tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
For Ferrer to win a major, Murray has to be upset by Wawrinka, then Ferrer beats Wawrinks in the QF, Federer should be upset by Berdych , Rafa must be injured and Nole should be upset by Tsonga. And all this has to happen in French Open.
I have to admit he is a really poor No.5
Tsonga, Delpo, Berdych deserve that spot much more.
I have to admit he is a really poor No.5
Tsonga, Delpo, Berdych deserve that spot much more.
Just let you know he's about the same size as Laver and bigger than Rosewall.
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
sad but probably true
but, but... when you know guys like Costa and Gaudio won the FO that makes it even more sad
NatF
Bionic Poster
What era is that? There's no era where he'd win that many slams...
Broly4
Rookie
Simply my opinion, since it's impossible to know, it's stupid to discuss it seriously, but amongst other reasons:
He is the fittest player on tour.
2nd best returner after Nole.
Arguably quickest player.
super solid and compact game.
Eats biggest hitters in the game for breakfast
could pull a "Hewitt" against Sampras
Any era without todays big four, and outside grass, he would be a contender in my book.
anantak2k
Semi-Pro
Ferrer CAN take out Murray or Djoko at the FRENCH on his OWN. He does not need anyone to beat them for him. He has beaten Murray before at the French and I think he has beaten Djoko on clay almost every time as well.
Nadal and Federer however need to be out of the way for Ferrer to win at the French. Although with Federer's current level I am dying to see if Ferrer can finally get a win on him.
Bender
G.O.A.T.
Thing about Ferrer is that he doesn't have that one big weapon unlike the big four. Almost every other grand slam champion had a go-to weapon, and Ferrer doesn't have one besides his speed and consistency. That one big weapon is almost mandatory for Roland Garros in my opinion, since clay requires players to generate their own pace, which Ferrer struggles to do consistently, and it's a shame since clay is David's best surface.
Still, that may be enough, as Hewitt's two grand slams demonstrates. Ferrer is good at redirecting pace and returning serves, but he's missing one vital component Hewitt had, which was mental resilience / fortitude, which Ferrer lacks.
Ferrer is one of those players who are in one way or another missing one little thing that is required to be a slam champion. Hell, he doesn't even have the luck factor, with the big four around.
Still, that may be enough, as Hewitt's two grand slams demonstrates. Ferrer is good at redirecting pace and returning serves, but he's missing one vital component Hewitt had, which was mental resilience / fortitude, which Ferrer lacks.
Ferrer is one of those players who are in one way or another missing one little thing that is required to be a slam champion. Hell, he doesn't even have the luck factor, with the big four around.
Ferrer is a late bloomer who has achieved his best results, on clay at least, in 2012 and 2013, reaching the French SFs in 2012 and the Finals this year. An earlier post pointed out that most of Ferrer's losses at the French came at the hands of players not ranked among the top 3 or 4. That's correct, but not for the two most recent years. In 2012-13, Ferrer played a total of two clay majors and five clay Masters, winning none. In those seven events, however, he lost to Nadal no fewer than five times, Federer once and Benneteau once.
In 2012, Ferrer finished with a clay won-lost record of 32-5, while winning three tournaments. Three of those losses were to Nadal and one to Federer, leaving Ferrer with a record of 32-1 against everyone else, which is fairly impressive, regardless of how weak some may believe the current clay era to be (which it isn't).
Ferrer's clay performance during the last two years has definitely been good enough to support the idea that he could have won a (clay) major or two during earlier times, with 1997, 1998 and 2002 being the most favorable years. There were no standout clay-courters operating during those years. None put together any year better than what Ferrer has done recently. Kuerten? He didn't really get it going until 1999, when he won two clay Masters. 1997? He finished with a 16-10 record on clay that year. True, he won the French that year--someone had to.
I'm not saying Ferrer would have won a title, but I do believe that his chances would have been as good as anyone else playing during those years.
In 2012, Ferrer finished with a clay won-lost record of 32-5, while winning three tournaments. Three of those losses were to Nadal and one to Federer, leaving Ferrer with a record of 32-1 against everyone else, which is fairly impressive, regardless of how weak some may believe the current clay era to be (which it isn't).
