David Ferrer vs Micheal Chang

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

ferrer´s ( and murray´s) unability to challenge the top 3 is the final proof of this extremely weak era...

murray has beat nadal twice in majors, so has ferrer.....

murray just pushed djoker to the limit at the recent AO .....

you are as usual clueless ....

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

Ferrer is nº5 long ago...well, in 1971, Nastase or Kodes, all timers, were at 5, in 79 it was multislam winners Tanner or Vilas, in 1981 it was great Vitas Gerulaitis ( who beat everybdoy bar Borg), in 85 it was Becker, the W champion and future all time great...and now and forever it is Ferrer...

ROFLMAO¡¡¡¡¡¡

As much as I´d try, I would not find a weak era as this one...

LMAO so gerulatis is "great", while murray is a chump ????? LOL !!!!!!

since when on earth did tanner became a multi-slam winner ? ( he only won the AO which had a weak , weak field )

delpo who is a slam winner is very much getting back to top shape , he's already in the top 10 , will probably come back to top 5/6 soon ....

even tsonga, who's the only one to have beaten all top 4 in slams, is in the top 10 ...

I can find you an era much weaker than this one ..... 67-69 , rosewall declining big time, emerson growing older ( especially mattered more as he had a physical style of play ) , newcombe not yet hit his peak, an injury prone Roche the only real challenger to Laver ....

see how easy it was ...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

LMAO so gerulatis is "great", while murray is a chump ????? LOL !!!!!!

since when on earth did tanner became a multi-slam winner ? ( he only won the AO which had a weak , weak field )

delpo who is a slam winner is very much getting back to top shape , he's already in the top 10 , will probably come back to top 5/6 soon ....

even tsonga, who's the only one to have beaten all top 4 in slams, is in the top 10 ...

I can find you an era much weaker than this one ..... 67-69 , rosewall declining big time, emerson growing older ( especially mattered more as he had a physical style of play ) , newcombe not yet hit his peak, an injury prone Roche the only real challenger to Laver ....

see how easy it was ...

Yes, the declining Rosewall that won USO a year later and still amde the 69 FO final.Newcombe not at his peak but next year he would win his second Wimbledon.Roche was injury prone, yes, but in 68-70 played some of the greatest tennis seen.

Oh¡¡¡ not mentioning Gimeno,Santana,Stolle,Smith,Kodes,Nastase,Drysdale ,Lutz,Ralslton,Taylor,Pilic and Gonzales....

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

Yes, the declining Rosewall that won USO a year later and still amde the 69 FO final.Newcombe not at his peak but next year he would win his second Wimbledon.Roche was injury prone, yes, but in 68-70 played some of the greatest tennis seen.

Oh¡¡¡ not mentioning Gimeno,Santana,Stolle,Smith,Kodes,Nastase,Drysdale ,Lutz,Ralslton,Taylor,Pilic and Gonzales....

rosewall had plenty of bad losses in 67 and 69 .... don't say it was just laver ..... no wonder laver capitalized and those were his best 2 years

stolle, santana benefited from the split fields

smith, kodes, nastase came into the picture more from 70-71 onwards, not from 67-69 ....

taylor ? pilic ? lutz ? drysdale , ralston?????? LOL !!! the likes of tsonga, soderling, berdych, ferrer etc ... are all better by some distance ......

gonzales was nearing 40 ..... nowhere close to his best .... occasionally dangerous but that's it ...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

rosewall had plenty of bad losses in 67 and 69 .... don't say it was just laver ..... no wonder laver capitalized and those were his best 2 years

stolle, santana benefited from the split fields

smith, kodes, nastase came into the picture more from 70-71 onwards, not from 67-69 ....

taylor ? pilic ? lutz ? drysdale , ralston?????? LOL !!! the likes of tsonga, soderling, berdych, ferrer etc ... are all better by some distance ......

gonzales was nearing 40 ..... nowhere close to his best .... occasionally dangerous but that's it ...

true GOLDEN ERA field, let´s take 1980-81.look at that and you won´t believe it:
Mac.Borg,Connors,Lendl,Vilas,Gerulaitis,Clerc,Tann er,Dibbs,Gottfried,Fibak,Solomon,Ramirez,Pecci,Noa h,Kriek,Teacher,Teltscher,Sadri,Smid,Gunthardt,Tar oczy,Pinner,Noah,Dent,Amritraj,Mottram,Higueras,Ba razutti,Panatta,Orantes,Sadri,Scanlon,Curren,Edmon dson,Mc Namara,Lewis,Gomez,Pfister,Stockton,Amaya, still competitive Nastase,S Smith,Kodes,Okker,Lutz,Fleming,Krishnan,Gullikson, Arias....

