Ferrer, victim of his era or less talented?

[Devilito]

Chang was a better, more complete version of Ferrer. There is nothing Ferrer does better than Chang. End of story

[Legend of Borg]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Hey, somebody has to keep the standards up around here.

If we don't point out people's goofs, then the next thing you know someone will be claiming the Federer is the greatest of all time. Go figure.

Or that Laver would have a chance of even being top 10 in today's game....

Yep, gotta set them fools straight.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Legend of Borg

Or that Laver would have a chance of even being top 10 in today's game....

Yep, gotta set them fools straight.

Or that Tilden had a decent serve.

Unbelievable!

[dominikk1985]

Originally Posted by Devilito

Chang was a better, more complete version of Ferrer. There is nothing Ferrer does better than Chang. End of story

ferrer has a lot more power than chang.

ferrer can easily hit with all those 6"5 100 mph FH hitters like berdych, DP, Tsonga, söderling and so on (he is not as powerfull as them of course but he is not getting chased around by them).

there were simply no 6"5 monster hitters like DP or söderling around in the 90s. do you think chang could have hung with those big hitters as well as ferrer does? even guys like almagro or wawrinka hit way harder than anyone in the 90s did.

I don't want to glorify ferrer too much as he has clear limits in his game but we just have to acknowledge that this era with guys like federer, nadal and nole is tougher than any era in history.

[pjonesy]

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.

[Anaconda]

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

I don't think roddick is a lot better than him. in fact ferrer leads roddick h2h 7-4 and a lot of those matches were in roddicks prime before his prime.

Is this a joke? 5 slam finals to 0. 5 MS titles to 0. 30 + titles to whatever Ferrer has (certainly not 30). Roddick has outperformed Ferrer at AO, Wimbledon and the US Open. Roddick was a lot more influential in his DC winning team than Ferrer ever was. Keep in mind Roddick had to face Federer from 2003-2007. Also keep in mind Federer in 2012-2013 is still giving the best of this generation a run for their money.


H2H is pointless. Are you seriously suggesting Ferrer would take Roddick at Wimbledon 2003/2004/2005 or 2009? I think Roddick is a lot better than Ferrer.

[kiki]

Ferrer is current Solly
Since he plays a rather weak era he reaches the semis Solly could not because of his strong field

[Nathaniel_Near]

I'm still puzzling over how David Ferrer can be a top 5 player. I guess current conditions do fit his game beautifully, but still... puzzling. I do like him, though.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near

I'm still puzzling over how David Ferrer can be a top 5 player. I guess current conditions do fit his game beautifully, but still... puzzling. I do like him, though.

He is solid player but with no huge weapons to hurt an opponent. The man is fast and is also one of the best returners in tennis.

[Relinquis]

Ok. Ferrer is no Nadal, Federer, or Djokovic, but he OWNs a lot of the players that are idolised on this forum. Del Potro is one of them. Check out their WTF match last year (2012).

Ferrer is the real deal, the guy is a stud. I don't know why this is in the former player section. He's still number 4 in the world.

[Nathaniel_Near]

Originally Posted by pc1

He is solid player but with no huge weapons to hurt an opponent. The man is fast and is also one of the best returners in tennis.

That, we all know, which is why it's puzzling that he would be in the top 5. In short I'm inferring responsibility to the current conditions. As valiant as David Ferrer is, I find it slightly odd that such an uncreative method of playing can garner for a player such a consistently high rank. A player who really does have less weapons in his 'strokes' than probably most of the top 20, and maybe even the top 40 or so.

[USS Tang]

Racket technology has turned tennis into baseline whack-a-mole boredom. Pure athleticism (running, jumping, etc.) is 3/4 of the sport; skill only 1/4. Contrast this with the players 40+ years ago who made do with wooden or aluminum rackets and head sizes of 65 sq. in.
Watch Ken Rosewall and Tony Roche in the 1970 U.S. Open final. Nobody today can do what they did then. Link is below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJubuKDN7Fk

[Boricua]

Originally Posted by bluetrain4

Ferrer made a Slam final?

Dont think so.

[El Diablo]

I cannot understand these threads where a top-5 player is deemed a "victim" because there are better players in the world. People seem to lose perspective on just how great it is to be a top-5 guy (just as they lost perspective on Roddick, declaring his career a disappointment despite something like 9 years in the top-10). Ferrer is quite a good player but he's not a world-beater, and his record seems commensurate with his talent.

[President]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near

That, we all know, which is why it's puzzling that he would be in the top 5. In short I'm inferring responsibility to the current conditions. As valiant as David Ferrer is, I find it slightly odd that such an uncreative method of playing can garner for a player such a consistently high rank. A player who really does have less weapons in his 'strokes' than probably most of the top 20, and maybe even the top 40 or so.

Ferrer returns exceptionally well, on the same level as Murray and Djokovic. He has phenomenal pure footwork, the best in the game along with Federer and Nadal (and better than Djokovic and Murray) and great speed and athleticism (though not as much as players like Djokovic and Nadal). He takes the ball pretty early, which enables him to frustrate bigger and more powerful opponents like Del Potro, and has a very good forehand which he can place on a dime along with a rock solid backhand. Add to that his very strong mentality and unlimited stamina, and you have a solid top 5 player.

