Why we should all miss Nalbandian

[Fiero425]

OTTH, I equate Nalbandian and a player like Davydenko; a couple Masters' wins, victories over the Big 4, and actually won the WTF with all the top players there!

 

[britbox]

With due respect mate, Gulbis isn't in the same conversation as Nalbandian, and neither is Monfils.

and Nalbandian isn't in the same conversation as guys who chalk off double digit slam counts.

Is he fit to be in the same conversation as Safin? I'd fit him in that category as being a chronic under-achiever with a ton of talent, but Safin at least proved he could do it at the very highest level on the biggest of stages... Nalby never did that. I'd say he's a poor man's Safin - it's not intended as a dig, it's a pretty fair assessment.

 

[calitennis127]

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.

Kieran, if I was murat, I would accuse you right now of talking in mystical terms without any physical evidence. Where is the proof for what you are saying? You are just taking it as axiomatic that Nalbandian ran from the occasion when it was big. Well then how do you explain his numerous losses to lower-ranked players in non-Slam events that followed the exact same self-destructive pattern as the one we witnessed against Baghdatis?

You need to stop talking in mythological generalities and look at the specifics of what was going on in the matches. You try to make tennis out to be some kind of weightroom battle between Superman and Thor as they pump creatine and try to outdo each other in "digging deep".

Er, so now we're not forgetting about the stage, eh? Because if Daveed was "in the final", he absolutely would have gone AWOL.

Kieran, did you miss the part where I said that Nalbandian would have had his issues? I explicitly stated that he would have had struggles on serve, hitting double faults and serving a low percentage. I know what his issues were.

My point here was strictly about baseline play. Of course it is possible that Nalbandian would have lost (I don't deny it). But he would not have lost because the opponent schooled him in rally after rally for over two and a half hours. That was the point I was making.

Can we possibly agree that Nalbandian would have done worse than Nole on that stage? Is this possible?

Again - Nalbandian likely would have had his struggles, and they mostly would have been serve-related. I do not deny this. But a relatively fit Nalbandian would not have lost because he was getting dominated in rallies.

Djokovic didn't lose to Wawrinka because he shot himself in the foot with 11 double faults and a 47% serve percentage. He lost because Wawrinka manhandled him from the baseline in game after game.

 

[Fiero425]

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.

Kieran, if I was Murat, I would accuse you right now of talking in mystical terms without any physical evidence. Where is the proof for what you are saying? You are just taking it as axiomatic that Nalbandian ran from the occasion when it was big. Well then how do you explain his numerous losses to lower-ranked players in non-Slam events that followed the exact same self-destructive pattern as the one we witnessed against Baghdatis?

You need to stop talking in mythological generalities and look at the specifics of what was going on in the matches. You try to make tennis out to be some kind of weightroom battle between Superman and Thor as they pump creatine and try to outdo each other in "digging deep".

Er, so now we're not forgetting about the stage, eh? Because if Daveed was "in the final", he absolutely would have gone AWOL.

Kieran, did you miss the part where I said that Nalbandian would have had his issues? I explicitly stated that he would have had struggles on serve, hitting double faults and serving a low percentage. I know what his issues were.

My point here was strictly about baseline play. Of course it is possible that Nalbandian would have lost (I don't deny it). But he would not have lost because the opponent schooled him in rally after rally for over two and a half hours. That was the point I was making.

Can we possibly agree that Nalbandian would have done worse than Nole on that stage? Is this possible?

Again - Nalbandian likely would have had his struggles, and they mostly would have been serve-related. I do not deny this. But a relatively fit Nalbandian would not have lost because he was getting dominated in rallies.

Djokovic didn't lose because of 11 double faults and a 47% serve percentage. He lost because Wawrinka manhandled him from the baseline in game after game.

True enough! He did what I keep harping on about most of the tour! He actually finished unlike others who would have found a way to lose that match! I didn't like the result, but I can respect it! Stan took it; Nole didn't lose it! :cover :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Kieran]

Cali, we're not disagreeing about what Stan did to Nole, because we all witnessed it. What we're disagreeing with is your pie in the sky notion that somehow Daveed would have done better. Because he always done better, right? He has a track record of incredible level displays under the most intense pressure. He withstands stuff.

Except...his game went AWOL when he needed it not to - in slams.

