I Didn't Realize Nalbandian Only Have 5 Titles!! [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

I Didn't Realize Nalbandian Only Have 5 Titles!!

victory1
09-30-2006, 05:50 PM
I was in a conference call at work to follow a meeting that I could not physically attend; since I was sitting in front of my computer, I went to the ATP website. I noticed now they have the Race Rankings on the home page, so I started clicking on the names. When I got to David, it says he had 5 single titles!:eek: For some reason, I thought he had between 15-20 titles (just not big titles, except for the Master's Cup). I'm sure a lot of you already know this but for me this come as a shock!

robinhood
09-30-2006, 05:57 PM
I know.
The big ones he can't win because he chokes, the smaller ones he doesn't bother too much to show up for.

Hard to win anything.

GlennMirnyi
09-30-2006, 06:04 PM
I was in a conference call at work to follow a meeting that I could not physically attend; since I was sitting in front of my computer, I went to the ATP website. I noticed now they have the Race Rankings on the home page, so I started clicking on the names. When I got to David, it says he had 5 single titles!:eek: For some reason, I thought he had between 15-20 titles (just not big titles, except for the Master's Cup). I'm sure a lot of you already know this but for me this come as a shock!

I can see by your post that you're shocked, but it's true. You can't expect much more from a choker, right?

Hendu
09-30-2006, 06:50 PM
I can see by your post that you're shocked, but it's true. You can't expect much more from a choker, right?

Well, you can expect semis in the four Grand Slams... how many active players did that? ;)

zicofirol
09-30-2006, 07:21 PM
Well, you can expect semis in the four Grand Slams... how many active players did that? ;)

I bet he will trade all those 4 SF's for 1 GS win.

DrJules
09-30-2006, 07:23 PM
Well, you can expect semis in the four Grand Slams... how many active players did that? ;)

Yes.

But should he have not done better in a number of those semi-finals?

Hendu
09-30-2006, 07:27 PM
Yes.

But should he have not done better in a number of those semi-finals?

Of course, he should have won Grand Slams already, and much much more than 5 titles...

But he has to focus only on tennis to do that. And it doesn't seem thats going to happen.

:shrug:

Melvins
09-30-2006, 07:31 PM
2003 + 2004 = 0 titles :rolleyes:

he deserves more than 5 titles.

Hendu
09-30-2006, 07:33 PM
I bet he will trade all those 4 SF's for 1 GS win.

Its 4 semis and one final. And also 5 quarterfinals, I think.

shotgun
09-30-2006, 07:35 PM
As for the big titles, I wouldn't blame it solely on choking but also on his lack of fitness. It's not a secret that he doesn't work hard enough for a top player, so no matter how talented he is, it's too much to expect of him to be fit enough to win seven best-of-5 sets matches in a row.

Hendu
09-30-2006, 07:38 PM
As for the big titles, I wouldn't blame it solely on choking but also on his lack of fitness. It's not a secret that he doesn't work hard enough for a top player, so no matter how talented he is, it's too much to expect of him to be fit enough to win seven best-of-5 sets matches in a row.

Yes, thats what I meant when I wrote that he had to focus only in tennis.

BlackSilver
09-30-2006, 07:46 PM
He won't win many titles, but I bet he will still win some important tournaments in the future and thus, not being such underachiever

GlennMirnyi
09-30-2006, 07:56 PM
Well, you can expect semis in the four Grand Slams... how many active players did that? ;)

That only proves my point, fella. 4 SF, 1 F and... no title.

bluefork
09-30-2006, 07:58 PM
He's definitely an underachiever. He doesn't have any blaring holes in his game, and he's done well on every surface. Yet he hasn't got much to show for it.

But he deserves a Grand Slam title as much or more than several players that have gotten them in the past few years.

Jim Jones
09-30-2006, 08:07 PM
I am not a fan of the chap but I don't call the Masters title that he won minor.

GlennMirnyi
09-30-2006, 08:10 PM
I am not a fan of the chap but I don't call the Masters title that he won minor.

