What the hell is talent?

[brokenshoelace]

Lol.....why do you define Nalbandian's entire career by one match you saw live? .

Yeah, that's kinda like posting one random match from Miami 2012 and limiting the conversation to that...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Yeah, so anyway, moving on...

Honestly, not tooting my own horn, but this should literally shut this debate up for good. Unless you're a total joke, you can't watch this video and actually argue that Nalbandian can move this well on a tennis court.

Mind you, Cali will still come up with some arbitrary bullshit, but then there would be no point in arguing.

 

[MikeOne]

Yeah, that's kinda like posting one random match from Miami 2012 and limiting the conversation to that...

Not quite... when you see a player live, you can tell the talent they have, even when they are below their best.

In 2000, i saw safin and it was a 5 setter in early rounds. If i recall, this 5 setter was in same year he won USO. Since it was a 5 setter, safin couldn’t have been at his best as his opponent was a nobody. I did notice something special in him, the way he hit his backhand and the way he served bombs with a very effortless motion, when he served, it was like a very smooth motion, as if he wasn’t even trying yet was bombing 130-140 easily.

When i saw nalbandian, i honestly can say nothing popped up at me, very unremarkable. Below his best, he doesn’t do nothing special to be quite honest.. his strokes don’t quite look that impressive, he doesn’t serve bombs and on an outside court he can be bullied by big hitters. Perhaps it was youhzny who made nalby look average, youhzny himself was very talented and had a forehand weapon that on this day, was sort of bullying nalbandian, i kid you not. There is no reason for me making this up. It was a nice match but in can honestly say youhzny looked more talented.

And ironic cali tells me i’m absurd for using 1 match to form an opinion on nalbandian and he turns around and posts a youtube match where nalbandian loses but he claims it’s all we need to see to form an opinion on nalbandian.

 

[MikeOne]

Honestly, not tooting my own horn, but this should literally shut this debate up for good. Unless you're a total joke, you can't watch this video and actually argue that Nalbandian can move this well on a tennis court.

Mind you, Cali will still come up with some arbitrary bullshit, but then there would be no point in arguing.

Nalbandian NEVER could cover the the court like nadal, djokovic and more importantly, never could produce the types of shots these two could on the stretch, to argue anything different is just absurd.

Cali uses a straw man and claims we are saying nalbandian was slow and unathletic. This is not the argument, it’s compared to big 3, he falls short. I never saw nalbandian play the type of defense big 3 could play and this is why he was somewhat pedestrian bellw his best as he didn’t have game B to grind out matches. This is why djokovic almost double bagelled him on grass one day and ferrer beat him like 1,2,1 at AO one day... nalbandian had no plan B when he wasn’t perfectly timing the ball and attacking.

 

[calitennis127]

Yeah, that's kinda like posting one random match from Miami 2012 and limiting the conversation to that...

No, I was using it as one example. I could use many more. And, of course, you dodged the question. You could not point to a single point in that highlight reel that showed Nadal was just an outright superior athlete in terms of quickness or explosive burst. Why did you have to avoid directly answering the question? Is it because you know you don't have any convincing answers?

 

[calitennis127]

you posted a video of Djokovic beating Nalbandian 6-1, 7-6 as proof of Nalbandian being as athletic and that he is more talented? You say he got the better of Djokovic in many rallies? of course.

My point was that he was doing this outdoors, where you apparently think he could not play at an elite level, and also that in terms of explosive burst and quickness he was right there with Djokovic. You have done nothing to prove the contrary.

Any top 50 player will get the better of Djokovic in some rallies! Nadal does, Federer does, Stan does... So Djokovic dominates 100% of the rallies vs others but not against Nalbandian?

Never said that Nalbandian was the only one who could do that. I was only talking about playing outdoors and athleticism, a question you are totally ducking. You are acting like Darth when he avoids questions like "what would you have had Federer do on match point in the Wimbledon final?"

Many of the top tennis players are fast - Verdasco, Ferrer, Davydenko etc... but Nalbandian is not as athletic overall as Djokovic or Nadal or Federer.

Again, like Broken, you are being a total coward and avoiding the question. Why don't you point to specific points in that highlight video of Nalbandian versus Djokovic to show where Djokovic is a superior athlete? Cite the time and then we can discuss the points in detail.

 

[calitennis127]

And ironic cali tells me i’m absurd for using 1 match to form an opinion on nalbandian and he turns around and posts a youtube match where nalbandian loses but he claims it’s all we need to see to form an opinion on nalbandian.

I could post dozens more. I was just using it as an example. If you look at the full breadth of Nalbandian's track record, it is much closer to what I am describing than your infamous Nalbandian-Youzhny match which you will not let go of.

But if you want to compare their talent when they are both highly motivated and healthy, then enjoy this one where Nalbandian straight-setted Youzhny in Davis Cup. How the hell can you say Youzhny was more talented? Seriously?

