Home > Tennis > David Nalbandian topples Roger Federer again - but does it really matter to the king?
by Ed McGrogan on 02 November 2007
Email this Article (9) Comments
Free £10 bet when you register at
After watching David Nalbandian defeat Roger Federer for the second consecutive Masters Series tournament, a question immediately popped into my head: What is bigger, the improvement in Nalbandian's tennis, or his mental edge over Federer?
If you asked 100 tennis fans this question, I think you’d hear arguments for both sides. Concerning Nalbandian’s play on the court, he’s shown a number of signs lately that suggest that he could be back to contending for Grand Slam titles. His unforced error count is way down. His backhand is as precise and potent as ever, packing tremendous pop with incredible deception.
Most importantly, David has not wilted under the pressure of his opponents. Victories against Federer (twice), Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic are proof enough of this important attribute. 'Nalbandian might be the biggest wild card on tour heading into next year, and I’m sure no one – Federer included – will want to see him in their quarter of the draw at the Australian Open'Of course, this “new Nalbandian” has only been on display at the Madrid and Paris Masters tournaments, and not for the duration of 2007. He could very well be on a hot streak, or simply have caught lightning in a bottle. We’ve seen countless instances of this on tour before; Guillermo Canas, who did the same back-to-back Masters beating of Federer back in the spring, is a good example. It’s possible that Nalbandian could join that list, based on his up-and-down career numbers.We won’t know the answer to this for a while, especially because Nalbandian’s year is over after Bercy. The ATP announced that even with a win this week, the Argentinian can’t get the amount of points needed to qualify for Shanghai. But even though many fans would prefer to see Nalbandian at the Tennis Masters Cup as opposed to Fernando Gonzalez (who some say peaked long ago) or the currently unknown eighth seed (who some say isn’t playing as well as David), the fact that this is the end of the line leaves much for fans to consider heading into 2008. Nalbandian might be the biggest wild card on tour heading into next year, and I’m sure no one – Federer included – will want to see him in their quarter of the draw at the Australian Open. My answer to the original question would tend to be skewed towards the latter, that Nalbandian has a huge edge in the mental battle between the two at the moment. When Roger dropped the first set today, I didn’t think much of his chances in the match, even though against nearly anyone else on tour, I would still be very confident in Federer’s ability to comeback and win.
And when Nalbandian broke Federer to serve for the match at 6-4, 5-4, I didn’t think for a second that Roger could come and break back. I stopped and thought about that, and I realised that’s probably one of the few times I’ve ever said that about Federer before. But it’s a direct result of how good Nalbandian is playing, and also how much of a struggle Roger is having against him – on and off the court.
Federer doesn’t put on the puzzled, frustrated visage often, but he’s doing so when he plays Nalbandian. It's happened in Paris and in Madrid, for one reason of another. But let’s keep things in perspective here - both of these tournaments were not “critical” for Federer, as he had essentially sewn up the year-end No.1 after the US Open.
They also aren’t Grand Slams, which is where Federer prides himself on performing at his best, all the time. And, after playing in Basel last week (which he won), Paris makes three consecutive weeks for a player who rarely plays consecutive weeks to begin with. So, while the two straight losses to Nalbandian may be troubling to Roger, I don’t think they are of large concern in the grand scheme of things – unless they meet each other early in Melbourne.
Comments (9)
by t.k.s on November 03, 2007
Noone knew what the king(Roger)thought while playing in Paris with his original opponent(David). Roger won Basil and then played in Paris in a very tough draw, compare to others, do you agree with me Mr.Ed?, though he had a first round bye. In the second round he met Ivo and had to play three sets. Think! how much energy he paid for it, I guess when he lost David the first set and tried the second one but it's not what he needed, because he still has a very important tournament next week. So he is smart not to push himself and gets hurt. The masters Cup is the tournament that eight of the best men tennis players play. He's the defending champ so his lost this time is not the matter. One question that I wish you to answer is why David returns in a few weeks and can get top form, is it like Hingis's case? Please tell me, it seems you are interested always when Roger got defeated. Everyone now says 'Roger is human', it's absolutely true. And whenever Roger wins almost all the time, one says 'it's so boring'. Y
by questions on November 03, 2007
the relationship between fed and nalby is a strange one because until recently fed had the wood on daveed winning 7 in a row and prior to that it was nalby with the edge winning 5 in a row -- has things reverted back to the beginning of fed's career, when daveed was in his head? we shall see... one thing for certain, this partisian view of the media when it comes to fed and everyone else is tiring.. why is it when fed was about to play daveed for the second time in as many weeks, the highlights were something to the effect of '..can david slay goliath again', or 'david sets up opportunity to repeat victory..' yet when nadal is poised to have a rematch with the same david (in france), no such highlights are to be found.....is there a unanimous movement to derail fed's efforts by heavily pushing/promoting his opponents when they play him while concurrently vaulting nadal by slowing down tennis surfaces? What is your take on that ed??
