How Do We Know that Nalbandian is So Talented?? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

How Do We Know that Nalbandian is So Talented??

Gabe32
05-25-2011, 06:48 PM
I have heard this hundreds of times on MTF. "Richard Gasquet/David Nalbandian/Whoever has as much/more talent than Federer"

Even if you do not believe this, does anybody understand how people know this?

The only quantifiable way of measuring talent to me is results. Federer has 16 slams. Gasquet + Nalbandian (x1323023) = 0 slams.

It is very possible that Nalbandian and Gasquet have more talent than Federer in tennis ... but for all we know, so do I, right? I have never taken a formal tennis lesson, who is to say I do not have more natural/undeveloped talent than Federer. For that matter, Lebron James would probably be very talented at tennis if he started playing at the same age as Federer.

So, the question is: On what grounds do people measure talent other than by results? It is not as though Nalbandian and Gasquet are skipping the slams or anything. They are there too, and probably trying very hard during them.

solowyn
05-25-2011, 06:51 PM
Playing tennis and trying and miserably failing to imitate anything they do best :p

Lleyton_
05-25-2011, 06:54 PM
Because he is.

r2473
05-25-2011, 07:10 PM
The only quantifiable way of measuring talent to me is results.

Results? pffft......how bourgeois.

Going by that standard, we'd have to say Nadal is talented. Absurd.

Sofonda Cox
05-25-2011, 07:11 PM
Depends on the size of his tits.

Platypu$
05-25-2011, 07:12 PM
are you on drugs?

oranges
05-25-2011, 07:12 PM
Take an anti-tard pill and chill

Gabe32
05-25-2011, 07:15 PM
Thanks guys. I guess this is what you get on an internet message board.

MaxPower
05-25-2011, 07:16 PM
I have heard this hundreds of times on MTF. "Richard Gasquet/David Nalbandian/Whoever has as much/more talent than Federer"

Even if you do not believe this, does anybody understand how people know this?

The only quantifiable way of measuring talent to me is results. Federer has 16 slams. Gasquet + Nalbandian (x1323023) = 0 slams.

It is very possible that Nalbandian and Gasquet have more talent than Federer in tennis ... but for all we know, so do I, right? I have never taken a formal tennis lesson, who is to say I do not have more natural/undeveloped talent than Federer. For that matter, Lebron James would probably be very talented at tennis if he started playing at the same age as Federer.

So, the question is: On what grounds do people measure talent other than by results? It is not as though Nalbandian and Gasquet are skipping the slams or anything. They are there too, and probably trying very hard during them.

What about actually watching the players play the game? Could that give something? Maybe look at things like how cleanly they strike the ball, how they can use their FH/BH at different spots in the court. How they hit winners and what type of winners. How their "feel" for the ball looks at dropshots, volleyshots etc. Lots of things to look at even if you never played tennis yourself (Like I have, not on top level though) but then even the commentators make a lot of good points during matches about "talent".

I'd would be insane to say that guys like Nalbandian, Safin (and maybe a little Gasquet, never that sold on him, mostly that crazy good BH) aren't insanely talented and should have done better results. Why they didn't doesn't necessarily have to do with talent...

rubbERR
05-25-2011, 07:17 PM
He eats like elephant and is still top 25, that surely tells enough, he should ask food tips mr.Djokovic

homogenius
05-25-2011, 07:19 PM
A mess

Gabe32
05-25-2011, 07:21 PM
What about actually watching the players play the game? Could that give something? Maybe look at things like how cleanly they strike the ball, how they can use their FH/BH at different spots in the court. How they hit winners and what type of winners. How their "feel" for the ball looks at dropshots, volleyshots etc. Lots of things to look at even if you never played tennis yourself (Like I have, not on top level though) but then even the commentators make a lot of good points during matches about "talent".

I'd would be insane to say that guys like Nalbandian, Safin (and maybe a little Gasquet, never that sold on him, mostly that crazy good BH) aren't insanely talented and should have done better results. Why they didn't doesn't necessarily have to do with talent...

So you are arguing for aesthetics/technique? I would not consider Nadal aesthetically pleasing or as having the best technique (at least in the traditional sense). But if someone asked me who is more talented, Nadal or Safin, I would say Nadal in a heartbeat.

FiBeR
05-25-2011, 07:22 PM
Results are a meassure for greatness but not for talent.
You cannot be taught to measure talent, it's like art a bit. Appreciation is up to you. You can give out tips but it is you who have the final call.

If you appreciate art/talent, it is up to your own capacity of doing so. I can give you thousands of youtube examples of his talent but if you do not know how to appreciate talent, then its useless.

Picture explaining red to a blind folk... that's what you are asking. You have to see to understand what's red and how does it look like.

abraxas21
05-25-2011, 07:23 PM
he's talented but he's not nearly as talented as the MTF nalbytard brigade (=80% of MTF) would like you to believe.

to say his talent is on par with olderer's is an insult to the game of tennis

Gabe32
05-25-2011, 07:26 PM
Results are a meassure for greatness but not for talent.
You cannot be taught to measure talent, it's like art a bit. Appreciation is up to you. You can give out tips but it is you who have the final call.

If you appreciate art/talent, it is up to your own capacity of doing so. I can give you thousands of youtube examples of his talent but if you do not know how to appreciate talent, then its useless.