When his title came from winning against a Federer who had left the wheelchair one week before the tournament, then it is.

jayjay
09-30-2006, 08:14 PM
He won't win many titles, but I bet he will still win some important tournaments in the future and thus, not being such underachiever

Agreed. :)

bluefork
09-30-2006, 08:20 PM
When his title came from winning against a Federer who had left the wheelchair one week before the tournament, then it is.

But by that logic, pretty much any title not won by Federer or Nadal is minor. That includes Robredo's title in Hamburg, Berdych's title in Paris, Roddick's title in Cincy, etc. I mean, when Federer and Nadal are both at full health, nobody else has a chance to win a tournament. Does this mean we should we just blow these other winners off? I don't think that's quite fair. Nalbandian did beat other top 10 players to win TMC, so he deserves credit for that.

GlennMirnyi
09-30-2006, 08:26 PM
But by that logic, pretty much any title not won by Federer or Nadal is minor. That includes Robredo's title in Hamburg, Berdych's title in Paris, Roddick's title in Cincy, etc. I mean, when Federer and Nadal are both at full health, nobody else has a chance to win a tournament. Does this mean we should we just blow these other winners off? I don't think that's quite fair. Nalbandian did beat other top 10 players to win TMC, so he deserves credit for that.

That TMC was a joke. I think the #14 played or something like that. PUERTA PLAYED THERE. That pretty much sums it up.

No. Nadal's only a favorite on clay. Outside it, I would never bet money in him winning a tournament.

I'm not saying that a tournament without Federer isn't worth. It's worth, but it's usual that he misses some tournaments, that's one thing. Another thing is winning against a guy that was in a wheelchair one week before the tournament.

bluefork
09-30-2006, 08:37 PM
That TMC was a joke. I think the #14 played or something like that. PUERTA PLAYED THERE. That pretty much sums it up.

No. Nadal's only a favorite on clay. Outside it, I would never bet money in him winning a tournament.

I'm not saying that a tournament without Federer isn't worth. It's worth, but it's usual that he misses some tournaments, that's one thing. Another thing is winning against a guy that was in a wheelchair one week before the tournament.

Winning a tournament by beating an injured Federer in the final or winning a tournament that Federer didn't play...is the first less impressive than the second? No, I don't think so.

And why do you think so little of Nadal? He's obviously better on clay than any other surface, but he beat Federer to win Dubai and he beat Agassi to win Montreal. That's pretty impressive. He's not "only a favorite on clay."

Seneca
09-30-2006, 08:40 PM
Well so far Dave has only one optional tournament this year (Estoril, which he happened to win) and I don't remember him playing more than 20 tournaments in any year after his breakthrough in 2002. The ones he plays are the Masters and Grand Slams which are hideously hard to win in.

But yeah, should have more. Even more blaring titles/talent disparity, I think, is with Seb Grosjean: a distinguished career spanning 10 years, peaked as #4 in the ranking and only 3 titles to his name. One of AMS Paris.

shotgun
09-30-2006, 08:44 PM
But yeah, should have more. Even more blaring titles/talent disparity, I think, is with Seb Grosjean: a distinguished career spanning 10 years, peaked as #4 in the ranking and only 3 titles to his name. One of AMS Paris.

I agree. Though Grosjean has a poor record in finals (3-9).

GlennMirnyi
09-30-2006, 08:57 PM
Winning a tournament by beating an injured Federer in the final or winning a tournament that Federer didn't play...is the first less impressive than the second? No, I don't think so.

And why do you think so little of Nadal? He's obviously better on clay than any other surface, but he beat Federer to win Dubai and he beat Agassi to win Montreal. That's pretty impressive. He's not "only a favorite on clay."

Yes he is. Dubai was luck and Montreal is as slow as a HC can be. This year's Toronto and Cincinatti showed pretty well how good he is outside clay.

Hendu
09-30-2006, 09:26 PM
That TMC was a joke. I think the #14 played or something like that. PUERTA PLAYED THERE. That pretty much sums it up.

No. Nadal's only a favorite on clay. Outside it, I would never bet money in him winning a tournament.

I'm not saying that a tournament without Federer isn't worth. It's worth, but it's usual that he misses some tournaments, that's one thing. Another thing is winning against a guy that was in a wheelchair one week before the tournament.