There is no way you can watch this and say that:

https://youtu.be/yyftQwVk3VU

 

[brokenshoelace]

No, I was using it as one example. I could use many more. And, of course, you dodged the question. You could not point to a single point in that highlight reel that showed Nadal was just an outright superior athlete in terms of quickness or explosive burst. Why did you have to avoid directly answering the question? Is it because you know you don't have any convincing answers?

You're right, I couldn't because I didn't bother watching. I posted an entire video of Nadal covering the court in ways Nalbandian wouldn't even dream of.

A video by the way, that you ignored because you're neither stupid nor blind.

 

[MikeOne]

I could post dozens more. I was just using it as an example. If you look at the full breadth of Nalbandian's track record, it is much closer to what I am describing than your infamous Nalbandian-Youzhny match which you will not let go of.

But if you want to compare their talent when they are both highly motivated and healthy, then enjoy this one where Nalbandian straight-setted Youzhny in Davis Cup. How the hell can you say Youzhny was more talented? Seriously?

There is no way you can watch this and say that:

https://youtu.be/yyftQwVk3VU

Youhzny was very talented, every one knows that. Over the years, i would say Nalbandian showed he had more talent than Youhzny but i'm telling you what i though after watching that match, right there, watching a close up of Nalbandian, the myth. I saw a guy who lacked weapons and was getting bullied around the court by a guy who had a big weapon - forehand. Youhzny was dictating like 70% of the rallies, that is what i saw. Maybe a bad day for David? maybe the court? maybe there was wind? not sure, this is what i saw

their H2H was 2-2. So this classic cali and you are the same Darth Fed in this regard.

When Nalbandian beats someone, it's because he's too good and it's when they are both at their best but David is just too good. When Nalbandian loses to someone, it's because Nalbandian was not fit, below his best but the opponent at his best?

So let me borrow from your stupid logic. When both at their best in 2004, Youhzny beat David and was 2-0. Then, in 2010, When Nalbandian was at his best and Youhzny not fit, not healthy, Nalbandian beat him.

Do you realize how ridiuculous you are? you are as bad as Darth... we just have substitute Federer for Nalbandian and you become Darth.

Let's take a closer look at your amazing Nalbandian, against players who were in top 20 between 2002-2015.

Nalbandian vs Ljubicic, Ljubicic 5-4
Nalbandian vs Hewitt, 3-3
Nalbandian vs Roddick, Roddick 4-2
Nalbandian vs Safin, 6-3
Nalbandian vs Federer, Federer 11-8
Nalbandian vs Nadal, Nadal 5-2
Nalbandian vs Djokovic, Djoker 4-1
Nalbandian vs Ferrer, Ferrer 9-4
Nalbandian vs James Blake, Blake 2-0


I just thought of names and look, not a single winning record vs any of these who were in top 20 and he faced during his best years.

and you do the same crap - yeah, the losses don't count as Nalbandian wasn't healthy but the wins do! because the wins means he is more talented. You are so ridiculous that i can find someone who Nalbandian may be 1-20 against and you will somehow discount the losses as 'all of those 20 losses don't count, David was not fit' but that 1 win, DOES COUNT, proves he's GOAT.

 

[brokenshoelace]

You're right, I couldn't because I didn't bother watching. I posted an entire video of Nadal covering the court in ways Nalbandian wouldn't even dream of.

A video by the way, that you ignored because you're neither stupid nor blind.

Cali still ignoring this, to those keeping track. Which is his MO.

 

[calitennis127]

I will watch Broken’s video in a little bit, when I get the chance, because unlike him I am not a coward running from a detailed argument.

As for Mike, before I write another long reply, let me just ask this: if Nalbandian could only be elite indoors, then why did he dominate Nadal at Indian Wells in 2009? Why did he go up 7-6, 2-2 15-40 on Nadal at Miami? Why did he beat Federer at the US Open?

He did all of these things without a roof overhead!

 

[Moxie]

is this a joke?

you posted a video of Djokovic beating Nalbandian 6-1, 7-6 as proof of Nalbandian being as athletic and that he is more talented? You say he got the better of Djokovic in many rallies? of course. Any top 50 player will get the better of Djokovic in some rallies! Nadal does, Federer does, Stan does... So Djokovic dominates 100% of the rallies vs others but not against Nalbandian? wtf is going on here, what logic is this cali?

Many of the top tennis players are fast - Verdasco, Ferrer, Davydenko etc... but Nalbandian is not as athletic overall as Djokovic or Nadal or Federer.

Cali also brought up Goodall saying that Nalbandian was "toying with Nadal" in the IW match of 2009. Possibly he said that in the first set. This was a match that Nadal won, also, including bageling Nalby in the 3rd, and yet Cali likes to use it as an example of how great Nalbandian was. Cali doesn't think wins matter as much as style points, and even if only in parts of matches.

 

[calitennis127]

Cali also brought up Goodall saying that Nalbandian was "toying with Nadal" in the IW match of 2009. Possibly he said that in the first set. This was a match that Nadal won, also, including bageling Nalby in the 3rd, and yet Cali likes to use it as an example of how great Nalbandian was. Cali doesn't think wins matter as much as style points, and even if only in parts of matches.

