David Ferrer :: Most Under-rated non grand slam winner

PURETENNISsense

PURETENNISsense

Professional
In my opinion, this guy was the best of the best in the 2nd tier of players outside the big 4 (Fed, Rafa, Djoko, Murray) during the late 2000s and early 2010s.

Some significant accolades/results Ferrer posted:
General:
20 years on tour, 1999-2019
High of #3 in the world (Top 10 for 292 straight weeks)
734-377 W-L record
Never had any prolonged injuries (excellent body management)
ATP Tournaments:
7 ATP Finals appearances
27 Career titles
1 Paris Masters title
French open finalist (didn't drop a set on route)
2x Aus Open SF
2x US Open SF
2x Wimbledon QF
Other Events:
3 Davis Cup titles
4th at London Olympics in Doubles (2012)


Anyone else have an opinion on another under-rated non grand slam winner during this time period? Agree with David Ferrer? Disagree?


Sources:

en.wikipedia.org

David Ferrer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
T

Tennis_Hands

Banned
He is overrated AF. His highest level, which supposedly he needs to go to the very top, is lower than that of many players in the current era even.

As I once had the opportunity to say: "No one beats Ferrer 18 times in a row .... because sometimes one has the opportunity to play him only 17 times".

smiley_emoticons_santagrin.gif
 
PURETENNISsense

PURETENNISsense

Professional
mike danny said:
Honestly, guys like Berdych, Tsonga and Soderling had higher peak levels and were more deserving of a slam than someone who was a walking walkover for the top guys.
Click to expand...
In my opinion Berdych didn't reach a peak considering is athletic prowess... kind of dissapointing in my opinion (he was built like a tank but could't play tennis like one to sustain through a full slam.)
Tsonga faded in and out except at Wimbledon and a handful of 1000's.
Soderling had an unfortunate go with getting to 2 French Open Finals and then after that never recovering from Mono and forced into retirement.

Ferrer had longevity over all these guys and more consistent results too.
 
PURETENNISsense

PURETENNISsense

Professional
Tennis_Hands said:
He is overrated AF. His highest level, which supposedly he needs to go to the very top, is lower than that of many players in the current era even.

As I once had the opportunity to say: "No one beats Ferrer 18 times in a row .... because sometimes one has the opportunity to play him only 17 times".

smiley_emoticons_santagrin.gif
Click to expand...
Suggestion for someone else?
 
LOBALOT

LOBALOT

Legend
When my son was 10 years old we started an annual tradition of going to the Western and Southern Open and I took my son over to watch Ferrer on the practice court. It was a bazillion degrees out and Ferrer was hitting with some local college kid or someone they found. He was working his tail off. I wanted my son to see how hard he worked. Ferrer was drenched in sweat.

At the end of the practice Ferrer walked up to the net where his practice partner was standing and spun his racquet and they finished with a tie-breaker.

An hour or so we watched him play a long grueling match in the main stadium.

He was always one of my favorites and if he is not on top of this list he has to be near the top in my book.
 
ChaelAZ

ChaelAZ

G.O.A.T.
PURETENNISsense said:
In my opinion, this guy was the best of the best in the 2nd tier of players outside the big 4 (Fed, Rafa, Djoko, Murray) during the late 2000s and early 2010s.

Some significant accolades/results Ferrer posted:
General:
20 years on tour, 1999-2019
High of #3 in the world (Top 10 for 292 straight weeks)
734-377 W-L record
Never had any prolonged injuries (excellent body management)
ATP Tournaments:
7 ATP Finals appearances
27 Career titles
1 Paris Masters title
French open finalist (didn't drop a set on route)
2x Aus Open SF
2x US Open SF
2x Wimbledon QF
Other Events:
3 Davis Cup titles
4th at London Olympics in Doubles (2012)


Anyone else have an opinion on another under-rated non grand slam winner during this time period? Agree with David Ferrer? Disagree?


Sources:

en.wikipedia.org

David Ferrer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...


Thank you for this. I have posted this several times over the years here when people ask about "most underrated" players of the ATP. Fact is, he was always in the final rounds of tourneys and one of the top money earners of all time for it. People just dismiss him because of the lack of a GS. He was also not as charismatic and well-spoken during interviews, so not a bit TV draw. I put him akin to Nishikori, but that next level.
 
AnOctorokForDinner

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
PURETENNISsense said:
In my opinion Berdych didn't reach a peak considering is athletic prowess... kind of dissapointing in my opinion (he was built like a tank but could't play tennis like one to sustain through a full slam.)
Tsonga faded in and out except at Wimbledon and a handful of 1000's.
Soderling had an unfortunate go with getting to 2 French Open Finals and then after that never recovering from Mono and forced into retirement.

