If Nalbandian tried throughout his career, how many Grand Slams would Federer win [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

If Nalbandian tried throughout his career, how many Grand Slams would Federer win

Rafa = Fed Killa
11-02-2007, 03:32 AM
Nalby is a better player and Federer wouldnt have won many of his tainted Grand Slams if Nalby tried.

Luck is the reason the Ego King has 12 Grand Slams.

He deserves 2 at best.

tripb19
11-02-2007, 03:40 AM
Zero.

Nalbandian would have 17 and would be the GOAT.

It's common knowledge.

Blondie1985
11-02-2007, 03:43 AM
Federer wouldnt have won many of his tainted Grand Slams if Nalby tried.

Luck is the reason the Ego King has 12 Grand Slams.

...& you can't come back with you just "know". Mystical bullshit.
Worse than wrong.

Kolya
11-02-2007, 03:44 AM
15 doubles titles for Fed.

Greenday
11-02-2007, 03:49 AM
Zero.

Nalbandian would have 17 and would be the GOAT.

It's common knowledge.

Oh yeah....Fed spanked Nalby in aus open 2004, US open 2005......give me a break ...and how do u explain 7 straight losses to fed....u know couple of them beatdowns.......

Greenday
11-02-2007, 03:50 AM
Nalby is a better player and Federer wouldnt have won many of his tainted Grand Slams if Nalby tried.

Luck is the reason the Ego King has 12 Grand Slams.

He deserves 2 at best.


If nalby played to his full potential and was on rafa's side at RG......nadal would've won 0 Roland garros

GonzoFed
11-02-2007, 03:51 AM
Oh yeah....Fed spanked Nalby in aus open 2004, US open 2005......give me a break

I think he/she is just being sarcastic.

Blondie1985
11-02-2007, 03:55 AM
RFK is just dumb and twisted - probably molested as a child by a swiss
nanny or something...

marcRD
11-02-2007, 03:56 AM
Nalbandian would have won the real grand slam every year and would have aroud 20 grand slams by now. At best Federer or Nadal could "steal" a wimbledon and RG each.

TMJordan
11-02-2007, 03:57 AM
Nalby is truly the Goat.

Rafa = Fed Killa
11-02-2007, 03:58 AM
RFK is just dumb and twisted - probably molested as a child by a swiss
nanny or something...

Your stupidity amazes me and your classlessness shows that you are a Fedtard. I will cure you even if you dont deserve it.

Only a God can help you, thank your stars the light has graced MTF with his presence.

mangoes
11-02-2007, 04:07 AM
So R=FK.........have you requested your MTF name change yet?? To Nalby=FedKilla

marcRD
11-02-2007, 04:10 AM
So R=FK.........have you requested your MTF name change yet?? To Nalby=FedKilla

I was thinking the same.

Marek.
11-02-2007, 04:21 AM
RFK, honestly, were you a fan of Nalbandian before Madrid?

World Beater
11-02-2007, 04:21 AM
I was thinking the same.

nalby = spartankilla.

he's more of a ballerina than a spartan.

Metis
11-02-2007, 04:31 AM
:spit:


R=FK and Blondie should be thrown in a room together; they deserve each other. Though they might end up killing each other; two birds with one stone... :D :p.

Sunset of Age
11-02-2007, 04:39 AM
RFK, honestly, were you a fan of Nalbandian before Madrid?

Of course not. Mr. R=FK isn't a fan of any a player at all - he/she/it only appreciates players defeating Federer, as Fed's apparenty ***** his mommy or something the like.

Marek.
11-02-2007, 04:48 AM
Of course not. Mr. R=FK isn't a fan of any a player at all - he/she/it only appreciates players defeating Federer, as Fed's apparenty ***** his mommy or something the like.

I figure as much, but just wanted to see what his answer is.

Polikarpov
11-02-2007, 04:49 AM
Maybe three to four grand slam titles.

Allure
11-02-2007, 04:52 AM
Federer wouldn't win any if all the players tried their best against him. When they face him, they choke or he would play them at their worst shape. (When Nalby was 300 lbs)

no name face
11-02-2007, 04:52 AM
4-7 so far, including a French Open. Some taken from Fed, to be honest.