If Federer was as unfit as you said, he wouldn't have played... and more, he wouldn't have got to the final.

Nalbandian road to his masters cup:

Lost to Federer 6-3 2-6 6-4
Def. Coria 7-5 6-4
Def. Ljubicic 6-2 6-2
Def. Davydenko 6-0 7-5
Def. Federer 67(4) 67(11) 62 61 76(3)

All of them top ten.

Gulliver
09-30-2006, 10:40 PM
But he deserves a Grand Slam title as much or more than several players that have gotten them in the past few years.

I'm always curious when someone says a player deserves a title, especially about a total waste of time like Nalbandian, fat Dave, a pain both on and off the court, who has proved by his less than committed approach to tennis on the ATP tour that he certainly doesn't deserve anything, including respect.

DDrago2
09-30-2006, 10:54 PM
Nalbandian is one of the best in not letting you win; but he simply doesn't have the real wish and flare to win himself!

Hendu
09-30-2006, 11:10 PM
I'm always curious when someone says a player deserves a title, especially about a total waste of time like Nalbandian, fat Dave, a pain both on and off the court, who has proved by his less than committed approach to tennis on the ATP tour that he certainly doesn't deserve anything, including respect.

If he doesn't want to give everything he has to tennis, its fine. Its his choice... if he is happy that way, then good for him.

total waste of time?

for you maybe, but for me he is a great player to watch.

doesn't deserve respect?

He does deserve respect, as any other player.

:rolleyes:

musefanatic
09-30-2006, 11:10 PM
I was surprised when I read this thread title as I assumed he's won more than this! Of course the masters was like, wow!!!! But still 5 is quite a lean amount but then Ljubicic hasn't won that many either has he, i always thought it would be the guys in the top 10 having loads of titles but it's not really the case is it

wcr
09-30-2006, 11:26 PM
That drop shot choice and error on match point against Safin at this year's USO tells you a lot about Nalbandian.

bluefork
09-30-2006, 11:39 PM
I'm always curious when someone says a player deserves a title, especially about a total waste of time like Nalbandian, fat Dave, a pain both on and off the court, who has proved by his less than committed approach to tennis on the ATP tour that he certainly doesn't deserve anything, including respect.

I knew someone would take issue with the word "deserve." But really, Nalbandian's a better player than say, Gaston Gaudio, and yet he doesn't have a Grand Slam title and Gaudio does. Yeah, Gaudio had two good weeks in 2004 when he won the title (although he was a bit fortunate in the final), but Nalbandian has had a more successful career outside of that, and it seems to me that if someone like Gaudio can win a GS title, then Nalbandian should be able to win one too.

shotgun
09-30-2006, 11:59 PM
But still 5 is quite a lean amount but then Ljubicic hasn't won that many either has he, i always thought it would be the guys in the top 10 having loads of titles but it's not really the case is it

Ljubicic has won 5 as well. He's somewhat the king of indoor Mickey-Mouse tourneys.

Winston's Human
10-01-2006, 03:38 AM
I was surprised when I read this thread title as I assumed he's won more than this! Of course the masters was like, wow!!!! But still 5 is quite a lean amount but then Ljubicic hasn't won that many either has he, i always thought it would be the guys in the top 10 having loads of titles but it's not really the case is it

Only three of the current top 10 players are have reached double digits in titles - Federer (41), Roddick (21) & Nadal (17).

In fact, only six other men in the current top 100 players have reached double digit status - Hewitt, Moya, Safin, Ferrero, Henman and Haas.

It is quite remarkable how many top players have not won very many titles.

TennisGrandSlam
10-01-2006, 04:04 AM
Its 4 semis and one final. And also 5 quarterfinals, I think.


Wimbledon 2002 F
US Open 2003 SF
Roland Garros 2004 SF
Australian Open 2006 SF
Roland Garros 2006 SF


It is wonderful that he always meets Federer but never meet Nadal.

