Why we should all miss Nalbandian

[tennisville]

I dont know , 2002 wimbledon final says otherwise

 

[isabelle]

I'll just leave this here:

Queens Club 2008:

N. Djokovic defeats D. Nalbandian 6-1 6-0.

I'm sure Nalbandian dictated the points though...

He was hip injured and couldn't run and chase the ball...let's be fair with him sometimes
I miss him a lot, he was my fav player, nobody can surpass him and his talent was awesome

 

[Kieran]

One year, the ATP decided on an experiment. Just before a slam, they sent emissaries around the training courts of the world, to see who was really the best player. "Forget this stuffy, stifling thingy called playing matches, that doesn't give us anything. Forget it, and lets go see these fellers swing for the fences, unhindered by the restrictive dogma of pressure, competition, trophies."

They saw Rafa first, in Mallorca. They saw drills, drills, drills, forehands, backhands, sameness, repetition. They visited Roger then, in Dubai. They saw repetition, drills, backhands, forehands, endless countless serves into the same spot on the court. They visited Novak in Monte Carlo: they saw him race from side to side for 7 hours, forehands, backhands, drills, drills, drills.

They asked what these men were doing: "getting ready for competition."

They were lucky in their next visit, because they caught two players together. Saves time, they reckoned, and they watched Monfils and Nalbandian practice together. They were gobsmacked by the thrills, thrills and thrills. Trick shots, long clown shoes, tennis balls popping out of a tophat. "How the -" They were stunned into silence, almost. "How the hell did the fat bloke hit a two-hand backhand while eating an icecream? How did the player who looks like a teenage child dressed him, how did he hits a leaping backhand smash - off a dropshot?"

On and on, the thrills and games and brilliance: "how did the fat bloke play a two-hand backhand serve - ace! - without spilling his drink? And while unwrapping a mars bar? How?!"

Their conclusions were made: Nalbandian was the GOAT, based upon what the guy can do when there's absolutely no pressure on him.

The following week, the grand slam event took place. The same emissaries were confused: Daveed was knocked out in the very first round... :nono

 

[Carol]

One year, the ATP decided on an experiment. Just before a slam, they sent emissaries around the training courts of the world, to see who was really the best player. "Forget this stuffy, stifling thingy called playing matches, that doesn't give us anything. Forget it, and lets go see these fellers swing for the fences, unhindered by the restrictive dogma of pressure, competition, trophies."

They saw Rafa first, in Mallorca. They saw drills, drills, drills, forehands, backhands, sameness, repetition. They visited Roger then, in Dubai. They saw repetition, drills, backhands, forehands, endless countless serves into the same spot on the court. They visited Novak in Monte Carlo: they saw him race from side to side for 7 hours, forehands, backhands, drills, drills, drills.

They asked what these men were doing: "getting ready for competition."

They were lucky in their next visit, because they caught two players together. Saves time, they reckoned, and they watched Monfils and Nalbandian practice together. They were gobsmacked by the thrills, thrills and thrills. Trick shots, long clown shoes, tennis balls popping out of a tophat. "How the -" They were stunned into silence, almost. "How the hell did the fat bloke hit a two-hand backhand while
eating an icecream? How did the player who looks like a teenage child dressed him, how did he hits a leaping backhand smash - off a dropshot?"

On and on, the thrills and games and brilliance: "how did the fat bloke play a two-hand backhand serve - ace! - without spilling his drink? And while unwrapping a mars bar? How?!"

Their conclusions were made: Nalbandian was the GOAT, based upon what the guy can do when there's absolutely no pressure on him.
The following week, the grand slam event took place. The same emissaries were confused: Daveed was knocked out in the very first round... :nono

Very good anecdote
Like I said before, Nabaldian could have done much better than he did :nono

 

[brokenshoelace]

Also, let's be real, no grand slam final should remind us that we miss Nalbandian since we he was literally missing in all those grand slam finals.

