David Ferrer: the greatest man not to win a Grand Slam?
- Thread starter Russeljones
- Start date
tenisdecente
Hall of Fame
Must be noted that Ferrer is in an era with three of the GOAT's of the game, who have only a ridicule amount of 39 titles of Grand Slam between them... hard to compare different eras and different competition field
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, I'd like the guy bigging up Davydenko's H2H vs Nadal to speculate on the numbers if the matches had been played on today's circuit.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Mecir is quite possibly the best. He made 2 slam finals, SF at all slams, won the WCT over McEnroe, Miami (arguably considered the 5th slam at the time) over Lendl. He only won 11 titles and had 3 years in the top 10 though.
Rios is another good choice, #1, slam final, 5 masters and a Grand Slam cup. Then there's Okker, Nalbandian and Davydenko who are all clearly better than Ferrer as well.
I'd rank Soderling as a better player than Ferrer as well, he would of been the #5 of this era if not for mono.
Rios is another good choice, #1, slam final, 5 masters and a Grand Slam cup. Then there's Okker, Nalbandian and Davydenko who are all clearly better than Ferrer as well.
I'd rank Soderling as a better player than Ferrer as well, he would of been the #5 of this era if not for mono.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
also the greatest human being not to win a pulitzer and the greatest scientis to not win a nobel!!!!and the greatest actor not to win a oscar
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
I am definitely not of the opinion that Soderling is better than Ferrer, sorry. How do you reconcile this opinion with the gulf in achievements between the two?
highest ranking -4
match stats 310-170
titles - 10
highest ranking - 3
match stats 620-295
titles 24
The inflation caused by the RG upset of Nadal is obscene. Panatta should be the greatest single Slam winner then.
highest ranking -4
match stats 310-170
titles - 10
highest ranking - 3
match stats 620-295
titles 24
The inflation caused by the RG upset of Nadal is obscene. Panatta should be the greatest single Slam winner then.
Hey Gorecki, good to see you, thought you left, how's it going?
NatF
Bionic Poster
He also crushed Federer the next year. His peak level is undoubtedly higher than Ferrers. He was cut down by mono only a couple of years into his peak.
His extra slam final is worth a lot more than the vast number of tiny titles Ferrer has hoovered up.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
So if Nadal retires tomorrow we agree that Coric supplants him right off the bat? I think you're being unfair to Ferrer, something you're entitled to, of course.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Soderling's peak was more impressive to me, that's it. If you value Ferrer's consistency that's fair enough too. But I think it would be fair to say that Soderling at his best was a more imposing figure than Ferrer.
I think that without mono Soderling would have won plenty of titles in the last few years and spent time above Ferrer in the rankings too. We will of course never know.
Neither would be my first picks anyway.
okdude1992
Hall of Fame
David Ferrer once said he was the worst player in the top 100. How far he has come 
But anyway there are quite a few slam less players I'd rate over Ferrer. Any player who's made more than one slam final is above him IMO. It's hard for me to call Ferrer great at all, rather than just very good. To be sure, his consistency against players ranked below him is very impressive, but his record against those above him is dismal.
To me this thread makes me think of players who had all the tools to win a slam and were close but never quite managed it. Ferrer has never been that close IMO. (see 2013 RG final) Personally I really don't put too much stock in Ferrer's ranking or titles. Many were in depleted 250s where he was clearly the best player.
But anyway there are quite a few slam less players I'd rate over Ferrer. Any player who's made more than one slam final is above him IMO. It's hard for me to call Ferrer great at all, rather than just very good. To be sure, his consistency against players ranked below him is very impressive, but his record against those above him is dismal.
To me this thread makes me think of players who had all the tools to win a slam and were close but never quite managed it. Ferrer has never been that close IMO. (see 2013 RG final) Personally I really don't put too much stock in Ferrer's ranking or titles. Many were in depleted 250s where he was clearly the best player.
Last edited:
heninfan99
Talk Tennis Guru
Greatest is the perfect word. Hard to disagree.
