Originally Posted by matchmaker
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.
Good points, matchmaker. So are you implying that Chang's confidence was immediately elevated when he won the FO? Ferrer had a more conventional rise through the rankings. Ferrer built his confidence, brick by brick. Chang hit the jackpot.
I can see that.