Havok
10-01-2006, 04:25 AM
Fat Dave :sad::hug:. Definitely a hell of a lot better than his titles resume shows :o. IT was said before, Nalbandian doesn't seem to care for the smaller titles, and in the long run that hurts him when he plays in tournaments that really count. Not only does he choke the chicken in those tournaments but the lack of play, confidence etc gained from playing and winning these smaller events hurts him in that way. INcredibly talented, but oh so fucked up in the head. Doesn't that remind you of a certain someone (s)?;)

Havok
10-01-2006, 04:27 AM
Wimbledon 2002 F
US Open 2003 SF
Roland Garros 2004 SF
Australian Open 2006 SF
Roland Garros 2006 SF


It is wonderful that he always meets Federer but never meet Nadal.

With his h2h record vs Federer, that really shouldn't be pointed to as the sole propblem. Also Nadal realy only shows up at Roland Garros in terms of the Grand Slams (that WImbledon finals run was such an insane fluke and I doubt we'll ever see him do it again or even reach the semis or something :o) and also he's only played the AO once (injured this year) so give him some time and maybe Dave will finally avoid Fed until the finals this time and lose there rather than the semis.:lol:;)

Halba
10-01-2006, 04:41 AM
roga practically arrived on crutches to the TMC:scratch: . And he still extended it to a 5 set match , and beat nalby in the RR in a tight 3 setter. :dog:

Jaffas85
10-01-2006, 04:52 AM
What position was Nalbandian in the RACE last year just before the TMC was due to begin?

How many players had to drop out for him to be able to be accepted?


BTW, How likely do you all think it is that Nalbandian will qualify within the top 8 this year?

atheneglaukopis
10-01-2006, 05:33 AM
How many players had to drop out for him to be able to be accepted?OTOH, 3, because I remember he replaced Roddick, who I know withdrew before Nadal and Agassi and after Safin, and I believe after Hewitt. Someone correct me if my memory is faulty.

marti_228
10-01-2006, 05:34 AM
He actually entered the TMC because of the withdrawls of Roddick and Hewitt.

Breakdown
10-01-2006, 08:36 AM
If he doesn't want to give everything he has to tennis, its fine. Its his choice... if he is happy that way, then good for him.

total waste of time?

for you maybe, but for me he is a great player to watch.

doesn't deserve respect?

He does deserve respect, as any other player.

So true!!

David is a GREAT :bowdown: :clap2: :bigclap: :bigwave: player to watch:angel:
His drop shot on a mp against Safin at the UO2006 doesn't sum it up at all :eek:
He's definitely one of the most talented out there; frankly, i'm unaware of what his problems are(fitness, lack of match practice, nerves, whatever) but i'm sure he'll win many titles during his career(unless he quits this :mad: fu**ing sport), just give him time!
He's "only" 24,no?

DrJules
10-01-2006, 08:42 AM
Ljubicic has won 5 as well. He's somewhat the king of indoor Mickey-Mouse tourneys.

During 2004 and 2005 it has been difficult for anyone not called Federer & Nadal to win a Grand Slam or master series; 7 out of 8 grand slams by one or other and 13 out of the 16 master series by one or other and 1 out of 2 year end masters.

Jaffas85
10-01-2006, 09:01 AM
I just checked the ATP site and have just realised how tentative Nalbandian's position is in the RACE to the TMC.

Nalbandian is currently at #7 on 370 points while Baghdatis and Blake are only 1 - 3 points below him.

I hope both Baghdatis and Blake qualify, nobody in the top 8 withdraws because of injury, and Nalbandian loses all of his TMC points from last year.

It would be fitting.

TennisGrandSlam
10-01-2006, 09:20 AM
see see Jan Kodes had only 8 single titles :

Roland Garros 70

Catania 71

Roland Garros 71

Barcelona 72

Cologne WCT 73

Wimbledon 73

Madrid 75

Basel 76

Boris Franz Ecker
10-01-2006, 09:24 AM
Yes.

But should he have not done better in a number of those semi-finals?

He should 've won at least three of them.

yomike
10-01-2006, 10:26 AM
roga practically arrived on crutches to the TMC . And he still extended it to a 5 set match , and beat nalby in the RR in a tight 3 setter.

