David Ferrer is better than Berdych, Tsonga and Del Potro

[Big_Dangerous]

Originally Posted by tennispro492

Its true- look at the proof, the head to head records-

vs ~Del Potro- http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=F401&oId=D683

Vs Berdych- http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=F401&oId=BA47

Vs Tsonga- http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=F401&oId=T786


The results are indisputable, and speak for themselves. Watch Ferrer vs Berdych in Abu Dhabi 2012 for some aggressive tennis from Ferrer, who doesnt get his due on this forum. He can be aggressive, and despite claims to the contrary, he has a powerful forehand which is among the most accurate on tour. Also his serve is great and very consistent- he served something like 15 aces in his match vs Almagro in AO.

Consistency wise, yes. Results wise, not so much.

Del Potro's slam win puts him ahead of Ferrer in that category even despite the desparity in overall titles won.

Berdych has h2h wins over Fed at slams, and reached a slam final.

Tsonga same thing as Berdych.

[Goosehead]

Originally Posted by 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.

ferrer has been top 10 last 3 years 2010-12..and in 2007 i think.

[Steve0904]

I think way too many people here are putting too much stock into the fact that Berdych, Tsonga, and Delpo can beat the top 4 on a good day. I can understand someone putting Delpo over Ferrer historically, but if we're talking about levels right now, and consistency Ferrer trumps even him. He got hot for one tournament and has shown nowhere near that level since. How someone can put Berdych or Tsonga over Ferrer in any way is beyond me to be brutally honest. Neither of them have won a slam and they only have 2 RUP between them. I personally do not rate 1 RUP for Tsonga and Berdych better than the 5 or so SF's that Ferrer has. A RUP result is great, but it's not even close to winning a slam, however the difference between being a RUP and a SF is pretty minimal IMO.

It's like Ricky Bobby said: "If you're not first you're last!

Lets not also forget that Ferrer has 2 wins over Nadal in slams, and if we're taking away his 2011 AO win, we have to take away Berdych's 2010 Wimbledon win over Fed giving him a grand total of 1 win over 2010 Djokovic on his worst surface, which Ferrer then has matched with his win over 2007 Nadal at his worst slam.

And if we're taking away that win for Ferrer in regards to Tsonga, then Tsonga himself only has 2 wins over the top 4 considering his win over Murray came at the 2008 AO, and his win over Djokovic came when he was ill. But even if we "count" all of Tsonga's wins he still has no slams, and it's not like any of Tsonga, Berdych, or Delpo can beat the top 4 with any regularity at all.

Ferrer has been much more consistent ranking wise, he has more titles, a winning H2H against all 3 of them, made more WTF's (??), and he's at least on par with all 3 of them at said WTF's.

[JustBob]

More talented, no. Better, yes.

[bluetrain4]

Originally Posted by JustBob

More talented, no. Better, yes.

That's a great way to put it. Simple.

[tennispro492]

The fact is Ferrer has a very high standard of play compared to most of those guys apart from on their best days, when they can match him. Look at how he runs around Delpo in this match-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Pf77CipVCc

He plays aggressive to Delpo's backhand, often wrong footing him and when he gets time to wind up for it, his forehand is a very powerful shot indeed.

Similarly, despite being short, his serve is pretty damn good. He frequently averages around 15-20 aces in a match, and his average serve speed is around the same as Federers.

His footwork, footspeed and defense are probably, bar Djoker, the best in the world, and his all round level of play fully justifies his number 4 ranking. Tsonga and co, on their best days, are lucky to match his level of play on an average day for him.

[Relinquis]

In other words... Beast.

[Chanwan]

Originally Posted by spinovic

My point is that tennis right now is all about the Big 4 and who can challenge them. Ferrer cannot. He'll probably win until he plays one of them, but not only will he not beat them, he most likely won't even challenge them.

precisely this

[Chanwan]

Originally Posted by President

The big 4 are able to do this to Del Potro as well, thats why all of them have dominating H2H's against him. I think that even if Del Potro were playing his best, he would fall against the big 4 every time if they were on-fire as well. Yeah he can get some wins against them when they aren't playing well, but he also gets wins against Ferrer in the same way. Del Potro is not really a hot and cold player like Tsonga and Berdych, its not like he loses to Ferrer when he is playing badly. He just gets outplayed, plain and simple.