Ferrer had longevity over all these guys and more consistent results too.
Click to expand...

I actually checked and both Berdych and Ferrer made exactly 17 slam QFs and 45 masters QFs, quite an amazing coincidence. Their top slam results are almost identical indeed, Berdych has 1 more SF / 1 less QF that's it. Both made 1 slam final and won 1 masters. Ferrer made more masters finals though (7 to 4) and made a YEC final so he's slightly more accomplished on that front. Longevity is also similar, both had 7 YE top 10 finishes and 12 consecutive top 20 finishes. Ferrer was more consistent at peak making 10 straight slam QFs, but Berdych was more consistent at a single slam making 6 straight AO QFs. Berdych obviously had a higher peak level on talent/build, agree he didn't quite fulfill it, shame.
 
BorgTheGOAT

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
He has no high peak level which is the reason he is not held in such high esteem as other non slam winners. There are two different types of successful second tier players those who are very inconsistent but with a high peak who have a few great runs or great wins against ATGs and/or GOAT candidates and those who are extremely consistent in beating the players they should beat but always completely fold against the very best. Ferrer belongs to the second category while the first category is way more interesting for fans as the have this “what if” factor and are often seen as wasted talents (eg Nalbandian).
 
Last edited:
ollinger

ollinger

G.O.A.T.
Perhaps for the new year, posts about underrated or overrated can indicate in what sense the player is "rated" at all. Everyone knows Ferrer was a very good player but not a great player. What "rating" is the OP referring to?
 
PURETENNISsense

PURETENNISsense

Professional
ollinger said:
Perhaps for the new year, posts about underrated or overrated can indicate in what sense the player is "rated" at all. Everyone knows Ferrer was a very good player but not a great player. What "rating" is the OP referring to?
Click to expand...
I'm going off the consistent Top 10 YE rankings, Longevity and overall title count/slam results. Guess that's a lot to go on but I think overall the career was solid considering all that.
 
Wander

Wander

Hall of Fame
Tennis_Hands said:
Mečir might have a claim also.
Click to expand...
Mecir was better but unfortunate to have his career end at age 26 due to back problems which had already plagued him for a long time by then.

Ferrer was a good player but...
Combined 11-59 against the big 3. Yikes.

But to be fair, the other 2000s non major winning top 10 players didn't fare much better.
Söderling 4-28
Berdych 13-65
Nalbandian 11-20 !
Tsonga 16-39
Davydenko 10-30 (but famously 6-5 Vs Nadal)
Etc.

Ferrer possibly has the best career CV out of all the non-major winning players thanks to 27 ATP titles but then again Mecir has an Olympic gold and Rios made it to #1, Nalbandian and Davydenko won a WTF and so on. There is some room for argument.
 
BorgTheGOAT

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
mike danny said:
He did win 1987 Miami which was as close to a slam as you'll get. 7 rounds with 7 BO5 matches against top opposition too.
Click to expand...
This is interesting information, I did not know that there was such a non-slam tournament with 7 rounds best of 5. I did know that at least in 95 the Miami/Key Biscane Masters had 7 rounds but never knew that in 87 they even played Best of 5 outside of the finals. Indeed one could argue that winning this tournament was at least on par with some AO during that time.
 
AnOctorokForDinner

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
BorgTheGOAT said:
This is interesting information, I did not know that there was such a non-slam tournament with 7 rounds best of 5. I did know that at least in 95 the Miami/Key Biscane Masters had 7 rounds but never knew that in 87 they even played Best of 5 outside of the finals. Indeed one could argue that winning this tournament was at least on par with some AO during that time.
Click to expand...

Yeah Key Biscaine had a slam-like format in 1986-89, think they wanted to compete with AO but the ATP cut them down when it took over the tour in 1990.
 
Phoenix1983

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
I have great respect for Ferrer - he used every ounce of talent he had in his career.

But he's rated exactly where he should be - as a gatekeeper. Just in the past 20 years, the likes of Nalbandian, Tsonga, Soderling and (arguably) Berdych are greater non-slam champs. Then we have the likes of Mecir, Leconte, Okker etc. before that.
 
Keizer

Keizer

Hall of Fame
Feel like Ferrer is appropriately rated. When you look at the second echelon of players that won little thanks to Big 3 + Murray, I, at least, tend to rate them by peak level. No matter how many Masters QF/SF Ferrer reached, I was comfortable assuming he wasn't beating Big 3. Players like Tsonga, Nalbandian, and Davydenko always had a shot on the given day (at least in BO3).

