came in 3 sets. He never straight-setted Blake once. So don't act like he became a whole new player on hardcourts because he didn't.

So Nadal had the defense, not the offense.

So in 2006 Nadal had the offense to reach a Wimbledon final (and he had just won 2 hardcourt Masters events in 2005), but he was only "subpar" offensively on hardcourts? Well, compared to who?

Nalbandian had the offense, not the defense....

Well you showed a bad highlight video to illustrate that. I re-watched that Nalbandian-Blake video and there was only 1 (maybe 2) points in there where you could argue that Nalbandian lost the point because his defense wasn't as good as Djokovic's or Nadal's (not saying I agree with that but you could theoretically argue that).

Federer had BOTH and why he made Blake look totally inadequate, he neutralized his offense with defense (what nalbandian couldn't do) and then used offense of his own to attack Blake (what nadal couldn't do.)

No, this is BS. I remember those Federer-Blake matches well. The main reason that Federer dominated Blake in 2006 is that Blake could not even get into Federer's service games. In fact, lake had a measly THREE, yes THREE, breakpoints in the best-of-5 Indian Wells final that year. That's how bad it was.

There are two ways in which serving really gets in an opponent's head: either you keep winning a lot of breakpoints on serve (like Nadal did against Federer in the 2008 Wimbledon final) or you totally dominate game after game and don't even allow your opponent to get to deuce. Federer was doing the latter to Blake on his serve. He was owning Blake so much on serve that it carried over into everything else.

Nalbandian could play some defense but not elite defense and not consistently... nowhere near the capabilities of Nadal, Federer and djokovic.

He never needed to because he was so dominant from the baseline. But after watching hundreds of matches I can say with absolute certainty that Nalbandian never needed to make those kinds of defensive shots with regularity because he was always controlling points. Getting to shots in rallies and hitting effective replies was never his problem.

 

[calitennis127]

I challenge Mike and Broken to watch this video of Nalbandian playing Schuettler in the semis of Montreal in 2003 and tell me with a straight face that Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have more natural athleticism than what Nalbandian displayed here. Everything that Mike credits those three for having athletically is on display from Nalbandian in this set of highlights. Denying that Nalbandian was in their athletic class would be like asserting that Nadal's offense was only "subpar" in 2006 even after he won two hardcourt Masters Series events in 20065 (which Mike just did). This is pre-surgery and pre-belly:

 

[MikeOne]

I challenge Mike and Broken to watch this video of Nalbandian playing Schuettler in the semis of Montreal in 2003 and tell me with a straight face that Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have more natural athleticism than what Nalbandian displayed here. Everything that Mike credits those three for having athletically is on display from Nalbandian in this set of highlights. Denying that Nalbandian was in their athletic class would be like asserting that Nadal's offense was only "subpar" in 2006 even after he won two hardcourt Masters Series events in 20065 (which Mike just did). This is pre-surgery and pre-belly:

nothing here shows me he is at same level of djoker, nadal, federer. I posted you specific shots that these 3 could pull off that Nalbandian COULD NEVER PULL OFF so i have already provided you with evidence. What do you do? you avoid responding to what i posted and post another video of Nalbandian doing nothing that these 3 couldn't do, yet i showed what what these 3 could do that Nalbandian couldn't do.

stop this nonsense now. Nalbandian was very talented but he wasn't as athletic as fed, nadal, djokovic.... this is not even debatable and the fact that you fiercely argue otherwise shows you cannot even think clearly so this discussion is pointless, arguing with a mentally obstructed man.

 

[MikeOne]

I wouldn't say "awful." Nadal won 2 Masters titles in 2005 on hards (Montreal and Madrid). So he wasn't a total slouch on hardcourts by any means. Aren't you the same person who in other discussions has referred to Nadal's 2004 win over Federer at Miami as proof of how good Nadal was on hardcourts from a young age? Now you are telling us that he was terrible in 2006, even though he had already won 2 Masters events in 2005. I'm not buying it.

Also, each of Nadal's 4 wins over Blake came in 3 sets. He never straight-setted Blake once. So don't act like he became a whole new player on hardcourts because he didn't.

who cares if it was 3 sets, he went 4-0 against Blake later in his career and even beat him on hardcourts. Nadal WAS NOT THAT GREAT on hardcourts back then, this is just fact. Slams are where everyone brings their best and where the big boys show their real tennis level. Nadal was pedestrian at AO, USO during 05-08... Just because he did well on clay and grass doesn't mean squat, hardcourts is a different surface and he tended to be bludgeoned by even guys like David Ferrer at USO! When did Nadal win his first AO? 2009, he then ended up making several finals at AO. When did he win USO for first time? 2010 and he went on to make finals and win it twice more. To argue Nadal os 06 was at the same level on hards is just dumb... What i'm saying is 100% accurate, Blake exposed Nadal's lack of offense early on, defense is important but without being able to also attack, it's impossible to beat Blake when Blake was playing well. Nalbandian, on the other hand, had the offense on hards but lacked the defensive skills to neutralize Blake. Federer owned Blake because he was able to defend and neutralize Blake's firepower but also was able to use offense so Blake was made to look pedestrian.

