David Ferrer: the greatest man not to win a Grand Slam?

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news...he_most_successful_man_not_to_win_a_slam.html
Here's a piece from the Wimbledon website, for those of you who might have missed it.

Would you consider Ferrer worthy of this accolade? In the Open Era?

m_03_ferrer_142_aeltc_j_garcia.jpg


by Leigh Walsh
Wednesday 4 March 2015


David Ferrer, a mainstay of the men's tour for so long, needs just two more ATP singles titles to become the most decorated non-Grand Slam champion in the Open Era. So does that make him the greatest of those? Wimbledon.com wonders...

This past weekend, it could be argued, was a microcosm of David Ferrer’s career.

The 32-year-old achieved a rather remarkable feat, winning consecutive ATP 500 titles on clay and hard courts, the first coming on 23 February in Rio de Janeiro, the second six days later in Acapulco. An accomplishment so rare, you need to go all the way back to 1985 to find the last player – Ivan Lendl – to win back-to-back titles on different surfaces.

But not for the first time, the Spaniard’s achievements were overshadowed. His final win over Kei Nishikori on the coast of Mexico was sandwiched between Roger Federer’s seventh Dubai crown and Rafael Nadal’s 65th tour title in Buenos Aires, which saw him surpass the career hauls of both Bjorn Borg and Pete Sampras.

As the fifth player in the era of the Big Four, Ferrer, it appears, can’t win.

Not that he minds, however. The humble introvert, who shuns the limelight, has often remarked how the Big Four are simply just better than him. “I’m not a jealous person,” he once explained.

David Ferrer: 'the human metronome'

The words ‘natural’ and ‘talent’ don’t tend to come together when Ferrer is the subject. He doesn’t hit the ball as clean as Tomas Berdych, he doesn’t have the easy power of Stan Wawrinka and he doesn’t possess the flair of Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Gael Monfils or even Fernando Verdasco. At 5’9”, he is one of just three players in the top 20 shorter than 6’.

Instead, the world No.8 relies on his staggering fitness levels and his single-mindedness to grind down more gifted opposition. It’s a cliché, but an apt one: he never gives up. Just like he looks after his books – he keeps every one he reads – Ferrer takes care of each point. His strength lies in his discipline.

In his victory over Nishikori, Ferrer could only muster 11 winners but his talented opponent unravelled to the tune of 40 unforced errors. That’s what the Spaniard does; he squeezes his opponents until the pips pop out.

As players get older – Ferrer turns 33 next month – they naturally begin to think of their place in history, searching tennis’s 150-year-old map to find the red dot that says “you are here”. When considering Ferrer’s position, one obvious question comes to mind: is he the greatest never to win a Grand Slam?

First, let’s take a look at the numbers.

He has won 24 ATP titles, including three this season alone. Two more and he will become the most decorated non-Grand Slam champion in the Open Era. Currently, Tom Okker, Jose-Luis Clerc and Brian Gottfried, who each have 25 titles, are the only major-less players with more trophies than Ferrer.

Yes, he plays a busy schedule, but Ferrer’s titles have been as varied as they have been impressive with 12 wins coming on clay, 10 on hard and two on grass. He has also reached the quarter-final or better at 15 Grand Slams, including a maiden final appearance at Roland Garros in 2013 when he succumbed to Nadal. Here at Wimbledon, he has advanced to the final eight twice.

In terms of match wins, he is 18th all time with 620 career victories, just one shy of former world No.1 Thomas Muster. He is also one of just three active players – along with Nadal and Tommy Robredo – to have won 200-plus matches on both clay and hard courts.

In career earnings, he sits seventh with a cool $25,757,836.

Comparison, they say, is the thief of joy. But in an industry when sportsmen pit themselves against one another for a living, it’s inevitable.

So who are the challengers to Ferrer in the Slamless ranks?

There are those who reached multiple major finals: the injury-plagued Mark Philippoussis, exceptional shot maker Miloslav Mecir, talented Frenchman Cedric Pioline, fellow Spaniard Alex Corretja and the great Todd Martin.

Marcelo Rios, the only world No.1 to never win a major, possessed skill in abundance but it was between the ears he struggled. Nick Bollettieri names the Chilean as one of the few players he coached who failed to live up to their potential.

Then of course there is Tim Henman, who reached the semi-final at Wimbledon (4 times), Roland Garros and the US Open.

In recent years there have been gifted players like David Nalbandian and Nikolay Davydenko, two of the cleanest hitters in the game, and the injury-troubled Tommy Haas also deserves a mention.

While many of the nearly men possess excellent parts in their game, it’s the sum of Ferrer’s parts that distinguishes him at this point in time. He does everything well.

