Im from sweden, played Roger at the orange bowl etc and I agree, not even safins bh was comparable to davids..

I was originally from the Philippines and just a recreational player (and a bad one at that). I play one-handed backhand and consider Nalbandian’s backhand the most effective and beautiful, tied with Agassi’s

In offence he was 1 of the best. In defense & in 1st-serve return, you can't get better than Djokovic.

There is a thing called CTM Shot Matching and Nalbandian was the best I've seen using that system. I believe that was his system.

I'll take Novak's BH any day of the week over anyone's. End of the convo!

8-7 40-15

@@sleepyjoe5251this man beat your beloved Djokovic

@@adllo642 Djokovic beat you beloved man in the 2019 Wimbledon final despite the latter holding double championship point on serve in the fifth set.

@@sleepyjoe5251 Federer isn’t my goat, he just lives in your head rent free doesn’t he?

@@adllo642 double championship point

How lucky Roger

Also helps that no one was using a top spin forehand. At least not the top spin we see today. All the shots were very flat till Nadal came along.

@@tomk5238People played with spin before but the Polyester string revolution in the late 90s (Kuerten, Costa) enabled them to generate more spin and swing for the fences at the same time. And yes, Nadal brought spin to another level.

This match footage is slightly sped up.

@@alexlackner1945 right.. my comment was basically what u said.. It was t that ppl didn't put spin before. It just isn't the same forehand anymore. Old games had players hit flatter that penatrate. Which is what is showing in this video. Federer himself Changed his forehand mutiple times to adapt to this change.

i think he said on an interview that he was injured in the abs. Sorry my bad english

Yes it was crazy, he got totally upset by someone from the public calling a ball out. I have never seen a top player being in complete control giving away a match like he did. That moment defined his carreer from then on. Aside from a few brilliant runs at Masters 1000 he never reached that level at GS again.

I didn't know you were into tennis, Ken.

Hewitt;s last great match that I ever saw him play was the same, except he overcame Federer at Davis Cup. He was two sets down, and 5-1 in the third. Then Hewitt came back in a monster beating run. I watched the match in Byron Bay at the pub with my back against the Ocean. It was mesmerising. I remember Nalbandian at his prime. He was a monster. Now I think of it, Hewitt grabbed the Wimbledon trophy from his grasp, in a canter. Pretty easy 3 set march. That was not Nalbandian at his prime, but Hewitt was at his peak.Nalbandian was an example of unfulfilled talent. I would argue that two Aussie’s, being Mark Phillopousis and the Kyrgios right now belong in that camp. There are a lot of candidates. Rios for example. Made no 1, but should have kicked on. Even Hewitt - dominant no 1 for eighteen months. He should have sacked his coach the moment Federer started beating him. Hewitt was beating Federer like 3 out of 4 matches - he was Federer’s first nemesis really.. of course the tide turned, but Hewitt stuck with his coach until nearly right at the end of his career. Ironically he beat Federer at Halle to win his last trophy, right before retirement. Plenty of players meet the ‘wasted talent’ criteria. They just waste those golden years in different ways. God Tomic was the same, Dominant junior number 1, but just would not do the work, once he started on the main circuit. Total waste. You wouldn’t even know he had much talent to look at his pro results. I remember an unseeded Kyrios beating the Joker in an exhibition in Australia. Two straight sets. What could have been…