It's getting hard to see why you're still championing him, as some bizarro-world Titan who could teach these great champs how to win big matches under the gravest of pressures, when he's left us no examples of this kinda thing in his legacy.

In fact! He left us the opposite...

 

[calitennis127]

True enough! He did what I keep harping on about most of the tour! He actually finished unlike others who would have found a way to lose that match! I didn't like the result, but I can respect it! Stan took it; Nole didn't lose it! :cover :nono :angel: :dodgy:

Right, and Djokovic certainly didn't take it either. I can't imagine a match where Nalbandian served around 65-70% and only hit 1 or 2 double faults, yet lost because the opponent dictated point after point from the baseline.

That was my point all along in this thread. Nalbandian's offensive mentality, shotmaking, and point construction were too proficient for that to ever happen.

 

[Fiero425]

True enough! He did what I keep harping on about most of the tour! He actually finished unlike others who would have found a way to lose that match! I didn't like the result, but I can respect it! Stan took it; Nole didn't lose it! :cover :nono :angel: :dodgy:

Right, and Djokovic certainly didn't take it either. I can't imagine a match where Nalbandian served around 65-70% and only hit 1 or 2 double faults, yet lost because the opponent dictated point after point from the baseline.

That was my point all along in this thread. Nalbandian's offensive mentality, shotmaking, and point construction were too proficient for that to ever happen.

Stan's been taking notes from Roger for years! That's why he's so tough to beat in majors; Nole's been taken to the limit even if he won the match! Stan can out do "Baby Fed," Dimitrov any time it really counts! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[calitennis127]

Cali, we're not disagreeing about what Stan did to Nole, because we all witnessed it. What we're disagreeing with is your pie in the sky notion that somehow Daveed would have done better. Because he always done better, right? He has a track record of incredible level displays under the most intense pressure. He withstands stuff.

Again, that is not my point. What do you not understand about what I am saying? All you are thinking about is win/loss and that's it. For the 5,000th time, I am not saying that Nalbandian would have definitely won the match and "done better" in that sense. What I am saying is that if he had lost, it would not have been for the same reasons Djokovic did - reasons which were very frustrating to witness.

Djokovic did not shoot himself in the foot with petty errors. He did not hit double faults galore. He did not serve at 20% in a key game. He did not drop serve as he was serving for the set. (All Nalbandian reasons) Rather, he got his behind handed to him in rally after rally, game after game, for over two hours. He was simply outplayed from the baseline.

That would never have happened to Nalbandian. If he went down, it wouldn't have been because he was the opponent's whipping boy in rallies.

Except...his game went AWOL when he needed it not to - in slams.

No, it also went AWOL in MS events, 500 events, and 250 events - and even in Davis Cup I might add. There were structural reasons why he collapsed. And the pattern went well beyond his significant Slam losses in semis/finals.

It's getting hard to see why you're still championing him, as some bizarro-world Titan who could teach these great champs how to win big matches under the gravest of pressures, when he's left us no examples of this kinda thing in his legacy.

To the extent that I am saying this in this particular thread, it is only with respect to his baseline tactics - not his mindset in key moments, or his serve, or his fitness. In those respects, Nalbandian could have learned quite a bit from the Big 4.

I am talking about tennis specifics, something you are apparently unwilling to discuss. Nalbandian was not a perfect player, but he was the best player in the elements of the game that are hardest in terms of skill and natural ability.

 

[El Dude]

With due respect mate, Gulbis isn't in the same conversation as Nalbandian, and neither is Monfils.

and Nalbandian isn't in the same conversation as guys who chalk off double digit slam counts.

Is he fit to be in the same conversation as Safin? I'd fit him in that category as being a chronic under-achiever with a ton of talent, but Safin at least proved he could do it at the very highest level on the biggest of stages... Nalby never did that. I'd say he's a poor man's Safin - it's not intended as a dig, it's a pretty fair assessment.

You completely misunderstood my point. I wasn't saying that Gulbis or Monfils are as good as Nalbandian, but that all three are players whose talent level was higher than what they ended up accomplishing - like Hoad and Vines. Same general type (higher talent than results, not kind or quality.

So you could say: Vines > Hoad > Safin > Nalbandian > Monfils > Gulbis

They're different orders of ability and accomplishment, but all six players were viewed as being more talented than their actual results would entail.

