Best Career ? Ivan Ljubicic (cro) - David Nalbandian (arg) , Who? Vote :d [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Best Career ? Ivan Ljubicic (cro) - David Nalbandian (arg) , Who? Vote :d

Tzar
04-19-2007, 03:51 PM
Here the stats. :)

Grand Slams Best Perfomance

Australian Open:
David Nalbandian [Semifinals 2006 L to. Marcos Baghdatis 6-3 7-5 3-6 4-6 4-6 Also have reached three times in a row the Q]

Ivan Ljubicic [ Quarters 2006 L to. Marcos Baghdatis 4-6 2-6 6-4 6-3 3-6 ]

Roland Garros:
David Nalbandian [Semifinals 2006 L to. Roger Federer 6-3 4-6 2-5 RET, Semifinals 2004 L to. Gaston Gaudio 3-6 6-7(5) 0-6, HE HAVE REACHED THIS SEMI TWICE ]

Ivan Ljubicic [Semifinals 2006 L to. Former Champion Rafael Nadal 4-6 2-6 6-7(7) ]

Wimbledon:
David Nalbandian [ Final 2002 L to. NUMBER #1 of the moment Lleyton Hewitt 1-6 3-6 2-6 ]

Ivan Ljubicic [ 3rd round 2006 L to. Dmitry Tursunov
7-5 6-4 1-6 6-7(6) 2-6 ]

US OPEN:
David Nalbandian [Semifinal 2003 L to. Andy Roddick FORMER CHAMPION
7-6(4) 6-3 6-7(7) 1-6 3-6 ]

Ivan Ljubicic [3rd round 2005 L to. Richard Gasquet 6-3 6-7(6) 7-6(7) 3-6 2-6 ]

AMS EVENTS

David Nalbandian 3 finals [CANADA, MADRID AND ROME] 2 semis [HAMBURG AND MIAMI ]2 quartes [MONTE CARLO AND CINCINATTI ] 4rd [INDIAN WELLS] 2rd [PARIS]

Ivan Ljubicic 3 finals [MADRID, MIAMI AND PARIS] 1 semifinal [HAMBURG] 3 Quarters [MONTE CARLO, CINCINATTI AND INDIAN WELLS] 2 THIRD rounds [CANADA and ROME]

Tennis Master Cup YEC

David Nalbandian 3 times QUALIFIER

2003 as number 8 RR: D. Juan Ferrero 6-3 6-1, L to. Roger Federer 3-6 0-6, L to. Andre Agassi 6-7(10) 6-3 4-6

2005 as number 12 RR: L to. Roger Federer 3-6 6-2 4-6, D Guillermo Coria 7-5 6-4, D Ivan Ljubicic 6-2 6-2 SEMIS: D. Nikolay Davydenko 6-0 7-5 FINAL: D ROGER FEDERER 6-7(4) 6-7(11) 6-2 6-1 7-6(3) TO BECOME THE 2005 MASTER

2006 as number 7 RR: L to. Roger Federer 6-3 1-6 1-6, L to. Ivan Ljubicic 7-5 6-7(7) 5-7, D Andy Roddick 6-2 7-6(4), SEMIS: L to. James Blake 6-4 6-1


Ivan Ljubicic 2 perfomances

2005 as number 8 RR: L to. Roger Federer 3-6 6-2 6-7(4), L to. David Nalbandian 2-6 2-6, D Guillermo Coria 6-2 6-3

2006 as number 4 RR: L to. Roger Federer 6-7(2) 4-6, D David Nalbandian 5-7 7-6(7) 7-5, L to. Andy Roddick 4-6 7-6(11) 1-6

HEAD TO HEAD

Ivan Ljubicic Leads 5-2 to David Nalbandian

PRIZE MONEY, TITLES AND HIGHEST RANK IN CAREER, ALSO W-L RECORD

David Nalbandian [PRIZE MONEY: $7,295,799,] [TITLES: 5] [HIGHEST RANKING: 3 SINGLES 116 DOUBLES ] [CAREER W-L: 223 - 114 ]

Ivan Ljubicic [PRIZE MONEY: $6,204,800 ] [TITLES: 7] [ HIGHEST RANKING: 3 SINGLES 70 DOUBLES] [CAREER W-L: 301 - 195]


SO VOTE IN MY POLL, BEST CAREER?

Horatio Caine
04-19-2007, 03:53 PM
Forget the stats...

Who has won a Masters (Cup) title? Nalbandian.
Who has been to a Slam final? Nalbandian.

Answer = Nalbandian

:wavey:

MissPovaFan
04-19-2007, 03:54 PM
Nalbandian

Tzar
04-19-2007, 03:54 PM
Forget the stats...

Who has won a Masters (Cup) title? Nalbandian.
Who has been to a Slam final? Nalbandian.

Answer = Nalbandian

:wavey:

I like the way you think! xD

Rik.
04-19-2007, 03:56 PM
Nalbandian

leng jai
04-19-2007, 03:56 PM
Is this even a question? If Nalbandia retired now and Ljubo kept going theres no doubt Nalby would still end up with a substantially better career.