And I already agreed with you that the 3 ball bashers are a bigger threat to the top 4, but I think its a matchup issue that Ferrer has rather than the other guys being better players. For example, if Andy Roddick were still a top player (to use an example of a highly ranked guy without exceptional movement) I think Ferrer would have just as good a chance of upsetting him (if not better) as Del Potro or Tsonga. Ferrer struggles against players with exceptional movement (top 4+Monfils and Davydenko), just as Del Potro struggles with great ball strikers who take the ball early (Davydenko, Djokovic, Ferrer) , just as Berdych struggles with heavy topspin, etc etc..

Great points. The thing with Delpo though is we've only really seen a few months of his peak. He hasn't reached his 2009 heights since and might never.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Steve0904

I think way too many people here are putting too much stock into the fact that Berdych, Tsonga, and Delpo can beat the top 4 on a good day. I can understand someone putting Delpo over Ferrer historically, but if we're talking about levels right now

The thing is I dont think anyone (other than a few Del Potro homers) questions Ferrer is the best of these 4 players right now, and is currently the 5th best player in the World. Just like he is currently a way better player than Lleyton Hewitt and has been for atleast 7 years now, but career wise Hewitt is still way greater and probably always will be (ok I know that is a more extreme example).

The OP though seems to be implying even considering whole careers he will go down as the greatest and best of these 4 if all retire now. This is not true. Del Potro`s slam title clearly puts him above Ferrer. Someone like Murray had a strong case to be over Del Potro (and for me was already) even before he won his 1st slam, but not Ferrer. It is iffy at best if Ferrer should even be considered better overall than Berdych or Tsonga when both guys reached a slam final and in general have bigger wins than he does, and all 3 have only 1 Masters, and all reached the top 5 but none the top 3 as far as rankings go I believe. That Ferrer is the best of those players right now, doesnt mean he is overall the best of them. He definitely isnt, and might still be the weakest of them overall at this point.

[Start da Game]

after today's heroic performance from davydenko, i guess it puts him right above berdych, tsonga and del potro......

[Costagirl]

Originally Posted by joeri888

Ferrer's better on clay than all of them together on the same court.

Correct. And he really not only flys a bit under the radar, but he doesn't get enough activity in the forums -- either does Tipsarevic I've noticed. I also think he's fantastic. But Ferrer -- wow! Just goes to show how good these guys really are at the top to keep him from winning even more titles / slam.

[tennispro492]

Also, Ferrer is better than Nadal is playing at the moment. Ferrer to win FO 2013

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

The thing is I dont think anyone (other than a few Del Potro homers) questions Ferrer is the best of these 4 players right now, and is currently the 5th best player in the World. Just like he is currently a way better player than Lleyton Hewitt and has been for atleast 7 years now, but career wise Hewitt is still way greater and probably always will be (ok I know that is a more extreme example).

The OP though seems to be implying even considering whole careers he will go down as the greatest and best of these 4 if all retire now. This is not true. Del Potro`s slam title clearly puts him above Ferrer. Someone like Murray had a strong case to be over Del Potro (and for me was already) even before he won his 1st slam, but not Ferrer. It is iffy at best if Ferrer should even be considered better overall than Berdych or Tsonga when both guys reached a slam final and in general have bigger wins than he does, and all 3 have only 1 Masters, and all reached the top 5 but none the top 3 as far as rankings go I believe. That Ferrer is the best of those players right now, doesnt mean he is overall the best of them. He definitely isnt, and might still be the weakest of them overall at this point.

That's my point though. He is unquestionably better than Berdych or Tsonga career wise IMO. You're in a slam to win it. There's little difference to me in a RUP and a SF, and who cares if Berdych or Tsonga have "better" wins than Ferrer. They didn't win those slams where they upset 1 top guy even 2, but couldn't get the job done so it doesn't matter. At least not to me.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by Steve0904

That's my point though. He is unquestionably better than Berdych or Tsonga career wise IMO. You're in a slam to win it. There's little difference to me in a RUP and a SF, and who cares if Berdych or Tsonga have "better" wins than Ferrer. They didn't win those slams where they upset 1 top guy even 2, but couldn't get the job done so it doesn't matter. At least not to me.

