David Ferrer is better than Berdych, Tsonga and Del Potro

[dominikk1985]

Originally Posted by tennispro492

So if the other guys can challenge and defeat fed, nadal and djoker why cant they beat david?

they can not consistently challenge the top4 because they lack game. the have the strokes to beat them but not the movement. that means they need a golden day where they hit the lines on every stroke to beat them which sometimes happens but more often not.

for them ferrer is the same as playing the big 4. on a golden day they can beat david too but this happens rarely. this is because while ferrer lacks the strokes of the big 4 he is also very good at taking the ball early and making them run. note that ferrer doesn't play defensively against those 3, he wins by driving them out of the middle of the court and eliciting errors on the run just like the big 4 do usually (bird, tsonga and DP also mostly lose against the big4 it's not that he regularly beats them).

however against the big 4 this game by ferrer doesn't work because they have the strokes AND the legs so there is just nothing that david can do against them. unlike the 3 big hitters he doesn't have the option to hit through them.


but note that those big hitters are not really better players then ferrer. it is no coincidence that he is ranked ahead of them. it is not just big hitters lacking consistency. they have serious weaknesses which they will never overcome. however unlike ferrer they also have some strengths that sometimes compensate for their weaknesses. but this rarely happens the inconsistency is the norm not the exeption.

unfortunately many posters here don't play tennis so they don't understand why tsonga and co. cannot hit those 100mph winners consistently. it's about subtle things like balance, timing and footwork that only people who have played at some level (not necessarily super high but at least decent) can understand.

[always_crosscourt]

If you're a ****, the ONLY opinion you're allowed to have is that Ferrer is a better player than Del-Potro, Tsonga and Berdych.

Otherwise you're admitting that grand slam results are more important than head-to-head, since Ferrer has worse GS results than all three, yet has a winning H2H against all three.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Not true. He may have more overall titles and a higher ranking but slams are the most prestigious events in current tennis and what keeps Ferrer down is that he's never made a slam final in his career (unlike Berd and Tsonga) or won a slam title (unlike Delpo). A bit like Davydenko, who had some nice success in best of 3 but never managed to break through in best of 5 (But Davy at least managed to win WTF and more than 1 master, which Ferrer still hasn't been able to do. Ferrer's claim to fame is still minor league domination at this point.)

I would rank Davydenko above Tsonga and Ferrer (although probably not Del Potro) despite his failure to reach a slam final. In his case he has the WTF and several Masters titles, which is sufficient to overcome the lack of a slam final. Ferrers career however is not.

[bluetrain4]

A couple thoughts (caveat - I have no dog in this fight).

(1) "directly" better vs. better overall. Here's where a lot of the debate lies. Ferrer has winning H2H records vs Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro. I'd say the 2-1 lead over Tsonga is negligible (few matches, Tsonga won only Slam match), but the 6-3 record vs. Berdych, and 6-2 record vs. Del Potro (including the last 4 and the only 2 slam matches) is substantial.

My point isn't that direct H2H doesn't matter in a "better" analysis, it absolutely does. But, it's only one factor. "Better" generally means "better overall" - where a variety of factors are looked at. If it were only H2H - then James Blake, when he briefly had a 3-1 or 3-2 lead over Nadal in his H2H would have been "better", but that sounds ridiculous.

And what are those "other" factors? The things we talk about all the time - overall titles, Masters titles, Slam wins, other significant Slam performances, rankings, etc. And, as always, we can all disagree on how each factor should be weighted. Outside of his one Slam win, Del Potro has the weakest Slam resume of the 4 players, but he has a Slam win.

Looking at other factors, there's a very strong argument that Ferrer is indeed "better overall", but, again, some people understandably place enormous value on a Slam win, almost to the exclusion of everything else.

Ferrer - 20 titles overall (including one Masters), 5 Slam SF, 5 Slam QF, High Rank No. 4, Davis Cup titles

Tsonga - 10 titles overall (including one Masters), 1 Slam RU, 3 Slam SF, 5 Slam QFs, 1 YEC RU, high rank No. 5.

Berdych - 8 titles (including 1 Masters), 1 Slam RU, 2 Slam SF, 4 Slam QF, high rank No. 6, Davis Cup title.

Del Po - 14 titles (no Masters), 1 Slam win, 1 SF, 5 QF, high rank No. 4.

Again, who is better overall depends on how much value you place indivdual factors. Del Po has the worst h2H record vs Ferrer (2-6) of the three players, but he has the Slam win. It can be debated endlessly who history will consider the "better" player, and more likely, history won't have a definitive answer.

(2) Top level of play vs. general level of play.