Ferrer had a better career than all these guys, but he never gave you much better than second best against the big dogs.
 
BackhandDTL

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
I respect the guy. Made the most of his god given ability, which at the end of the day, is the most you can ask for.

But yeah he’s not a threat if the big 3 are in form.
 
S

Start da Game

Hall of Fame
he was neither underrated nor overrated, people gave him credit for his work ethic.......as a player he was limited in his tools, never really a threat to the top guys at any point........i would actually rate berdych and nalbandian a lot more dangerous and threatening than ferrer ever was........sure he took out rafa once or twice on hardcourt slams but that's about it........nalbandian threatened to be fed's real rival and had the game but not the head........
 
PURETENNISsense

PURETENNISsense

Professional
Start da Game said:
he was neither underrated nor overrated, people gave him credit for his work ethic.......as a player he was limited in his tools, never really a threat to the top guys at any point........i would actually rate berdych and nalbandian a lot more dangerous and threatening than ferrer ever was........sure he took out rafa once or twice on hardcourt slams but that's about it........nalbandian threatened to be fed's real rival and had the game but not the head........
Click to expand...
I still remember this one.
 
ibbi

ibbi

G.O.A.T.
From the era of the big 3? Yeah, I guess. I certainly have more respect for him than guys like Berdych and Tsonga who were just mental midgets. Ferrer couldn't really have achieved much more than he did, so I guess is less of a disappointment to me. You give him the physical gifts those guys had and he probably wins a couple of slams.
 
T

Tennis_Hands

Banned
ibbi said:
From the era of the big 3? Yeah, I guess. I certainly have more respect for him than guys like Berdych and Tsonga who were just mental midgets. Ferrer couldn't really have achieved much more than he did, so I guess is less of a disappointment to me. You give him the physical gifts those guys had and he probably wins a couple of slams.
Click to expand...

Ferrer has a total of two wins against the big three in Majors. Berdych, for example, has 5. Tsonga, 4.

Some mental midgets compared to the mighty Ferrer.

smiley_emoticons_santagrin.gif
 
mike danny

mike danny

Bionic Poster
BorgTheGOAT said:
This is interesting information, I did not know that there was such a non-slam tournament with 7 rounds best of 5. I did know that at least in 95 the Miami/Key Biscane Masters had 7 rounds but never knew that in 87 they even played Best of 5 outside of the finals. Indeed one could argue that winning this tournament was at least on par with some AO during that time.
Click to expand...
In my eyes, this is pretty much a slam. It fits every criteria.
 
BorgTheGOAT

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
mike danny said:
In my eyes, this is pretty much a slam. It fits every criteria.
Click to expand...
Well you “could” maybe argue that it still did not have the same prestige as a slam and players maybe did not go fully all out as they had done at a normal slam. In the 80s/90s there was still the general understanding that one cannot keep top form over the whole year and need to peak for the big ones i.e. the slams (as for example famously stated by Gomes after his loss against Muster at Rome 1990). I agree however, that such argument is not really a strong one as we also treat all the AO from the late 70s early 80s as full slams in retrospect. This Miami 87 should count at least as much as Vilas or Wilanders AOs.
 
Shaolin

Shaolin

Talk Tennis Guru
He is not overrated in any way.

He was great at beating those ranked below him but anyone ranked higher he rolled over on his back immediately like the faithful lapdog he was.

A tremendous player but never deserved to win a slam. He still has a bank account with millions of dollars in it to show for his hard work and effort out there.
 
Swingmaster

Swingmaster

Hall of Fame
I think he’s properly rated. He’s brought up quite a bit as the ultimate warrior, which he was.

Most underrated is probably Cilic since he he seems to be considered kind of a one hit wonder despite making a couple finals and winning Cincy. He did win Cincy, right? See, I underrate him too. Point proven.
 
PURETENNISsense

PURETENNISsense

Professional
ibbi said:
From the era of the big 3? Yeah, I guess. I certainly have more respect for him than guys like Berdych and Tsonga who were just mental midgets. Ferrer couldn't really have achieved much more than he did, so I guess is less of a disappointment to me. You give him the physical gifts those guys had and he probably wins a couple of slams.
Click to expand...
Yea most of my OP was based on the Big 3 era. I think Berdych and Tsonga both had the game but couldn't keep it together long enough for enough years.
 
D

Deleted member 771911

Guest
I think he was behind Nalby and Berdych and ahead of Tsonga if we are talking about level and overall game. I think Nalby is quite a way ahead of Berdych.
I can't put him next best. If he was vs Big 3, it was, with the odd exception, NID.
 