ABMK, did you ever watch that tennis? no, you didn´t since your crush Federer was born that year.You, the Joe Pike of Federites.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

true GOLDEN ERA field, let´s take 1980-81.look at that and you won´t believe it:
Mac.Borg,Connors,Lendl,Vilas,Gerulaitis,Clerc,Tann er,Dibbs,Gottfried,Fibak,Solomon,Ramirez,Pecci,Noa h,Kriek,Teacher,Teltscher,Sadri,Smid,Gunthardt,Tar oczy,Pinner,Noah,Dent,Amritraj,Mottram,Higueras,Ba razutti,Panatta,Orantes,Sadri,Scanlon,Curren,Edmon dson,Mc Namara,Lewis,Gomez,Pfister,Stockton,Amaya, still competitive Nastase,S Smith,Kodes,Okker,Lutz,Fleming,Krishnan,Gullikson, Arias....

ABMK, did you ever watch that tennis? no, you didn´t since your crush Federer was born that year.You, the Joe Pike of Federites.

talk was about the weakest era ??? so I've proven that 67-69 was the weakest era of all time , agreed ?

now, coming to 80-81, yes, dumbo, I've watched quite a bit of tennis from that era ..

I've watched that classic b/w borg-mac in the 80 wimbledon final ..... mac coming back from the dead with 2 splendid points on the borg serve in the 4th set ...that legendary tie-break and then borg regaining his composure to win the 5th , hardly losing any points on his serve ..

I've watched mac edge out borg in a close encounter at flushing the very same year .....

I've watched mac edge out borg in a close match in the finals at wimbledon in 81...

I've watched a fascinating comeback from borg vs connors in the semis in 81 wimbledon , coming from being down 2 sets to love, bagelling him after being bagelled ..

I've watched borg outlast lendl rather easily in the 5th set in the finals of RG in 81

etc etc ...

competitive era ? hell yeah ... the most competitive/golden era ???? I don't think so ..... I'd say that was more the mid 80s to end of 80s , with lendl, becker, edberg, wilander at the top , with mac, connors, cash, gomez, young agassi, curren,mecir,young chang, leconte etc ... in the mix ....

[pc1]

Originally Posted by abmk

talk was about the weakest era ??? so I've proven that 67-69 was the weakest era of all time , agreed ?

now, coming to 80-81, yes, dumbo, I've watched quite a bit of tennis from that era ..

I've watched that classic b/w borg-mac in the 80 wimbledon final ..... mac coming back from the dead with 2 splendid points on the borg serve in the 4th set ...that legendary tie-break and then borg regaining his composure to win the 5th , hardly losing any points on his serve ..

I've watched mac edge out borg in a close encounter at flushing the very same year .....

I've watched mac edge out borg in a close match in the finals at wimbledon in 81...

I've watched a fascinating comeback from borg vs connors in the semis in 81 wimbledon , coming from being down 2 sets to love, bagelling him after being bagelled ..

I've watched borg outlast lendl rather easily in the 5th set in the finals of RG in 81

etc etc ...

competitive era ? hell yeah ... the most competitive/golden era ???? I don't think so ..... I'd say that was more the mid 80s to end of 80s , with lendl, becker, edberg, wilander at the top , with mac, connors, cash, gomez, young agassi, curren,mecir,young chang, leconte etc ... in the mix ....

Any era can be debated as the Golden Era depending on the person's perspective.

Someone can name Newcombe for one era, another can name Edberg, one can name Sedgman, another era can name Becker.

As far as Ferrer versus Michael Chang, I actually feel this is a reasonable comparison for once. Chang was an excellent player and I think better than a number of player who won more majors than him. Ferrer is an excellent player also. Both have great returns, excellent speed but I do feel Chang was an overall superior player. With the exception of when Sampras was on his game you always felt Chang could beat anyone. In today's game I think Chang would be a top threat on grass.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

talk was about the weakest era ??? so I've proven that 67-69 was the weakest era of all time , agreed ?

now, coming to 80-81, yes, dumbo, I've watched quite a bit of tennis from that era ..

I've watched that classic b/w borg-mac in the 80 wimbledon final ..... mac coming back from the dead with 2 splendid points on the borg serve in the 4th set ...that legendary tie-break and then borg regaining his composure to win the 5th , hardly losing any points on his serve ..