Picture explaining red to a blind folk... that's what you are asking. You have to see to understand what's red and how does it look like.

I think I understand what you are saying, but at times it seems like a cop-out. It is too subjective and too easy of a way to end an argument.

If Nalbandian is that much more talented than Federer, or even is equal... what the HELL has he been doing. He can't be that much of a headcase.

MaxPower
05-25-2011, 07:26 PM
So you are arguing for aesthetics/technique? I would not consider Nadal aesthetically pleasing or as having the best technique (at least in the traditional sense). But if someone asked me who is more talented, Nadal or Safin, I would say Nadal in a heartbeat.

Yes partly. But more maximum potential. How many weapons could the player have? Just to take Nalbandian his BH was way more lethal than Federers. His FH and movement possibly in the same ballpark. His body however didn't hold up really.

There are so many other things that affect your results than talent.

Examples:

Your lifestyle
Injuries
Coaching choices

r2473
05-25-2011, 07:27 PM
Please consult the dictionary:

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=142600

Talent:
~noun
1. A quality that allows a player to being better than the rest, despite the number of matches which that player doesn’t win. [i.e: “Pete Sampras won 14 slams but Jean Luc Rodriguez-Hillbilly (sorry, who?) had insane loads of talent”]
2. Ability of making smooth-motioned and good-looking shots, no matter if a high percentage of those shots happens to send the ball to the parking lot.

Talented player:
~noun
1. Favourite player (of a specific MTF poster) who doesn’t win as much as that specific MTF poster would like to, but he’s still better than the rest.
2. Favourite player (of a specific MTF poster) who once did beat a big name, so he proved his superiority for ever and never and that won’t change no matter how many bagels he eats from big names in the future.

Headcase:
~noun
1. Talented player who smashes rackets.
2. Talented player who gets pissed, depressed or just quits when he´s losing a match, and who could have *clearly* won if he wouldn’t get pissed, depressed or if he wouldn’t quit.
3. Player that never loses a match. He just generously grants the match away.

rofe
05-25-2011, 07:30 PM
Talent is very subjective but if enough people agree that someone has talent then it becomes a generalization.

Think about why you find someone's face beautiful. It is highly subjective but enough people agree, it gets generalized to that person having a beautiful face.

Young 8
05-25-2011, 07:30 PM
So, the question is: On what grounds do people measure talent other than by results? .

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/mar/eye-color-explained/eyes-400.jpg

Gabe32
05-25-2011, 07:34 PM
Results are a meassure for greatness but not for talent.


I also do not know how much I agree with this...

There is obviously some correlation between talent and results.

I also do not really buy the aesthetic argument. Get rid of all of Nalbandian's injuries, make him drop 20 pounds, get him a good coach, whatever excuse you want, etc. etc.

I'll take the proven winner, Federer. He simply out-talents Nalbandian, I think.

I think results are the most quantifiable way to measure talent, though not the only way.

Gabe32
05-25-2011, 07:35 PM
Talent is very subjective but if enough people agree that someone has talent then it becomes a generalization.

Think about why you find someone's face beautiful. It is highly subjective but enough people agree, it gets generalized to that person having a beautiful face.

This I agree with wholeheartedly, but is not a definition of talent, but simply an explanation for the mass-mentality of calling players like Gulbis, Safin, Gasquet and Nalbandian super talented.

It gets repeated so much that people subconsciously accept it without thinking about it.

FiBeR
05-25-2011, 07:35 PM
I think I understand what you are saying, but at times it seems like a cop-out. It is too subjective and too easy of a way to end an argument.

If Nalbandian is that much more talented than Federer, or even is equal... what the HELL has he been doing. He can't be that much of a headcase.

Talent is not the only thing you need to become the best. You need plenty of other things.. you are being simplist

It's not like "Talent = world n1"

he's been injury prone, bad body, not 100% devoted, distracted and reaching #1 was never his goal ....(said it plenty of times since like..forever)

It is you who is meassuring Nalbandian by your standarts when he has different ones.

An example: The guy had hip injury and returned to the circuit scoring wins and competitively after a long break.. you require a lot of talent to play that good that quick. Also look at his DC record.. he wants to win it and he hardly losses no matter who's in front. It's up to motivation and he doesn't care for being the best in history...

don't pay too much attention to what people here will tell you, you should analize the player directly, what he says, how he says it, how he plays and what he can do.

oranges
05-25-2011, 07:36 PM
I think I understand what you are saying, but at times it seems like a cop-out. It is too subjective and too easy of a way to end an argument.

If Nalbandian is that much more talented than Federer, or even is equal... what the HELL has he been doing. He can't be that much of a headcase.

You sound like an absolute dolt. Do you honestly believe talent is the only thing required for success? What planet do you live on? Similarly, regarding your equally simplified-to-the-point-of-absurdity claim that talent=results, it so obviously untrue looking through tennis history, one has to wonder about your thought processes.

Finally, you don't want a discussion. You want a platform to continue raging against imagined 'insult' to more successful players. You got a serious answer, dismissed it in a heart beat and continued on your merry path.

Ultravox
05-25-2011, 07:37 PM
I have heard this hundreds of times on MTF. "Richard Gasquet/David Nalbandian/Whoever has as much/more talent than Federer"

Even if you do not believe this, does anybody understand how people know this?

