A Tribute To David Nalbandian
Richard Pagliaro Tennis Magazine: “I’ll never forget the 2005 U.S. Open when Nalbandian carved up Federer and Federer came into the interview room afterward and made that famous ‘he plays contra tennis’ line just one of the few times I ever saw Federer almost admit he had no answer for an opponent. Even his early losses to Rafael Nadal, Federer often said he was ‘collecting information’ like he was figuring it out but that day vs. Nalbandian he almost admitted he had no answer or the time Nalbandian just crushed Rafa in Paris Indoors – just completely took him apart.”
Nalbandian won two Masters Series titles (Madrid and Paris in 2007), reached the Wimbledon final in 2002, reached number three in the world in 2006. While he never won a major title, he was capable on certain occasions of playing the highest quality of tennis on the planet. And that’s saying a lot.
Who could forget the dazzling display by Nalbandian to win the World Tour Finals in 2005, where as a replacement for the injured Roddick, Nalbandian went on to win the prestigious event in spectacular fashion, besting World Number One Federer in the final from a two set deficit, 67 67 62 6l 76.
We just never knew when Nalbandian would put on display his A plus game. Those times he did will always be remembered by the tennis world.
I think Nalbandian was a unique character with an eccentric, perhaps slightly introverted personality, at times even prickly, which was not conducive to playing the role as the “Face” of the sport like Roger, Rafa and Djokovic are so elegantly and naturally equipped. This may have played a part in preventing him from winning more major events. But there is no question about Nalbandian’s ability to play tennis and control a tennis ball, which to some court observers is what matters most.
Nalbandian had a wizard-like quality of feeling the ball and making it go to the right places on court. He was not the biggest or strongest man in the ATP. He was not the fittest. He was the kind of performer that relied on his brains and fighting spirit to survive and thrive the ATP battlefield. Roddick, Nadal, Hewitt were grinders who would pummel you into submission Rocky Marciano style. Nalbandian personified artistry.
Pagliaro says, “I will never forget getting him in interview room 3 at the U.S. Open and telling him he looked fitter and Nalbandian smiled and said, ‘You always look good when you win.'”
Nalbandian won a lot during his professional career which began in 2000. Almost 400 match victories, eleven singles titles, over eleven million dollars in prize money, wins over the biggest names in the sport.
For his Biofile we did a few years back at the U.S. Open Nalbandian said winning the Tennis Masters Cup in Shanghai was his greatest moment in tennis. His favorite tournament was “Davis Cup.” Unfortunately, Nalbandian came up short twice in Davis Cup finals for Argentina.
On some days David was the world's best
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
« Previous 1 2Dan Markowitz · October 8, 2013 at 2:31 pm
Good arguments all, except that Stepanek is the equal to Kafelnikov in a win. It doesn’t matter how old Rafa was! He should beat Stepanek in that matchup. He had the higher ranking. Name one big player Stepanek has beaten in a big match. And I like Steppy, but I don’t rank him that high as a player.
Scoop Malinowski · October 8, 2013 at 3:00 pm
Dan I have the tape of this Nadal win over Step in the last singles match, all the pressure was on Rafa, the home crowd was very loud for Step, yet somehow Rafa came through for Spain. You can see Rafa even looks like a little boy on the court but his maturity and professionalism and intensity and of course his game is just incredible. Yes I think for the young Rafa, just seventeen, to beat Stepanek in Czech Rep. is just as if not more impressive than what Sampras did. I was blown away by both heroics. Pete beat who he was supposed to beat. Rafa was not supposed to win that match, after he lost the previous singles to Hrbaty.
Scoop Malinowski · October 8, 2013 at 3:03 pm
Good point Tom about Pete choking in that DC final in France. I can’t recall ever seeing Rafa choke in a big match. Rafa should have choked and lost to Stepanek in the final singles match but he actually whooped Step in straight sets. It’s one of my favorite Rafa performances of all time.
Scoop Malinowski · October 8, 2013 at 3:08 pm
Step won a huge match to clinch the DC last year. Amazing performance.
Scoop Malinowski · October 8, 2013 at 3:12 pm
WTF is a very presitgious event, look at Fed’s quotes about it this week, how he said his main goal this year was to qualify for London, he loves the final event with the top 8 players. It used to be huge event at MSG but since moving away it has lost some luster, especially in USA where our media largely ignores it. I wish they could pump some more life back into the event. Harold has gone a couple of times to London to see it, Harold please share your impressions.