by Patrick on November 04, 2007
Your article is good about the loss to Nalbandian in a Master Series is not critical/serious for Federer. And a loss helps Roger to find a way to improve his game. It's called continuous improvement. Referring to the law of yin and yang, too much wins is not good either. Why? Because we used to learn more in a defeat than in a victory. A loss to Nalbandian motivates Federer to be STRONGER. A lesson from a loss may help him to win the Grand Slam. A positive thinking tennis opinion
by Tennis Masta on November 04, 2007
Djokovic barely edges Federer in Montreal and it is non-stop hype. No one talks about the Federer serving for the fist set and squandering three set points. Djokovic makes a quick departure in Cincinnati. Absolutely no one even mentions it. Federer, even after a tough loss in the previous week, fight all the way and wins the title. Not much is made of it at all. US open starts. The hype is back on Djokovic. Never mind he barely escapes from an early loss to Stepanek. The final comes. The hype hits the roof. Mary Joe Fernandez, whose husband makes a good living off of Federer, asks Djokovic if beating Federer in Montreal gives him more confidence. The opposite question to Federer to put a doubt in his mind. Well we know the result. People endlessly talk about Djokovic's chances. Here is Nadal in his first final in looong time. Well, since Wimbledon. No one asks where he was all along while Federer consistently makes it to finals on almost all tournaments. As some one pointed out, no one is asking him
by Sunil on November 04, 2007
No it is an accident to come twice only
by bobby on November 04, 2007
quite right tennis masta. people are very quick to forget that federer won 3 slams this year, as well as big tournaments indoor, outdoor and on clay. in any other era that would be an astounding feat. sampras, agassi, borg and mcenroe, edberg, becker, they NEVER did that. never. and federer has done it 3 times in 4 years!! yet many pundits and commentators speak as if we're in an era where all these threats are derailing federer. we hear of nadal,djokovic,nalbandian. nadal rules the clay but none of these players have won any of the other majors. when they start winning lots of them, and not just 1, then start writing articles about a 'worried' federer.
by Eric on November 05, 2007
I think it's a awsome effort from Nalbandian who has always had incredible talent and ability, but has lacked mental toughness and dedication in the past, form a mental toughness point of view, this is by far his best effort ever, he still needs to prove he can beat any of these guys in a slam, which I still have my doubts about, I hope he does though tennis will be richer for it
by Tennis Masta on November 05, 2007
There is a lot to learn from the last two masters series where Nalbandian was on a rampage. Federer and Nadal both lost to him twice. In Paris Federer looses 6-4, 7-6 after Nalbandian twice. Nadal looses 6-4, 6-0. In Madrid. Federer looses 1-6, 6-3, 6-3. He completely dominates Nalbandian in the first set where it seemed to all that it would a quick lop sided match. Nadal looses to Nalbandian 6-1, 6-2. In the last two masters losses Federer won 22 games against Nalbandian. Nadal won a whopping 7 games at the same time. That should say it all - how Federer is head and shoulders above even the great Nadal. But no one talks about how Federer competes even when he is loosing and how he is always only a few points from winning the matches he looses. When he wins he wins convincingly. You don't read about this much.
Yes, Nalbandian has an edge over Federer at the moment. Canas has an edge early this year. Or so it seemed. Nadal has an edge on clay. And everyone has an edge over Federer if you listen to the media hype before the matches and during the matches. Why, after Wimbledon this year the media proclaimed that Nadal has completely closed the gap with Federer. Next year many (in the media) is expecting Nadal to win. Remember the hype before the Australian Open started. Roddick just beat Roger in a warm up exhibition and had a close match at masters cup the previous year. Jimmy Connors can't hide his excitement as he jets to the courtside. I don't know of one person in the US who did not believe that Roddick had a good chance of upsetting Roger. We all know the result. Wacky Mary Carillo said that Roger was practising his volleys (during the match with Roddick). We know what happened to Canas' edge. He was summarily dismissed at Madrid. Nalbandian had an edge when the two started their careers. Roger
Add your comment here
PERSONAL ABUSE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED
First Name
Last Name
Email
Heading
Display your favourite sport or football team badge with your comment.
Sport
League
Team
Comment *
Please enter the text you see in the picture into the textbox below. *
US Open crunch: Roger Federer survives - now can Andy Murray finish off Rafael Nadal?
Toulouse, Stade Francais or maybe Dan Carter's Perpignan - who's hot for French rugby's Top 14?
Andorra a doddle, Croatia the BIG test - but are England up to it without Newcastle's Owen?
Arsenal Aston Villa Barcelona Chelsea Everton Football Liverpool Manchester City Manchester United Newcastle United Portsmouth Real Madrid Sunderland Tottenham Hotspur West Ham United