Horatio Caine
04-19-2007, 03:58 PM
I like the way you think! xD

Thanks ;)

...but if you like the way I think, you're not going to like the way the Croatards think... :devil: :aplot:

Deboogle!.
04-19-2007, 03:59 PM
I dunno about "substantially" better. Ljubicic has a Davis Cup title and an Olympic medal.

It's pretty close in my opinion, but impossible to talk about who has had a better career when both are still playing :shrug:

Malul
04-19-2007, 03:59 PM
more relevant question though,nalby against tojo?
tojo won a GS,nalby didn't.
sure nalby was in Wimbledon final but which count the most,a Masters Cup or a slam?:wavey:

Blue Heart24
04-19-2007, 04:01 PM
What a clown
You are obssesed with Ljubicic.
And now you are making this ridicolous thread
delete this thread please

ReturnWinner
04-19-2007, 04:02 PM
tojo -the ratman- has bbeen a very lucky prick in his career
incredible

anyway i took nalbandian career over tojo the luckyratman

Blue Heart24
04-19-2007, 04:02 PM
I dont understand why you keep comparing Ljubicic and Nalbandian all the time

Deboogle!.
04-19-2007, 04:03 PM
And now you are making this ridicolous thread
delete this thread pleaseThe thread doesn't break any rules, in fact your post here comes a lot closer to doing that than the thread :lol:

Horatio Caine
04-19-2007, 04:03 PM
I dont understand why you keep comparing Ljubicic and Nalbandian all the time

Dude, what is your problem? :cuckoo:

tripb19
04-19-2007, 04:04 PM
Lol, Jeroninoob you need to ignore the haters. Put them on your ignore list if you can't handle them.

Blue Heart24
04-19-2007, 04:04 PM
The thread doesn't break any rules, in fact your post here comes a lot closer to doing that than the thread :lol:

It'd simply stupid and it's been discussed 100 times.
Why to open a thread about this :help:

ReturnWinner
04-19-2007, 04:04 PM
because many ljubicic fans are obsessed with nalbandian
specially tennisfancroatia who used (or maybe still he does)to post in nalbandian forum celebrating david loses :p

All_Slam_Andre
04-19-2007, 04:05 PM
Nalbandian has won the 5th biggest tournament in tennis, the Masters Cup, while Ljubicic has failed to win any of the 14 most important tournaments.
Nalbandian also has a much better grand slam record (1 final, 4 semi-finals and 5 quarter-finals) than Ljubicic (1 semi-final and 1 quarter-final). So Nalbandian has had the better career.

Blue Heart24
04-19-2007, 04:07 PM
because many ljubicic fans are obsessed with nalbandian
specially tennisfancroatia who used (or maybe still he does)to post in nalbandian forum celebrating david loses :p

:lol:
I'm not obsessed with Dave.But a lost of Argentines are.
Yeah,I posted in Dave forum,but it wasnt about his losses,unlike Jeronimo who once created a thread in Ljubicic forum,it was about how he sucks in slams or smth like that :haha:
I mean
:silly:

Tzar
04-19-2007, 04:09 PM
I dont understand why you keep comparing Ljubicic and Nalbandian all the time

Is NOT of your business, if you dont like it, dont read it ;)

El Legenda
04-19-2007, 04:10 PM
Ljubicic by far and its not even close, why? Dave has tons of more talent and has done almost the same as Ljubicic.

also add Davis Cup, World Team Cup and Olypmic medal for Ljubo

Tzar
04-19-2007, 04:10 PM
because many ljubicic fans are obsessed with nalbandian
specially tennisfancroatia who used (or maybe still he does)to post in nalbandian forum celebrating david loses :p

also IvanLjubicic

See hims comments on david l. to kolshreiber (what ever) thread..

Denaon
04-19-2007, 04:10 PM
more relevant question though,nalby against tojo?
tojo won a GS,nalby didn't.
sure nalby was in Wimbledon final but which count the most,a Masters Cup or a slam?:wavey:

So did Gaudio and noone would say that Gaudio's career is "better" than Nalbo's

Anyhow....both careers Nalbo's and Ljubo's aren't over yet....so let's wait until they both retire to compare them....

:secret: Although I think Nalbo has achieved much more than Ljubo's done so far

Blue Heart24
04-19-2007, 04:11 PM
Is NOT of your business, if you dont like it, dont read it ;)

just tell me what's your reasons to talking about Ivan all the time.And creating a bashing thread in his own forum.
Stick to David if you are his fan.

Tzar
04-19-2007, 04:12 PM
Lol, Jeroninoob?? :lol:


you need to ignore the haters. Put them on your ignore list if you can't handle them.

I only need to ignore Tennisfancroatia :lol:

Tzar
04-19-2007, 04:14 PM
.
:secret: Although I think Nalbo has achieved much more than Ljubo's done so far

xDD.. anyways i think the tojo comment its off topic.. but its ok!.. free your mind

Loremaster
04-19-2007, 04:14 PM
Nalby all the way , Ljubo is just a ATP tour CLOWN

Tzar
04-19-2007, 04:15 PM
just tell me what's your reasons to talking about Ivan all the time.

So now im not allowed to speak about ljubo? what do you think guys! :lol

let me know wich other player im not allowed to talk about??