DanM · October 8, 2013 at 5:42 pm
Scoop,
You’ve gone TOMMY, too. Say it ain’t so. Yevgeny Kafelnikov vs. Radek Stepanek! I didn’t want to do it, but I dived into the archives to remind you of just how great Sampras’s win was:
Sampras Serves U.S. a Davis Cup Title
By Lee Hockstader
Washington Post Foreign Service
December 4, 1995
MOSCOW, Dec. 3 — They said Pete Sampras wasn’t supposed to be a great clay court player. They said he would be the weak link for the United States in the 1995 Davis Cup finals against Russia.
Trouble is, they forgot to tell Pete Sampras.
Having won once in a dramatic singles match Friday and again as half of the U.S. doubles team Saturday, Sampras returned for a third straight match today with probably his best clay court performance ever. Powered by a virtually unreturnable serve, deft volleying and punishing forehands, he routed Russian ace Yevgeny Kafelnikov, 6-2, 6-4, 7-6 (7-4), leading the Americans to a 3-2 victory and their 31st Davis Cup championship since the tournament began in 1900.
“I’ve never seen better clay court tennis,” U.S. captain Tom Gullikson said. “The combination of power and patience and precision serving. . . . It was flawless tennis.”
Gully said it’s the best clay court tennis he’s ever seen. Gully saw Borg play on clay. He played Borg in the 1979 Roland Garros and took a set off the Swede in that match. Gully was my partner when we beat Pagliaro and you in Portland in 2007 on my way to winning the journalist doubles event held before the Davis Cup finals that year. You questioning Gully? Read on…
The crowd of 14,000 in Olympic Stadium was chanting Kafelnikov’s name, howling at every point won by the Russian and even at Sampras’s missed first serves. Russia, which made it to the Davis Cup finals for the first time last year against Sweden, has never won the title and had never played the Americans before this weekend’s event.
And…
It’s not that Kafelnikov, who beat Courier Friday, had no strategy against Sampras. He had watched the American collapse with hamstring cramps and get dragged off the court Friday after beating Chesnokov. With Sampras’s legs still tight, the Russian’s game plan was to work Sampras’s legs by drawing out the rallies and making him run.
But Sampras was too aggressive, rushing the net for 20 volley winners and leaving Kafelnikov flat-footed with supersonic forehand winners cross-court and inside-out.
Finally…
Gullikson said the Russians, who had suggested last week that Courier was the stronger player on slower clay courts, had underestimated Sampras, who has struggled on clay from time to time. “I’m thinking, `Geez, here’s this guy, he’s number one in the world, he’s won the Italian Open [on clay, in 1994], he’s won his two matches in Davis Cup [quarterfinals, on clay] in Palermo for us this year, he’s been in the quarterfinals of the French Open [on clay] a few times.’ I mean, this guy can play.”
He went on: “The great players have a sense of history. . . . “When the great players go down in the history books, not only will they be remembered by Grand Slam singles titles but how many times did they help their country win the Davis Cup. . . . It’s a special thing, it’s a team thing.”
Nadal has been on tour 10 years now and HAS NEVER WON A TOURNAMENT ON HARD INDOOR COURTS! THAT’S FRIGGIN’ ASTOUNDING. I don’t know if I can vote for him for the GOAT ever until he does. This is a gaping hole in his resume. The guy can’t win on this surface.
Sampras won on clay–one of the biggest Davis Cup victories in the history of the game (name more impressive Davis Cup feats than beating the No. 6 player in the world in his home city with a rabid crowd behind him, after you cramped on the first day, and beating the guy in straights sets giving up a total of 6 points on serve in the first 2 sets!! Come on, name me one more impressive Davis Cup performance!
Sampras also won Kitzbuhel on clay in 1992 and the Italian Open, a Masters Series event, on clay in 1994, beating Becker, 1, 1 and 2 in the finals.
So if we count WTF and Davis Cup wins with slam totals, Sampras has 22 and Fed 23. Nadal has 17.