After finishing the 2014 season at his lowest ranking in six years, there were murmurs of his demise. Now he’s in the habit of winning once more, opening the year with an 18-1 record and clinching three titles. He shows no signs of slowing.

The player, who was schooled by Javier Piles – the coach who admits to locking his at times lazy prodigy into a tiny dark room when he wasn’t working hard – has molded himself into one of the game's most well-respected players.

Ferrer could, of course, still add a major title. But if not, will he be remembered as the greatest to never win a Slam?

Only time will tell how his legacy holds up once he hangs up his rackets. But in this era at least, he’s the best of the rest.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Ferrer can't even knock off the Big 4 in masters series really, let alone beat the big guys back to back in consecutive tournaments like Nalbandian.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Miloslav Mecir. A genius of a talent, capable of making even the very best players look silly on the court.
 

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
Ferrer can't even knock off the Big 4 in masters series really, let alone beat the big guys back to back in consecutive tournaments like Nalbandian.

Well he doesn't have this ability against the very best (although he has beaten some of them, including in slams), but contrary to Nalbandian he has the ability to win the matches he should. Davydenko won a lot of tournaments and had success against the very best, but Nalbandian...he was better against Nadal than against Berlocq, and tennis isn't only about Nadal. You have to beat Berlocq first.

To me he is out of the discussion for this reason alone. A great player need to win more than 20 titles.
 

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
Well he doesn't have this ability against the very best (although he has beaten some of them, including in slams), but contrary to Nalbandian he has the ability to win the matches he should. Davydenko won a lot of tournaments and had success against the very best, but Nalbandian...he was better against Nadal than against Berlocq, and tennis isn't only about Nadal. You have to beat Berlocq first.

To me he is out of the discussion for this reason alone. A great player need to win more than 20 titles.

I am leaning toward this line of reasoning. Ferrer has done the time and has the titles to show for it. Granted, he has often chosen to not be in the same tournaments as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, but still, he's put the hard work in, albeit in a less flashy manner.
 

jersey34tennis

Professional
"He has won 24 ATP titles, including three this season alone. Two more and he will become the most decorated non-Grand Slam champion in the Open Era. Currently, Tom Okker, Jose-Luis Clerc and Brian Gottfried, who each have 25 titles, are the only major-less players with more trophies than Ferrer.".

they seemed to forget davydenko has 28 titles.....
 

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
"He has won 24 ATP titles, including three this season alone. Two more and he will become the most decorated non-Grand Slam champion in the Open Era. Currently, Tom Okker, Jose-Luis Clerc and Brian Gottfried, who each have 25 titles, are the only major-less players with more trophies than Ferrer.".

they seemed to forget davydenko has 28 titles.....

I see only 21 everywhere I look. How do you get 28?
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Off the top of my head I would say Tom Okker is superior in record to David Ferrer. Okker was an extremely talented player who won at least 51 tournaments according to Vainquers including the Italian Open, the German Open, the South African etc. He was also one of the greatest doubles players of all time in winning at least 78 doubles tournaments, many with Marty Riessen.

He has excellent speed and some thought he was the fastest man in tennis. He had a great topspin forehand and nice backhand. He was also a top notch volleyer which obviously makes sense since he was so good at doubles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osiO5O8lOvA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS0j_UHAk3E
 
Last edited:

struggle

Legend
I wouldn't say he's the best in that category, but he's definitely a bad MFer and has achieved alot with "less".

Ferrer is great for tennis. If nothing else, he knocks the legs out from under some players to help the next opponent take them down.
 

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
Off the top of my head I would say Tom Okker is superior in record to David Ferrer. Okker was an extremely talented player who won at least 51 tournaments according to Vainquers including the Italian Open, the German Open, the South African etc. He was also one of the greatest doubles players of all time in winning at least 78 doubles tournaments, many with Marty Riessen.

He has excellent speed and some thought he was the fastest man in tennis. He had a great topspin forehand and nice backhand. He was also a top notch volleyer which obviously makes sense since he was so good at doubles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osiO5O8lOvA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS0j_UHAk3E

Great input, as always.
 

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
I don't know why this was moved here, since we're more interested in the former players Ferrer is being compared to.
 

Wynter

Legend
I don't know why this was moved here, since we're more interested in the former players Ferrer is being compared to.

I assume because Ferrer is still a current player

Nalbandian and Davydenko are up there, sure Nalbandian was poor against the field on occassion ala Berlocq, but against the best he played his best amd challenged everyone he faced.

Plus WTF > anything Ferrer has won imo.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Greatest Clogger not to win a grand slam.

I like Ferrer, but one has to be just kidding comparing him to Haas, Davydenko and Nalbandian.