 

[Kieran]

Also, let's be real, no grand slam final should remind us that we miss Nalbandian since we he was literally missing in all those grand slam finals.

He came close a few times, in fairness. He choked away several semi-finals, including one against Roddick, then another one where he went two sets up but decided he didn't want to face Federer in the final. He was up a set and a break on old Wodger in some FO semi, but choked.

The man has great credentials for being able to withstand whatever Wawrinka woulda thrown at him in the FO final... :cover

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Also, let's be real, no grand slam final should remind us that we miss Nalbandian since we he was literally missing in all those grand slam finals.

Not true. Nalby was in 2002 Wimby finals losing to Hewitt. Also, Nalby reached SF of all four slams.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Also, let's be real, no grand slam final should remind us that we miss Nalbandian since we he was literally missing in all those grand slam finals.

Not true. Nalby was in 2002 Wimby finals losing to Hewitt. Also, Nalby reached SF of all four slams.

A semi =/= final. And yeah, I'm aware of the final with Hewitt (though not sure how it would endorse Cali's point). I guess I misspoke by saying literally. Make that "virtually."

 

[Kirijax]

One year, the ATP decided on an experiment. Just before a slam, they sent emissaries around the training courts of the world, to see who was really the best player. "Forget this stuffy, stifling thingy called playing matches, that doesn't give us anything. Forget it, and lets go see these fellers swing for the fences, unhindered by the restrictive dogma of pressure, competition, trophies."

They saw Rafa first, in Mallorca. They saw drills, drills, drills, forehands, backhands, sameness, repetition. They visited Roger then, in Dubai. They saw repetition, drills, backhands, forehands, endless countless serves into the same spot on the court. They visited Novak in Monte Carlo: they saw him race from side to side for 7 hours, forehands, backhands, drills, drills, drills.

They asked what these men were doing: "getting ready for competition."

They were lucky in their next visit, because they caught two players together. Saves time, they reckoned, and they watched Monfils and Nalbandian practice together. They were gobsmacked by the thrills, thrills and thrills. Trick shots, long clown shoes, tennis balls popping out of a tophat. "How the -" They were stunned into silence, almost. "How the hell did the fat bloke hit a two-hand backhand while eating an icecream? How did the player who looks like a teenage child dressed him, how did he hits a leaping backhand smash - off a dropshot?"

On and on, the thrills and games and brilliance: "how did the fat bloke play a two-hand backhand serve - ace! - without spilling his drink? And while unwrapping a mars bar? How?!"

Their conclusions were made: Nalbandian was the GOAT, based upon what the guy can do when there's absolutely no pressure on him.

The following week, the grand slam event took place. The same emissaries were confused: Daveed was knocked out in the very first round... :nono

:laydownlaughing

This gets my vote for post of the year. It's frame-worthy. :clap

 

[Kieran]

It's a true story! :snicker

 

[Kirijax]

It's a true story! :snicker

That's why it's so funny. I tried that "leaping backhand smash - off a dropshot" once. It put me in a harness for a week.

 

[calitennis127]

He came close a few times, in fairness. He choked away several semi-finals, including one against Roddick, then another one where he went two sets up but decided he didn't want to face Federer in the final.

Are you kidding me? Want to talk about a baseless argument?

Do you really think that Nalbandian lost to Baghdatis in the Australian semis because he was scared of the prospect of facing Federer? There is no evidence at all for this. I don't see how it is logical to assert that a player who had already beaten Federer at the Australian Open and US Open, had started his career 5-0 against Federer, was 6-4 at the time against Federer, and had just beaten Federer in the Masters Cup final two months earlier was somehow fearful of facing him in the Australian final. That makes no sense.

Nalbandian squandered that match for many of the same reasons he lost other matches, and it didn't have anything to do with fearing future opponents. As a former Nalbandian fan, Broken knows this too. Unfortunately he is a Nalbandian sell-out and won't defend him anymore due to me pointing out the ways in which Nalbandian's game was clearly superior to Nadal's.