 

[Fiero425]

With due respect mate, Gulbis isn't in the same conversation as Nalbandian, and neither is Monfils.

and Nalbandian isn't in the same conversation as guys who chalk off double digit slam counts.

Is he fit to be in the same conversation as Safin? I'd fit him in that category as being a chronic under-achiever with a ton of talent, but Safin at least proved he could do it at the very highest level on the biggest of stages... Nalby never did that. I'd say he's a poor man's Safin - it's not intended as a dig, it's a pretty fair assessment.

You completely misunderstood my point. I wasn't saying that Gulbis or Monfils are as good as Nalbandian, but that all three are players whose talent level was higher than what they ended up accomplishing - like Hoad and Vines. Same general type (higher talent than results, not kind or quality.

So you could say: Vines > Hoad > Safin > Nalbandian > Monfils > Gulbis

They're different orders of ability and accomplishment, but all six players were viewed as being more talented than their actual results would entail.

I've elevated Safin to "great" status even without superior results! Even though he underachieved, he had it all except what it took between the ears! He also reached #1 in the world, won 2 majors, and destroyed his opposition when "ON" his game! He eviscerated Sampras in 2000 USO final! :cover :angel: :dodgy: OTTH, I don't know much about Vines, but HOAD was reputed to be very good; at one time being 8-0 over Rod Laver and reach #1 as well! If not for his playboy antics, marrying at 21, going into the army, and wanting to be a regular guy, he might have a bigger name in the game!

 

[Kieran]

Hoad gets a bad rap on this board, if he's being compared to Safin and boys like him. According to fellers who played him, and who watched him, Lew Hoad was a giant. It isn't his fault the game wasn't codified the way it is now. He just went out there and played who he played, and he was the best at it, according to many who'd seen him, including Frew McMillan, who, as late as 2001, said that Lew Hoad was "certainly the greatest of the greats that I have seen..."

 

[MartyB]

Agree or disagree Cali I'm glad your back on the board. Thanks..

 

[El Dude]

Hoad gets a bad rap on this board, if he's being compared to Safin and boys like him. According to fellers who played him, and who watched him, Lew Hoad was a giant. It isn't his fault the game wasn't codified the way it is now. He just went out there and played who he played, and he was the best at it, according to many who'd seen him, including Frew McMillan, who, as late as 2001, said that Lew Hoad was "certainly the greatest of the greats that I have seen..."

Strawman alert! Who is giving Hoad a bad rap? I was basing my view off what Jack Kramer and others have said, that he was immensely talented but lazy. Pancho Gonzales said that Hoad was the only player that could beat him when Pancho was playing his best. Ken Rosewall said something similar. I get it. But from what Kramer and others have said, he didn't optimize his talent because of his attitude. That's where the comparison comes in.

 

[Kieran]

Fair enough, brother, but I'm quite lazy too, and you'd be insulting Safin if you compared me to him.

If a commentator as expert as Frew says that Lew Hoad was so great, then I would suggest that his talent was quite optimized, eh? I realise it's difficult to compare across eras, but Lew is an essential, far as I can see - as much as anybody is...

 

[El Dude]

Here's some quotes from Wikipedia:

Jack Kramer:

"Both [Vines and Hoad] were very strong guys. Both succeeded at a very young age.... Also, both were very lazy guys. Vines lost interest in tennis (for golf) before he was thirty, and Hoad never appeared to be very interested. Despite their great natural ability, neither put up the outstanding records that they were capable of. Unfortunately, the latter was largely true because both had physical problems."

"When you sum Hoad up, you have to say that he was overrated. He might have been the best, but day-to-day, week-to-week, he was the most inconsistent of all the top players."

There's more on his Wikipedia page that's worth reading. Anyhow, I think the point here is that he was inconsistent, and so wasn't optimized. Part of what makes someone like Roger Federer so great is that he has been so consistent.

As I've said before, "greatness" isn't just talent, isn't just about how good you are playing at your very best. It is about how consistently you can get there. This is why Marin Cilic only has one Slam title. If he played like he did last US Open he'd be a monster. If you look at a player like David Ferrer, he isn't as talented as several dozen players on tour but he's more successful than all but a few because he can play his best more frequently.