No, this is BS. I remember those Federer-Blake matches well. The main reason that Federer dominated Blake in 2006 is that Blake could not even get into Federer's service games. In fact, lake had a measly THREE, yes THREE, breakpoints in the best-of-5 Indian Wells final that year. That's how bad it was.
.

No, you haven't watched squat! it wasn't just the serve, Federer toyed with Blake from the baseline, broke Blake's serve often (3 bagels in their H2H) and just was a nightmare for Blake, 10-1! H2H! All you have to do is watch 03 USO highlights and TMC 06 highlights to observe the many times Federer TOYED with Blake from the baseline, it was embarrassing. Blake would be hitting flat shots, Federer would defend, use slice, make Blake hit extra shots and then would turn from defense to offense in a heartbeat and flood Blake's side of of the court with baseline winners. To say it was just the serve is now disgraceful on your part, shows your thinking is greatly inhibited.

You are just angry cause you know i have educated you here. Nalbandian was never as athletic or had the elite defensive skills of Fed, Nadal, Djokovic and this is part of why he lacked the same potential as these 3, he could've never won 16-18-20 slams IMO, the man was only able to make 1 slam final! no amount of hard work, fitness, mental strength would've helped Nalbandian go from 1 slam final (where he got annihilated by Hewitt) to 16-18-20 slams like Fed, djoker, Nadal. It wasn't a lack of talent to hit a a ball cleanly, it was a lack of potential. TWO different things - potential is not talent.

 

[Ricardo]

I challenge Mike and Broken to watch this video of Nalbandian playing Schuettler in the semis of Montreal in 2003 and tell me with a straight face that Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have more natural athleticism than what Nalbandian displayed here. Everything that Mike credits those three for having athletically is on display from Nalbandian in this set of highlights. Denying that Nalbandian was in their athletic class would be like asserting that Nadal's offense was only "subpar" in 2006 even after he won two hardcourt Masters Series events in 20065 (which Mike just did). This is pre-surgery and pre-belly:

actually after watching this, sorry to say but Rainer looked the most athletic lol. Davy of course showed his outstanding ball striking, but his athletism isn't that amazing.

 

[calitennis127]

A few quick questions for Mike before I reply in detail later on. I'm curious to hear what he says:

1) Did you actually watch the Nalbandian-Blake highlights you sent? None of them demonstrated the point you were trying to prove, which was that Nalbandian's defense wasn't good enough to handle Blake's firepower. I'm not sure you actually watched your own highlight package.

2) How did Nadal win two Masters events on hardcourts in 2005 if he had just "subpar offense" compared to the field?

3) Have you ever watched the 2009 Indian Wells match between Nalbandian and Nadal? If you haven't, you should. It's on youtube. It would dispel many of the misconceptions you have about Nalbandian (indoors v. outdoors, not having elite athleticism or defensive skills, etc.).

4) Can you name a single player who hit a better lob than Nalbandian?

5) Can you name a single time when Nalbandian got bitch-slapped in rallies the way that Djokovic did by Wawrinka in the two Grand Slam finals or the way Nadal has been dozens of times by various players on hardcourts (such as Davydenko)?

6) Why do you have a problem with me saying that the main athletic differences between Nalbandian and the big 3 were durability and stamina? Why are you not content with me just leaving it at those two traits?

 

[MikeOne]

A few quick questions for Mike before I reply in detail later on. I'm curious to hear what he says:

1) Did you actually watch the Nalbandian-Blake highlights you sent? None of them demonstrated the point you were trying to prove, which was that Nalbandian's defense wasn't good enough to handle Blake's firepower. I'm not sure you actually watched your own highlight package.

2) How did Nadal win two Masters events on hardcourts in 2005 if he had just "subpar offense" compared to the field?

3) Have you ever watched the 2009 Indian Wells match between Nalbandian and Nadal? If you haven't, you should. It's on youtube. It would dispel many of the misconceptions you have about Nalbandian (indoors v. outdoors, not having elite athleticism or defensive skills, etc.).