FedFan_2007
11-02-2007, 05:58 AM
What else would I expect from RFK except another lame-ass thread. Of course he should rename himself to N=FK since Rafa probably isn't up to the job anymore... Was it just me, or was Nalby garbage just 3 weeks ago, and now he's gold?

switz
11-02-2007, 06:49 AM
Roger would have no slams just like Nadal :) At least Roger has beaten Nalby like 8 times :o

Exodus
11-02-2007, 07:29 AM
Nalby is a better player and Federer wouldnt have won many of his tainted Grand Slams if Nalby tried.

Luck is the reason the Ego King has 12 Grand Slams.

He deserves 2 at best.


and nadal doesn't deserve any slams :rolleyes:

Kolya
11-02-2007, 08:12 AM
and nadal doesn't deserve any slams :rolleyes:

Nope he is the undisputed King of Clay.

Rafa = Fed Killa
11-02-2007, 11:35 AM
Of course not. Mr. R=FK isn't a fan of any a player at all - he/she/it only appreciates players defeating Federer, as Fed's apparenty ***** his mommy or something the like.

The Fedal ho is trying to sound tough.

Federer is destroying tennis, he must be destroyed to save tennis. Simple logic my mentally inept friend.

I am still a fan of Nadal. But I can appreciate others who stand up to the bully tactics of the ego king.

Rafa = Fed Killa
11-02-2007, 11:38 AM
Nope he is the undisputed King of Clay.

Finally someone who understands logic on MTF.

alelysafina
11-02-2007, 12:47 PM
RFK is just dumb and twisted - probably molested as a child by a swiss
nanny or something...

:lol: :lol: :lol:

That's funny for some reason

RonE
11-02-2007, 01:17 PM
The Fedal ho is trying to sound tough.

Federer is destroying tennis, he must be destroyed to save tennis. Simple logic my mentally inept friend.

I am still a fan of Nadal. But I can appreciate others who stand up to the bully tactics of the ego king.

:lol:

So you are supporting a ballet dancing sissy whimp even though he completely destroyed your precious little piglet not even two weeks ago :angel:

Corey Feldman
11-02-2007, 01:52 PM
The funny thing about this thread for me is RFK actually concedes 2 GS's to Federer

so which 2 pansy free slams did you give him RFK?

zcess81
11-02-2007, 02:32 PM
Nalby is a better player and Federer wouldnt have won many of his tainted Grand Slams if Nalby tried.

Luck is the reason the Ego King has 12 Grand Slams.

He deserves 2 at best.

You know, even if Nalbandian had 12-0 H2H winning record against Federer he still would not have won any slams. Many people on this board confuse BEATING THE BEST with BEING THE BEST. He did not win any slams cause he wasn't good enough, NOT BECAUSE HE DID NOT TRY. That suggestion is laughable. He didn't try? What the hell was he doing then? Playing professional tennis as a hobby? As you all know, tennis is a game of Match-ups and Federer's game does not match up well with Nalbandian's and Nadal's. Just because someone can beat Federer most of the time does not mean they are the best. To be the best you must be able to beat ALL players on any given day...and you have to do it CONSISTENTLY throughout the season, and that is exactly why Federer is No.1. Just look at Nadal, he's no.2...won 3 slams, quite a few AMS titles and he has a losing record against Blake...does that mean that Blake would have won slams if he tried? Case closed.

zcess81
11-02-2007, 02:42 PM
If nalby played to his full potential and was on rafa's side at RG......nadal would've won 0 Roland garros

:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

And you base that opinion on what? On their one and only meeting couple of weeks ago? It's one thing to beat Nadal on hard courts...TOTALLY DIFFERENT ballgame to beat him on clay.

Andi-M
11-03-2007, 12:16 AM
You know, even if Nalbandian had 12-0 H2H winning record against Federer he still would not have won any slams. Many people on this board confuse BEATING THE BEST with BEING THE BEST. He did not win any slams cause he wasn't good enough, NOT BECAUSE HE DID NOT TRY. That suggestion is laughable. He didn't try? What the hell was he doing then? Playing professional tennis as a hobby? As you all know, tennis is a game of Match-ups and Federer's game does not match up well with Nalbandian's and Nadal's. Just because someone can beat Federer most of the time does not mean they are the best. To be the best you must be able to beat ALL players on any given day...and you have to do it CONSISTENTLY throughout the season, and that is exactly why Federer is No.1. Just look at Nadal, he's no.2...won 3 slams, quite a few AMS titles and he has a losing record against Blake...does that mean that Blake would have won slams if he tried? Case closed.