In the end, Hoad can't be considered on the very greatest players in tennis history, in my opinion. At his very peak, perhaps, but he didn't sustain it. Greatness has to be more than just a short window of dominance - it has to include duration of dominance, longevity, consistency, etc.

 

[Kieran]

Buddy, Jack Kramer was renowned as being a right son of a beach. But that's okay, we don't need to haggle over players who played back then. It gets messy, especially when we try make comparisons with the sport as it's structured and run today, where players have such a great rewards for their efforts. Lewie is cool, he's not going to lose sleep in the great celestial clubhouse over his position among the greats...

EDIT: By the way, there was a poster on tennis.com who knew a lot about the old Black & White days, poster called Bombadil. It's a pity he never made it here, because when he wrote about these old geezers, he made me wish he'd write a book about them. He knew his stuff, and never became maudlin or nostalgic about the past. Pity he never made it to this site, I sent him a pm to invite him to TennisDigital first, but he never read it...

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

^^tennisdigital ?..lol. aaah good old tennisdigital.

the ghost website that existed but at the same time....forgot to happen.

then some groovy warriors from here sorted stuff out and invented tennisfrontier. (hurrah and huzzah).

 

[Moxie]

Here's some quotes from Wikipedia:

Jack Kramer:

"Both [Vines and Hoad] were very strong guys. Both succeeded at a very young age.... Also, both were very lazy guys. Vines lost interest in tennis (for golf) before he was thirty, and Hoad never appeared to be very interested. Despite their great natural ability, neither put up the outstanding records that they were capable of. Unfortunately, the latter was largely true because both had physical problems."

"When you sum Hoad up, you have to say that he was overrated. He might have been the best, but day-to-day, week-to-week, he was the most inconsistent of all the top players."

There's more on his Wikipedia page that's worth reading. Anyhow, I think the point here is that he was inconsistent, and so wasn't optimized. Part of what makes someone like Roger Federer so great is that he has been so consistent.

As I've said before, "greatness" isn't just talent, isn't just about how good you are playing at your very best. It is about how consistently you can get there. This is why Marin Cilic only has one Slam title. If he played like he did last US Open he'd be a monster. If you look at a player like David Ferrer, he isn't as talented as several dozen players on tour but he's more successful than all but a few because he can play his best more frequently.

In the end, Hoad can't be considered on the very greatest players in tennis history, in my opinion. At his very peak, perhaps, but he didn't sustain it. Greatness has to be more than just a short window of dominance - it has to include duration of dominance, longevity, consistency, etc.

I'll risk it and jump into this conversation, because it's interesting. I kind of agree with this, because the "greatness" of some of these early players is anecdotal, and rather hard to prove by first-hand observation. But "lazy" in his era is not comparable in the Open-Era. They got paid in doughnuts and under-the-table fees. It was more hobby than occupation. It's really hard to fault them for not being serious, or consistent, in a way that is not hard to fault players like Nalbandian, (since he's the subject of this thread,) who have talent and stand to win millions.

Buddy, Jack Kramer was renowned as being a right son of a beach. But that's okay, we don't need to haggle over players who played back then. It gets messy, especially when we try make comparisons with the sport as it's structured and run today, where players have such a great rewards for their efforts. Lewie is cool, he's not going to lose sleep in the great celestial clubhouse over his position among the greats...

EDIT: By the way, there was a poster on tennis.com who knew a lot about the old Black & White days, poster called Bombadil. It's a pity he never made it here, because when he wrote about these old geezers, he made me wish he'd write a book about them. He knew his stuff, and never became maudlin or nostalgic about the past. Pity he never made it to this site, I sent him a pm to invite him to TennisDigital first, but he never read it...

I was going to chastise you for liking Hoad, if he was "lazy," and giving Nalby such a hard time, but once I wrote the above, I thought better of it. I remember Bombadil. Shame he never made it here.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

they got paid in doughnuts in the old days ?..

hmm the old timers saved up all those doughnuts and fat dave ate the lot and grew pendulous breasts with which he used to not win majors.

 

[Moxie]

they got paid in doughnuts in the old days ?..

hmm the old timers saved up all those doughnuts and fat dave ate the lot and grew pendulous breasts with which he used to not win majors.

I almost knew when I used "doughnuts" that this would happen. I should have said "beer." Which would likely have been more accurate.