couldnt have said it better....totally agree

100%. Obviously my comment above is Australian centric, as I am an Aussie. That is spot on. I always think of my favourite, Patrick Rafter as wringing everything possible out of his career, given his dodgy shoulder worn out from that kick serve. The think his, he WAS amazing, two consecutive US Opens, and two Wimbledon finals in I think four years, he got nervous and lost to Pete, in the first, in 4 sets, despite dominating him at the time. Then the famous upset five setter against Ivanisovich who wasn’t even seeded. Impossible not to love the big Croat and his Cinderella moment.The thing was out with a bad wrist injury, and later a bad shoulder injury each for nearly half a year, Rafter would come back like he never left the tour in that purple patch of 4 years. He always put inn the work, so one cannot say unfulfilled talent. Everyone loved him. In Agassi’s book “ , Open” he mentioned how Rafter was putting together a beautiful career, and said he moved like a Fararri. The thing is, I expected Rafter to make far greater inroads earlier, but there was some mental hurdle. He would get bundled out of third rounds in the slams until he started getting confidence from beginning to win ATP tournaments.. Rafter wasn’t mastering the full array of skills you need to become a dominant players, or even be feared in the slightest. My man was hardly on the global radar when ranked 25 and appeared to come out of nowhere unless you were Australian. For example Agassi wrote about, what was for me an utter tragedy (okay for Australian tennis fans}, when the heat and cramping turned the tide for Agassi at an Australian Open, where Rafter was certainly the favourite, despite not having won it (and never doing so). He was playing so perfect right then, hot off his second US Open in a row. Rafter always sweat profusely, but I never saw him cramp once. The thing is, he even won the fourth set when the cramps had kicked in and he was hobbling around, for a 2-1 lead. He knew it was over right there. The guy was basically immobile and suffering through the last three games. You could see the pain of what could have been an easy Aussie Open slam just bleed out of him when he did a tiny fist pump in the third. Once that cramping starts there is no magic pill. It is OVER. Being a consistent number one, or dominant top 5 is mastering such a symphony of talents, determination, discipline, media, health, diet, definitely the right team around you, the daily hard work…. All of it. Totally perfect comment.

Djokovic is better than Federer.

​@@sleepyjoe5251Well then, Andy Roddick, Marat Safin, Jiri Vesely, Nick Kyrgios, Fernando Gonzalez and Ivo Karlovic are all better than Djokovic. Each have winning records against him. Bottom line....whether or not who is better is totally unimportant "sleepyjoe", Roger and Novak are both great players....that's it. Hope you had a Happy and Grateful Thanksgiving.

@@GGGinJe lmao weakest era in history. Those guys could barely make it to slam finals and lost to unseeded players in early rounds of slams for most of their careers. Goatkovic already did the analysis, Fed’s weak era resume has been exposed and discredited.

​@@sleepyjoe5251Ah, let's keep up the silliness for a bit. So what if "those guys" made it to anything else, they still were better than Novak when they played him, so...they were better than Novak, he just has a better overall record than each of them. Not knocking Novak, truly a great player that I love watching, but aw shucks Gomer...he just couldn't beat those 6 players mentioned. So now, stopping the silliness, the only important part of your reply was "Imao". Again, whether or not who is better is totally unimportant, as is your ignorant "analysis" of Federer and his era. And now I'm done and won't reply to you again, as I found out some time ago that it is impossible to win an argument with a tennis "genius" such as yourself. Best wishes and adios Joe.

@@GGGinJe yeah 2003-2007 was the weakest era in tennis history.

You can also check 2016 final in Doha. Even nadal said there wasn't better performance ever than Nole's at that moment

For some playing tennis is just making a living,for some it’s their lives

He also lacked conditioning. Similar to Roddick. David was not in peak conditioning during the mid 2000s and that's the time-frame in which he started losing to Roger Federer.

@@CHillTennisEntertainment Well Nalbandian was perhaps a more complete player than Roddick. Not underrating Roddick, but Nalbandian case is more of an underachiever. Roddick achieved a Grand Slam title and four other finals if i remember correctly. Nalbandian could defeat the Big Three if he wanted to, but not only that, he could have fun with them at times. That was the commentators feelings in many of his matches, and also his peers. Federer stated that "he could make you feel very small" if wanted to.

@@mateosimon4237 I agree that Nalbandian was an under-achiever. He was a fantastic shot-maker. In many ways he reminded me of Andre Agassi. Just because of his versatility with the two handed backhand. The reason that I made the comparison to Andy Roddick was because of his lack of fitness. Playing style-wise they were very different. David did have a few chances to win slams early on. He was in the finals of Wimbledon in 2002 and he would have won the US Open in '03 if he had gotten past Roddick.

I could not agree more. Talent wise, one of the best i have ever seen... He just lacked that hunger and the commitment.. but at the end of the day that is what seperates good, from great.

That was a masters tournament, where he beat no3, no2 and no1 players of the world in row!