Blue Heart24
04-19-2007, 04:32 PM
So now im not allowed to speak about ljubo? what do you think guys! :lol

let me know wich other player im not allowed to talk about??

yes,you are allowed but you are only talking about him in a negative way all the time
thats irritating for some people :mad:

JBdV
04-19-2007, 04:53 PM
In terms of who did more with the talent they had at their disposal, Ljubicic.

Tzar
04-19-2007, 05:07 PM
yes,you are allowed but you are only talking about him in a negative way all the time
thats irritating for some people :mad:

yes you always say complemets to davoid

Burrow
04-19-2007, 05:11 PM
You are crazy, you only pick ljubicic because the facts say he isnt as good as nalbandian, you dont like to see nalbandian critisized.

brent-o
04-19-2007, 07:02 PM
Nalbandian. Semis in every major, a final in one, Masters Cup title.

jazar
04-19-2007, 07:21 PM
one is bald the other obese. tough decision. neither has much of a personality. nalbandian was slightly more inspiring earlier in his career. and a GS final and TMC are much better than ljubicic

Tzar
04-19-2007, 07:26 PM
You are crazy, you only pick ljubicic because the facts say he isnt as good as nalbandian, you dont like to see nalbandian critisized.

what do you know about what i like or dislike! :S

Malul
04-19-2007, 07:27 PM
noone of them will make it into the hall of fame anyhow so why bother?:wavey:

ljubicic_
04-19-2007, 07:28 PM
Ljubo leads 5-2. Only that matters:wavey:

Horatio Caine
04-19-2007, 07:29 PM
one is bald the other obese.

:haha: :haha: Short and to the point.

:silly:

Tzar
04-19-2007, 07:58 PM
ilike the obese

alfonsojose
04-19-2007, 08:23 PM
Nalbandian

ChinoRios4Ever
04-19-2007, 08:28 PM
till now... Nalbandian

Joyce_23
04-19-2007, 08:31 PM
Eh, did I miss both Ljubo's and Dave's retirement? They are both still playing so it's a bit early to compare the two. And why would you compare them at all, the only thing they have in common is that they were both number 3 in the world at one point.

BIGMARAT
04-19-2007, 08:51 PM
Both players doesn't have anything to boast for yet!!

sigmagirl91
04-19-2007, 08:59 PM
Duhhhh....anyway, Jeronimo, you're getting a head start on the 2008 Arseclown competition, eh?

AnnaK_4ever
04-19-2007, 09:08 PM
Nalbandian at Grand Slams: 65-21
Ljubicic at Grand Slams: 26-30

Next question, please!

R.Federer
04-19-2007, 10:08 PM
Nalbandian at Grand Slams: 65-21
Ljubicic at Grand Slams: 26-30

Next question, please!

Yeah sure.

Andy Roddick at Slams, 109-32
Andre Agassi at Slams, 291-99

So eight-time slam winner Agassi is worse than one-slam winner Roddick. Great analysis! :D

Gonzalo81
04-19-2007, 10:11 PM
Nalbandian

Mechlan
04-19-2007, 10:25 PM
Nalbandian, no doubt. But that's not entirely fair to Ljubo; I think he has considerably less to work with, and taking that into account, he's overachieved where Nalby has underachieved.

All_Slam_Andre
04-19-2007, 10:59 PM
Yeah sure.

Andy Roddick at Slams, 109-32
Andre Agassi at Slams, 291-99

So eight-time slam winner Agassi is worse than one-slam winner Roddick. Great analysis! :D

Considering Agassi 'only' played in 61 grand slam tournaments during his career, It would have been mightily impressive for him to lose 99 matches :D

Agassi at slams, 224-53, +171 differential
Roddick at slams, 75-24, +51 differential

These stats are obviously in favour of Agassi, and AnnaK_4ever's post about Nalbandian and Ljubicic's grand slam records remains perfectly valid and accurate.

wenty
04-19-2007, 11:02 PM
Nalbandian without a doubt.

auspopopen
04-19-2007, 11:09 PM
I think that this thread isn't necesary... Obviously Nalbandian has best career :rolleyes:

R.Federer
04-19-2007, 11:11 PM
Considering Agassi 'only' played in 61 grand slam tournaments during his career, It would have been mightily impressive for him to lose 99 matches :D

Agassi at slams, 224-53, +171 differential
Roddick at slams, 75-24, +51 differential

These stats are obviously in favour of Agassi, and AnnaK_4ever's post about Nalbandian and Ljubicic's grand slam records remains perfectly valid and accurate.

Incorrect-- Anna 4 ever does not normalize by the number of slams played. S/he is taking pure ratios to make the statement, not differentials.

To see how your logic remains "perfectly valid and accurate",

Todd Martin, zero-slam winner is better than Andy Roddick because
Todd Martin = 155-72 = +83 differential
Roddick = 75-24 = +51 differential

And Todd Martin is slightly better than Kafelnikov, who has only +81 differential

:yeah: Makes a lot of sense to you, I'm sure.

RickDaStick
04-19-2007, 11:16 PM
Ask yourself this, would Ivan trade his career for Dave's? Davis Cup winner and olympic medalist for a TMC championship? I think not. Ljubo all the way.

sigmagirl91
04-19-2007, 11:18 PM
Ask yourself this, would Ivan trade his career for Dave's? Davis Cup winner and olympic medalist for a TMC championship? I think not. Ljubo all the way.