I've watched mac edge out borg in a close encounter at flushing the very same year .....

I've watched mac edge out borg in a close match in the finals at wimbledon in 81...

I've watched a fascinating comeback from borg vs connors in the semis in 81 wimbledon , coming from being down 2 sets to love, bagelling him after being bagelled ..

I've watched borg outlast lendl rather easily in the 5th set in the finals of RG in 81

etc etc ...

competitive era ? hell yeah ... the most competitive/golden era ???? I don't think so ..... I'd say that was more the mid 80s to end of 80s , with lendl, becker, edberg, wilander at the top , with mac, connors, cash, gomez, young agassi, curren,mecir,young chang, leconte etc ... in the mix ....

You proved nothing about 67 to 69.Hey, it seems you are not that suck up to Federere´s era¡¡ I don´t know if it was your daddy who told you what you wrtotte, but it is pretty much what happened back in golden era.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

You proved nothing about 67 to 69.Hey, it seems you are not that suck up to Federere´s era¡¡ I don´t know if it was your daddy who told you what you wrtotte, but it is pretty much what happened back in golden era.

want me to post screenshots/videos of some of the matches I have from that era ????

I was never stuck up to federer era ...... I've made plenty of posts regarding the matches in the past , including from the 70s, 80s, 90s ......, but then you've mostly seen me refuting your clueless statements about the present era .....

[abmk]

Originally Posted by pc1

Any era can be debated as the Golden Era depending on the person's perspective.

Someone can name Newcombe for one era, another can name Edberg, one can name Sedgman, another era can name Becker.

As far as Ferrer versus Michael Chang, I actually feel this is a reasonable comparison for once. Chang was an excellent player and I think better than a number of player who won more majors than him. Ferrer is an excellent player also. Both have great returns, excellent speed but I do feel Chang was an overall superior player. With the exception of when Sampras was on his game you always felt Chang could beat anyone. In today's game I think Chang would be a top threat on grass.

well style of play wise, they are similar - but chang was/is simply the better big match/ big point player .....

chang was never that comfortable on grass IMO .....

I disagree with your statement in bold. IMO, any top player of that era or for that matter any era , when playing well , would normally beat chang.... If any one of them was slightly off, chang stood a good chance of beating him ......

becker was even worse of a matchup for chang than even sampras ....

[TMF]

Originally Posted by abmk

well style of play wise, they are similar - but chang was/is simply the better big match/ big point player .....

chang was never that comfortable on grass IMO .....

I disagree with your statement in bold. IMO, any top player of that era or for that matter any era , when playing well , would normally beat chang.... If any one of them was slightly off, chang stood a good chance of beating him ......

becker was even worse of a matchup for chang than even sampras ....

Would you agree Agassi is a worse matchup for Chang too? Outside of the movement, Agassi is basically better than him in every area.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by TMF

Would you agree Agassi is a worse matchup for Chang too? Outside of the movement, Agassi is basically better than him in every area.

the word worse is a comparative one ...

agassi would win most of the times vs chang when playing well, but becker and sampras were worse matchups for chang than agassi was .....they could over-power him more easily ....

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by TMF

Would you agree Agassi is a worse matchup for Chang too? Outside of the movement, Agassi is basically better than him in every area.

Becker was definitely a worse matchup for Chang than Agassi was.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by abmk

I disagree with your statement in bold. IMO, any top player of that era or for that matter any era , when playing well , would normally beat chang......

It depends how broad your definition of "top player" is. A big hitter who has won multiple slams, probably yes. A player like Ferrer himself (who has often been at or around #5 so could be labelled as such), Chang would normally beat even in good form.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Loose Cannon

David Ferrer vs Micheal Chang

Who was/is Micheal[sic] Chang?

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by abmk

the word worse is a comparative one ...

agassi would win most of the times vs chang when playing well, but becker and sampras were worse matchups for chang than agassi was .....they could over-power him more easily ....

Becker was 5-1 against Chang.
Sampras was 12-8 versus Chang.
Agassi was 15-7 against Chang.

Interesting.

[rufus_smith]

which will have higher career prize winnings?