The only quantifiable way of measuring talent to me is results. Federer has 16 slams. Gasquet + Nalbandian (x1323023) = 0 slams.

It is very possible that Nalbandian and Gasquet have more talent than Federer in tennis ... but for all we know, so do I, right? I have never taken a formal tennis lesson, who is to say I do not have more natural/undeveloped talent than Federer. For that matter, Lebron James would probably be very talented at tennis if he started playing at the same age as Federer.

So, the question is: On what grounds do people measure talent other than by results? It is not as though Nalbandian and Gasquet are skipping the slams or anything. They are there too, and probably trying very hard during them.

You are 100% right. All that bull... about"big talents" (which never won anything) is just nonsense.
Nalbandian is "bigest talent ever", Dimitrov " a new Fed" , blah,blah,blah...

Gabe32
05-25-2011, 07:38 PM
You sound like an absolute dolt. Do you honestly believe talent is the only thing required for success? What planet do you live on? Similarly, regarding your equally simplified-to-the-point-of-absurdity claim that talent=results, it so obviously untrue looking through tennis history, one has to wonder about your thought processes.

Finally, you don't want a discussion. You want a platform to continue raging against imagined 'insult' to more successful players. You got a serious answer, dismissed it in a heart beat and continued on your merry path.

Alright, first of all take it easy "oranges." I know you have 5430250 internet posts, but no use trying to be an internet tough guy. No need in being so confrontational.

I am entirely open for discussion. Nothing I have said/done suggest otherwise. Sorry if I am coming off as preachy, but no one has convinced that these guys are some amazing, undeveloped talent.

SerialKillerToBe
05-25-2011, 07:39 PM
If results measured talent Wozniacki wouldbe the most talented in the women's game.

Gabe32
05-25-2011, 07:40 PM
If results measured talent Wozniacki wouldbe the most talented in the women's game.

How? She has never won a slam.

Serena has 0 movement, and little or no technique ... do you think she is more talented?

FiBeR
05-25-2011, 07:42 PM
I also do not know how much I agree with this...

There is obviously some correlation between talent and results.

I also do not really buy the aesthetic argument. Get rid of all of Nalbandian's injuries, make him drop 20 pounds, get him a good coach, whatever excuse you want, etc. etc.

I'll take the proven winner, Federer. He simply out-talents Nalbandian, I think.

I think results are the most quantifiable way to measure talent, though not the only way.

yet again, as i said before you are judging nalbandian by your aims and your standarts.

If the guy doesnt want to become n1 (he claimed he had no interest a lot of years ago, look up articles, interviews, etc..) why do you insist on comparing him with someone with a different ambition???

he loves rally, girls, golf, futbol and food. Am I missing something? :p i think i am..

what you are saying is that Nalbandian should be judged under Federer's standarts and ambitions or your standarts and ambitions..

oranges
05-25-2011, 07:45 PM
Alright, first of take it easy "oranges." I know you have 5430250 internet posts, but no use trying to be an internet tough guy. No need in being so confrontational.

I am entirely open for discussion. Nothing I have said/done suggest otherwise. Sorry if I am coming off as preachy, but no one has convinced that these guys are some amazing, undeveloped talent.

:rolleyes: Your OP and every subsequent post is written with 'looking-for-a-fight' tone, yet you lecture on not being confrontational. Take the responses you get on the chin. It's what people think about what you had to say and the way in which you say it. BTW, no one has to convince you of anything. No one gives a shit whether you believe it or not.

The Magician
05-25-2011, 07:45 PM
Talent is something you're born with. So it's things like technique, hand eye coordination, ability to pull off difficult/trick shots, movement, peak level, etc. Anyone who saw Nalby at his best can tell he has a lot of raw talent which is inhibited by his fitness, his mentality, injuries, and the slowing down of the courts. Nadull, on the other hand, has very little talent but a very good mentality. As you can see, talent doesn't always translate into results and in the above cases is the opposite of career results.

Federer is so great because he's one of the few players in history with massive talent that everyone could see when he was a teenager who actually got it together mentally and translated that talent into the greatest career of all time (arguable but you get the idea).

Gabe32
05-25-2011, 07:46 PM
yet again, as i said before you are judging nalbandian by your aims and your standarts.

If the guy doesnt want to become n1 (he claimed he had no interest a lot of years ago, look up articles, interviews, etc..) why do you insist on comparing him with someone with a different ambition???

he loves rally, girls, golf, futbol and food. Am I missing something? :p i think i am..

what you are saying is that Nalbandian should be judged under Federer's standarts and ambitions or your standarts and ambitions..

Now that is an interesting argument!

You really think he simply doesn't care that much?? Not wanting to be number 1 doesn't necessarily mean that. 9/10 players would say they would want a slam over a top ranking.

What you said can definitely be true, in that Nalbandian is super talented and simply doesn't try.

But this argument inherently lends itself as an excuse. Saying "Oh yeah, I really didn't give it my all..." every time they lose is cheap.

Gabe32
05-25-2011, 07:49 PM
:rolleyes: Your OP and every subsequent post is written with 'looking-for-a-fight' tone, yet you lecture on not being confrontational. Take the responses you get on the chin. It's what people think about what you had to say and the way in which you say it. BTW, no one has to convince you of anything. No one gives a shit whether you believe it or not.