Really:o I never realize Federer was disabled at that time. He must have gone to Lourdes or something because I swear when I saw him play in the final he could walk:eek: .

joyk
10-01-2006, 11:44 AM
Nalbandian is one of the best in not letting you win; but he simply doesn't have the real wish and flare to win himself!
That pretty much sums it up.His body isn`t the problem,he`s surprisingly resistant for his size and he isn`t a choker either he`s not intimidated by his opponents(you don`t defeat a player like Federer if you`re scared of him).In fact many times the problem is that he`s overconfident,he thinks he`s going to win before he enteres the court, that`s why players who have less talent in their entire body than he has in his fat belly whipe the floor with him.

Gulliver
10-01-2006, 11:56 AM
I just checked the ATP site and have just realised how tentative Nalbandian's position is in the RACE to the TMC.

Nalbandian is currently at #7 on 370 points while Baghdatis and Blake are only 1 - 3 points below him.

I hope both Baghdatis and Blake qualify, nobody in the top 8 withdraws because of injury, and Nalbandian loses all of his TMC points from last year.

It would be fitting.

Yes, it looks tentative, but he has only 1 countable best of 5 tournament, so can pick up points from Vienna (Oct 9th) and whatever he plays Oct 23 + anything from Madrid and Paris. Some of the others will need to go deep in their remaining tournaments to earn extra.

But I agree with your wish that he loses his TMC points which have helped him to be a travesty in the top 10.

canbera
10-01-2006, 12:55 PM
overall I would say he is a great player, and he pretty much showed that in last year's TMC final against Roger Federer. You won't need to agree with me, but in my opinion it's quite impressive to come back from a 6/7 6/7, two sets to love deficit and win the match.

his problems are both his attitude and fitness.

he doesn't do enough to have success in Masters Series events and Grand Slams, which are obviously his goals since he doesn't play too many of the "smaller" tournaments. Estoril is the only exception for this year, and he won that one.

Here is just one example - Roger Federer comes to Halle every single year before Wimbledon, and David doesn't seem to think that it's necessary to prepare for the big events.

After Estoril, I actually had a good feeling he could get far at RG... He makes it to the Semi's, and here we are back at the Fitness factor.

He should have beaten Roger Federer in straight sets, but his body stopped him.
You know, either his body or his head ( his loss against Fernando Verdasco at Wimbledon was simply shameful ) stops him.

leng jai
10-01-2006, 01:16 PM
He wanted to lose quickly so he could go home and watch Argentina in the World Cup. Haas did the same :D

Jaffas85
10-01-2006, 01:49 PM
Yes, it looks tentative, but he has only 1 countable best of 5 tournament, so can pick up points from Vienna (Oct 9th) and whatever he plays Oct 23 + anything from Madrid and Paris. Some of the others will need to go deep in their remaining tournaments to earn extra.

But I agree with your wish that he loses his TMC points which have helped him to be a travesty in the top 10.

If he does badly for the rest of the year and doesn't qualify for the TMC he should fall to about #12 which is would be interesting.

TennisGrandSlam
10-01-2006, 02:01 PM
I didn't realize Guillermo Vilas won 16 singles titles (including Roland Garros and US Open) and was 6 singles runners-up (including Australian Open in January) in 1977, but never been NO.1. It is ridiculous that Jimmy Connors, who won 7 singles titles and was runners-up of Wimbledon and US Open, was Year-End NO. 1 in 1977.

Argentine guy are always unlucky!

stebs
10-01-2006, 02:26 PM
Yes, it looks tentative, but he has only 1 countable best of 5 tournament, so can pick up points from Vienna (Oct 9th) and whatever he plays Oct 23 + anything from Madrid and Paris. Some of the others will need to go deep in their remaining tournaments to earn extra.

But I agree with your wish that he loses his TMC points which have helped him to be a travesty in the top 10.

The race only counts points from this year. What you have to defend makes absolutely no difference to the race. Everyone can pick up the same amount of points.

