It sounds like he is
recovering on schedule:
Bleacher Report appears to have some Nalby fan's on staff. They have released two great articles in the past week in light David making his comeback. The analysis in these articles on David's talent and contribution to the game surprisingly hit the center of the mark. The first article is from Feburary 17, 2010:
Always a Bridesmaid: David Nalbandian or Elena Dementieva
by Tim Ruffin
Written on
February 17, 2010
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3...-or-dementieva
Perhaps we have all been spoiled. The past 20 years of professional tennis has provided us with an embarrassment of riches.
Some of the greatest players of all time have played some of the most brilliant tennis evey played and racked up big numbers of Grand Slam Singles Titles.
The 1980s and 1990s saw a distinguished group of multiple major winners: Sampras with 14, Agassi and Lendl both with 8, Wilander and McEnroe tied at 7, and Becker and Edberg with 6.
Bring on the 2000s and Federer has taken the term "Grand Slam Champion" to dizzying heights with 16 victories. Not to mention the young Spaniard
Rafael Nadal, only 23 years old and already the holder of 6 himself.
Let's not even get into the women's game, as they have long outpaced the men. The lead by Steffi Graf's gold standard of 22, yes 22 Grand Slam Singles Titles.
The great rivals Evert and Navratilova aren't far back themselves with 18 each. Even in the recent, more dangerous era of the women's game, Venus and
Serena Williams have picked up Majors with alarming regularity, winning 7 and 12 respectively.
Perhaps all of these recent greats, amongst the very greatest players of all time, have caused us to have a skewered vision of the price of winning a single Grand Slam Title.
Two weeks, seven matches, and 21 sets to immortality. The proposition sounds so simple on paper, but is oh so hard in reality.
Take two of the most talented ball strikers on either tour, David Nalbandian of the ATP, and
Elena Dementieva of the WTA.
One would struggle to find two cleaner strikers of a tennis ball. One would struggle to find two players who took the ball as early, or owned the split second timing that these two have.
Even next to the very best in the world, their talent shines through. Dementieva is just as good a ball striker as World No. 1 and 12-time Grand Slam titlist Serena Williams.
David Nalbandian has beaten both
Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal in enough big matches to have true belief in his chances. He's a more talented player than most of the field, as is Dementieva.
However, both seem to lack one important factor. The final piece to solving the Grand Slam puzzle.
Twice, Dementieva has been to the Finals of a Major. Twice she has had winnable matches in those Finals. Twice she has failed.
Nalbandian is one of a select few players who has reached the Semifinals or better of all four Grand Slam events. He too is a Grand Slam finalist, losing a winnable match against
Lleyton Hewitt at Wimbledon.
He has twice squandered two sets to none leads in a Grand Slam Semifinal: first against
Andy Roddick at the 2003 U.S. Open, and then against
Marcos Baghdatis at the 2006 Australian Open. Both times he succumbed to his own nerves.
While both Dementieva and Nalbandian have spent most of their respective careers in the upper echelons of the sport, they have also been the victims of the titans of their eras.
Serena Williams and Roger Federer are pretty close to perfect when they are fit and focused on their tennis. It just so happens that this is usually the case at the Grand Slams.
Needless to say, there isn't a lot of room for many other champions. But history reasons that no one can win forever, and that true talent cannot for ever be suppressed.
This reasoning begs to argue that Nalbandian, Dementieva, or perhaps both would someday hoist a Grand Slam trophy. Both have won their respective year end championships.
Both have been ranked inside the top three in the world. Both have beaten the current world number ones on more than one occasion.
Reason tells us that one or both of these players should have broken through at some point, but current circumstances cry out that their times have come and gone.
Dementieva can't hit a first serve. She simply can't. She expects to win matches by breaking serve, six or seven times.
The fact that she actually does have a glaring weakness, which is sure to rear its head in the most pressure-filled situations, is a tremendous strike against her.
It also doesn't help any that Serena Williams is simultaneously the best server and biggest returner on tour.
Add into the mix the return of the two Belgian dynamos, Kim Clijsters and Justine Henin, and the gradual return of three time Slam Titlist
Maria Sharapova, and it's increasingly difficult to see Dementieva successfully navigating the waters of a major event all the way through to victory.
On the other hand, David Nalbandian is a different story totally. Over the past eight years or so, if Federer is the "Standard” and Nadal the "Warrior King", no doubt Nalbandian is the "Natural."
Plain and simple, when he's on top of his game he is the purest ball striker on tour, and one of purest ever. He's a natural tennis player, blessed with the kind of innate court sense that more devoted players like Andy Roddick, and even Novak Djokovic have to practice repeatedly and force.
He's the kind of player for whom tennis is a job, for whom tennis is so easy that practice, and hard work seems laughable.
He's like a young Agassi to Federer's Sampras. The difference is that Agassi woke up and smelled the coffee, and the missing Grand Slam Titles.
The alarming thing about Nalbandian is that he seems to be very content with being a very good player. He looks at the dominance of Federer and Nadal and shrugs his shoulders, as if to say "There's nothing I can do, these guys are too good."
It's a load of crap. No doubt that Roger and Rafa are two of the greatest ever, but check the facts. Nalbandian plays a style that bothers both players. He's had some lopsided win over Nadal, including one in the Finals of a Master's event in Paris.
Throughout his career series with Federer, a rivalry that dates back to the juniors, Nalbandian has played very evenly with Federer. Recently, Federer has won more often, as Nalbandian had won more often earlier on, but the two have often played very competitive matches.
Much more competitive than say, Roddick/Federer, or recent Murray/Federer matches. The fact remains that Nalbandian has the goods to beat Roger, Rafa, and anyone else in the world. For reasons known only to him, he chooses to put forth a paltry effort.
The difference between Dementieva and Nalbandian is pretty simple. One loses big matches because of a glaring technical weakness, and the other loses because of a glaring mental weakness.
The likelihood of either winning a Major at this point seems pretty slim. It just feels like the window was open for a few years, but now it's closing. Despite the diminished likelihood, Nalbandian is the greater opportunity.
If he can somehow get hot like he did toward the end of 2007, he can dismiss anyone in the world pretty routinely. He's that kind of a talent.
He's also played the best players in the world evenly enough to believe that he can beat them. While Dementieva has played Venus, Serena, and Henin tough lately, her record against the usual suspects is pretty poor.
This is especially true in important matches. The serve remains the big issue, it simply too hard to survive seven matches in a row by breaking serve more than she holds.
If you are a betting person, leave the odds on either player winning a Major. However, if there's a gun to your head then go with the Argentine.
David News & Articles
Re: David News & Articles
)
)
Davis Cup play this weekend and then Indian Wells Masters next week. 