Scoop Malinowski · October 8, 2013 at 8:30 pm
Strong rebuttal Dan, almost as strong as Andrew on JimPierce ) Pete was heroic in that final. It was awesome. No way can anyone downplay it. But Gully would surely be just as if not more impressed by Rafa’s future performances on clay. Rafa beating Step in that live rubber in Czech Rep SF to go to finals was a remarkable effort too. I think Spain ended up winning that year too.
Gaurang · October 8, 2013 at 9:50 pm
I fully vouch for DanM. Sampras’s performance is supreme — here are some highlights of the Sampras vs Kafelnikov match, and I must say, Sampras completely overpowered Kafelnikov (note: only Sampras’s winning points are part of it)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns_lhqyRlSg
Am not sure how can winning against player ranked no. 6 can be considered equal to winning against player ranked no. 60. I agree Nadal was younger, but so what — I mean he did not back up that skill on indoor hard courts later in his career, so it basically can be considered because his playing style was not very well established at that time.
Whereas for Sampras, apart from Italian Open win and Davis Cup win, he won 2 other titles on clay — and was a 1-time SF and 3-time QF at Roland Garros.
I would basically put Nadal’s skill on indoor hard courts at around the same level as Sampras’s skill on clay. Unless Nadal proves otherwise in the future.
Gaurang · October 8, 2013 at 9:52 pm
Look at Steve Tignor’s picks for Shanghai — he proposes Nadal will loose against Delpo in the Semi’s. Thats saying something. Even if Steve is proven wrong, his proposal speaks loudly about how strong Nadal’s game on indoor hard courts is considered to be.
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/10/surveying-shanghai/49391/
Tom Michael · October 8, 2013 at 10:55 pm
Rafael Nadal won an indoor Masters Event Madrid in 2005. And he made a final in 2010 WTF, and lost to Federer. Sampras never made a Roland Garros final since many have the nerve to compare the WTF to a slam. So Rafa is better than Pete indoors.
I can not believe people are actually dissing Rafa for his indoor abilities. In the past Boris Becker was dissed for being predominantly a grass and indoor player, with poor record on outdoor hard. After he redeemed himself on outdoor hard, then it was to diss his clay court ability. Now the reverse logic is applied to Rafa. Unbelievable. The WTF is not slam caliber.
Tom Michael · October 8, 2013 at 11:05 pm
Sorry that should read Rafa indoors is better than Pete on clay.
The article above pasted by loserly DanM on Pete’s Davis Cup heroics is told from a biased American viewpoint. Tom Gullickson saying that was Pete’s performance was the best clay court tennis he had ever seen. What a joke! Once I read that, I know that the “heroics are over-exaggerated.”
Roger Laver · October 9, 2013 at 12:02 am
“I can’t recall ever seeing Rafa choke in a big match. ”
Sorry scoop. That is too much of a generalization. Rafa, Roger and Novak all choke.
AO 2012 final = choke
WTF 2010 final = choke.
Roger Laver · October 9, 2013 at 3:04 am
@ Gaurang:
I have similar picks too:
Check them on my website: http://sportzcosmos.com/category/tennis-galaxy/
And, no, I did not copy Steve’s I had them before him 🙂
Dan Markowitz · October 9, 2013 at 7:47 am
Uh, Tom, that one win for Rafa on a hard indoor surface, 2005 Madrid Indoors, he beat Stepanek, Ginepri and then in 5-sets, Ljubicic in the finals or like beating Becker in Rome as Sampras did. We started “Break Point” with Spadea beating the 18-year-old Nadal at the Madrid Indoors 2004. He said Nadal couldn’t have acted worse. He had a soccer star in the first row who was yelling at Vince the entire match. Mid-way through the match, Nadal just got up without consulting the umpire and walked out and took a 20-minute bathroom break. Spadea was wondering how long you need for a bathroom break. Even so, Vince beat Rafa.
And, yes, of course, you know more about clay court tennis than Tom Gullickson, who took a set off Borg at the French Open. How silly of me to think that Gully’s opinion that it was the best clay court tennis he’s ever seen has no validity when the guy took a set off Borg at FO.
Tom Michael · October 9, 2013 at 8:04 am
WTF 2010 final was not a choke by Rafa. Roger definitely outplayed him there with a 6/1 final set score.
The Australian 2012 was a choke of only one point, i.e. the backhand down the line by Rafa at 4/2 in the fifth, that may have given Rafa a 30/love lead. Apart from that, Novak was in full control of the match.