Unfortunately, Davis Cup, for all the glory it represents, does not count toward ranking points. And the Olympic medal does not have quite the same point value as a TMC championship.....so....again, David wins. Thanks for playing.

RickDaStick
04-19-2007, 11:21 PM
Unfortunately, Davis Cup, for all the glory it represents, does not count toward ranking points. And the Olympic medal does not have quite the same point value as a TMC championship.....so....again, David wins. Thanks for playing.

Who the hell cares about " point value" ? Both peaked out at # 3 and when these 2 players retire and look back on their careers, Ljubo will be much more satisfied with his davis cup trophy than Nalby with his " ranking points"

sigmagirl91
04-19-2007, 11:24 PM
Who the hell cares about " point value" ? Both peaked out at # 3 and when these 2 players retire and look back on their careers, Ljubo will be much more satisfied with his davis cup trophy than Nalby with his " ranking points"

Really? If that's the best he can do.....

RickDaStick
04-19-2007, 11:25 PM
Unfortunately, Davis Cup, for all the glory it represents, does not count toward ranking points. And the Olympic medal does not have quite the same point value as a TMC championship.....so....again, David wins. Thanks for playing.


Well the Davis Cup doesnt have the same " point value" as a futures tournament. Does that also mean a Futures win is more important and meaninful than a DC?

sigmagirl91
04-19-2007, 11:29 PM
Well the Davis Cup doesnt have the same " point value" as a futures tournament. Does that also mean a Futures win is more important and meaninful than a DC?

Yes. Because the Futures tournaments can and most probably will lead to a full-time career on the ATP tour, where you can....erm.....EARN POINTS, MAKE MONEY, and actually BE somebody. A DC title is great and all, but when it comes to a career, you want something that shows you've made progress on the tour.

Although both of them have yet to earn a GS title, you cannot deny that David's Wimbledon finalist finish was an impressive feat. It's still a vastly underrated feat, considering that NO PLAYER before him had gotten that far in the tournament on their first try-and it hasn't happened since. So there.....again, thanks for playing.

justClaudia
04-19-2007, 11:30 PM
Ask yourself this, would Ivan trade his career for Dave's? Davis Cup winner and olympic medalist for a TMC championship? I think not. Ljubo all the way.

If you put things this way ...then you must think that David would trade his for Ivan's, right?

right.

All_Slam_Andre
04-19-2007, 11:34 PM
Incorrect-- Anna 4 ever does not normalize by the number of slams played. S/he is taking pure ratios to make the statement, not differentials.



:lol: Erm no you're totally missing the point. Anna 4 is quite cleary counting up the total number of victories and defeats for both players during their careers. It has absolutely nothing to do with pure ratios. If you don't believe me check the results database for both players on the ATP website and add up the totals yourself. His/her statement is that Nalbandian has both won more AND lost less grand slam matches than Ljubicic (this isn't the case with any of the player comparisons that you have mentioned) and therefore has had more success.

And considering Anna K is using these stats as a tie break between two players that are equal in the grand slam title count , comparing two players for whom there is a discrepancy isn't exactly relevant. So yes Anna_K's point still stands :)

Neely
04-19-2007, 11:45 PM
Easily Nalbandian so far at this time overall.

Caralimon
04-19-2007, 11:47 PM
Excluding GS, they've had similar achievements. Including GS, Nalbandian is ahead by a considerable margin.

But there is no doubt that when the retirement times come, Ljubicic will feel he's given the most of him. I doubt Nalbandian will feel the same.

Hendu
04-20-2007, 02:34 AM
Ask yourself this, would Ivan trade his career for Dave's? Davis Cup winner and olympic medalist for a TMC championship? I think not. Ljubo all the way.

Ljubicic is a great player, and winning the Davis Cup is great, specially when playing like he did.

But how can you mention the Olympic medal as a big accomplishment for his career... it is important for Croatia, for sure, but for Ljubicic's career is pretty irrelevant.

First, an Olympic gold medal is less important than winning a Masters Series, but even if you don't agree with this.... he won a doubles bronze medal!!!!!

Javier Frana accomplished that!!!! :lol:

You mention that instead of saying he made finals in AMS tournies three times... :confused:

GlennMirnyi
04-20-2007, 02:36 AM
Ljubicic is a great player, and winning the Davis Cup is great, specially when playing like he did.

But how can you mention the Olympic medal as a big accomplishment for his career... it is important for Croatia, for sure, but for Ljubicic career is pretty irrelevant.

First, an Olympic gold medal is less important than winning a Masters Series, but even if you don't agree with this.... he won a doubles bronze medal!!!!!

Javier Frana accomplished that too... :lol:

You mention that instead of saying he made finals in AMS tournies three times... :confused:

I agree there. Olympics medals aren't worth anything when talking about tennis.

Hendu
04-20-2007, 02:44 AM
I agree there. Olympics medals aren't worth anything when talking about tennis.

Sure, but there is people who doesn't think that way...

what I don't understand is how he thinks being third in a doubles tennis tournament, can be a big accomplishment in the career of a top singles tennis player. Its ridiculous...