Too insightful for this thread.

marcRD
11-03-2007, 12:33 AM
If nalby played to his full potential and was on rafa's side at RG......nadal would've won 0 Roland garros

:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

And you base that opinion on what? On their one and only meeting couple of weeks ago? It's one thing to beat Nadal on hard courts...TOTALLY DIFFERENT ballgame to beat him on clay.

Beating Federer indoors in best of 3 sets is quite different from beating him in Wimbledon or USOPEN. Last time they faced each other in USOPEN Fed had no problem straight setting Nalby. So what is your point?

Marek.
11-03-2007, 12:36 AM
You know, even if Nalbandian had 12-0 H2H winning record against Federer he still would not have won any slams. Many people on this board confuse BEATING THE BEST with BEING THE BEST. He did not win any slams cause he wasn't good enough, NOT BECAUSE HE DID NOT TRY. That suggestion is laughable. He didn't try? What the hell was he doing then? Playing professional tennis as a hobby? As you all know, tennis is a game of Match-ups and Federer's game does not match up well with Nalbandian's and Nadal's. Just because someone can beat Federer most of the time does not mean they are the best. To be the best you must be able to beat ALL players on any given day...and you have to do it CONSISTENTLY throughout the season, and that is exactly why Federer is No.1. Just look at Nadal, he's no.2...won 3 slams, quite a few AMS titles and he has a losing record against Blake...does that mean that Blake would have won slams if he tried? Case closed.

Take your logic somewhere else. This is a RFK thread for God's sake. :rolleyes:

;)

Nathaliia
11-03-2007, 12:37 AM
In the matches Nalbandian didn't win, he didn't try/bother. What is your point proving otherwise, against the thread's title drift?

FSRteam
11-03-2007, 12:51 AM
In the matches Nalbandian didn't win, he didn't try/bother. What is your point proving otherwise, against the thread's title drift?

What do you mean exactly?
Please speak english cause it is not really clear what you're trying to say... :rolleyes:

The Oracle
11-12-2007, 07:45 AM
None
1. Federer would never win Wimbledon
2. thus he will never win US Open
3. thus he will never be No. 1
4. see #1

Adler
11-12-2007, 07:53 AM
Let's make another question : how many would Nadal win, huh? ;)

FedFan_2007
11-12-2007, 08:13 AM
Well, the big question is how many tainted Roland Garros trophies has Nadal won? After all, he beat a doper in 2005. 2006 was tainted because of the heat(it got to Roger), and 2007 was really tainted because Roger choked 1/17 on breakpoints. All tainted GS wins. The evil buttpicker is really horrible for tennis and I can't wait until he's brought down by superior talent!

*Blaze - I'm just being sarcastic.

Fedex
11-12-2007, 09:43 AM
Nalbandian would have won 25 grand slams and the Ego King would be fortunate to win even a single grand slam.

FedFan_2007
11-12-2007, 10:16 AM
Nalbandian would have won 25 grand slams and the Ego King would be fortunate to win even a single grand slam.

Wow 25 Grand Slams = 100 slams. That is impressive. :eek: :eek: :eek:

jasmin
11-12-2007, 02:43 PM
You know, even if Nalbandian had 12-0 H2H winning record against Federer he still would not have won any slams. Many people on this board confuse BEATING THE BEST with BEING THE BEST. He did not win any slams cause he wasn't good enough, NOT BECAUSE HE DID NOT TRY. That suggestion is laughable. He didn't try? What the hell was he doing then? Playing professional tennis as a hobby? As you all know, tennis is a game of Match-ups and Federer's game does not match up well with Nalbandian's and Nadal's. Just because someone can beat Federer most of the time does not mean they are the best. To be the best you must be able to beat ALL players on any given day...and you have to do it CONSISTENTLY throughout the season, and that is exactly why Federer is No.1. Just look at Nadal, he's no.2...won 3 slams, quite a few AMS titles and he has a losing record against Blake...does that mean that Blake would have won slams if he tried? Case closed.

Wow...I agree. I like Blake but there's no way I would put in on Nadal's level...certainly not mentally and when it comes to fighting.

RagingLamb
11-12-2007, 02:52 PM
0 - 1

good_gambler
11-12-2007, 03:32 PM
Federer would still be eating bagels for breakfast at Grand Slams. :)

0

r2473
11-12-2007, 04:40 PM
Zero.

Nalbandian would have 17 and would be the GOAT.

It's common knowledge.

This is wrong.

Fed would have zero, Nalby would have 3, but SAFIN would have 35. Everyone on MTF knows that if Safin tries he wins everything.