Peoples
10-01-2006, 02:32 PM
I was in a conference call at work to follow a meeting that I could not physically attend; since I was sitting in front of my computer, I went to the ATP website. I noticed now they have the Race Rankings on the home page, so I started clicking on the names. When I got to David, it says he had 5 single titles!:eek: For some reason, I thought he had between 15-20 titles (just not big titles, except for the Master's Cup). I'm sure a lot of you already know this but for me this come as a shock!
What has this conference call got to do with this?:confused:

DrJules
10-01-2006, 02:42 PM
I didn't realize Guillermo Vilas won 16 singles titles (including Roland Garros and US Open) and was 6 singles runners-up (including Australian Open in January) in 1977, but never been NO.1. It is ridiculous that Jimmy Connors, who won 7 singles titles and was runners-up of Wimbledon and US Open, was Year-End NO. 1 in 1977.

Argentine guy are always unlucky!

Feed a computer with rubbish and it will give rubbish information. Does anyone know how the computer calculated rankings then? Using certainly the current points system, and certainly the one before it, Vilas would have ended the year number 1 by a clear margin.

Gulliver
10-01-2006, 03:29 PM
The race only counts points from this year. What you have to defend makes absolutely no difference to the race. Everyone can pick up the same amount of points.


I know that :) What I am hoping is that he doesn't qualify for TMC so that the 650 points for winning it last year fall off his ATP ranking, because that's helped him to stay top 10 ATP ranking - a travesty. (I wasn't referring to the race!)

tripb19
10-01-2006, 04:44 PM
I think Safin fans would know why we love supporting the biggest headcases in the game.

Generator
10-01-2006, 04:49 PM
When his title came from winning against a Federer who had left the wheelchair one week before the tournament, then it is.

Your friend Ljubicic wasn't able to defeat poor crippled Federer. And he was humilliated by Nalbandian in the next match. :wavey:

DrJules
10-01-2006, 06:56 PM
Yes, it looks tentative, but he has only 1 countable best of 5 tournament, so can pick up points from Vienna (Oct 9th) and whatever he plays Oct 23 + anything from Madrid and Paris. Some of the others will need to go deep in their remaining tournaments to earn extra.

But I agree with your wish that he loses his TMC points which have helped him to be a travesty in the top 10.

That gives him a massive advantage.

Many players in the top 10 can only now make minimal gains outside the Madrid and Paris masters. Nalbandian can score from both masters and any points he accumulates in optionals. If he plays he is almost certain to reach masters.

Julio1974
10-01-2006, 10:13 PM
Yes, it looks tentative, but he has only 1 countable best of 5 tournament, so can pick up points from Vienna (Oct 9th) and whatever he plays Oct 23 + anything from Madrid and Paris. Some of the others will need to go deep in their remaining tournaments to earn extra.

But I agree with your wish that he loses his TMC points which have helped him to be a travesty in the top 10.

a travesty in the top 10????This forum is so funny: at the beginning of the year some people thought he could challenge Federer and now others are saying he does not even belong to the top 10...

ufokart
10-02-2006, 02:59 AM
But I agree with your wish that he loses his TMC points which have helped him to be a travesty in the top 10.

Yeah, he reached 2 grand slam semifinals this year and he is a travesty in the top 10 :rolleyes: :lol:

TennisGrandSlam
10-02-2006, 07:27 AM
Feed a computer with rubbish and it will give rubbish information. Does anyone know how the computer calculated rankings then? Using certainly the current points system, and certainly the one before it, Vilas would have ended the year number 1 by a clear margin.


Vilas in 1977

http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?query=Singles&year=1977&player=V028&selTournament=0&prevtrnnum=0

Australian Open (Jan.) : F
Roland Garros : W
Wimbledon : R32
US Open : W
Australian Open (Dec.) : DNP
Masters : SF

Titles / Runners-up : 16 / 6
Win-Loss : 128-14
Year-End Ranking : 2




Connors in 1977

http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?query=Singles&year=1977&player=C044&selTournament=0&prevtrnnum=0

Australian Open (Jan.) : DNP
Roland Garros : DNP
Wimbledon : F
US Open : F
Australian Open (Dec.) : DNP
Masters : W

Titles / Runners-up : 7/ 6
Win-Loss : 66-13
Year-End Ranking : 1

Flibbertigibbet
10-02-2006, 07:30 AM
Wow, it seems amazing that Vilas wouldn't have been ranked number one. Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't the rankings determined by taking the average result of each tournament?

TennisGrandSlam
10-02-2006, 07:31 AM
Wow, it seems amazing that Vilas wouldn't have been ranked number one. Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't the rankings determined by taking the average result of each tournament?