[Mustard]

Boris Becker 5-1 Michael Chang
1991 Brussels QF: Boris Becker def. Michael Chang (7-5, 6-1)
1991 French Open QF: Boris Becker def. Michael Chang (6-4, 6-4, 6-2)
1994 Tokyo Outdoor SF: Michael Chang def. Boris Becker (7-6, 6-2)
1995 World Championships F: Boris Becker def. Michael Chang (7-6, 6-0, 7-6)
1996 Australian Open F: Boris Becker def. Michael Chang (6-2, 6-4, 2-6, 6-2)
1996 Stuttgart Indoor SF: Boris Becker def. Michael Chang (6-4, 6-3)

Hardcourt: 1-1
Clay: 1-0 to Becker
Grass: 0-0
Carpet: 3-0 to Becker
In Majors: 2-0 to Becker


Pete Sampras 12-8 Michael Chang
1989 French Open R64: Michael Chang def. Pete Sampras (6-1, 6-1, 6-1)
1989 Stratton Mountain R64: Michael Chang def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 6-4)
1989 Los Angeles R32: Michael Chang def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 6-0)
1990 Toronto SF: Michael Chang def. Pete Sampras (3-6, 7-6, 7-5)
1990 Cincinnati R16: Michael Chang def. Pete Sampras (7-5, 6-4)
1990 Grand Slam Cup SF: Pete Sampras def. Michael Chang (6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
1991 Paris Indoor SF: Pete Sampras def. Michael Chang (2-6, 6-4, 6-3)
1992 Miami QF: Michael Chang def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 7-6)
1993 US Open QF: Pete Sampras def. Michael Chang (6-7, 7-6, 6-1, 6-1)
1993 Grand Slam Cup QF: Pete Sampras def. Michael Chang (7-6, 6-3)
1994 Tokyo Outdoor F: Pete Sampras def. Michael Chang (6-4, 6-2)
1994 Wimbledon QF: Pete Sampras def. Michael Chang (6-4, 6-1, 6-3)
1994 Grand Slam Cup QF: Pete Sampras def. Michael Chang (6-4, 6-3)
1995 Australian Open SF: Pete Sampras def. Michael Chang (6-7, 6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
1995 World Championships SF: Michael Chang def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 6-4)
1996 Memphis SF: Pete Sampras def. Michael Chang (6-3, 6-2)
1996 Hong Kong F: Pete Sampras def. Michael Chang (6-4, 3-6, 6-4)
1996 US Open F: Pete Sampras def. Michael Chang (6-1, 6-4, 7-6)
1998 Rome R16: Michael Chang def. Pete Sampras (6-2, 7-6)
2001 Los Angeles R16: Pete Sampras def. Michael Chang (7-6, 7-6)

Hardcourt: 7-5 to Sampras
Clay: 2-0 to Chang
Grass: 1-0 to Sampras
Carpet: 4-1 to Sampras
In Majors: 4-1 to Sampras


Andre Agassi 15-7 Michael Chang
1988 Forest Hills R16: Andre Agassi def. Michael Chang (6-2, 6-4)
1988 US Open R16: Andre Agassi def. Michael Chang (7-5, 6-3, 6-2)
1990 French Open QF: Andre Agassi def. Michael Chang (6-1, 6-2, 4-6, 6-2)
1990 Washington SF: Andre Agassi def. Michael Chang (6-3, 6-1)
1990 Toronto QF: Michael Chang def. Andre Agassi (4-6, 7-5, 7-5)
1992 Grand Slam Cup R16: Michael Chang def. Andre Agassi (6-4, 6-2)
1993 Montreal R16: Andre Agassi def. Michael Chang (7-6, 6-3)
1993 Cincinnati SF: Michael Chang def. Andre Agassi (7-5, 1-6, 7-5)
1994 US Open R16: Andre Agassi def. Michael Chang (6-1, 6-7, 6-3, 3-6, 6-1)
1994 World Championships RR: Andre Agassi def. Michael Chang (6-4, 6-4)
1995 San Jose F: Andre Agassi def. Michael Chang (6-2, 1-6, 6-3)
1995 Atlanta F: Michael Chang def. Andre Agassi (6-2, 6-7, 6-4)
1995 Cincinnati F: Andre Agassi def. Michael Chang (7-5, 6-2)
1996 Australian Open SF: Michael Chang def. Andre Agassi (6-1, 6-4, 7-6)
1996 San Jose SF: Andre Agassi def. Michael Chang (6-2, 5-7, 6-4)
1996 Indian Wells QF: Michael Chang def. Andre Agassi (6-7, 6-2, 6-1)
1996 Cincinnati F: Andre Agassi def. Michael Chang (7-6, 6-4)
1996 US Open SF: Michael Chang def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 6-2, 6-2)
1998 San Jose SF: Andre Agassi def. Michael Chang (6-4, 7-6)
1999 Montreal R16: Andre Agassi def. Michael Chang (6-2, 7-5)
2003 San Jose R16: Andre Agassi def. Michael Chang (6-4, 6-2)
2003 Miami R64: Andre Agassi def. Michael Chang (6-4, 6-2)