This is another area that provides a foundation for the "better" debate. The stats show that Ferrer's level of play is generally better. But, some people understandably focus less on general level of play (not ignoring it completely, but just focusing less on it), and more on peak level. And, many people conclude that Tsonga, Berdych and Del Po peak level is higher and "better" than Ferrer, and that they pose more of a threat to the Big 4 when "on" than Ferrer generally does. Would Ferrer come back from 2 sets down at Wimbledon to beat Fed, would he come within a point of beating Djokovic at the French Open, would he beat Fed at the French Open or the USO - probably not.

I do beleive he isn't as much of a threat to the Big 4 on any given day as an "on" Tsonga or Berdych (not sure about Del Po at this point), but looking back at all of their resumes at how many times they beat Big 4 at a Slam, isn't it all fairly similar. Tsonga has beat all 4 at one time or another. Delpo beat Nadal and Fed in the same tournament. Berdych has beat Fed a couple of times. But, Ferrer himself has beat Nadal twice and Murray once.

Tsonga is the one guy I still think whose "on" game against the Big 4 is always going to be more of a threat than Ferrer, but if a "threat" doesn't end in a win, does it even matter in debating who is better?

So, I'm done with my mini-essay. I think you can easily argue Ferrer is better, but can understand why some people won't reflexively anoint him "better" than the others, or at least some of the others.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by bluetrain4

but looking back at all of their resumes at how many times they beat Big 4 at a Slam, isn't it all fairly similar. Tsonga has beat all 4 at one time or another. Delpo beat Nadal and Fed in the same tournament. Berdych has beat Fed a couple of times. But, Ferrer himself has beat Nadal twice and Murray once.

Sorry but beating Murray at the French, especialy clay specialist Ferrer doing it, has to be put into a seperate category altogether. Ferrer is supposed to beat Murray on clay, it would have been an upset if he hadnt, so that is not a big win in anyway. Berdychs win over Murray at the French could also be tossed away as a big win.

[Onehandedbackhand]

Let's be real here.

Ferrer's been around the Top 10 for, what, seven straight years now? Top five for five straight years, I believe. Even was #4 in 2008.

Let's go over all the arguments they had on the guy.

"He's only made the semifinals of one slam, and just the quarters of others" - Now he's made six semifinals, and only Wimbledon's left in that area.

"He can't win a slam...he hasn't even won a shield" - Paris took care of that. Now it's "Now he's only won ONE shield".

"He'll never ever get to a grand slam final" - If Bercy was any indication, any tournament can have the weird and wacky things going on, like everyone falling out, and Daveed getting his chance.

What's going on with Ferrer is between his ears, and that's it. Not only beats, but SPANKS 6-10 in the world regularly. Murray, regardless of surface, doesn't really scare him. They've had some real good matches against each other over the years. A healthy Nadal? Ferrer doesn't believe it at all. A hurt Nadal? He's out for blood.

Djoker? On clay it's obvious by the record he believes he can win there. Any other surface...not a chance.

Federer could have all his limbs chopped off, and on life support with a priest reading his last rites, and Ferru won't believe he has a chance.

Right now, pure and simple, it has to do with belief. If Plies finds a way to get through that fear wall of his with any of the big monsters, and he finds a way to win, Daveed might get incredibly dangerous.

If not....20-30 titles in a career, a shield(or more), and number 4 in the world is a career so few have ever had, and he accomplished it. Nothing to sneeze at.

[bluetrain4]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Sorry but beating Murray at the French, especialy clay specialist Ferrer doing it, has to be put into a seperate category altogether. Ferrer is supposed to beat Murray on clay, it would have been an upset if he hadnt, so that is not a big win in anyway. Berdychs win over Murray at the French could also be tossed away as a big win.

Fair point. I think the most impressive wins by the "Second 4" over the Big 4 in Slams, in no particular order are:

Delpo over Nadal and Fed at the USO

Tsonga over Nadal at the AO and over Fed at Wimbledon. [I'd also note his near-win over Djoker at the French. I don't recall his earlier wins over Murray and Djoker at Slams, which, I'm assuming were before they had rounded into the champions they are now. Still impressive, but not as impressive as his other Big 4 wins.]

Berdych over Fed at Wimbledon and USO.

Ferrer over Nadal at 2007 USO.

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

Originally Posted by kiki

Ferrer is the best at moonballing.I don´t know if he plays tennis or badmington.

this is without question, and against some stiff opposition, the stupidest statement I have ever read on TT.

have you ever been to a tennis match? ever?

or do you watch it on television?

I bet you think Murray is a 'pusher', too..

as for Ferrer, 'unable to beat the top 4' doesn't really square with having beaten them a total of 14 times.. (ie, more than any of the others)

he also has winning H2H against Delpo, Tsonga and Berdych

this place, lol

[Onehandedbackhand]

Originally Posted by Timbo's hopeless slice

this is without question, and against some stiff opposition, the stupidest statement I have ever read on TT.

have you ever been to a tennis match? ever?

or do you watch it on television?