I don't know how I am looking for a fight buddy. People are making good points and are interesting to hear from.

Do you have anything to say about the subject? or...

SerialKillerToBe
05-25-2011, 07:49 PM
How? She has never won a slam.

Serena has 0 movement, and little or no technique ... do you think she is more talented?

No but she wins every other tournament.

And for Serena, that would depend on whether or not you consider pure power as talent.

Sophocles
05-25-2011, 07:50 PM
Talent isn't the kind of thing you can "measure", so if you're insisting on statistical proof, you are ensuring you will never be "convinced" from the get-go. A player's overall career record is an indication of his talent, but it is absurd to treat the two as coterminous - otherwise Federer would have magically lost talent if he'd been hit by a bus in 2005. The sign most people recognize, even if not explicitly, is the standard of play somebody plays at his best. Assessing this is a matter of judgment rather than bean-counting, but it helps when the player in question is capable of beating top-ranked players when playing his best. Nalbandian clearly fits the bill.

Johnny Groove
05-25-2011, 07:50 PM
Look no further than TMC 2005 and 2007 Madrid/Paris.

r2473
05-25-2011, 07:51 PM
Nadull, on the other hand, has very little talent.

Wow. I've met some tough critics before, but you have pretty high standards indeed.

I'm guessing lot's of people would like to have "very little talent".

FiBeR
05-25-2011, 07:53 PM
Now that is an interesting argument!

You really think he simply doesn't care that much?? Not wanting to be number 1 doesn't necessarily mean that. 9/10 players would say they would want a slam over a top ranking.

What you said can definitely be true, in that Nalbandian is super talented and simply doesn't try.

But this argument inherently lends itself as an excuse. Saying "Oh yeah, I really didn't give it my all..." every time they lose is cheap.

Ok. End of arguments with you.

Not only you seem to have never watched a match from the guy, you don't seem to care to find the truth. Lack of respect from you. You are asking questions, you get information about it yet you come up with "excuse" conspiracy arguments. I thought you wanted a real non-bullshit answer. I see now you want a MTF troll thread. Good luck with it. Im outta here.

Gabe32
05-25-2011, 07:55 PM
Ok. End of arguments with you.

Not only you seem to have never watched a match from the guy, you don't seem to care to find the truth. Lack of respect from you. You are asking questions, you get information about it yet you come up with "excuse" conspiracy arguments. I thought you wanted a real non-bullshit answer. I see now you want a MTF troll thread. Good luck with it. Im outta here.

Am I missing something??

I said your argument makes sense! And it can be true, but simply lends itself to being a cop-out.

What you said very well can be the case.

Maybe I need to learn how to post on message boards or something. I wasn't being sarcastic or anything.

GugaF1
05-25-2011, 07:58 PM
Wow, dude, your thread is just too extreme. Is quite simple are Nalbandian/Gasquet very talented players? yes. Are they more talented than Federer? of coruse not and I have not seen any people saying this besides you and whoever claims that is a tard.

The reasonable idea is that Nalbandian has achieved a bit below his potential, but to say his more talented than Federer? just ludicrous. This tainted your overall point.

Gabe32
05-25-2011, 08:04 PM
Well I am done posting on this thread because I apparently I can't convey myself well enough and am offensive by nature.

I believe Nalbandian, Safin, Gulbis and Gasquet are extremely talented players and I am big fans of at least Nalbandian and Safin. But I just never understand the overreaching comparisons to the greats. I know all 4 of those guys have had their lapses in concentration from time to time, but I see that kind of mental weakness as being a lack of talent.

FiBeR
05-25-2011, 08:05 PM
Am I missing something??

I said your argument makes sense! And it can be true, but simply lends itself to being a cop-out.

What you said very well can be the case.

Maybe I need to learn how to post on message boards or something. I wasn't being sarcastic or anything.

well.. maybe you are coming off wrong. I want to believe you are :p since you had the same reaction with oranges.
But it is a bit annoying when you know a guy, have heard from him, heard his interviews watched his statements, his matches and somebody coming up saying "what if everything you know isnt real?"

e.g.: "USA is in europe, otherwise people living there should be aborigins".. you live there, you know it isnt in europe. You show someone a map and he answers "the map could be a fake too"

to your statement for me it's like you want to answer "mate, im showing you the map, ive been to the USA life and you want to believe everything i know is false without a real proof that USA is in Europe?"

That's what i read from you and oranges read from you, that kind of attitude. It's like you need to know your shit before posting, and if you dont, at least try to show a humble attitude. It's different if you ask "Is the USA in europe?" "Can this map be a fake?" than claiming it as if they were facts.

LawrenceOfTennis
05-25-2011, 08:09 PM
I play tennis 2 or 3 times a week, and I have a strong amateur game. Okay,it's a joke to compare it to even challenger level, but I "feel" it more than those who never played it. Nalbandian is one of the most inconsistent players in the last decade, but injuries also didn't allow him to reach the very top. If you look at his best matches, that's clear even for non-experts like me, that he is a pure natural talent. In the years 2002-2005 (07) he had some very good periods, and he always caused a huge trouble for Federer. Plus, I know it's not the best way to convince anybody, but Wilander said at one occasion that Nalbandian is the most talented player along with Federer. I think Wilander is not the best at predictions...but as a former number one, I guess he can recognise talent.

atennisfan
05-25-2011, 08:09 PM
Also look at his DC record.. he wants to win it and he hardly losses no matter who's in front. It's up to motivation and he doesn't care for being the best in history...