I agree with you. RUP is better than SF, but he has more titles than Berdych and Tsonga combined! Winning smaller tournaments is underrated. There is few players who have more than 15 titles. Most of them are great players who are also multiple slam/master 1000 winner, for whom winning a 250 or a 500 is not very difficult. But for players like Ferrer or in some extent Davydenko, who have less margin against the other players, it is a great achievement to be consistent enough to win so many titles.

Ferrer has a better career than Tsonga and Berdych. He has won more money than them, too.

[tennispro492]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

I agree with you. RUP is better than SF, but he has more titles than Berdych and Tsonga combined! Winning smaller tournaments is underrated. There is few players who have more than 15 titles. Most of them are great players who are also multiple slam/master 1000 winner, for whom winning a 250 or a 500 is not very difficult. But for players like Ferrer or in some extent Davydenko, who have less margin against the other players, it is a great achievement to be consistent enough to win so many titles.

Ferrer has a better career than Tsonga and Berdych. He has won more money than them, too.

Exactly my point, People underestimate the value of 250 and 500 events. Ferrer at his best will double bagel Berd and Delpo with ease, and is by far the superior player.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by tennispro492

Exactly my point, People underestimate the value of 250 and 500 events. Ferrer at his best will double bagel Berd and Delpo with ease, and is by far the superior player.

No, I don't think so. Ferrer best level might be inferior than Tsonga or Berdych best level (although I'm not certain: it's not because he had less success against Fed that his peak is below theirs: match-up issue).

The main difference between him and them is that he can often play at his best level, when they can't. And that's damn important in tennis!

Here are the "bad" loss of these three in slam since 2010:

Tsonga: Youzhny, Dolgo, Stan, Nishikori, Klizan. He lost 3 time before R4- He reached 3 SF.

Berdych: Korolev, Llodra, Robert, Fish, Tipsarevic, Gulbis. He lost 5 time before the 4th round! He reached 2 SF and 1 F.

Ferrer: Baghdatis, Melzer, Verdasco, Monfils. He lost twice before the R4. He made 4 SF.

I'm sure it is even more in favor of Ferrer in master 1000.

[Amelie Mauresmo]

Originally Posted by Big_Dangerous

Consistency wise, yes. Results wise, not so much.

Del Potro's slam win puts him ahead of Ferrer in that category even despite the desparity in overall titles won.

Berdych has h2h wins over Fed at slams, and reached a slam final.

Tsonga same thing as Berdych.

I agree that Del Potro's slam puts him above Ferrer because Ferrer despite his incredible consistency has not reach a slam final. Ferrer has beaten Nadal and Murray in slams but he still has not gotten to a slam final or won a grand slam and that's what hurts his career in the end. Can Ferrer win a slam? He needs to prove it.

Del Porto did the impossible he beat Nadal and Federer back to back to win the US OPEN in 2009 at the tender age of 21. People need to remember Del Potro is still young he still has time to become a great player. Also remember, Del Potro is only 24 years old I wonder why people forget this? Del Potro is the youngest player in the ATP top 10 he still has time to become a great player. Del Potro's wrist injury hurt him physically but also psychologically he's back in the top 10 which is great. Del Potro is also starting to beat the best players again he knocked off Federer twice last year even defeating him in his hometown of Basel which was huge. I think Del Potro should be left out of being compared to Ferrer he's too young. Ferrer is also 31 years of age while Del Potro is only 24.

[Andres]

Originally Posted by tennispro492

Similarly, despite being short, his serve is pretty damn good. He frequently averages around 15-20 aces in a match, and his average serve speed is around the same as Federers.

Hahaha, whaaaat?

He played 19 matches this year, had 56 aces and 30 double faults. That is LESS than 3 aces a match and 1.5 double faults.

Edit: He only had ONE match with 15 aces this year, and it was a 5 SETTER at the Australian Open. Against the return-of-serve-god that is Almagro.

[spinovic]

If you're a fan of any of the Big 4, please rate these players in an order that would reflect who you would least want to see your favorite guy play against in a slam match.

Ferrer
Delpo
Tsonga
Berdych
Tipsarevic
Gasquet
Raonic
Isner
Nishikori
Wawrinka