GlennMirnyi
04-20-2007, 02:48 AM
Sure, but there is people who doesn't think that way...

what I don't understand is how he thinks being third in a doubles tennis tournament, can be a big accomplishment in the career of a top singles tennis player. Its ridiculous...

I'm not gonna say doubles aren't important for a player, but I agree that Olympics aren't of any significance for the sport, especially a 3rd place. There's no tradition and tennis isn't about that.

Hendu
04-20-2007, 02:54 AM
I'm not gonna say doubles aren't important for a player, but I agree that Olympics aren't of any significance for the sport, especially a 3rd place. There's no tradition and tennis isn't about that.

I'm not saying doubles aren't important...

I'm saying that for a top singles player who has been #3 for some years, a THIRD PLACE in a doubles tournament is irrelevant. I mean, he lost in semis. :confused: and we are not even talking about a GS.

Kolya
04-20-2007, 02:55 AM
Easily Nalbandian.

GlennMirnyi
04-20-2007, 03:01 AM
I'm not saying doubles aren't important...

I'm saying that for a top singles player who has been #3 for some years, a THIRD PLACE in a doubles tournament is irrelevant. I mean, he lost in semis. :confused: and we are not even talking about a GS.

And I agree with you on that, mate. ;)

I got you since the start, but I knew someone would try to distort things if I haven't said doubles are important.

Hendu
04-20-2007, 03:05 AM
And I agree with you on that, mate. ;)

I got you since the start, but I knew someone would try to distort things if I haven't said doubles are important.

:lol:

great strategy!

R.Federer
04-20-2007, 05:13 AM
:lol: Erm no you're totally missing the point. Anna 4 is quite cleary counting up the total number of victories and defeats for both players during their careers. It has absolutely nothing to do with pure ratios. If you don't believe me check the results database for both players on the ATP website and add up the totals yourself. His/her statement is that Nalbandian has both won more AND lost less grand slam matches than Ljubicic (this isn't the case with any of the player comparisons that you have mentioned) and therefore has had more success.

And considering Anna K is using these stats as a tie break between two players that are equal in the grand slam title count , comparing two players for whom there is a discrepancy isn't exactly relevant. So yes Anna_K's point still stands :)

No, I don't think so (just logged on and saw your response), I don't think I missed the point at all.

By your kind of "statistics"

1) Marat Safin with two slams is unambiguously less of a player than Andy Roddick with one (Roddick has won more, and lost less, in slams). Is that what your assessment is?

2) Tojo, with one slam, is LESS of a player than Nalbandian (Tojo : 76-58, Nalb: 77-33 -- won more, lost less). They have not played a very different total.

Ergo, I don't think your or Anna4 ever's point stands, at all. Unless you do believe that a player with more slams has a worse slam career than one with fewer (and that is all your judgement is based on, Nalbandian and Ljubicic's slam performances, not performances on other tournaments.).

kyleskywalker007
04-20-2007, 05:46 AM
No contest, the only answer possible here is : Nalbandian. He´s got better stats in....well....everything! Remember Nalby has been in the top 10 since around 2003, he´s had his ups and downs, but he has been consistently in the top 10, whereas Ljubicic has been in the top 10 since late 2005.....
Nalby has achieved all he has at the age of 25, while Ljubicic, is now like 28 i think.....he´s getting old (he´s always looked old anyway:devil: ), and don´t see much of a future for him.....

Medina
04-20-2007, 06:48 AM
Nalbandian!!!!

Rafa = Fed Killa
04-20-2007, 08:06 AM
Nalbandian by far.

The poll shows this.

Loremaster
04-20-2007, 08:12 AM
All LjuboJoke tard who voted for Big Bald Head Sore Loser know nothing about tennis if the pick Ljubo in terms of career because judging results has nothing to do with being certain player fan

thrust
04-20-2007, 02:18 PM
In the history of the game, both carrers are rather irrelevant.

Snowwy
04-20-2007, 02:56 PM
2) Tojo, with one slam, is LESS of a player than Nalbandian (Tojo : 76-58, Nalb: 77-33 -- won more, lost less). They have not played a very different total.

Ergo, I don't think your or Anna4 ever's point stands, at all. Unless you do believe that a player with more slams has a worse slam career than one with fewer (and that is all your judgement is based on, Nalbandian and Ljubicic's slam performances, not performances on other tournaments.).

Nalbandian is in my opinin by far a better slams player than ToJo.

GlennMirnyi
04-20-2007, 03:06 PM
Tojo = 1 slam
Nalbandian = 0 slams.

Tojo >>> Nalbandian. This is a fact.

kyleskywalker007
04-20-2007, 03:19 PM
Tojo = 1 slam
Nalbandian = 0 slams.

Tojo >>> Nalbandian. This is a fact.

According to your stupid "logic", Gaudio, who also won 1 slam, has a better career than Nalby. Both Gaudio and Johansson were a one time lucky winner, that´s it.

R.Federer
04-20-2007, 04:45 PM
Nalbandian is in my opinin by far a better slams player than ToJo.

In a few years no one will remember that David went deep consistently in slams. But a slam win for Tojo will be remembered for perpetuity. He will be introduced in tennis circles as 2002 Australian open Winner or whatever (was it 2002?).

