Each era's or decade's David Ferrer?

[Onehandedbackhand]

Just asking.

Who was that guy in each era or decade...90s, 80s, 70s, etc..that won just about every smaller tournament in existence, won a good amount of 500s, got a shield or two, and had a good showing in every grand slam, but just couldn't QUITE get over the hump against the big boys?

[VeeSe]

Does Michael Chang count, even though he won a slam, was super close to achieving the #1 ranking, and won 1000s?

[bluetrain4]

Originally Posted by VeeSe

Does Michael Chang count, even though he won a slam, was super close to achieving the #1 ranking, and won 1000s?

IMO, even one Slam takes him out of the equation. The whole point is that Ferrer "can't get over the hump", which Chang did, albeit only once. Plus, Ferrer has not even made a Slam final, as where Chang made 3. Plus 7(!) masters titles.

I'd vote for Alex Correjta as a possible candidate.

[robow7]

What about Harold Solomon, would you say he was of the same mold, a 70's gritty grinder that he was?

[Devilito]

Originally Posted by VeeSe

Does Michael Chang count, even though he won a slam, was super close to achieving the #1 ranking, and won 1000s?

Chang was in a different league than Ferrer. Ferrer does nothing better than Chang.

[NLBwell]

Originally Posted by robow7

What about Harold Solomon, would you say he was of the same mold, a 70's gritty grinder that he was?

Yes, Harold Solomon came to mind to me, also.

Brian Gottfried -another thread reminded me of him.

[Onehandedbackhand]

What about Brad Gilbert?

[NadalAgassi]

Joakim Nystrom in the 80s perhaps.

Wayne Ferreira or Tomas Enqvist in the 90s.

[boredone3456]

I was thinking of Todd Martin for the 90's
Made 2 major finals but never won a masters (only one final at one) and all of his titles were small events.

[gavna]

Solomon, Gottfried do fit the bill......also Eddie Dibbs and Jose Luis Clerc

Clerc was solid top ten and stayed at No.4 for some time and has 25 titles and just never won a slam.

Gerulaitis and Tanner are also prefect EXCEPT they both won the AO in 1977 - such a freaky year and the event was soooooo weak.....but still it's a slam.

[gavna]

Originally Posted by robow7

What about Harold Solomon, would you say he was of the same mold, a 70's gritty grinder that he was?

Eddie Dibbs was a grinder.........Sollie was the prototypical Moonballer. Freaking perfected it - I remember first seeing him at Rice in 1971 and 72 when I was a kid -

[kiki]

Originally Posted by gavna

Solomon, Gottfried do fit the bill......also Eddie Dibbs and Jose Luis Clerc

Clerc was solid top ten and stayed at No.4 for some time and has 25 titles and just never won a slam.

Gerulaitis and Tanner are also prefect EXCEPT they both won the AO in 1977 - such a freaky year and the event was soooooo weak.....but still it's a slam.

You cannot compare Gerulaitis and Tanner to mediocre Ferrer.Ferrer compares to Nystrom,Clerc,Fibak,Okker,Dibbs,Solomon,Higueras,B arazzuter at most.

The two americans are in another league.They beat constantly all time greats which ferrer is unable to even dream of, the little midget.And Vitas also won Dallas, a much better title than the AO he also won in 78.Can you imagine Ferrer doing to Borg what Tanner did?

[Onehandedbackhand]

Mediocre Ferrer? You on drugs?

No number 4 is mediocre, and if we want to go that far, no number 5 is either.

Ferrer beats EVERYONE but the top 3. Even he and Andy Murray are neck and neck.

[kiki]

Ferrer at number 4 ( and longtime ago) is just the best proof of how extremely weak this era is.

[Onehandedbackhand]

No, it proves that work ethic is a big factor.

This is an era where 6'6" guys like JMDP move like gazelles, and they have the racket technology and the power...and with the exception of the top 3, he beats them all regularly, including Del Potro, who gives Fed fits.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

Ferrer at number 4 ( and longtime ago) is just the best proof of how extremely weak this era is.

Originally Posted by Onehandedbackhand

No, it proves that work ethic is a big factor.

This is an era where 6'6" guys like JMDP move like gazelles, and they have the racket technology and the power...and with the exception of the top 3, he beats them all regularly, including Del Potro, who gives Fed fits.

this ....

on top of it ....... ferrer at no 4 since long time ago ? since when ? he only became #4 after this year's AO .... that's not even a month .....

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Onehandedbackhand

Mediocre Ferrer? You on drugs?

No number 4 is mediocre, and if we want to go that far, no number 5 is either.

Ferrer beats EVERYONE but the top 3. Even he and Andy Murray are neck and neck.

@ bold part, no, just no .....ferrer is superior to murray on clay, but that's about it ...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

this ....

on top of it ....... ferrer at no 4 since long time ago ? since when ? he only became #4 after this year's AO .... that's not even a month .....

Doesn´t matter.he´s been number 5 for so long.If Ferrer played in the golden era, one can imagine two things: either he wouldn´t make top 20 ( most likely)...or there´d be no tennis anymore¡¡¡

[Onehandedbackhand]

Ferrer was #4 in 2008 also. He's been between 4-6 for a good long time now.

And the last two hardcourt matches were both 6-4 7-5 and 7-5 6-4 with them splitting it. Things have been closer on hardcourt, but being honest, the head to head can change with this newfound Andy Murray. Remember that it was 5-6 between Ferrer and Djokovic at one time also.

[Onehandedbackhand]

Originally Posted by kiki

Doesn´t matter.he´s been number 5 for so long.If Ferrer played in the golden era, one can imagine two things: either he wouldn´t make top 20 ( most likely)...or there´d be no tennis anymore¡¡¡

Ferrer in golden era would be top 15-20, but that's still not insulting knowing who was in that golden era.