Didn't he keep losing to Hewitt in DC matches?

FiBeR
05-25-2011, 08:12 PM
Didn't he keep losing to Hewitt in DC matches?

2005 AUS v. ARG WG Qtrs
Sydney, Australia Grass RR Nalbandian, David
6-2, 6-4, 6-4
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N301&oId=H432

:confused:

All of Nalbandian's wins over hewitt came in Australia :p

Sophocles
05-25-2011, 08:14 PM
Well I am done posting on this thread because I apparently I can't convey myself well enough and am offensive by nature.

I believe Nalbandian, Safin, Gulbis and Gasquet are extremely talented players and I am big fans of at least Nalbandian and Safin. But I just never understand the overreaching comparisons to the greats. I know all 4 of those guys have had their lapses in concentration from time to time, but I see that kind of mental weakness as being a lack of talent.

Then you're just stretching the definition of "talent" to mean "everything that conduces to success". And if you're going to do that, of course you wouldn't differentiate talent & achievement.

FiBeR
05-25-2011, 08:16 PM
Well I am done posting on this thread because I apparently I can't convey myself well enough and am offensive by nature.

I believe Nalbandian, Safin, Gulbis and Gasquet are extremely talented players and I am big fans of at least Nalbandian and Safin. But I just never understand the overreaching comparisons to the greats. I know all 4 of those guys have had their lapses in concentration from time to time, but I see that kind of mental weakness as being a lack of talent.

well that's a better post from you. See, it is not that hard.. I think people react badly to your attitude of "try to convince me" or "try to prove me wrong" .. If yopu think that "mental weakness as being a lack of talent" then it's fine. But you never proved your point before.

:) dont stop posting, just gain some rythm. And dont take people here too personal otherwise you ll end upset :p :lol: :hug:

Gabe32
05-25-2011, 08:18 PM
Then you're just stretching the definition of "talent" to mean "everything that conduces to success". And if you're going to do that, of course you wouldn't differentiate talent & achievement.

Yeah, maybe. I thought about that last line of my post, but the definition of talent is:

1. a special natural ability or aptitude: a talent for drawing.
2.a capacity for achievement or success; ability: young men of talent.

If a player is mentally weak, doesn't that negate their "ability or aptitude?" Gasquest has not shown "a capacity for achievement" ... if anything he has shown an amazing incapacity at winning big matches.

But I get how my definition is not the traditional definition of the word.

bright
05-25-2011, 08:22 PM
It's a myth.

FiBeR
05-25-2011, 08:22 PM
Reaching the 4 GS Semifinals requires talent :p

Orka_n
05-25-2011, 11:33 PM
xRYU4cqUAUs

I just realized, MTF seriously needs to lighten up.

Nathaliia
05-25-2011, 11:41 PM
Watching Nalbandian in 2003 (and sometimes a bit later too :p) makes all questions disappear.

I think kids who haven't even been born that time should spend some time catching up with basic tennis knowledge before they start "knowing better" I suggest starting with the matches where Nalbandian was spanking the peaking or close to peaking Federer to realize what the adults are talking about :kiss: :wavey:

Pirata.
05-25-2011, 11:54 PM
He eats like elephant and is still top 25, that surely tells enough, he should ask food tips mr.Djokovic

Fat Dave on a gluten-free diet would sweep every tournament he entered. It's not fair to the other players. Not even Fedal dominance could compare :p

Pirata.
05-25-2011, 11:56 PM
Serena has 0 movement, and little or no technique ... do you think she is more talented?

If I hadn't already, I stopped taking you seriously after this statement. Wozniacki wishes she was more talented than Serena.

rhinooooo
05-26-2011, 12:02 AM
Great talent. Many similar topics to this, but I remember someone writing a great post about Nalby went something like this -

Look at the guy. He has no really special physical attributes. He's not the greatest mover or the quickest, or best defender. He can't just fall back on defending all day, getting balls back. He isn't the strongest or most powerful. He isn't tall. He has a weak serve.

And yet despite that, the guy has the ability to beat and cause trouble to most anyone including some of the best in the game. For me, that's a great sign of talent. He has to primarily rely on his point construction, and shotmaking ability to get by. He can't fall back on the crazy defending/flexibility/physicality of guys like Nadal, Djoko and Murray. He doesn't have the tremendous serve of a Fed. He doesn't have the easy power of a Del Potro.

It's tough to play consistently when you don't have much else to rely on.

LawrenceOfTennis
05-26-2011, 12:09 AM
Great talent. Many similar topics to this, but I remember someone writing a great post about Nalby went something like this -

Look at the guy. He has no really special physical attributes. He's not the greatest mover or the quickest, or best defender. He can't just fall back on defending all day, getting balls back. He isn't the strongest or most powerful. He isn't tall. He has a weak serve.

And yet despite that, the guy has the ability to beat and cause trouble to most anyone including some of the best in the game. For me, that's a great sign of talent. He has to primarily rely on his point construction, and shotmaking ability to get by. He can't fall back on the crazy defending/flexibility/physicality of guys like Nadal, Djoko and Murray. He doesn't have the tremendous serve of a Fed. He doesn't have the easy power of a Del Potro.