The man has great credentials for being able to withstand whatever Wawrinka woulda thrown at him in the FO final... :cover

I am talking about this strictly from a technical and tactical standpoint. Forget about the stage for a minute. Can you ever imagine Nalbandian getting dominated in rallies for 3 straight sets by Wawrinka the way Djokovic was in the French Open final?

Like I said in my initial post, Nalbandian would have had some other issues, particularly with his own serve being inconsistent. But there is no way he would have gotten badgered and battered in rallies like Djokovic did in the final.

 

[calitennis127]

I'll just leave this here:

Queens Club 2008:

N. Djokovic defeats D. Nalbandian 6-1 6-0.

I'm sure Nalbandian dictated the points though...

Funny as it may seem, that isn't far from the truth. What made that score line so lopsided was Nalbandian hitting a slew of double faults and hardly making a first serve. He actually had some terrific shots from the baseline.

 

[Fiero425]

I'll just leave this here:

Queens Club 2008:

N. Djokovic defeats D. Nalbandian 6-1 6-0.

I'm sure Nalbandian dictated the points though...

Funny as it may seem, that isn't far from the truth. What made that score line so lopsided was Nalbandian hitting a slew of double faults and hardly making a first serve. He actually had some terrific shots from the baseline.

For some reason I pictured a bygone era with Lendl and Miloslav Mecir! Mecir was called "The Big Cat" and had a nice game and great court movement just like Nalbandian, but Lendl at times just decimated him with power tennis; ugly, but effective! Anybody remember some of their contests? :angel: :dodgy:

 

[britbox]

I'll just leave this here:

Queens Club 2008:

N. Djokovic defeats D. Nalbandian 6-1 6-0.

I'm sure Nalbandian dictated the points though...

Funny as it may seem, that isn't far from the truth. What made that score line so lopsided was Nalbandian hitting a slew of double faults and hardly making a first serve. He actually had some terrific shots from the baseline.

If you think Nalbandian dictated that match in any form whatsover you should be locked up. I watched that semi and Nalbandian was a disgrace. if it was a boxing match, he'd have been pulled out for not trying. I think the match lasted only about 45 minutes.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I'll just leave this here:

Queens Club 2008:

N. Djokovic defeats D. Nalbandian 6-1 6-0.

I'm sure Nalbandian dictated the points though...

Funny as it may seem, that isn't far from the truth. What made that score line so lopsided was Nalbandian hitting a slew of double faults and hardly making a first serve. He actually had some terrific shots from the baseline.

*Sigh*

 

[isabelle]

I'll just leave this here:

Queens Club 2008:

N. Djokovic defeats D. Nalbandian 6-1 6-0.

I'm sure Nalbandian dictated the points though...

Funny as it may seem, that isn't far from the truth. What made that score line so lopsided was Nalbandian hitting a slew of double faults and hardly making a first serve. He actually had some terrific shots from the baseline.

If you think Nalbandian dictated that match in any form whatsover you should be locked up. I watched that semi and Nalbandian was a disgrace. if it was a boxing match, he'd have been pulled out for not trying. I think the match lasted only about 45 minutes.

I already told you that Nalby was hip injured at Queen's club. How could he run with an injury ? If not, I guess he would have played much better than that

 

[Kieran]

He came close a few times, in fairness. He choked away several semi-finals, including one against Roddick, then another one where he went two sets up but decided he didn't want to face Federer in the final.

Are you kidding me? Want to talk about a baseless argument?

Do you really think that Nalbandian lost to Baghdatis in the Australian semis because he was scared of the prospect of facing Federer? There is no evidence at all for this. I don't see how it is logical to assert that a player who had already beaten Federer at the Australian Open and US Open, had started his career 5-0 against Federer, was 6-4 at the time against Federer, and had just beaten Federer in the Masters Cup final two months earlier was somehow fearful of facing him in the Australian final. That makes no sense.