Going by just wins/losses in slam records is not a clean way to show who has the better career, that was my point to the above poster/s. Kuerten with 3 slams has a worse win/loss record than Hewitt in slams. That does not make his career worse. Would anyone say that?

thrust
04-20-2007, 04:57 PM
One slam is a lot better than none!

RonE
04-20-2007, 05:11 PM
Far and away Nalbandian.

Nalbo:

1.) A TMC title to his name

2.) Made the last four at least once in every grand slam and has been in one GS final. Made 3 other quarterfinal appearances (2 AO 1 USO)

3.) Made the final of two AMS events- Rome and Madrid in 2004

Lubo:

1.) Has never won an AMS, TMC or slam

2.) Has made one semifinal at RG one quarterfinal at AO out of all his slam performances.

3.) Has made 3 AMS finals Madrid and Paris 2005 and Miami 2006

Julio1974
04-20-2007, 05:11 PM
One slam is a lot better than none!

better what?
better record?
better player?

Are Tojo and Gaudio better players than Nalbandian and el chino Rios???
Only in your dreams...

Mateya
04-20-2007, 05:13 PM
I rather have 5 titles, top 10 position and no slam, than being a one slam wonder (Gaudio) and struggling rest of the time. :rolleyes:

I would prefer Nalby´s carrer. :cool: And at least he has a watchable baseline game.

Julio1974
04-20-2007, 05:15 PM
In a few years no one will remember that David went deep consistently in slams. But a slam win for Tojo will be remembered for perpetuity. He will be introduced in tennis circles as 2002 Australian open Winner or whatever (was it 2002?).

Going by just wins/losses in slam records is not a clean way to show who has the better career, that was my point to the above poster/s. Kuerten with 3 slams has a worse win/loss record than Hewitt in slams. That does not make his career worse. Would anyone say that?

I don't agree. People like Mecir or Rios will be remembered even though they never won a GS.

I always have the same argument in soccer. "People only remember the champion". Wrong !! We are still talking about Holand 1974 and Hungary 1956, even though they lost!!!.

R.Federer
04-20-2007, 05:17 PM
I rather have 5 titles, top 10 position and no slam, than being a one slam wonder (Gaudio) and struggling rest of the time. :rolleyes:

I always thought that many players would like to win a slam, regardless of other achievements (I cannot remember anyone specifically, but it was my impression). It is winning a top prize in your sport, and you have to compete with 100s for just 4 such prizes a year.

Of course this is irrelevant here because neither of the two has won one.

R.Federer
04-20-2007, 05:20 PM
I don't agree. People like Mecir or Rios will be remembered even though they never won a GS.

I always have the same argument in soccer. "People only remember the champion". Wrong !! We are still talking about Holand 1974 and Hungary 1956, even though they lost!!!.

Well Rios was Number 1 in the Sampras era, a huge achievement in and of itself. To the casual tennis fan, what would you say stands out about Mecir's career? What is it they bring his name out to talk about? I honestly do not hear people talking about him.

By the way, I did not say that David would not be remembered. I said that he would not be remembered for going deep in slams. There are SO many players, and so many personal achievements, that fans cannot remember everything about everyone. So, people tend to remember the standout results, like who won slams, and who was whose Turkey, and who choked a slam away (Coria WILL be remembered).

Julio1974
04-20-2007, 05:26 PM
Well Rios was Number 1 in the Sampras era, a huge achievement in and of itself. To the casual tennis fan, what would you say stands out about Mecir's career? What is it they bring his name out to talk about? I honestly do not hear people talking about him.

By the way, I did not say that David would not be remembered. I said that he would not be remembered for going deep in slams. There are SO many players, and so many personal achievements, that fans cannot remember everything about everyone. So, people tend to remember the standout results, like who won slams, and who was whose Turkey, and who choked a slam away (Coria WILL be remembered).


yeah, Coria will be remembered for the wrong reasons lol... Poor Guille...

Concerning Mecir, his name always comes up when people are discussing those amazingly talented players.

R.Federer
04-20-2007, 05:30 PM
yeah, Coria will be remembered for the wrong reasons lol... Poor Guille...

Concerning Mecir, his name always comes up when people are discussing those amazingly talented players.

Yes, and I guess that is also why you mention Mecir and Rios together. Apart from the fact that Rios did reach No. 1, this is where their names come up.
But to the "casual" tennis fans, which excludes all the history/results gurus here, they will be remembered as frequently as say Lew Hoad. Name does come up but it is not particularly common.

Ivan, well I guess never say never, but at 28 and with the new balls coming up, Federer and Nadal not going away, his time is running out. But David has a realistic chance STILL to win a slam. He can contend, on all 4.

Tzar
04-20-2007, 07:12 PM
In a few years no one will remember that David went deep consistently in slams.

Who told you that nalby is not going to win a grand slam :devil:

So the award goes to.... NALBANDIAN!

Tzar
04-20-2007, 07:13 PM
.

you voted for....??

R.Federer
04-20-2007, 07:58 PM
Who told you that nalby is not going to win a grand slam :devil:


you voted for....??

I wrote:

Ivan, well I guess never say never, but at 28 and with the new balls coming up, Federer and Nadal not going away, his time is running out. But David has a realistic chance STILL to win a slam. He can contend, on all 4.