4) Can you name a single player who hit a better lob than Nalbandian?

5) Can you name a single time when Nalbandian got bitch-slapped in rallies the way that Djokovic did by Wawrinka in the two Grand Slam finals or the way Nadal has been dozens of times by various players on hardcourts (such as Davydenko)?

6) Why do you have a problem with me saying that the main athletic differences between Nalbandian and the big 3 were durability and stamina? Why are you not content with me just leaving it at those two traits?

none of this is even worthy of responding, it's all irrelevant and some i have already addressed. Points 1-6 are all garbage but i will speak to #5, yes i have seen Nalbandian b$tch slapped plenty of times, 08 AO vs Ferrero like 1,2,1 and this was just he coming off that hot streak towards end of 07? How about Djokovic thrashing him 0,1 on grass? want me to find more?

aside from this, the rest of your points are totally worthless, garbage, some of them i have already destroyed with previous posts you have refused to acknowledge or respond to. I will not waste my time responding to these silly points you make here if you can't respond to the analysis i have provided pretty much destroying your claims.

I showed you a very detailed analysis where i posted shots Nadal, Djoker, Federer pulled off that nalbandian NEVER had the athleticism to pull off. You know it and why you have refused to respond to that post. I totally crucified you on this by actually showing you evidence. Then you have posted videos of Nalbandian doing NOTHING... NOTHING, things Novak, Nadal, Federer could do even injured, not sure why you even posted those videos.

Then i also schooled you on Nadal's hard court prowess:

Nadal before 2009:

USO & AO - not even 1 final
Masters wins on hards - 3

post 2009:
USO & AO - 5 finals, 4 wins
Masters wins on hards - 6

In particular, the AO & USO results are remarkably better post 2009 and it doesn't matter squat that Nadal won a few masters on hards before 09, that's because he was always an elite player, just not as great on hards than he was on clay or grass early on. Later in his career, he CLEARLY became more offensive minded on hard courts, you know that. Blake HIMSELF has alluded to this and explained that Nadal was harder to beat when he became more offensive and results show it - he turned the table on Blake 4-0 after starting 0-3.

 

[calitennis127]

none of this is even worthy of responding, it's all irrelevant and some i have already addressed.

So you're afraid to answer them directly because they will reveal flaws in your argument. I understand. You're being a coward.

Points 1-6 are all garbage but i will speak to #5, yes i have seen Nalbandian b$tch slapped plenty of times, 08 AO vs Ferrero like 1,2,1 and this was just he coming off that hot streak towards end of 07? How about Djokovic thrashing him 0,1 on grass? want me to find more?

Nalbandian hit a lot of errors in those matches. It wasn't a case of him playing long points and being helpless as the other guy hit screaming winners past him (like Nadal against numerous people on hardcourts and Djokovic against Wawrinka in the two GS finals). It was totally different.

I showed you a very detailed analysis where i posted shots Nadal, Djoker, Federer pulled off that nalbandian NEVER had the athleticism to pull off. You know it and why you have refused to respond to that post.

No I just didn't have time yet to look as closely at the videos as you wanted me to. Am I on a deadline here? Don't set yourself up the way Broken did, claiming I was avoiding a video only for me to eventually address it and thoroughly defeat the argument behind posting it.

Nadal before 2009:

USO & AO - not even 1 final
Masters wins on hards - 3

post 2009:
USO & AO - 5 finals, 4 wins
Masters wins on hards - 6

Nadal in 2007:
Owned by Nalbandian on hard courts

Nadal at Indian Wells 2009 after winning in Melbourne:
Owned by Nalbandian on hard courts

Any explanation for that?

In particular, the AO & USO results are remarkably better post 2009 and it doesn't matter squat that Nadal won a few masters on hards before 09, that's because he was always an elite player, just not as great on hards than he was on clay or grass early on. Later in his career, he CLEARLY became more offensive minded on hard courts, you know that. Blake HIMSELF has alluded to this and explained that Nadal was harder to beat when he became more offensive and results show it - he turned the table on Blake 4-0 after starting 0-3.

I fully acknowledge that Nadal became more offensive on hardcourts and became a better player on them post-2008. But he also did not become a totally different player either. What he did was tinker with a few things and round off a few edges just enough to win some close matches that he would have lost in the past.

When you look at the Blake series, it is telling that not one of those 4 wins came in straights. He still struggled with Blake even after improving on hards and even when Blake himself was not doing the greatest in his own career.

So yes, Nadal did improve on hards post-2008 but he did not become a totally different player either. He did struggle a lot on hardcourts post-2008 too.