[Nathaniel_Near]

Originally Posted by President

Ferrer returns exceptionally well, on the same level as Murray and Djokovic. He has phenomenal pure footwork, the best in the game along with Federer and Nadal (and better than Djokovic and Murray) and great speed and athleticism (though not as much as players like Djokovic and Nadal). He takes the ball pretty early, which enables him to frustrate bigger and more powerful opponents like Del Potro, and has a very good forehand which he can place on a dime along with a rock solid backhand. Add to that his very strong mentality and unlimited stamina, and you have a solid top 5 player.

This seems like a more elaborate version of PC1's post. It's rather interesting how at his advanced age he has found further and further success in his career. He had tremendous footwork and was a fantastic returner many years ago also, curious though how as the conditions continued to become more grindtastic, Ferrer found a smoother groove. No disrespect to Ferrer who is a very good player, but I think he has benefited hugely from a slow sequence of condition changes - much more so than many of the other players around him. The trending ethos in tennis play at the top of the game had also aided Ferrer much in the way that they conspired against Hewitt.

Hewitt was excellent at using the natural pace of conditions to create counter-play. He also had exceptional passing shots and very much loved a target. Tennis changed around him, and he couldn't adapt and couldn't generate enough of his own pace from the slowing conditions of the tour (whether conditions slowed due to surfaces, balls, prevailing tennis ethos or other and/or a combination of all is up for debate). In the same way, tennis has changed around Ferrer in a manner which suits him tremendously, however he still lacks the weapons and talent required to break through at the very top level of the game for even a finals appearance. Other points can be referred to that were also contributive to the aforementioned eventualities, such as injury and levels of maturity - these exist, but do not undermine the premise of the argument.

[President]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near

This seems like a more elaborate version of PC1's post. It's rather interesting how at his advanced age he has found further and further success in his career. He had tremendous footwork and was a fantastic returner many years ago also, curious though how as the conditions continued to become more grindtastic, Ferrer found a smoother groove. No disrespect to Ferrer who is a very good player, but I think he has benefited hugely from a slow sequence of condition changes - much more so than many of the other players around him. The trending ethos in tennis play at the top of the game had also aided Ferrer much in the way that they conspired against Hewitt.

Hewitt was excellent at using the natural pace of conditions to create counter-play. He also had exceptional passing shots and very much loved a target. Tennis changed around him, and he couldn't adapt and couldn't generate enough of his own pace from the slowing conditions of the tour (whether conditions slowed due to surfaces, balls, prevailing tennis ethos or other and/or a combination of all is up for debate). In the same way, tennis has changed around Ferrer in a manner which suits him tremendously, however he still lacks the weapons and talent required to break through at the very top level of the game for even a finals appearance. Other points can be referred to that were also contributive to the aforementioned eventualities, such as injury and levels of maturity - these exist, but do not undermine the premise of the argument.

Ferrer is great on fast surfaces too though because his footwork is so good and he takes the ball so early, I think his current rank has a lot more to do with his improvement as a player than the slowing of the courts (though that may be a factor as well). At the end of 2012 he thrashed Berdych (one of the players you would probably consider superior to him) in Davis Cup on a lightning quick indoor hard court, he also beat Del Potro at WTF again on an indoor hard court.

[Andres]

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

there were simply no 6"5 monster hitters like DP or söderling around in the 90s. do you think chang could have hung with those big hitters as well as ferrer does? even guys like almagro or wawrinka hit way harder than anyone in the 90s did.

Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich, Philippoussis, Todd Martin, Rosset? Becker was 6'3' but still a monster hitter.

[Nathaniel_Near]

Originally Posted by President

Ferrer is great on fast surfaces too though because his footwork is so good and he takes the ball so early, I think his current rank has a lot more to do with his improvement as a player than the slowing of the courts (though that may be a factor as well). At the end of 2012 he thrashed Berdych (one of the players you would probably consider superior to him) in Davis Cup on a lightning quick indoor hard court, he also beat Del Potro at WTF again on an indoor hard court.

I think it has more to do with how the elements he is strong with and/or worked on coincide with the requirement hierarchy of the era, and this has further aided his maturity and mental powers. As for Berdych being superior, that's a close call with the current conditions. Ferrer has shown more consistency but Berdych has made a major final. For me it's all about what is most suited at a certain point in time, and who can adapt the best to certain conditions, which is not always a question of who is superior at adapting but also pertains to some luck, after all, it would be unfair to ask an elephant to climb a tree...

If conditions had become faster instead of slower, Ferrer could still consistently be top 10 but I'd imagine that someone like Tsonga might have traded positions with Ferrer in terms of right now holding a top 4 rank. I'd have quite liked Tsonga's chances to win a Major title actually (though he came close at WTF 2011). I still hold out hope that he can win one as I am a big fan of his game. Incidentally, I was particularly pleased when Ferrer won a 1000 title finally, as I believe it is the least that he deserves.

[dominikk1985]

Originally Posted by Relinquis

Ok. Ferrer is no Nadal, Federer, or Djokovic, but he OWNs a lot of the players that are idolised on this forum. Del Potro is one of them. Check out their WTF match last year (2012).

Ferrer is the real deal, the guy is a stud. I don't know why this is in the former player section. He's still number 4 in the world.

very good Point. the top4 beat him so badly because they are great in defense and offense. they just have a better answer to anything ferrer does.

but against the guys of the second row, even the big hitters he is hanging in well and not only by retrieving (pure retrieving won't win you any matches in modern Tennis) but also by moving them around and taking the offense.

pure hitting or running doesn't hurt, what does hurt him is the combination of both.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeRSpyDUJ4g