Hardcourt: 12-5 to Agassi
Clay: 2-1 to Agassi
Grass: 0-0
Carpet: 1-1
In Majors: 3-2 to Agassi


Jim Courier 12-12 Michael Chang
1989 Cincinnati R16: Michael Chang def. Jim Courier (6-3, 6-3)
1991 Cincinnati R16: Jim Courier def. Michael Chang (7-5, 6-2)
1991 Grand Slam Cup R16: Michael Chang def. Jim Courier (6-4, 6-2)
1992 San Francisco F: Michael Chang def. Jim Courier (6-3, 6-3)
1992 Miami SF: Michael Chang def. Jim Courier (6-2, 6-4)
1992 Tokyo Outdoor SF: Jim Courier def. Michael Chang (6-2, 6-3)
1992 Hong Kong F: Jim Courier def. Michael Chang (7-5, 6-3)
1992 World Championships RR: Jim Courier def. Michael Chang (7-5, 6-2)
1993 Indian Wells SF: Jim Courier def. Michael Chang (6-4, 6-4)
1993 Hong Kong SF: Jim Courier def. Michael Chang (6-2, 6-3)
1993 Rome SF: Jim Courier def. Michael Chang (6-2, 6-7, 6-0)
1993 World Championships RR: Michael Chang def. Jim Courier (6-4, 6-0)
1994 Philadelphia SF: Michael Chang def. Jim Courier (7-6, 6-2)
1995 San Jose SF: Michael Chang def. Jim Courier (4-6, 7-6, 6-4)
1995 Tokyo Outdoor SF: Jim Courier def. Michael Chang (6-4, 7-5)
1995 Hong Kong SF: Michael Chang def. Jim Courier (6-4, 6-2)
1995 Cincinnati QF: Michael Chang def. Jim Courier (3-6, 7-6, 7-5)
1995 US Open QF: Jim Courier def. Michael Chang (7-6, 7-6, 7-5)
1995 Paris Indoor QF: Jim Courier def. Michael Chang (6-2, 7-6)
1995 World Championships RR: Michael Chang def. Jim Courier (6-2, 7-5)
1996 Stuttgart Indoor R16: Michael Chang def. Jim Courier (7-5, 6-2)
1998 Orlando F: Jim Courier def. Michael Chang (7-5, 3-6, 7-5)
1998 Washington QF: Michael Chang def. Jim Courier (6-3, 6-4)
1999 Memphis R32: Jim Courier def. Michael Chang (6-4, 7-6)

Hardcourt: 8-7 to Courier
Clay: 2-0 to Courier
Grass: 0-0
Carpet: 5-2 to Chang
In Majors: 1-0 to Courier


Thomas Muster 6-3 Michael Chang
1990 Davis Cup SF: Thomas Muster def. Michael Chang (4-6, 6-2, 6-2, 6-4)
1995 Indian Wells R16: Thomas Muster def. Michael Chang (6-1, 5-7, 7-6)
1995 Rome QF: Thomas Muster def. Michael Chang (6-3, 6-2)
1995 French Open F: Thomas Muster def. Michael Chang (7-5, 6-2, 6-4)
1995 World Championships RR: Michael Chang def. Thomas Muster (4-6, 6-2, 6-3)
1996 World Championships RR: Thomas Muster def. Michael Chang (6-4, 6-3)
1997 Indian Wells SF: Michael Chang def. Thomas Muster (6-1, 7-6)
1997 Cincinnati SF: Thomas Muster def. Michael Chang (6-3, 4-6, 7-6)
1999 Rome R64: Michael Chang def. Thomas Muster (7-6, 6-7, 6-4)

Hardcourt: 2-1 to Muster
Clay: 3-1 to Muster
Grass: 0-0
Carpet: 1-1
In Majors: 1-0 to Muster

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by rufus_smith

which will have higher career prize winnings?

According to the ATP website, Chang has $19,145,632 in prize money, while Ferrer currently has $13,728,702 in prize money.

[helloworld]

Originally Posted by Mustard

According to the ATP website, Chang has $19,145,632 in prize money, while Ferrer currently has $13,728,702 in prize money.

And multiply Chang's prize money by 2 due to inflation rate, thus 19,145,632*2 = $38,291,264.
Chang is worlds above Ferrer, period.