Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near
I'm inclined to disagree, but that doesn't mean you are wrong. None of these players are useless on faster surfaces; Nadal for example has won Wimbledon twice, as we all know. Still, Ferrer and Nadal's preferred conditions are of the slower variety, and Wimbledon is the only Major in which Ferrer hasn't made a semifinal. So to my mind, the changing of the conditions more or less benefited Nadal, Ferrer and Djokovic equally relative to their ability levels. There is one thing about Djokovic's resume that bothers, in that in the very year the AO court surface was changed, he won his first Slam, and it was where he started his monster run in 2011 as well. It just so turned out that the grindtastic steady conditions of the plexicushion at the AO suit his game absolutely wonderfully. By contrast, the rebound ace surface was more volatile (changeable) and reactive. Now I don't want to take away from Nole's greatness, but it's a point worth mentioning, I think. Nice to be having this discussion with you.
I think the movement on grass (which is totally different from hard court) is what hurts Ferrer more than the surface speed. The same can be said of Safin or Davydenko, both of whom were very good on fast hard courts but couldn't play at even close to their potential on grass. Still, Ferrer hammered Del Potro at Wimbledon last year and was very close to taking a 2-0 lead on Andy Murray in the quarterfinals.
There is no great disparity between Ferrer's fast court results and slow court results, and if you break down his game it seems well suited for any surface speed. There is just little basis for your assertion that he has hugely benefitted from slow courts.