I bet you think Murray is a 'pusher', too..

as for Ferrer, 'unable to beat the top 4' doesn't really square with having beaten them a total of 14 times.. (ie, more than any of the others)

he also has winning H2H against Delpo, Tsonga and Berdych

this place, lol

You know when I see Ferrer "moonball"? When he's chasing a good forehand and tries keeping it in play.

The guy has really clean strokes.

Ferrer must've taken Kiki's girlfriend or something.

[mattennis]

Originally Posted by Onehandedbackhand

Let's be real here.

Ferrer's been around the Top 10 for, what, seven straight years now?

Three straight Year-End ( 2010, 2011 and 2012 ) and four times overall ( 2007 ).

Top five for five straight years, I believe.

Two straight Year-End ( 2011 and 2012 ). Three times overall ( 2007 ).

Ferrer - 20 titles overall (including one Masters), 5 Slam SF, 5 Slam QF, High Rank No. 4, Davis Cup titles

Tsonga - 10 titles overall (including one Masters), 1 Slam RU, 3 Slam SF, 5 Slam QFs, 1 YEC RU, high rank No. 5.

Berdych - 8 titles (including 1 Masters), 1 Slam RU, 2 Slam SF, 4 Slam QF, high rank No. 6, Davis Cup title.

Del Po - 14 titles (no Masters), 1 Slam win, 1 SF, 5 QF, high rank No. 4.

Ferrer is nearly 31, so the other three may still make good results in the following years.

Agree with bluetrain4's analysis.

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by bluetrain4

Fair point. I think the most impressive wins by the "Second 4" over the Big 4 in Slams, in no particular order are:

Delpo over Nadal and Fed at the USO

Tsonga over Nadal at the AO and over Fed at Wimbledon. [I'd also note his near-win over Djoker at the French. I don't recall his earlier wins over Murray and Djoker at Slams, which, I'm assuming were before they had rounded into the champions they are now. Still impressive, but not as impressive as his other Big 4 wins.]

Berdych over Fed at FO and USO.

Ferrer over Nadal at 2006 or 2007 USO.

Just FYI. Tsonga beat Murray at the 2008 AO, so hardly an important one there, but his win over Djoker came at the 2010 AO. That one can't be totally discounted even though Djoker's 2010 was bad and 2011 was the start of his best years.

Berdych has never beaten Fed at the FO. He has done it at Wimbledon though. And Ferrer's win over Nadal at the USO came in 2007.

[bluetrain4]

Originally Posted by Steve0904

Just FYI. Tsonga beat Murray at the 2008 AO, so hardly an important one there, but his win over Djoker came at the 2010 AO. That one can't be totally discounted even though Djoker's 2010 was bad and 2011 was the start of his best years.

Berdych has never beaten Fed at the FO. He has done it at Wimbledon though. And Ferrer's win over Nadal at the USO came in 2007.

Thanks. I knew Berdych beat Fed twice at Slams, but for some reason thought it was the French instead of Wimbledon, in addition to the USO. I'll correct my post.

[tennisaddict]

To the OP, you are comparing the 5-8 rank players who are supposed to get to quarters of tournaments.

Please pose a question to Federer, Nadal, Murray and Novak as to whom they like to meet in the quarters out of these 4 and you will get the answer.

In fact the top 4 will prefer Ferrer for the round of 16 as opposed to meeting Wawrinka, Cilic, Raonic or Isner.

As much i respect Ferrer for his hard work or consistency, it is really SHAMEFUL that he is at No 5 with no wins against the top 4.

[Onehandedbackhand]

No wins against the top 4? Really?

More like 14.

[tennisaddict]

Originally Posted by Onehandedbackhand

No wins against the top 4? Really?

More like 14.

when was the last time he beat the top 4 at a major without counting the time when Nadal was injured.

[dafinch]

Originally Posted by tennispro492

Most of you so far seem to have missed one vital fact- as i posted in my first post, ferrer has leading head to heads against all of those guys, thus he is better than them.

You mean, like, BP has a winning head to head against Fed, thus he is better than him? Sorry, head to head is a useful tiebreaker, but it's not the end all and BE all. If you ask most pros if they would be ranked consistently high for most of a career, but never even reach a Slam final, let alone win one, or be up and down but have a US Open, I suspect a majority of them would take the title.

[aznhippos]

Had Ferrer played 10 years ago, maybe a couple of GS could be won. However he's up against all these great players (esp. baseliners) and that's why he's not as revered as some of the others

[Onehandedbackhand]

Originally Posted by tennisaddict

when was the last time he beat the top 4 at a major without counting the time when Nadal was injured.

Doesn't matter...Nadal went out there. He could've retired and made it easy. Ferrer won.

[EastAngels2014]

better no, better work ethic yes, better consistency yes but not better overall.

[tennisaddict]

Originally Posted by Onehandedbackhand

Doesn't matter...Nadal went out there. He could've retired and made it easy. Ferrer won.

Ok, when was the last time he beat Fed, Novak and Murray at a major ?