Tom Michael · October 9, 2013 at 8:18 am
That one win in 2005 Madrid indoors for Rafa was a Masters Series Event. So it is next direct step below the WTF. So it is not be sneezed at. I do not care what Spadea has to say about Nadal. He underestimated him and Nadal has the enviable career he has.
I also do not care about Gullickson’s opinion on Sampras’ indoor clay court wins in Davis Cup 1995. It according to him was the best clay court tennis he had ever seen, when it was played on indoor clay. Not outdoor at Roland Garros, where Kafelnikov destroyed Pete months after the Davis Cup loss. Gullickson’s opinion is based on bias because he is friends with Pete. He is not being objective when he calls Pete’s ability on clay the best he had seen. Pete has never won a Roland Garros in his career, after those comments. So it counts for nothing.
Roger Laver · October 9, 2013 at 2:52 pm
Great points guys. Another point we should consider. Rafa, through no fault of his of course, plays at a time when conditions have been changed to the slower side. We all agree on this, yes?
Pete did not have this benefit, did he? I mean he did not have conditions modified to suit his style on clay.
All things considered, I must say Pete on clay = even stevens with Nadal indoors.
Gaurang · October 9, 2013 at 5:30 pm
Oh Roger, yes you have the same picks. One thing — I mistakenly called Shanghai indoors. Its not. But even then you both (you and Steve Tignor) are picking on Nadal to loose in SF. I guess, probably because Shanghai courts are fast?
Tom Michael · October 9, 2013 at 10:09 pm
Rafa, Roger, Andy and Novak play at that time that the courts in general have been slowed down, specifically at Wimbledon, with the increased packing of dirt under the grass, which was done in 2001. The US Open has not changed its courts and use fast ball; amazing, Rafa so far has won it twice. The Australian Open plexicushion is faster than the old rebound ace. Again Rafa has won it once. Though I will acknowledge that the court is slower at night. The French Open varies in its speed because they use varied balls year by year. Rafa has won Roland Garros with fast balls and slow balls.
Sampras played in the era of fast Wimbledon courts with the less packed in dirt under the grass. The US Open was fast and still is. The Australian Open was slow but his questionable athletic conditioning is the reason he did not dominate there, but still won. The year he made the semis in 1996 at Roland Garros was a year the grounds crew decided not to water the court. Pete still did not win it. Hmm!
Pete on clay is inferior to Rafa indoors. Pete on hard/grass is inferior to Rafa on clay.
Dan Markowitz · October 10, 2013 at 7:59 am
Yes, but Pete would’ve beaten Rafa in a big match on three of the 4 surfaces: grass, hard and indoor hard. He wouldn’t be able to return his serve and Rafa’s big forehand would go right into a Sampras slice and approach to net. What people forget is Sampras moved like a panther. Strongest mover I ever saw. Made Becker look like he was in slow motion.
Scoop Malinowski · October 10, 2013 at 8:10 am
I think Rafa would beat Pete on any major surface, even the old grass. But Pete would not beat Rafa on clay, no chance.
Scoop Malinowski · October 10, 2013 at 8:13 am
Rafa could absolutely get Pete’s serve back and he could hit winners past the charging panther. Rafa adapts to any player and masters them. Pete could not always adapt.
Tom Michael · October 10, 2013 at 8:17 am
Pete’s backhand is weaker than Federer’s backhand drive and slice. And Federer loses easily the backhand exchanges with Nadal’s forehand, so Pete would too. Nadal can neutralize the games of servers more powerful than Sampras, i.e. Karlovic, Isner, Janowicz, and Raonic, as well as those more accurate like Federer’s, and win. His endurance sucks compared to Nadal’s, so he can not even last with him anyway. And put Hawkeye in the equation, and Rafa will never lose to Pete on grass or outdoor hard. Pete would beat Rafa indoors, in a best of 3 setter only. Rafa would have his share of wins over Pete indoors because Pete lost to Corretja, Muster, and Kuerten indoors.
Gaurang · October 10, 2013 at 2:21 pm
I disagree — Sampras would easily beat Nadal on the fast grass.
Sampras would have a good chance of beating Nadal on hard courts, but cannot say for sure. Also the equipment (rackets, balls) are different in different eras, so its hard to compare it like that.