Originally Posted by NadalAgassi
Chang has made 4 slam finals. Ferrer one. Chang has won 7 Masters, Ferrer only 1. The two are not in the same league. You also cant prove Chang wouldnt have reached any slam finals or won any Masters in this era. Ferrer has lost slam semifinals to a very subpar Murray (2011 Australian), a very young Djokovic (2007 U.S Open), and lost in slams in his best surfaces numerous times to lower ranked opponents, and so on. Tsonga, Soderling, Robredo, Berdych, and others have all won their first Masters before he could. Chang has atleast beaten the likes of Agassi, Courier, Edberg, and Lendl in slams. Ferrers only ever big wins in a slam are over Nadal on hard courts, that is it, and no beating Murray at RG is definitely not a big win, sorry.
I do agree the very top players with a big games were confident vs Chang, just as they were with Ferrer, but Chang was still harder work and a more dangerous foe than Ferrer was.
Point taken. But again I think that history plays a big role in the development of a player. At 16 years of age, Chang got about the biggest boost in self-confidence you could ever have. Whereas Ferrer rose to top ranks at a later stage in his tennis carreer and although he has gotten some good results too (I do think beating a multiple HC champion on the surface is noteworthy), he could never win against some players.
I can indeed not prove it, but I really think Chang would not have played a big role in this era.
But let's say that in absence of that proof Chang is still better than Ferrer.
I think that what makes them more alike is how the real top players think about them and what they think is that they can easily beat these guys when it matters.
None of the two has/had had a lot of authority at that point.