It's tough to play consistently when you don't have much else to rely on.

Absolutely agree. Plus there are those injuries.

fast_clay
05-26-2011, 12:23 AM
huh...?

it's common knowledge that The Fat was blessed with a generous amount of GOATness...

janko05
05-26-2011, 12:36 AM
I think I understand what you are saying, but at times it seems like a cop-out. It is too subjective and too easy of a way to end an argument.

If Nalbandian is that much more talented than Federer, or even is equal... what the HELL has he been doing. He can't be that much of a headcase.

No, he is not headcase. He just love to spend his time at soussage stands ;)

octatennis
05-26-2011, 12:47 AM
biggest talent of the last 20 years.

tests
05-26-2011, 12:51 AM
biggest talent of the last 20 years.

one of the biggest along with safin who underachieved

tests
05-26-2011, 12:53 AM
i mean lets be honest... who has more talent. A safin and nalbandian, or an agassi?

delboy
05-26-2011, 01:49 AM
shame fat dave has done fuck all with his talent and won't be remembered by anyone..I liked watching him play, back when he was good anyway.

tmvej7_PfkY

probs his most memorable match?

Collective
05-26-2011, 02:21 AM
Well I am done posting on this thread because I apparently I can't convey myself well enough and am offensive by nature.

I believe Nalbandian, Safin, Gulbis and Gasquet are extremely talented players and I am big fans of at least Nalbandian and Safin. But I just never understand the overreaching comparisons to the greats. I know all 4 of those guys have had their lapses in concentration from time to time, but I see that kind of mental weakness as being a lack of talent.

May I beg you to not throw Safin in the same bag as Nalbandian? And even less so in the same bag as Gulbis and Gasquet? The guy did win two Grand Slams, beating big names in route (Sampras, Federer in USO 2005 semis).

tests
05-26-2011, 02:28 AM
May I beg you to not throw Safin in the same bag as Nalbandian? And even less so in the same bag as Gulbis and Gasquet? The guy did win two Grand Slams, beating big names in route (Sampras, Federer in USO 2005 semis).

in that case, kafelnikov>>>>>>nalby

Collective
05-26-2011, 02:29 AM
in that case, kafelnikov>>>>>>nalby

Indeed. Anyone pretending that Safin's importance to the game is similar to that of Gulbis needs to reevaluate his/her life.

SerialKillerToBe
05-26-2011, 02:37 AM
Safin is not in the same bag as Nalbandian, but he still never reached his potential concerning slam titles.

tennishero
05-26-2011, 03:19 AM
these threads are getting really old now....

anyway i'll add my part,

the level of tennis nalbandian showed in the 07 masters was phenomenal, he dominated the top players with ease.
in my opinion the only player capable of doing such a feat was federer who was #1 whilst david was in the #20's at the time.



Nathalliia made some nice points. he can compensate his lack of fitness and movement with his technique and effortless shotmaking ability. besides his movement in his early years was great.

i cant think of another player outside the top 5 that can show up from nowhere and dominate the playing field like david has done.

FlavorNuts
05-26-2011, 03:58 AM
Great talent. Many similar topics to this, but I remember someone writing a great post about Nalby went something like this -

Look at the guy. He has no really special physical attributes. He's not the greatest mover or the quickest, or best defender. He can't just fall back on defending all day, getting balls back. He isn't the strongest or most powerful. He isn't tall. He has a weak serve.

And yet despite that, the guy has the ability to beat and cause trouble to most anyone including some of the best in the game. For me, that's a great sign of talent. He has to primarily rely on his point construction, and shotmaking ability to get by. He can't fall back on the crazy defending/flexibility/physicality of guys like Nadal, Djoko and Murray. He doesn't have the tremendous serve of a Fed. He doesn't have the easy power of a Del Potro.

It's tough to play consistently when you don't have much else to rely on.Is this the post you're talking about?Nalbandian is respected because he's an elite tennis player without a serve or any athletic ability. All he has to go on is hand eye coordination and court sense.

I remember watching him hold match points against Nadal at Indian Wells last year, a guy about 20 lbs overweight against the fittest player on tour, predicting every one of Nadal's shots and always staying in control with precise deep balls, all while being hampered with a hip injury and hitting 80mph serves.

They love him not because he's the best, but because he makes normal people want to play tennis.

There are players with bigger serves and better movement, but no one hits a better ball than Nalbandian.The fact is, there are players more talented than Nalbandian, the definition of talent being the capacity to be successful at what you do. It's just that humans are more appreciative of hand eye coordination and court sense(Nalbandian) than a good throwing arm and self discipline(Roddick), even though the latter will win you more titles. People watch tennis to be entertained, so it's only natural that they would throw praise at Nalbandian and disregard Roddick.

SerialKillerToBe
05-26-2011, 04:07 AM
I agree with FlavorNuts.

It doesn't help that "talent" is such a vague term and could apply to practically anything.

Ibracadabra
05-26-2011, 04:09 AM
shame fat dave has done fuck all with his talent and won't be remembered by anyone..I liked watching him play, back when he was good anyway.

tmvej7_PfkY

probs his most memorable match?