@@enginkapsiz It was Madrid 2007 (he beat Berdych, del Porto, Djokovic, Nadal and Federer), and Paris 2007 (beat Nadal and Federer). He became Nr. 9. and so missed the World Championship he most probably had won. Fun fact: before and after Madrid 2007 he was thrashed by Wavrinka, in two first round matches.

He was a Buster Douglas of tennis

for the average joe? yes, for top level? no In tennis Ferrer and Murray for example are possibly the hardest working players yet they trail(Ferrer didnt even win a single slam) the big 3 so much. Safin who drank night before matches and was busy switching girl after girl during tournaments achieved more than hard workers like Thiem,Tsitsipas,Ruud etc etc. In boxing Tyson Fury is busy doing commercials, drinking beer, weighting 40 pounds above recommended and yet crushes top competition. And dont get me started on football(R9,R10,Adriano,Neymar etc) who were either voted best of the year or in top 5 couple of times while skipping practices , being late and eating and drinking whatever they wanted. I remember Shaq during his last years in Miami , he was barely moving, was so fat yet he was unguardable. Genetics makes things possible

I feel like wawrinka did it for one of his majors

Yes, I think Wawrinka did that too.

Yes Davydenko was an amazing player but I have seen Roger make him look very ordinary.

he could have been similar level. the tennis changed since, with slower balls and surfaces the defensive part became more important that attacking, so it's hard to translate there. Nalbandian enjoyed fast conditions, he was more similar to Federer than to Nole or Nadal. anyhow he should have been one of the greats

So you're asking him to be a totally different person lol

It still wouldn't matter. He'd need 100% of Novak's mind, hunger and work ethic. And even then Novak is 6'2 and David was 5'11. And Novak's a much greater mover around the court, which is a common denominator of all great players.

The video says biggest wasted talent, not biggest talent. And also all you did was look the results today, that doesn't tell the whole picture. At the time it was a menace.

@@airixxxx Biggest wasted talent means biggest talent that got wasted. He never was a menace to the big 3.

@@nikosgr9290 I know, I have no problem putting Nalbandian as biggest talent that got wasted. Who else would you put? He was for a long time the only who was even or even ahead in H2H against Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. The only ever to beat them all on a single tournament. Again I don't care about numbers, you need to watch the matches to realize. Maybe you are too young and all you can do is check numbers on the website.

He does, the fact is there is only some much you can talk about him then you get to the zero slams

​@@raulescobar7433Nalbandian was extremely strong but I think he suffered injuries which meant he was not consistently performing at the highest level. He certainly was very competitive on occasion but he was not as elegant as Roger F .

Prime Nalbandián owned Federer 5 times in a row. After 2005 Nalbandian lose the spirit.

@@iJonyx He also lost the matches. Fed just got better. A lot better.

Not even top 5 today.

a great player is great in any era he would figure this out. saying a man with 20 grand slams would not be top 5 today is idiotic. same goes with djokovic of course@@sleepyjoe5251

David I agree .

@@annewalden3795 you’re both extremely wrong

@@sleepyjoe5251 Go back to your bed and stop wasting your time by making silly comments.

he had like a month of playing absolutely ridiculous tennis

2007 wasn’t late stage. He was 25 and in his prime.

@@marte1081 he made it to 4th round in AO and RG, 3rd round in Wimby and US open, that's not prime at all

This guy is kind of like wawrinka where he just randomly pops off. Doesn't make him an all time great nor does it make him a great player. For instance morons put stan and Andy on the same tier just coz they both have the same number of slams, but Andy is light years ahead of him as a player. Just coz you peak during a couple of tournaments here and there doesn't make you amazing. The trick is to do that for a long time, hence Big 3. Anyway I would have berdych, delpo, ferrer, thiem, etc over nalbandian. Pretty overrated imo

@@M.L.official Murray is like 10 Wawrinkas combied

Safin was a great player and he had other priorities which distracted him .Well worth watching and a powerful presence on a tennis Court .

Big time. Even Wimbledon is slower and bounces higher now

He only started winning when the courts were slowed down, including at Wimbledon.

Rubbish the back hand was always good but not quite as good as the forehand . I have always thought that the tennis moaners did not watch enough Federer videos.

oh my god you're right

But, Fed never gave up on his team.