 

[calitennis127]

nothing here shows me he is at same level of djoker, nadal, federer. I posted you specific shots that these 3 could pull off that Nalbandian COULD NEVER PULL OFF so i have already provided you with evidence. What do you do? you avoid responding to what i posted and post another video of Nalbandian doing nothing that these 3 couldn't do, yet i showed what what these 3 could do that Nalbandian couldn't do.

stop this nonsense now. Nalbandian was very talented but he wasn't as athletic as fed, nadal, djokovic.... this is not even debatable and the fact that you fiercely argue otherwise shows you cannot even think clearly so this discussion is pointless, arguing with a mentally obstructed man.

Mike, this latest Djokovic-Wawrinka match is more proof of what I have said about Djokovic's weaknesses in terms of offensive shotmaking. It does not come to him as naturally as it does to Federer or it did to Nalbandian.

Nalbandian had his problems but he would never lose to someone the way Djokovic has repeatedly lost to Wawrinka, i.e. for not having enough firepower to hit through the court against a big hitter and getting flattened in rallies. Nalbandian lost to people for other reasons than that.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Djokovic hit Nalbandian completely off the court at Queens in 2008, beating him 6-1 6-0. Please let's stop with the bullshit.

 

[Ricardo]

Mike, this latest Djokovic-Wawrinka match is more proof of what I have said about Djokovic's weaknesses in terms of offensive shotmaking. It does not come to him as naturally as it does to Federer or it did to Nalbandian.

Nalbandian had his problems but he would never lose to someone the way Djokovic has repeatedly lost to Wawrinka, i.e. for not having enough firepower to hit through the court against a big hitter and getting flattened in rallies. Nalbandian lost to people for other reasons than that.

yes Davy on game would have a lot more variety from the baseline to not allow Stan hit him off the court like that. Djoker has a more fixed pattern, a very high quality one though, which works well against almost all type of players except against offensive players on fire. His pattern just plays into Stan's hands quite a bit, therefore such a tough matchup for him...…..but only when Stanimal shows up.

 

[Ricardo]

Djokovic hit Nalbandian completely off the court at Queens in 2008, beating him 6-1 6-0. Please let's stop with the bullshit.

Others have also smashed Davy similarly, so what? you talk context but clearly you have no idea. If you shut up I might not expose so much of your bs.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Others have also smashed Davy similarly, so what? you talk context but clearly you have no idea. If you shut up I might not expose so much of your bs.

It's a response to Cali saying Nalbandian would never get blown off the court due to getting flattened in rallies. Maybe, for once, read instead of being a moron? Just a thought. So yeah, context...

 

[Ricardo]

It's a response to Cali saying Nalbandian would never get blown off the court due to getting flattened in rallies. Maybe, for once, read instead of being a moron? Just a thought. So yeah, context...

He obviously meant Nalby playing his A game, not being blown off by anyone with any style. So yeah, context...

 

[brokenshoelace]

He obviously meant Nalby playing his A game, not being blown off by anyone with any style. So yeah, context...

No he didn't and he'll be the first to tell you.

 

[monfed]

At that level they are all talented. They are basically 1% of the worlds tennis population.

To see how talented these players are, they should show the oncourt view when they're in the middle of rallies.

I saw Kyrgios's serve in Cincy and it was a bullet, I don't think I could even see the ball. Can you imagine a regular club player serving like that?

Clearly these people are genetically gifted, assuming they aren't doping.

 

[Ricardo]

At that level they are all talented. They are basically 1% of the worlds tennis population.

To see how talented these players are, they should show the oncourt view when they're in the middle of rallies.

I saw Kyrgios's serve in Cincy and it was a bullet, I don't think I could even see the ball. Can you imagine a regular club player serving like that?

Clearly these people are genetically gifted, assuming they aren't doping.

1%? it is at least 1 in a million level kind of talent, as it's been reported that tennis playing population is about 160 million world wide. Makes me chuckle some potatoes here think they get to say this and that player is mediocre or whatever, the only explanation is that potatoes only sit in the couch thinking they know something.

 

[brokenshoelace]

1%? it is at least 1 in a million level kind of talent, as it's been reported that tennis playing population is about 160 million world wide. Makes me chuckle some potatoes here think they get to say this and that player is mediocre or whatever, the only explanation is that potatoes only sit in the couch thinking they know something.

Makes me chuckle to see idiots not understand what relativity is. Obviously Kyrgios is ludicrously talented compared to the average Joe, but that's not the standard. We're comparing him to fellow elite professional players, you idiot.