Aslong as i love tennis fit dave will always be remembered.

tests
05-26-2011, 04:11 AM
these threads are getting really old now....

anyway i'll add my part,

the level of tennis nalbandian showed in the 07 masters was phenomenal, he dominated the top players with ease.
in my opinion the only player capable of doing such a feat was federer who was #1 whilst david was in the #20's at the time.



Nathalliia made some nice points. he can compensate his lack of fitness and movement with his technique and effortless shotmaking ability. besides his movement in his early years was great.

i cant think of another player outside the top 5 that can show up from nowhere and dominate the playing field like david has done.

other than that match with federer, i think nalbys and safins davis cup 2002 match was FUCKING AWESOME. nalby was fit as hell too

tests
05-26-2011, 04:12 AM
Safin is not in the same bag as Nalbandian, but he still never reached his potential concerning slam titles.

what was his potential, when it comes to slams won

tests
05-26-2011, 04:13 AM
Is this the post you're talking about?The fact is, there are players more talented than Nalbandian, the definition of talent being the capacity to be successful at what you do. It's just that humans are more appreciative of hand eye coordination and court sense(Nalbandian) than a good throwing arm and self discipline(Roddick), even though the latter will win you more titles. People watch tennis to be entertained, so it's only natural that they would throw praise at Nalbandian and disregard Roddick.

true.. but i think the difference might be that what nalby does is much more difficult or "natural/innate" than what roddick does.

Did that make any sense? lmfao
:confused::confused:

Arkulari
05-26-2011, 04:21 AM
Nalbandian has one of the best BH I've ever seen and his court positioning was really good as well, but I believe he's way too overrated because his serve and FH weren't THAT great (not calling either one muggish or anything, they were good but not up to the level his BH had); thing is, when he's on, he's a clean ballstriker and that's something rare these days, where everyone grunts and grinds their way to victory.

Johnny Groove
05-26-2011, 04:30 AM
Fit Dave at his best:

mO5VJ4tO0sg
iXUMWKjpUZA
TCFdXTMuc64
lJN2NKfY8eU

tests
05-26-2011, 04:42 AM
Fit Dave at his best:

mO5VJ4tO0sg
iXUMWKjpUZA
TCFdXTMuc64
lJN2NKfY8eU

nalbandian handles nadals top spin incredibly well.. i would love to see prime safin vs prime nadal as well!

FlavorNuts
05-26-2011, 04:42 AM
true.. but i think the difference might be that what nalby does is much more difficult or "natural/innate" than what roddick does.

Did that make any sense? lmfaoI agree. When you're hitting groundstrokes you have to adapt your footwoork to your opponents shot, to the wind, to the surface. When you're serving you're just throwing the ball into the air for yourself to hit, barring wind, there are no adjustments to make. I understand why people don't appreciate serving talent, I don't.

May I beg you to not throw Safin in the same bag as Nalbandian? And even less so in the same bag as Gulbis and Gasquet? The guy did win two Grand Slams, beating big names in route (Sampras, Federer in USO 2005 semis).Safin had the physical tools to be great. The height, the speed. He had the fortune of hitting his stride before Federer and Nadal started to dominate. So why wasn't he great?

He had no layers to his game. His game was about bashing crosscourt until his opponent was forced into error. His footspeed and reach made it possible for him to use this pattern of play effectively. What happened when the game evolved and his opponents started hitting effectively on the run? He was pressured into going closer to the lines and missed. Every single match it was the exact same thing. There were no short angles, no dropshot-lob combos. Players like Robredo knew that they could go out there, not play particularly well, and still win comfortably by playing a defensive baseline game.

People with limited knowledge of tennis use achievements as a measure of ability. Tennis evolves at such a rapid rate that makes comparing achievements an irrelevant fact when comparing talent. Nalbandian is a hell of a lot better than Hewitt, Raonic is a hell of a lot better than Ivanisevic. But when you bring this up the only response you get is that Hewitt and Ivanisevic have GS titles so therefore must be better. It's the crutch of the simple minded.

tests
05-26-2011, 04:43 AM
yep indeed

atennisfan
05-26-2011, 04:57 AM
Reaching the 4 GS Semifinals requires talent :p

I don't think anyone has ever said Nalby does not have some talent, in fact everyone agrees he has great talent.

However, in this MTF, I kept reading that Nalby is as talented as if not more talented than Federer.

That is, what I also do not understand, and I think I get what the OP was trying to say.

tests
05-26-2011, 05:02 AM
I agree. When you're hitting groundstrokes you have to adapt your footwoork to your opponents shot, to the wind, to the surface. When you're serving you're just throwing the ball into the air for yourself to hit, barring wind, there are no adjustments to make. I understand why people don't appreciate serving talent, I don't.

Safin had the physical tools to be great. The height, the speed. He had the fortune of hitting his stride before Federer and Nadal started to dominate. So why wasn't he great?

He had no layers to his game. His game was about bashing crosscourt until his opponent was forced into error. His footspeed and reach made it possible for him to use this pattern of play effectively. What happened when the game evolved and his opponents started hitting effectively on the run? He was pressured into going closer to the lines and missed. Every single match it was the exact same thing. There were no short angles, no dropshot-lob combos. Players like Robredo knew that they could go out there, not play particularly well, and still win comfortably by playing a defensive baseline game.