Tzar
04-20-2007, 08:05 PM
I wrote:

Sorry i didnt read! ;)

anyways.. i still thinking david career is better

Boris Franz Ecker
04-20-2007, 08:44 PM
I don't agree. People like Mecir or Rios will be remembered even though they never won a GS.



Mecir was Olympic Champion, Rios was No 1, Nalbandian was Masters winner, Ljubicic of course won't be remembered if he doesn't win something special.

Boris Franz Ecker
04-20-2007, 08:47 PM
To decide that: Nalbandian of course.
He's 4 years younger and already made ~ 1 million dollar more than Ljubicic.
And Nalbandian won a major title.
Ljubicic won Davis Cup, but he was unlucky to lost his deciding match against Hrabbtatay.
That denies him a place in history at the moment.

Jlee
04-20-2007, 10:23 PM
Probably Nalby, though not by much. What is worth more? A DC title or a GS final? That's pretty close.

Tzar
04-20-2007, 10:48 PM
GS final :rolleyes:

Jlee
04-20-2007, 11:01 PM
GS final :rolleyes:

I dunno, some croatards might disagree with you there. ;)

But I don't, as is obvious by my choosing Nalby.

thrust
04-20-2007, 11:03 PM
To compare the carrers of Rios, Mercir, Nalbandian, or Lubicic with Lew Hoad^s is ridiculous! Lew won 4 Slams, 3 of them in 1956. The other 4 mentioned players have 0 Slams among them and never will. I would be thrilled to have the careers of Rios, Mercir, Nalbandian and Lubicic but woud rather have Hoad^s-lol!!

R.Federer
04-20-2007, 11:13 PM
To compare the carrers of Rios, Mercir, Nalbandian, or Lubicic with Lew Hoad^s is ridiculous! Lew won 4 Slams, 3 of them in 1956. The other 4 mentioned players have 0 Slams among them and never will. I would be thrilled to have the careers of Rios, Mercir, Nalbandian and Lubicic but woud rather have Hoad^s-lol!!

Lew Hoad? Did he play in the Open Era? He played in an era when the sport was not open to the people who might have challenged him. No doubt he was a very good tennis player, but if he had faced a bigger and better pool of players you simply cannot deduce that he would have walked away with 3 slams. There is a reason that Pancho's 12 (or 10) major titles before the Open era do not even EMERGE in any discussion of the greats of the game. You simply cannot take the results of the amateur circuit and project about the greatness of a player based on that (although sometimes unfair).

For example, Hoad turned professional in July 1957, just after winning the Wimbledon final 6-2, 6-1, 6-2. Although he had been the top amateur player, Hoad won just two of his first eleven matches on the professional tour.

That should sum it up quite well.

thrust
04-20-2007, 11:27 PM
Trash Gaudio all you want but the facts are: Gaudio had 1 slam while Ivan, David and Marcelo have none. Gaudio has 8 tour victories. David has 5, Ivan has 7. Gaudio had a winning H-H against Ivan and David. Rios has 18 career wins and a winning H-H against Gaudio. Rios is an under achiever, while Gaudio who is only 5ft-9in, and less talented than Rios, is perhaps an over achiever. I would take Gaston^s career over the others. To each his own! Also, Rios will always be known as a rude and obnoxious person. In other words, a poor sportsman.

AnnaK_4ever
04-21-2007, 02:12 AM
Incorrect-- Anna 4 ever does not normalize by the number of slams played. S/he is taking pure ratios to make the statement, not differentials.

To see how your logic remains "perfectly valid and accurate",

Todd Martin, zero-slam winner is better than Andy Roddick because
Todd Martin = 155-72 = +83 differential
Roddick = 75-24 = +51 differential

And Todd Martin is slightly better than Kafelnikov, who has only +81 differential

:yeah: Makes a lot of sense to you, I'm sure.
:help:


:lol: Erm no you're totally missing the point. Anna 4 is quite cleary counting up the total number of victories and defeats for both players during their careers. It has absolutely nothing to do with pure ratios. If you don't believe me check the results database for both players on the ATP website and add up the totals yourself. His/her statement is that Nalbandian has both won more AND lost less grand slam matches than Ljubicic (this isn't the case with any of the player comparisons that you have mentioned) and therefore has had more success.

And considering Anna K is using these stats as a tie break between two players that are equal in the grand slam title count , comparing two players for whom there is a discrepancy isn't exactly relevant. So yes Anna_K's point still stands :)

:worship:
Thank you very much!

R.Federer
04-21-2007, 05:41 AM
:help:



Yes, you do need some help!

Sean.J.S.
04-21-2007, 05:55 AM
Ljubicic has won more titles but Nalbandian has done way better in the Grand Slams and has won the MC.

My vote goes to Fat Dave. :)

General Suburbia
04-21-2007, 06:06 AM
wtf, why is everyone taking this thread so seriously? It's obvious that the thread starter simply created this poll to buff Nalby up. Even stats which should be objective, are littered with comments: "yeah, Nalby lost in this match BUT BTW HES STILL BETTER THAN LJUBO BECAUSE HE LOST AGAINST PLAYER X WHO WENT ON TO WIN THE SLAM etc."