Goodall said that in the middle or the second set. I recorded the match and watched it multiple times afterward. Please get your facts straight before commenting.

As for the score line, you conveniently omitted that Nadal saved 5 match points at the end of the second set. I don’t care who you are there is some luck that goes into that.

Nalbandian was emotionally deflated after losing 5 match points and Nadal has better long-term endurance. Plus Nalbandian was two months away from hip surgery. Put all that together and that’s why the third set was the way it was. It was a throwaway set. But you tend to be oblivious to the emotions of sports so you don’t really understand all this.

 

[MikeOne]

I will watch Broken’s video in a little bit, when I get the chance, because unlike him I am not a coward running from a detailed argument.

As for Mike, before I write another long reply, let me just ask this: if Nalbandian could only be elite indoors, then why did he dominate Nadal at Indian Wells in 2009? Why did he go up 7-6, 2-2 15-40 on Nadal at Miami? Why did he beat Federer at the US Open?

He did all of these things without a roof overhead!

but he didn't dominate Nadal in 09, he lost... you make no sense. Nadal raised his level, even you have to admit that. Did he win IW like he won Paris and Madrid? Did he ever crush Nadal and Federer BTB in slams? NO, he was only able to produce on indoors.

It's like me saying 'Did you guys see what Krijeck did in 1996 Wimbledon? most talented player ever, IF HE ONLY PLAYED LIKE THAT IN ALL SURFACES.'

Well, guess what, krijeck couldn't quite produce that level that often..

These discussions become ridiculous, to the point where you show us a match where he actually lost vs Novak and Nadal and tell us this proof of how good he was, think about that!

It's the same darn thing with Federer and Nalbandian, their fans claim they are most talented ever but then crawl into dwellings when we bring up facts.

For example, when some like to talk of Federer as being much more talented than Nadal or Djokovic, where is the basis for this? He has a losing record vs them and they are a few slams behind him. Then the excuse start pouring - 'oh, he should've won all those matches vs Nadal, Fed just was mentally weak or old or sick. Oh he also should've won all those matches vs Djokovic but x, y, z. Can't you see how talented he is? Novak and Nadal don't have an ounce of the talent Fed has.'

Reality is that Federer has never been much more talented than Nadal or Djokovic, maybe more talented but it's close. Nadal and Djokovic are extremely talented, no amount of grinding gets you 16-18 slams, you have to be incredibly talented. The pattern is that once upon a time everyone considered them very talented but that changed once they started beating Federer, Federer fans started creating the narrative that Fed mainly lost to them for x,y,z and these two went from being supreme talented to grinders. I remember Nadal at 16, no-one talked about him as a grinder everyone said he was an incredible talent, then, after 05.. he is all of a sudden a grinder. Novak, same thing, back when he faced Nadal when he was 16/17 everyone saw what a talent he was... years later, when he became dominant, he turned into a grinder.

Nalbandian's talent is grossly exaggerated.. He was like a Marcelo Rios.... very talented but lacked the full tool kit to actually win 10= slams. I don't think any amount of hard work would've gotten Nalbandian 15+ slams... his game wasn't that great when he wasn't on a HOT streak, beatable by anyone in top 100. When he was HOT, he could beat anyone in top 10..

 

[calitennis127]

but he didn't dominate Nadal in 09, he lost... you make no sense. Nadal raised his level, even you have to admit that.

Nalbandian had 5 match points on Nadal at the end of the 2nd set. In other words, he was 1 point away 5 times from straight-setting him. You know very well that a match does not get to match point by accident and that saving multiple match points involves some good fortune.

If Nalbandian's game was so much worse outdoors, then how did he get 5 match points on Nadal at Indian Wells for a straight-set victory while Nadal was #1 in the world? That doesn't make any sense and you clearly have no explanation for it.

 

[Moxie]

Goodall said that in the middle or the second set. I recorded the match and watched it multiple times afterward. Please get your facts straight before commenting.

As for the score line, you conveniently omitted that Nadal saved 5 match points at the end of the second set. I don’t care who you are there is some luck that goes into that.

Nalbandian was emotionally deflated after losing 5 match points and Nadal has better long-term endurance. Plus Nalbandian was two months away from hip surgery. Put all that together and that’s why the third set was the way it was. It was a throwaway set. But you tend to be oblivious to the emotions of sports so you don’t really understand all this.

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. 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.

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. 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. That's really an easy and cheap out for you, who actually seem to be the one who doesn't understand how they work. And you clearly don't seem to understand what winning means in sports, compared to losing.

 

[Moxie]

Nalbandian had 5 match points on Nadal at the end of the 2nd set. In other words, he was 1 point away 5 times from straight-setting him. You know very well that a match does not get to match point by accident and that saving multiple match points involves some good fortune.

If Nalbandian's game was so much worse outdoors, then how did he get 5 match points on Nadal at Indian Wells for a straight-set victory while Nadal was #1 in the world? That doesn't make any sense and you clearly have no explanation for it.

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.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

 

[monfed]

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.

 

[isabelle]

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.

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