Ferrer, victim of his era or less talented?

[President]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near

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.

All I am saying is that I think you may be wrong about the slow conditions hugely benefitting Ferrer, they benefit players like Nadal and Djokovic a lot more than they do David. Hell, even back in 2007 Ferrer made the WTF final on a fast carpet court, it is a myth that he struggles on fast surfaces when in fact he may even be better on them than slow ones. He also beat Del Potro last year at Wimbledon, a relatively fast court even these days.

[Nathaniel_Near]

Originally Posted by President

All I am saying is that I think you may be wrong about the slow conditions hugely benefitting Ferrer, they benefit players like Nadal and Djokovic a lot more than they do David. Hell, even back in 2007 Ferrer made the WTF final on a fast carpet court, it is a myth that he struggles on fast surfaces when in fact he may even be better on them than slow ones. He also beat Del Potro last year at Wimbledon, a relatively fast court even these days.

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.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Anaconda

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.

Prime to prime Ferrer is way better on clay, is surprisingly better indoors (Ferrer has a WTF final and a Masters title indoors, neither which Roddick has,, Roddick surprisingly has virtually no results indoors and got spanked by Ferrer at the 07 WTF in the semis), and roughly equal on very slow hard courts like Australia. Roddick is much better on fast hard courts grass, and better on medium faced hard courts. I agree Roddick is better but when you break it down by the various surfaces it is actually closer than one might think.

[Nathaniel_Near]

Sorry, I haven't even properly answered the original thread question. So to cut a long story short, I don't see Ferrer as a victim of his era, but rather a benefiter of this era, if one can put it that way. Or in other words, do I see Ferrer having his current consistency and rank during most or all other eras of the Open Era? - no, not really. Rather I see him as a product of this era and a member of the vanguard which defines it. He doesn't possess the same level of talent that Chang, Rios et al had. To quote Neil Fox, ' It isn't scientifically proven, but it IS fact! ' Well, it certainly isn't fact, and I can't scientifically prove it, but I do firmly believe it though, as speculative as anyone's opinion could be on the matter.

[President]

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.

[Nathaniel_Near]

Originally Posted by President

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.

This isn't all about Ferrer but the players around him, who like much less to engage in fierce wars of attrition from the baseline. There is little basis that goes beyond being speculative for any opinion you or myself could offer to this debate, merely reasoned theory. We can only guess about the results Ferrer's game would have earned him were the paradigm to have veered off in a contrary direction. I've made my guess and reasoned it on Ferrer's style owing itself to the current paradigm and battles of attrition, while at the same time believing that guys like Tsonga and Berdych have games more naturally tailored to conditions that reward aggression and shot-making prowess more than fantastic retrieval abilities and stamina. However were a scenario to be played out, who knows, maybe Ferrer would have adapted the same way either way or maybe he'd have been slightly worse off, as I suspect, while players like Tsonga and Roddick (shot-maker/all courter and - big serve/weapons) do a little bit better. At the end of it all, one can only speculate.

[Mlenk]

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

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.

I don't know. I think if you give Chang today's technology (poly strings, etc), he could easily hit with the same kind of power as Ferrer.

I honestly think that if you put Ferrer back into the 90's with 90's technology, he wouldn't have had the same results as Chang had in the 90's.

[kiki]

In a weak era a guy like him gets to number 4!!!
In 70 and 80 he would fare no better than Higueras or Barazutti

[kiki]

In 1979 number 4 was Gerulaitis in 1980 Vilas and in 81 Lendl
See the differences boys?

[Anaconda]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Prime to prime Ferrer is way better on clay, is surprisingly better indoors (Ferrer has a WTF final and a Masters title indoors, neither which Roddick has,, Roddick surprisingly has virtually no results indoors and got spanked by Ferrer at the 07 WTF in the semis), and roughly equal on very slow hard courts like Australia. Roddick is much better on fast hard courts grass, and better on medium faced hard courts. I agree Roddick is better but when you break it down by the various surfaces it is actually closer than one might think.

And what does Ferrer actually have to show on clay? I don't even think he's won an 1000 series or masters event on that surface and has only made 1 semifinal at the French open and one quater final. You might want to know that most players are a lot better on clay than Roddick; it's hardly anything to praise.



BTW, Roddick was actually injured during that match. Let's not pretend that 2007 was Roddick playing lights out tennis, the guy was simply rolling forehands and slicing backhands all year.




As for Australia/slow hard courts, Roddick's record is clearly a lot better than Ferrer's. Ferrer has made two semifinals in what I call an anomaly of an era with 3, maybe 4 insane talents coupled with practically nothing after that. Roddck has made 4 semfinals and two quater finals in Australia. You also might want to note that Roddick's record on the hard court masters is clearly superior to Ferrer's. So no, on any hard court - be it fast, slow or medium there is no 'close contest' about this matchup.