Ferrer's clay performance during the last two years has definitely been good enough to support the idea that he could have won a (clay) major or two during earlier times, with 1997, 1998 and 2002 being the most favorable years. There were no standout clay-courters operating during those years. None put together any year better than what Ferrer has done recently. Kuerten? He didn't really get it going until 1999, when he won two clay Masters. 1997? He finished with a 16-10 record on clay that year. True, he won the French that year--someone had to.
I'm not saying Ferrer would have won a title, but I do believe that his chances would have been as good as anyone else playing during those years.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Lol this post is sooo ridiculous. Coming from a guy that has always loved Ferrer's work ethic and style.
Broly4
Rookie
Explain why if you mind, it's just my opinion , but I can tell you it's shared by a lot of atp pros.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Because Nadal, Djokovic, Murray etc are all fitter than him. You'll never see him go toe to toe with Nadal or Djokovic for 4, 5, 5 hours at a slam. He was gassed in Acapulco :lol: He's very fast, but still doesn't cover the court as well as Djokodal either. His work ethic definitely made me a fan a long time ago though and he gets 100% out of what he's capable of doing. He certainly plays every match with all his heart. I wouldn't say he easily eats big hitters for breakfast though either, though he is one of the best returners on tour.
Broly4
Rookie
Well nobody covers the court like Djokodal, not now , not in the past.
He has a combined record of 16-7 against Del Potro, Tsonga and Berdych.
Pcdozer413
Rookie
I love Ferrer! He's a great fighter, construcs points beautifully, has one of the best ROS of the game. I think he lacks variety, his game isn't "flexible" enough. But he never gives up which i respect a lot. If it wasn't for Nadal, Ferru could've dominated the clay.
BrooklynNY
Hall of Fame
Lacks real power to beat top guys
anantak2k
Semi-Pro
This unfortunately is false. Ferrer would unfortunately just run into Federer and lose to him instead of Nadal. He would need both Fed and Nadal out of the way.
90's Clay
Banned
Hes essentially a brokeback version of Michael Chang.
If Chang only managed one slam than there is no way Ferrer would have won a slam in any other era.
Not to mention this is probably the ONLY era he could thrive in more so to speak because of the slow homogenized conditions. If he can't manage a slam under perfect conditions for his game, I doubt he could win any other time
If Chang only managed one slam than there is no way Ferrer would have won a slam in any other era.
Not to mention this is probably the ONLY era he could thrive in more so to speak because of the slow homogenized conditions. If he can't manage a slam under perfect conditions for his game, I doubt he could win any other time
President
Legend
Are you saying Ferrer is a homosexual?
NatF
Bionic Poster
Ferrer would probably prefer quicker conditions, he does better on faster surfaces in general. But yeah, he might sneak an FO or an AO during a weaker year. But the competition at the USO has always been too strong and Wimbledon is a 100% no.
JerseyDevil
New User
I do enjoy Ferrer's game, however I do not believe he would be a Grand Slam champion in another era. I'm trying to think of a time where he could be more relevant than he is now and I just can't see it. Definitely a joy to watch, and he's more than capable of making a finals run in any tournament.
Chang is not the same as Ferrer so you can't use him to conclude how Ferrer would do in the 90s, lol. Ferrer is a better player than Chang, the problem is he's playing in a tougher generation. Even though he didn't win the FO this year, but I believe he's better than Chang in 1989.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
robertharris
Banned
What on earth do you base that on. Does Ferrer have better movement, better serve, better forehand, better volleys, better mentality, better anything? I cant think of a single thing he does better. Maybe forehand and return of serve equal to Chang, much poorer in mental toughness, not as great a mover or defender, weaker backhand, no volleys while Chang had decent ones, and less big a serve than mid 90s Chang had developed.
robertharris
Banned
The only way Ferrer would ever win a slam is if he not only played in a weak era or transition era of sorts, but had all the stars align for him. Like a draw opening up, hitting his absolute peak form at the right time, certain people underperforming. He would need something like Johansson at the Australian Open or Andres Gomez at the French to happen to ever win a slam.
Similar threads