He didn't "take out" prime Federer. He beat him before Roger got to No. 1 a couple of times. And then he beat him in the YEC final. Fed lost lots of matches at the YEC that he never would've lost in a Slam. Fed started crushing Nalbandian in 2004 and completely dominated their "rivalry"

@@davidmcpherson2220 Understood. But Fed wasn't playing badly in their early matches, Nalbandian was just extra aggressive with Fed.... Nalbandian beat him the first 5 times they played. That is unusual with as well as Fed was playing back then. Normally I'd pick the guy that beats Fed to win the tourny.

Roger learned how to cope with Nalbandian and I think injuries diminished the effectiveness of his tennis over a relatively short period. He always carried a lot of excess weight which did not help.

Nalbandian no era un jugador potente, no era corredor al estilo Ferrer, Nadal, etc., tampoco era consistente con su saque, pero sí tenía un buen 1er saque y variado: cruzado con mucho efecto, planazos a la T, con efecto a la T y saques al cuerpo. Una vez que dominaba el punto buscaba rallies cortos, tenía gran capacidad de encontrar tiros a la línea de fondo y ángulos cortos tanto con drive como con bh. Voleaba bien, iba bien a la red, tiraba globos de drive y bh, drop shot, smash, cambios de ritmo, devoluciones fantásticas simplemente colocando la raqueta usando la velocidad y la fuerza del oponente, tenía un repertorio. Su termómetro era el 1er saque, sí éste andaba bien su tenis fluía.

I honestly don't believe anyone could defeat him at this court. The speed, experience and quality of the strokes was too high, only 2 errors in the first set against Sinner, crazy statistics in the semis and finals. Novak's mental edge is strong as well.

Not a single doubt.

Hell no. Even Sinner is better than Nalbandian.

@@arvidl5666 did you measure that?

​@@arvidl5666Yeah because the bloke who was beating a prime Federer would be worse than Sinner who can't beat a 36 year old Djokovic...

You have just this to declare your man as goat

You compare Nalbandians and Rodicks to Alcaraz and Sinner talents... gtfo

@@zikaperic2133 your probably 5 year old child , Nalbandian had all the weapons to win multiple grandslam if he had fully dedicated himself to tennis. Sinner doesnt even come close to that level of tennis.

@@pcgamerzzzchannel3407 Sinner is getting here on pair with Alkaraz. Alkaraz youngest 1st ATP, 2x GS @ 20yo. Those guys are going to be 5-10 GS. Please remind me how many GS Nalbandian has? Rodick has 1 for the whole career.

@@zikaperic2133 in the weakest era ever.

Delpo was great, but injuries. Way too many injuries.

​@@mitchaelhollingsworth1698You are right .Tennis puts a lot of pressure on a players joints and very few professionals can stay clear of injury .

Roger did not just have natural talent but he also put in the hard work to become an amazing player .I do not think he is appreciated enough for his dedication to the sport.

#2 and #3 after Djokovic

@@Geistlos0 no. I am dead ass they would be 6 and 9.

dude he had all the weapons to win multiple grandslams just as safin , they didnt give a fuck about tennis.

@@pcgamerzzzchannel3407 Nalbandian did train, que wasnt as professional overall, but he tried. Its just that he wasnt as good enough. He had an average serve and was weak mentally. Safin is a different story, when he trained and didnt party and fucked models he DID WIN SLAMS, DAVIS CUPS AND WAS NUMBER 1 IN THE WORLD. Safin was a different animal, possibly the most talented player ever.

Winner comment. This feeble attempt of Fed cultists to prop up a good but not great player in order to promote the myth of Federer’s legendary “wasted talent” contemporaries is laughable and pathetic at the same time.

@@rebecalinares5393 Safin is nowhere near as talented as Federer, let alone Djokovic.

@@sleepyjoe5251 Safin vs Djokovic 2-0, including a 6-0 in their 1st meeting. Djokovic never won a set against Safin in their 2 meetings. Sadly Marat dedicated more to women and parties, but talent wise he was THE BEST in the world, miles ahead over Federer talent wise. Safin was powerful, quick and had all the shots, no weaknesses. You dont know anything about tennis. You are making a fool of yourself.