2011-2012 are the only years Ferrer outperformed Roddick. In a consistent era with more than 3 or 4 good players I doubt Ferrer would ever make the top 5 - he's lucky that there are no more than 4 world class players in the game today (although those players are amazing).




In terms of game, Ferrer has believed in his game plan and has gotten the best out of his limitations. Pays similar to Hewitt; Grinds/hits flat on the rise/ constructs points/returns well/solid from every department/hard to break physically and mentally. I don't know what to say about Roddick sometimes. He could go on absolute tears, hitting 4 forehand winners in single games on even the slowest of hard courts against the likes of Federer and Nadal, but would then get beat by guys like Istomic, Monaco. what a joke.

[Anaconda]

Originally Posted by President

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.

Safin never got a chance at Wimbledon; 2003 he was injured, 2004 he had blisters, don't even want to speak about how injury messed him up in 2005 and am not going to speak of how 2006 onwards was because of 2005.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Prime to prime Ferrer is way better on clay, is surprisingly better indoors (Ferrer has a WTF final and a Masters title indoors, neither which Roddick has,, Roddick surprisingly has virtually no results indoors and got spanked by Ferrer at the 07 WTF in the semis), and roughly equal on very slow hard courts like Australia. Roddick is much better on fast hard courts grass, and better on medium faced hard courts. I agree Roddick is better but when you break it down by the various surfaces it is actually closer than one might think.

Roddick has 4 AO SF compared to Ferrer's two and also has 2 Miami titles and a IW final, they're not roughly equal on slow HC, Roddick is plain better.

Regardless IMO in this case there's no need to break it down surface by surface when Roddick's whole career is clearly superior to Ferrer's by a good margin.

I mean Roddick has 5 slam finals, reached #1 and finished the year in top 10 for almost a decade, Ferrer took forever to win a freakin masters title, there's just no comparison.

[jimbo333]

This thread needs to be moved, in what world is Ferrer a "Former Pro Player"?

[forzamilan90]

Delete post

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by kiki

In 1979 number 4 was Gerulaitis in 1980 Vilas and in 81 Lendl
See the differences boys?

And in 2012 Nadal was #4. See the difference?

[jean pierre]

Ferrer is exactly like Higueras or Clerc. Great player, but not a Grand Slam winner.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by zagor

Roddick has 4 AO SF compared to Ferrer's two and also has 2 Miami titles and a IW final, they're not roughly equal on slow HC, Roddick is plain better.

Regardless IMO in this case there's no need to break it down surface by surface when Roddick's whole career is clearly superior to Ferrer's by a good margin.

I mean Roddick has 5 slam finals, reached #1 and finished the year in top 10 for almost a decade, Ferrer took forever to win a freakin masters title, there's just no comparison.

There's no contest even on slow HC , just some more facts :

roddick survived younes al ayanoui's brilliance in AO 2003 QF, had a close battle with a resurgent safin in AO 2004, beat an in-form ancic in AO 2007, beat djoker in AO 2009(who retired ), survived a zoning gonzalez in AO 2010 ....

and ferrer ? beat an injured nadal in AO 2011, that's about it

roddick is 38-11 @ the AO with 4 SFs, 2 QFs

ferrer is 28-11 @ the AO with 2 SFs ( wouldn't have reached the 2nd one without a mega-choke from almagro ) , 2 QFs

roddick won miami twice and reached the final of IW in 2010 ..ferrer hasn't made a single final @ either of those 2 masters

[TheCheese]

His style of play is very consistent and relentless, but because he is so one dimensional he can't beat the top guys. I don't think it's all about his height, it's that he chooses to play a one dimensional game and doesn't get enough drive on his groundstrokes to hurt the top guys. Look at Nishikori, he's just slightly taller than Ferrer yet packs quite a punch.

His situation kind of reminds me of Roddick, where he's very consistent and wins a lot but doesn't want to try to make the necessary changes that would give him a shot to beat the top guys.

[NadalAgassi]

Roddick is better than Ferrer overall but it is funny how Ferrer is far and away better than Roddick on both the slowest (clay) and faster (indoor) surfaces.

[bluetrain4]

He's a beneficiary as much as a victim of his era. The drop off in talent after Fed-Murray-Nadal-Djoker, the collectively slower surfaces overall. You can ask if he'd win a Slam in another era, but you should also ask if he could be a Top 5 player making a bunch of Slam QFs and SFs in another era.

He's a great player, no doubt, but I don't see him winning Slams in any other era. As someone pointed out, Chang could only muster one Slam.