D

Deleted member 22147

Guest
He's incredibly overrated. When you put yourself in the latter stages of slams and MS to practically never win anything shows what kind of a player you really are.

It shows that he was professional, but lacking the sufficient talent.

Gaudio, for instance, was much more talented but much less professional. Still, I'd rather be Gaudio by a long shot. There's nothing more boring than a steady Eddie
 
Olli Jokinen

Olli Jokinen

Hall of Fame
PURETENNISsense said:
In my opinion, this guy was the best of the best in the 2nd tier of players outside the big 4 (Fed, Rafa, Djoko, Murray) during the late 2000s and early 2010s.

Some significant accolades/results Ferrer posted:
General:
20 years on tour, 1999-2019
High of #3 in the world (Top 10 for 292 straight weeks)
734-377 W-L record
Never had any prolonged injuries (excellent body management)
ATP Tournaments:
7 ATP Finals appearances
27 Career titles
1 Paris Masters title
French open finalist (didn't drop a set on route)
2x Aus Open SF
2x US Open SF
2x Wimbledon QF
Other Events:
3 Davis Cup titles
4th at London Olympics in Doubles (2012)


Anyone else have an opinion on another under-rated non grand slam winner during this time period? Agree with David Ferrer? Disagree?


Sources:

en.wikipedia.org

David Ferrer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Not really. Beat Nadal once at AO, never beat Federer even once anywhere, never beat Djokovic at a GS, beat Murray once at RG.
 
Drob

Drob

Hall of Fame
mike danny said:
In my eyes, this is pretty much a slam. It fits every criteria.
Click to expand...

That edition, 1987, attracted 12 of the top 16 ranked players in the world at that time. Don't know about Slams, but Masters 1000s in recent years get 12.5 of the top-16 on average. In the 1980s almost no non-Slam tournament would do quite that well. More impressive is going down the rankings there were 25 of the then-top-30 players at the 1987 Key Biscayne. It almost should be considered a Major given the 5 sets throughout.

The US $900,000 purse was just above AO, considerably lower than the other Slams, but well above all other tournaments (including the YEC) with the exception of the Paris Indoor, paying close to the same.

Info from atptour.com.
 
R

recreationalplayer

Semi-Pro
LOBALOT said:
When my son was 10 years old we started an annual tradition of going to the Western and Southern Open and I took my son over to watch Ferrer on the practice court. It was a bazillion degrees out and Ferrer was hitting with some local college kid or someone they found. He was working his tail off. I wanted my son to see how hard he worked. Ferrer was drenched in sweat.

At the end of the practice Ferrer walked up to the net where his practice partner was standing and spun his racquet and they finished with a tie-breaker.

An hour or so we watched him play a long grueling match in the main stadium.

He was always one of my favorites and if he is not on top of this list he has to be near the top in my book.
Click to expand...
...Ferrer also holds the distinction of winning the most matches on the ATP tour without having won a Grand Slam tournament ....(Wikipedia). Ferrer, as well as others, make tennis more attractive; boring and impossible it would be if only 3 or 4 players toured playing for all the titles. Tennis needs the David Ferrer's of the world to give the game and the field depth and interest.
 
PURETENNISsense

PURETENNISsense

Professional
recreationalplayer said:
...Ferrer also holds the distinction of winning the most matches on the ATP tour without having won a Grand Slam tournament ....(Wikipedia). Ferrer, as well as others, make tennis more attractive; boring and impossible it would be if only 3 or 4 players toured playing for all the titles. Tennis needs the David Ferrer's of the world to give the game and the field depth and interest.
Click to expand...
Great point, I agree with this. I always really enjoyed watching thr top players as a kid but preferred the ones outside the top 3-4 main guys. They had a tenacity to them and beating the top players was the more interesting and exciting. I really enjoyed watching Davydenko as well. That guy had some wheels.
 
LOBALOT

LOBALOT

Legend
PURETENNISsense said:
Great point, I agree with this. I always really enjoyed watching thr top players as a kid but preferred the ones outside the top 3-4 main guys. They had a tenacity to them and beating the top players was the more interesting and exciting. I really enjoyed watching Davydenko as well. That guy had some wheels.
Click to expand...

I agree. I know the top guys work hard to get and stay at the top.

However, typically, the "almost top guys" have to work even harder to overcome some shortcoming to be near the top and for that it is fun to root for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

enlightenment
Since 2007, reaching grand slam F's was easier than winning M1000 titles for non big-4 players
Replies
9
Views
1K
timnz
T
Top