W!MBLEDON
04-21-2007, 06:17 AM
RG SF 2006 was nothing special.

Roland Garros, France
Grand Slam, 29-May-06, O, Clay, Draw: 128
R128 Berlocq, Carlos (ARG) 82 6-2 6-0 6-3
R64 Hernandez, Oscar (ESP) 131 6-3 6-7(7) 6-1 6-2
R32 Monaco, Juan (ARG) 103 4-6 5-7 6-3 6-4 6-2
R16 Ramirez Hidalgo, Ruben (ESP) 79 6-3 3-6 6-3 6-2
Q Benneteau, Julien (FRA) 95 6-2 6-2 6-3
S Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 2 4-6 2-6 6-7(7)

:haha: :haha: :haha:

Medina
04-21-2007, 08:40 AM
Lol!

Jogy
04-21-2007, 09:53 AM
haha ha ha ha ha
how should Ljubicic have a better career at this moment than Nalbandian :haha:

they both won 0 Grand Slam, but look what Nalbandian was able to do and then look at Ljubicic

he has still no big title

wow, Ivan has a doubles bronze medal... and then two other team evens he won, Davis Cup and the big Arag World team cup

individual is what counts for your profile most

CooCooCachoo
04-21-2007, 09:57 AM
Nalbandían, clearly. But that could all change :)

Tzar
04-21-2007, 03:01 PM
RG SF 2006 was nothing special.

Roland Garros, France
Grand Slam, 29-May-06, O, Clay, Draw: 128
R128 Berlocq, Carlos (ARG) 82 6-2 6-0 6-3
R64 Hernandez, Oscar (ESP) 131 6-3 6-7(7) 6-1 6-2
R32 Monaco, Juan (ARG) 103 4-6 5-7 6-3 6-4 6-2
R16 Ramirez Hidalgo, Ruben (ESP) 79 6-3 3-6 6-3 6-2
Q Benneteau, Julien (FRA) 95 6-2 6-2 6-3
S Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 2 4-6 2-6 6-7(7)

:haha: :haha: :haha:

This is LJUBICIC AWSOME ROAD to SF 2006 roland garros

W!MBLEDON
04-21-2007, 03:07 PM
If 'awesome road' means not beating anyone ranked higher than 79 on your way to the semis, then sure. :lol:

Tzar
04-21-2007, 03:26 PM
If 'awesome road' means not beating anyone ranked higher than 79 on your way to the semis, then sure. :lol:

:lol: agree

Dilara
04-21-2007, 03:26 PM
Nalbandian for sure:)

Tzar
04-21-2007, 03:39 PM
Nalbandian for sure:)

i like your avatar! xD

Hendu
04-22-2007, 05:54 AM
I rather have 5 titles, top 10 position and no slam, than being a one slam wonder (Gaudio) and struggling rest of the time. :rolleyes:

I would prefer Nalby´s carrer. :cool: And at least he has a watchable baseline game.

Struggling the rest of the time?

wtf?

Gaudio was a top ten the year he won RG, but he was also a year end top ten the next season. Showing everybody he belonged there.

Trash Gaudio all you want but the facts are: Gaudio had 1 slam while Ivan, David and Marcelo have none. Gaudio has 8 tour victories. David has 5, Ivan has 7. Gaudio had a winning H-H against Ivan and David. Rios has 18 career wins and a winning H-H against Gaudio. Rios is an under achiever, while Gaudio who is only 5ft-9in, and less talented than Rios, is perhaps an over achiever. I would take Gaston^s career over the others. To each his own! Also, Rios will always be known as a rude and obnoxious person. In other words, a poor sportsman.

Gaudio in terms of talent, is not an over-achiever, he has the game to win RG, and he did.
But the year he won, was the only time he got past R16 in RG. And he never got to a final in a clay Masters Series. But not because of lack of talent. Gaudio is very, very talented, and can play brilliant tennis. But he is also a headcase.

Denaon
04-22-2007, 09:37 AM
Struggling the rest of the time?

wtf?

Gaudio was a top ten the year he won RG, but he was also a year end top ten the next season. Showing everybody he belonged there.



Gaudio in terms of talent, is not an over-achiever, he has the game to win RG, and he did.
But the year he won, was the only time he got past R16 in RG. And he never got to a final in a clay Masters Series. But not because of lack of talent. Gaudio is very, very talented, and can play brilliant tennis. But he is also a headcase.
100% agreed

Klaas_nalbandian
04-22-2007, 09:41 AM
Is this a Question?

Alonsofz
01-28-2008, 03:08 PM
Ljubicic

Young Boss
01-28-2008, 03:31 PM
Nalbandian, hands down.

LeChuck
01-28-2008, 06:46 PM
Nalbandian has had a much better career than Ljubicic.

Tommy fan
01-28-2008, 06:53 PM
Nalbandian.
Better results in GS, in AMS and better wins

tennisman.
01-28-2008, 06:55 PM
Nalbandian. Ljubicic is a mug

jonny84
01-28-2008, 07:07 PM
Nalbandian easily has had the best career.

Dimonator133
01-28-2008, 07:10 PM
this question stinks

It's obviously Nalbs, although both careers have been underachievements.