Why we should all miss Nalbandian

[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.

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

you gave us an open goal to aim at so........he shoots he scores. back of the net.

 

[Haelfix]

Imo Nalbandian's best tennis was at the end of 2002 and the beginning of 2003. He had some pretty epic wins over some high class competition and was really (even more than Federer) slated to be tennis's next big thing. He just had such an easy game and it was just a matter of shoring up the serve and a few consistency questions, and slams were all but guaranteed so dominant was his baseline and return game.

Of course that's exactly what didn't happen. It didn't happen b/c very much like the current crop of young players, he stagnated instead of getting better. He got fat and lost a step (compare his speed in 2008 to his speed in 2002), his serve never improved, there were several injuries that hurt his game and while he would frequently make it tough for the game's best players in high quality matches, for the most part they would win the big points and he wouldn't.

So many losses where it would look like he was uninterested. Well, you can't win with a crappy serve if you don't give it 100% and thats more or less what happened.

 

[isabelle]

You're forgetting one small, well actually big thing, cali. I loved Nalbandian, but here's the big thing: Nalbandian wouldn't have made the RG final in a million years. He made the semis in 2004 and 2006, fair enough, but fit or not, this is 2015. If he couldn't make the final in 2004 and 2006 then forget it once he was over the hill.

He retired in 2006 but the beginning of his semi vs Federer was perfect. A fit Nalby would have probably won this match. he lead 6/3 3/0 when pain came back stong (he injured himself in his marathon vs Tursu) Don't know if he would have been able to beat Nadal but without this injury, things could have been different for sure. When I think about all those awful RG's final between Nadal and Federer, I suppose he could have put a little interest in it

 

[Federberg]

You're forgetting one small, well actually big thing, cali. I loved Nalbandian, but here's the big thing: Nalbandian wouldn't have made the RG final in a million years. He made the semis in 2004 and 2006, fair enough, but fit or not, this is 2015. If he couldn't make the final in 2004 and 2006 then forget it once he was over the hill.

He retired in 2006 but the beginning of his semi vs Federer was perfect. A fit Nalby would have probably won this match. he lead 6/3 3/0 when pain came back stong (he injured himself in his marathon vs Tursu) Don't know if he would have been able to beat Nadal but without this injury, things could have been different for sure. When I think about all those awful RG's final between Nadal and Federer, I suppose he could have put a little interest in it

As pure a woulda coulda as you can ever find :clap The likes of Federer and Nadal have come back from deficits like that through out their careers. It's not clear to me Nalby would have won. For all we know he came out firing in a way that he might not have if he was fully fit, so we can't use injuries as an excuse. He lost, let's move on. You don't hear people making excuses about his ATP finals victory over a Federer who had an ankle injury do you? :nono

 

[El Dude]

It is interesting that a lot of the best players of Generation Federer--Nalbandian, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero--all peaked really early and then declined. Or did they, though? Could it be that as Roger rose to his peak in 2004, these guys only appeared to drop a notch because Roger was playing at such a high level?

Another reason why "Weak Era" doesn't really hold up so well.

 

[Federberg]

^I've said it time and time again. Federer really was that good. He took away greatness from a lot of great players.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^I've said it time and time again. Federer really was that good. He took away greatness from a lot of great players.

Combination of factors. For instance, Andy Roddick's legacy is almost literally defined by Federer. Seriously, he was single handedly responsible for Roddick's slam count. To a lesser extent, this applies to Hewitt although injuries played a factor too (though the problem is these injuries came after Roger started dominating so Hewitt wouldn't have enjoyed much winning anyway).

However, with guys like Nalbandian and Safin, there's more to it than that, including mental fragility, lack of interest, hard work, injuries, etc... These guys often times weren't even getting to Federer.

 

[Federberg]

^That's fair BS. I would speculate that some of that lack of interest was spurred on by the ridiculous run that Federer was on, but that's just opinion. Obviously I can't get into their heads, but it felt that way at the time

 

[El Dude]

Well I think part of the point I was trying to make, BS, is that there were very talented players in Roger's generation, but from a certain angle they all "stopped short" (to quote Seinfeld) early on, around the time Roger was coming into his own. All these guys were the same age. Even Ferrero and Safin were only a year and a half or so older.

I'm doing a rather exhaustive study of "Generation Federer" that I'll do a blog or two of, once I'm done with the recent nation series.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^That's fair BS. I would speculate that some of that lack of interest was spurred on by the ridiculous run that Federer was on, but that's just opinion. Obviously I can't get into their heads, but it felt that way at the time

Safin was wasting his talent long before Fed won his first slam mate.

 

[Haelfix]

Well I think part of the point I was trying to make, BS, is that there were very talented players in Roger's generation, but from a certain angle they all "stopped short" (to quote Seinfeld) early on, around the time Roger was coming into his own. All these guys were the same age. Even Ferrero and Safin were only a year and a half or so older.

I'm doing a rather exhaustive study of "Generation Federer" that I'll do a blog or two of, once I'm done with the recent nation series.

First I would say that almost every generation in the power era really peaked early, until recently and most players were done by the 25 marker (this usually signaled the end of ones prime) followed by a rapid descent.

I would say Federer's generation really gets a bad rap, b/c they really were absolutely great players all around. Many of these guys had winning records against or at least played the younger up and coming players like Djokovic/Murray/Nadal very tough.

The generation right before Federer was the problem. The Kuerten/Rios/Moya generation of halfrate players that really fizzled. These guys logically should have been beating the Agassi's of the world, and they should have been beating the younger Federer/Hewitt types however for the most part, the injuries and lack of interest really made nothing of their chances. Somewhere around 2001-2002, tennis was at a very low point b/c of this generation.

 

[El Dude]

That was a particularly weak generation, in a similar sense as Arthur Ashe's generation was. But the Kuerten/Rios/Moya group looks comparatively strong to the Nishikori/Raonic/Dimitrov generation.

 

[Moxie]

^That's fair BS. I would speculate that some of that lack of interest was spurred on by the ridiculous run that Federer was on, but that's just opinion. Obviously I can't get into their heads, but it felt that way at the time

I don't think that Federer's dominance is responsible for the slacking that Safin and Nalbandian were guilty of. Nalbandian liked fast cars, and Safin liked fast women. Nalbandian didn't so much like to train, and Marat kind of hated tennis: "I give up on spending time on these courts; I give up on practicing before the tournament I hate. I hate this." They were both distracted geniuses, and both had injury issues. I really don't think the biggest problem for either was being deflated by Federer's game. As BS pointed out, they didn't so often get to him.

 

[isabelle]

^That's fair BS. I would speculate that some of that lack of interest was spurred on by the ridiculous run that Federer was on, but that's just opinion. Obviously I can't get into their heads, but it felt that way at the time

I don't think that Federer's dominance is responsible for the slacking that Safin and Nalbandian were guilty of. Nalbandian liked fast cars, and Safin liked fast women. Nalbandian didn't so much like to train, and Marat kind of hated tennis: "I give up on spending time on these courts; I give up on practicing before the tournament I hate. I hate this." They were both distracted geniuses, and both had injury issues. I really don't think the biggest problem for either was being deflated by Federer's game. As BS pointed out, they didn't so often get to him.

Agree with you, Federer's career has nothing to do with Safin and Nalby's injuries or others issues. If Federer didn't exist, Nalby would have had the same numbers of surgeries and Safin would have been nuts the same.
Nalby and Safin were special to me and to tennis world, I miss them a lot. They have a colourful pesonality, tennis badly needs this kind of players