People with limited knowledge of tennis use achievements as a measure of ability. Tennis evolves at such a rapid rate that makes comparing achievements an irrelevant fact when comparing talent. Nalbandian is a hell of a lot better than Hewitt, Raonic is a hell of a lot better than Ivanisevic. But when you bring this up the only response you get is that Hewitt and Ivanisevic have GS titles so therefore must be better. It's the crutch of the simple minded.


i actually think safin used angles pretty damn well, especially with his backhand. and he surprisingly had a natural touch at the net... its just he did not use it as often as he could have. /shrug

Arkulari
05-26-2011, 06:16 AM
nalbandian handles nadals top spin incredibly well.. i would love to see prime safin vs prime nadal as well!

in indoor hardcourt, I don't think he would be able to do the same in MonteCarlo

2003
05-26-2011, 06:49 AM
To me, if you cant make a grand slam final, you cant be compared in talent to someone whos made 20+

tests
05-26-2011, 07:15 AM
in indoor hardcourt, I don't think he would be able to do the same in MonteCarlo

you are absolutely right, did not consider that... but he did handle nadals topspin well in indian wells?

I know safin was really good at performing that jumping backhand shot

Pirata.
05-26-2011, 07:33 AM
biggest talent of the last 20 years.

:lol:

Pirata.
05-26-2011, 07:38 AM
Fit Dave at his best:

mO5VJ4tO0sg
iXUMWKjpUZA

:sobbing:

Just too good. Imagine what he could've accomplished if he'd never discovered cheeseburgers as a results of being so injury prone. Fedal are lucky that Peakbandian and Peakydenko were such a rare occurrence.

Sophocles
05-26-2011, 10:07 AM
Yeah, maybe. I thought about that last line of my post, but the definition of talent is:

1. a special natural ability or aptitude: a talent for drawing.
2.a capacity for achievement or success; ability: young men of talent.

If a player is mentally weak, doesn't that negate their "ability or aptitude?" Gasquest has not shown "a capacity for achievement" ... if anything he has shown an amazing incapacity at winning big matches.

But I get how my definition is not the traditional definition of the word.

Gasquet clearly has a special natural ability (check out his wins over Roddick & Federer), & that in itself bestows some capacity for achievement. But other things can prevent that potential from being realised. These may be external - Bahrami wasn't allowed to play tennis for a living, as far as I understand it - or internal - Nalbandian is more interested in eating pizza.

tests
05-26-2011, 10:25 AM
Gasquet clearly has a special natural ability (check out his wins over Roddick & Federer), & that in itself bestows some capacity for achievement. But other things can prevent that potential from being realised. These may be external - Bahrami wasn't allowed to play tennis for a living, as far as I understand it - or internal - Nalbandian is more interested in eating pizza.

lol at the pizza reference.

But seriously, injuries play a huge role as well!

Sophocles
05-26-2011, 11:54 AM
lol at the pizza reference.

But seriously, injuries play a huge role as well!

Of course. Although lazier players are more prone to injury.

nalbyfan
05-26-2011, 12:54 PM
Of course. Although lazier players are more prone to injury.

So Haas, Ferrero, Ancic, Tsonga, Nadal , Delpo must be VERY lazy since they're always injured...

Gabe32
05-26-2011, 05:18 PM
If I hadn't already, I stopped taking you seriously after this statement. Wozniacki wishes she was more talented than Serena.

Why??

I think Serena is more talented than Wozniacki. Before people started calling me names and flipping out, my argument was that achievements is the best indicator of talent.

Sophocles
05-26-2011, 06:12 PM
So Haas, Ferrero, Ancic, Tsonga, Nadal , Delpo must be VERY lazy since they're always injured...

It's relative, but whatever their merits, you can't accuse Nalbandian, Safin, Haas, Tsonga, or Gasquet of an unrelenting dedication to the sport.

oranges
05-26-2011, 06:43 PM
It's relative, but whatever their merits, you can't accuse Nalbandian, Safin, Haas, Tsonga, or Gasquet of an unrelenting dedication to the sport.

Really, why can't you accuse Tsonga and Haas of it or even Gasquet? If you have a secret recipe for avoiding injuries, you should have handed it to Tommy a long time ago, but now at least give it to Jo who still has time. if it works, I'll become a Fedtard in gratitude.

TBkeeper
03-15-2012, 11:31 AM
Ok guys i'm asking normally what you think about Davydenko is he talented or not ? i just wanna have some of your opinions .... cause i think that guy is Talented such incredible focus on court and determination to hit the ball early
i'm Fed fan but
i think
Nalbandian and Davydenko are ... ok i'll say it that way are the most talented in today's game to not win a slam followed by Murray

Shinoj
03-15-2012, 11:54 AM
Davydenko is a talented player. No Doubt about that. But he lacks the killer instinct that Safin and Kafelnikov had. Never really felt Davydenko could win a Grand Slam.

And as for comparison with Murray, Murray definitely leads the list of Best players never to have won a Slam because of his consistency.

Forehander
03-15-2012, 01:10 PM
If you're mentally strong it means you're mentally talented but most people deny that.

rafa_maniac
03-15-2012, 05:14 PM
Yes forehander what many seem to overlook is that there are a lot of "talents" future champions are born with that contribute to their success other than pure shotmaking ability. For some reason these aren't considered obvious signs of talent though, probably because they're not so pretty.