He bottled it, brother, and it was because of the occasion. Federer in an Oz final at that stage of his career was a different beast to the sapling Nalbers tied with early on in their career. And anyway, it didn't need to be Federer in the final. It could have been anybody. Daveed took a peek at glory, and ran scared, flapping his wings crazily like the thrushes and magpies out my back yard.

I am talking about this strictly from a technical and tactical standpoint. Forget about the stage for a minute. Can you ever imagine Nalbandian getting dominated in rallies for 3 straight sets by Wawrinka the way Djokovic was in the French Open final?

Like I said in my initial post, Nalbandian would have had some other issues, particularly with his own serve being inconsistent. But there is no way he would have gotten badgered and battered in rallies like Djokovic did in the final.

This is a mess of illogic.

Forget about the stage for a minute.

But then you say, "there is no way he would have gotten badgered and battered in rallies like Djokovic did in the final."

Er, so now we're not forgetting about the stage, eh? Because if Daveed was "in the final", he absolutely would have gone AWOL. Can we possibly agree that Nalbandian would have done worse than Nole on that stage? Is this possible? Because that's where the match was played. Which stage are you imagining, that Daveed withstands all this stuff from Stan and beats him?

The practice court - again? :cover

 

[britbox]

Funny as it may seem, that isn't far from the truth. What made that score line so lopsided was Nalbandian hitting a slew of double faults and hardly making a first serve. He actually had some terrific shots from the baseline.

If you think Nalbandian dictated that match in any form whatsover you should be locked up. I watched that semi and Nalbandian was a disgrace. if it was a boxing match, he'd have been pulled out for not trying. I think the match lasted only about 45 minutes.

I already told you that Nalby was hip injured at Queen's club. How could he run with an injury ? If not, I guess he would have played much better than that

Possibly, but the it was one of the most embarrassing performances by a top level pro I can remember off the top of my head. Nearly as embarrassing as a post that highlighted the performance as an example of Nalbandian dictating points in a 1-6 0-6 loss. There are plenty of Nalbandian matches that showed what he could bring to the table... this was not one of them.

 

[El Dude]

Results and rankings have a way of equalizing over time. In the end, Nalbandian was what we was: a very good but not great player who, like many very good players showed flashes of brilliance throughout his career but was never able to consistently harness his best game on the big stage, at least not for more than a tournament or two at a time (and Cali, greatness is all about how talent is translated to the stage).

Lukas Rosol is occasionally capable of truly inspired tennis. So was George Bastl, at least for one Wimbledon match in 2002. I'm not equating Nalbandian with those guys for truly Nalbandian was a much better player. But my point is that we're talking about professional tennis players, ALL of whom can play great tennis - even #1000 in the world (who, if you're wondering, is 25-year old Bolivian Alejandro Mendoza). Nalbandian simply couldn't play great tennis as consistently as, say, Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal.

Nalbandian was what I like to call a "second tier" player - he was a guy who was occasionally a Slam challenger, won a couple Masters and was a top 10 player for about seven years. Think Tomas Berdych or David Ferrer. In a way he's the opposite of Ferrer, who maximized his ability and has had an overall better career as far as results go. Nalbandian had greater talent but worse results. Nalbandian is more in the tradition of players like Lew Hoad and Ellsworth Vines - very talented, but with results that didn't match their talent for whatever reason (Jack Kramer said Hoad and Vines were both lazy). Gael Monfils, like Kieran said, is in the same mold. Another that comes to mind is Ernests Gulbis, or Marat Safin for that matter. All of these guys - Hoad and Vines, but also Safin, Nalbandian, Monfils and Gulbis - look like they should have had better careers, but in the end they didn't.

But honestly, Cali, you want something from others that you're simply never going to get: recognition of Nalbandian as a great tennis player. Talented yes, great no. You may literally be David Nalbandian's biggest fan and have a view of him that no one, to my knowledge, shares.