I think this was an ATP scandal, half of Vilas achievement in 1977 > Connors achievement in 1977. Because ATP was dominated by American at that time. :mad:

Action Jackson
10-02-2006, 07:31 AM
Wow, it seems amazing that Vilas wouldn't have been ranked number one. Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't the rankings determined by taking the average result of each tournament?

Yes, it was a joke how the rankings were done then. It was done on the average system.

sawan66278
10-02-2006, 03:16 PM
That HAS to be the greatest travesty in the history of tennis...it makes the women's rankings look like pure science!!!

David's tourney total just goes to show how hard it is to win titles on the tour...but then again, he has had bad fortune and underachieved at times...

And forget convincing GlennMirnyi about Rafa...even though Rafa won on an indoor surface last year for another Master's title...some guys you cannot convince, so it is not even worth trying...

alfonsojose
10-02-2006, 05:31 PM
David Dementiev :tape: At least, she cares a bit more :rolleyes:

TennisGrandSlam
10-02-2006, 05:33 PM
David Dementiev :tape: At least, she cares a bit more :rolleyes:


I world rather Coria-Dementiev :rolleyes: (Their terribly non-powerful serve)

GlennMirnyi
10-02-2006, 05:47 PM
Gulliver said it very well earlier. The player that deserve a win actually does what it takes to get the win, justifying that.

Gaudio has more weapons than Nalbandian. He shouldn't have won RG, because Coria was so much better at the time, but at least he didn't choked like Nalbandian does all the time. Gaudio's problem is that he has some huge mental issues.

Hendu
10-02-2006, 05:53 PM
Gulliver said it very well earlier. The player that deserve a win actually does what it takes to get the win, justifying that.

Gaudio has more weapons than Nalbandian. He shouldn't have won RG, because Coria was so much better at the time, but at least he didn't choked like Nalbandian does all the time. Gaudio's problem is that he has some huge mental issues.

:eek:

Are you saying a moonballer like Gaudio has more weapons than a Wimbledon finalist?

;)

GlennMirnyi
10-02-2006, 06:02 PM
:eek:

Are you saying a moonballer like Gaudio has more weapons than a Wimbledon finalist?

;)

Gaudio's not a moonballer, my boy. ;)

alfonsojose
10-02-2006, 06:13 PM
I world rather Coria-Dementiev :rolleyes: (Their terribly non-powerful serve)

But LenaD's groundies are way better, both are blonde and both are Yonex. And LenaD plays well on most surfaces :D

Bad Religion
10-02-2006, 06:19 PM
But LenaD's groundies are way better, both are blonde and both are Yonex. And LenaD plays well on most surfaces :D


:D :D :worship: :worship:


Lena is gorgeous ... another difference

NyGeL
10-03-2006, 11:55 PM
Nalbandian has a lot of $ and he won the TMC. I think he don't even care about winning a grand slam, but he really want to win Davis Cup.

It wouldn't surprise me if he decides to retire after winning Davis Cup (if we win) at the end of the year.

Last week, I heard Chucho Acasuso saying (at Zabaleta and Chela's tv show) that he will retire in 2009.

Hendu
10-04-2006, 01:24 AM
Nalbandian has a lot of $ and he won the TMC. I think he don't even care about winning a grand slam, but he really want to win Davis Cup.

It wouldn't surprise me if he decides to retire after winning Davis Cup (if we win) at the end of the year.

Last week, I heard Chucho Acasuso saying (at Zabaleta and Chela's tv show) that he will retire in 2009.

I heard that too, I hope he wasn't being serious.

shotgun
10-04-2006, 04:26 AM
Last week, I heard Chucho Acasuso saying (at Zabaleta and Chela's tv show) that he will retire in 2009.

Who? Chucho or Nalbandian?

Hendu
10-04-2006, 12:22 PM
Who? Chucho or Nalbandian?

Chucho :awww:

But it was on "Tenis Pro", so I really don't know if he was talking serious... Although it did sound serious. Given his personality, I wouldn't be surprised if he did that. Anyway, we have at least a couple of seasons to enjoy his game.