This Is Why David Nalbandian Is The Best Player To Never Win a Grand Slam Title! 

He could never control his temper , so he never became a goat

Definitely not

@@justinsaehoon Nalbandian is/was better for sure than today's "Next Gen"

More talented maybe. But saying he's far better than Medvedev is frankly a joke. Medvedev is an elite player who is as good as they come. The big 3 are something very few can actually grasp, so no need to compare them to anyone. By the end of their careers, let's see who you will think is a "better player". It's not just about talent, it's how you execute it. *cough cough* kyrgios

@@bsrussian Nalbandian was the only one who toyed with Federer at will, and beat the whole Big 3 when they were young. Medvedev choked against 35yo Nadal, ffs.

@@bsrussian to say that medvedev compares to Nalbandian is honestly one of the most outrageously stupid things I’ve ever heard. Nalbandian would’ve crushed medvedev 6-0 6-0 6-0 almost every time they played if they played in the same era. Medvedev has literally 0 class and whines at the pettiest shit you can imagine. He’s extremely overrated because the era we’re currently in is weaker than almost any era in tennis history. With the wins that Nalbandian has and the peak of his performance displayed for anyone to see if they just do a tiny bit of searching, anybody with more than 2 brain cells can see that Nalbandian should never EVER be compared to a joke of a tennis player like Medvedev. It’s frightening how anyone could think medvedev is close to the greatness of Nalbandian.

He enjoyed life man, he was just build different

Brilliant talent!

Nadal was a better player then Djokovic at that time genius. 3rd best yeah right

@@anshrajput8786 In the tournament, Djokovic was the better player. Just look at the score line difference. Nalbandian beat Nadal 6-1 6-2, while he beat Djokovic in 2 tight sets.

​​@@hello-mv6yg a Nalbandian le costaban los jugadores sacadores y con buena defensa, ej. Djokovic. Esa combinación del oponente era desgastante mentalmente para David, tener que luchar los puntos con su servicio y que el rival gane puntos con su propio servicio fácilmente. A pesar que Rafa era de los mejores defendiendo, nunca tuvo un saque potente y esto permitía peloteo, y cuando había muchos sets con peloteo David estudiaba a su rival, le leía el juego, le encontraba el punto débil y ejecutaba. Esto acompañado de que, Nalbandian cuando jugaba bien, su saque era buenísimo, pocos ice pero muchos saques ganadores, manejaba todos los efectos. El saque propio siempre fue el termómetro de Nalbandian.

- In 2 straight tournaments 😎

@@ivansanchez-wk2rj I did not know that.

It’s insane how many potential multi-slam winners have been denied by the Big Three. Nishikori, Del Potro, Nalbandian, Ferrer, Roddick, etc.

@@voidwalker8754 yes, a bit sad.

​@@voidwalker8754 Delpo was denied by his body

@@voidwalker8754 If it wasn't for his several injuries Del Potro would've easily won 4 slams at least

Federer won like over 100 titles, I don't think he counts as an underachiever, the reason why he didnn't win more is because he lacks the mental fortitude that nadal and djokovic have.

@@mihaicristi9617 i think thats what he meant. He is clearly more talented than Nadal and Novak but they are more physically and mentally prepared

@@Saskobest Maybe but remember Fed is 6 years older than both as well. If they were the same age I'm sure Fed would have won even more against them

@@Saskobest That is true, but that doesn't mean Federer is an uderachiever. Like I mentioned, the guy won over 100 titles, only one more player managed to do what in singles in the Open Era, so he is far from an underachiever. Don't put Federer in the same pot as Hewitt Roddick Safin and Del po, they were great players indeed, but Fed had more titles than all of them combined, he is from another league.

@@initialize21 Federer did a great job against Djokovic and Nadal, even if he was older, but the h2h doesn't show that thing. Federer trails by 8 points from Nadal, but most of Nadal wins were on clay, Federer leading on grass and hard. Nadal took such a big lead due to him playing Federer 5 times in Fed worst year, while Fed only played Nadal once in Rafa's worst year. Same goes for Djokovic, even though he lead by only 4 points, their rivarly was a lot closer than Djoko-Nadal that is separated by only 2 points. Djokovic met Fed 2 times in Fed worst year, while the vice-versa never happened. That is why h2h is kinda misleading, the real numbers should be 24-20 in favour of Nadal and 27-25 in favour of Djokovic. Even though Fed would still trail in both aspects, that would show the reality of those rivalries, because all of them were really close.

Asperger? My first thought would be ADHD lol

i think Rios was better than Nalbandian

nah dont do that to thiem. thiem is an excellent player. really skilled and has done some things few people have done. he's defeated rafa on clay 4 times and at a major once. he's defeated djokovic at a major twice. he defeated federer in a masters final. obviously he won a major in strange circumstances but he really deserved it. much better than nalbandian. talent is nothing if you don't take advantage of it, maybe he did the best he could. a few minutes of a highlight reel and that's that for you? thiem > nalbandian. medvedev > nalbandian.

Nah Thiem would have way more slams by now if it weren't for his major wrist injury. Thiem's H2H against the big 3 combined is 9-3, as of 2019.

Zverev? Hasnt even beaten a top 10 player at a Slam

@@RazOls too early to call. And context matters. All his losses to top 10 players in slams were mostly him being the underdog or lower seed in the match. Although it's still poor performance, his achievements is tremendous.

Zverev and greatness do not belong in the same sentence, or conversation!

@@lanapearce9968 I hate the guy, but come on. 5 masters, 2 ATP Finals titles, olympic gold, multiple semis and a final in the Slams, and he's still 24. I don't respect him as a person but what he's achieved, give credit where credit is due

This guy was better than Zverev.

Yeah, I agree with you Rios, Nalbandian did play against Hewitt in a Wimbledon final, and lost 😳. He liked a lot of players, had his moments, but just wasn't good enough

hahaah thats lame. Ferrer tennis was ugly as fuck. Nalbandians game was poetry. Numbers arent everything mate.

Nalbandian era capaz, no solo de ganarle a los fantásticos de Federer y Nadal, sino que era capaz de aplastarlos. Esa sensación no se tenía con Ferrer, el juego de Ferrer se limitaba a correr, correr y correr por la pelota, Nalbandian era otro nivel.

A Ferrer hay que compararlo con Davydenko, eran de un calibre similar.

True on paper. No disrepect/ just saying: Ferrer reached his potential & then some, with hard work. IF Nalbandian would've given half or so as much effort (with his natural talent, & stayed in shape consistently + avoid injuries) he would've easily been top 10 his whole career and probably win 1-3 slams

@@mauriciomauricio7626 y menos tambien, davydenko jugaba mas cerca de la linea de base pero bueno, en general si

In my opinion Ferrer isnt ahead of Nalbandian, Tsonga, Berdych, Söderling and Davydenko.

@@RazOls and Dimitrov.

In my opinion Nalbandanian was a better player than Berdych and Tsonga. Ferrer never beat Federer. David N. At one point was better than Roger. The Best never to win a major was David Nalbandanian.

Las estadísticas no mienten. Pero Nalbandian era brillante.

Zverev never beat a top 10 player at a slam, I am pretty sure that Nalbandian did that. Plus Nalbandian had to play with a prime version of Federer and Nadal, which were beasts, Zverev had to face a post prime Big 3, which are great, but not as good as their prime versions.

@@mihaicristi9617 accolades speak for themselves

@@justinsaehoon No they don't, Mihai makes a very good point. If Zverev played with prime Federer or prime Nadal, he would get bagelled numerous times. He wouldn't even come close to most of the accolades he has right now.