Ferrer is good for the top guys to take out all potential threats. He can get a bonus paycheck from the Big 3 for all I care.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I think Davydenko should be in this category as well. He has won more big titles than Ferrer and has beaten the best players to win them
 

Zetty

Hall of Fame
Objectively through achievements or subjective eye test? He's gotta be number one achievement wise now
 

lukowicz

Banned
Here are a list of players I would for sure rank over Ferrer who don't have a slam:

Okker
Mecir
Rios
Coria (maybe not overall but his clay level is way more worthy of a clay slam than Ferrer is of any slam)
Corretja
Nalbandian
Davydenko

and ones on a similar level who you could argue being above:

Todd Martin
Cedric Pioline
Tomas Berdych
Jo Wilfried Tsonga
Tommy Haas
Tim Henman
Mark Philippoussis
Jose Luis Clerc

I can see why Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal fans, particularly Federer and Djokovic fans, like to build him up as this amazing player though.
 

Andres

G.O.A.T.
I assume because Ferrer is still a current player

Nalbandian and Davydenko are up there, sure Nalbandian was poor against the field on occassion ala Berlocq, but against the best he played his best amd challenged everyone he faced.

Plus WTF > anything Ferrer has won imo.

Well he doesn't have this ability against the very best (although he has beaten some of them, including in slams), but contrary to Nalbandian he has the ability to win the matches he should. Davydenko won a lot of tournaments and had success against the very best, but Nalbandian...he was better against Nadal than against Berlocq, and tennis isn't only about Nadal. You have to beat Berlocq first.

To me he is out of the discussion for this reason alone. A great player need to win more than 20 titles.
I know it's just to prove a point, but why Berlocq of all people? Nalbandian is 4-0 against Berlocq :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:
 

Andres

G.O.A.T.
"He has won 24 ATP titles, including three this season alone. Two more and he will become the most decorated non-Grand Slam champion in the Open Era. Currently, Tom Okker, Jose-Luis Clerc and Brian Gottfried, who each have 25 titles, are the only major-less players with more trophies than Ferrer.".

they seemed to forget davydenko has 28 titles.....

I see only 21 everywhere I look. How do you get 28?
Davy has 28 finals. 21 titles won out of those 28 finals. That's probably where he got 28 from.
 

The Green Mile

Bionic Poster
He is definitely up there for consistency. But I would put a few people ahead, like Davydenko for instance who won the WTF and 3 masters titles.
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
In terms of pure achievement stats, then he is definitely up there. Davydenko is probably greater with three masters and a YEC though.

If we consider the player's highest level and whether that was slam-worthy, then there certainly are others before Ferrer imo, but I take it this isn't what's being asked.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Eddie Dibbs and Raul Ramirez have to be up there too, certainly for best players never to reach a major final.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
In terms of pure achievement, I feel it has to be Rios!


Rios was world #1, made a Slam final and won 5 Masters tournaments.

Ferrer's highest ranking was world #3, made 1 Slam final but has only won 1 Masters tournament.

Even Davydenko can challenge Ferrer. Although he never made a Slam final, he was ranked world #3, won a WTF and 3 Masters tournaments!
 

90's Clay

Banned
ROFLMAO.

Marcelo Rios says hi. 10X the talent Ferrer is. Nalbandian is far ahead of Ferrer too.

Davydenko deserves a nod. Not a GREAT talent but a far better talent than freakin Ferrer
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
ROFLMAO.

Marcelo Rios says hi. 10X the talent Ferrer is. Nalbandian is far ahead of Ferrer too.

Davydenko deserves a nod. Not a GREAT talent but a far better talent than freakin Ferrer
What about Philippoussis, Henman, Pioline, ect?
 

Backspin1183

Talk Tennis Guru
What about Philippoussis, Henman, Pioline, ect?

I don't know about those guys but Ferrer isn't the greatest man to not win a Grand Slam for sure. Even Hewitt is better than him IMO. Hewitt actually won a couple of Slams and was ranked #1 too.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
How can you say that when Philippoussis and Pioline made it to multiple major finals?

Because I don't think Slam finals are the only important metric. Ferrer's consistency is in a different stratosphere to theirs. How many years has he finished inside the top ten for instance?
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Because I don't think Slam finals are the only important metric. Ferrer's consistency is in a different stratosphere to theirs. How many years has he finished inside the top ten for instance?
Henman is pretty comparable in that regard.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
True, but his record on clay lets him down. Also less than half the amount of titles David has won.
Henman has made it to the SF of all 4 Grand Slams. And he's won a Masters title. If you are looking for the full deal, it has to be Davydenko.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Henman has made it to the SF of all 4 Grand Slams. And he's won a Masters title. If you are looking for the full deal, it has to be Davydenko.

I've just been watching highlights from Doha 10 and 11. Yep, Davy definitely would make the cut! :smile:
 
Top