What do you mean todays circuit. Davydenko and Ferrer played in roughly the same era, which already had the massively slowed down courts. Davydenko still produced what he did vs Nadal. Even against his ultimate nemesis Federer, he scored some wins, including a huge one in the WTF semis, while Ferrer still has none. Davydenko did better and was a bigger threat to all the top player than Ferrer. In addition to winning 3 Masters and the WTF title which give him better credentials even with Ferrer's lone slam final (which was only since Djokovic-Nadal played in the semis anyway).
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Good answer. Ferrer has no natural matchup advantage against any of the top players, athough his 2007 match at the USO showed he could punish Nadal on a faster court. Davydenko, on the other hand, used his fantastic early striking coupled with excellent movement to extract the maximum from his meetings with the top players. Hard courts differentiate between the two and almost all of the hard courts Davydenko achieved his significant wins on are slower today. This is my view, but I am perfectly happy with both occupying the same tier of 'Great non-Slam winning players'.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
i kind of did. i have not posted a thoughtfull post in ages, but i gess it goes by because if the current generation of poasters being absolute ******
SoBad
G.O.A.T.
Yes, the posting quality was way higher back in the day when Fed Gil was winning slams...:lol:
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Ferrer is just evidence of a 2010-present weak era.
Nishi turfed him out at the AO, before getting turfed out himself.
He is probably the hardest worker on tour, but has no weapons and crumbles in the face of the Big 3.
Federer dismantles him every time they play, Ferrer nearly bagelled him last time they played and still lost easily.
Nishi turfed him out at the AO, before getting turfed out himself.
He is probably the hardest worker on tour, but has no weapons and crumbles in the face of the Big 3.
Federer dismantles him every time they play, Ferrer nearly bagelled him last time they played and still lost easily.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
There were many people from Fed's era with more slam-winning ability than Ferrer.
Federer has nine losses to Hewitt, and zero to Ferrer.
Federer has nine losses to Hewitt, and zero to Ferrer.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Maybe because Safin choked it away, derp..
An "aging Agassi"? He was in his prime from 1999-2003. I guess you weren't watching tennis then though.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
I would say that Ferrer could be considered at least tied for the most consistent player never to have won a slam.
But his consistency also explains why he has no slam. He plays within his limits. He gets the best out of his game that he can. He just doesn't have the weapons to be very dangerous to the best players in the world. His A game is not quite good enough.
But his consistency also explains why he has no slam. He plays within his limits. He gets the best out of his game that he can. He just doesn't have the weapons to be very dangerous to the best players in the world. His A game is not quite good enough.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Because the field had more variety.. Something you cannot understand.
Agassi was in his prime from 1999-2003, as he won most of his accolades during this period..
Variety? sure. ok.
A pretty weak variety maybe.
Let's look at the Top 10 beginning 2007.
1. Roger
2. Baby Rafa
3. Davy "Never-Made-A-Slam-Final" Denko
4 James "Never-Made-A-Slam-Quarter-Final" Blake
5. Ivan "Made-A-Single-Slam-Semi" Ljubicic
6. Andy "Gangnam-Style-One-Slam-Wonder" Roddick
7. Tommy "Can-You-Hear-Me" Robredo
8. David "Kicking-Horse" Nalbandian
9. Mario "Forgot-Who-He-Was" Ancic
10. Gonzo
Whatevs dude. Do what you need to do to make the Weak Era sound credible.
A pretty weak variety maybe.
Let's look at the Top 10 beginning 2007.
1. Roger
2. Baby Rafa
3. Davy "Never-Made-A-Slam-Final" Denko
4 James "Never-Made-A-Slam-Quarter-Final" Blake
5. Ivan "Made-A-Single-Slam-Semi" Ljubicic
6. Andy "Gangnam-Style-One-Slam-Wonder" Roddick
7. Tommy "Can-You-Hear-Me" Robredo
8. David "Kicking-Horse" Nalbandian
9. Mario "Forgot-Who-He-Was" Ancic
10. Gonzo
Whatevs dude. Do what you need to do to make the Weak Era sound credible.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Nadal wasn't a "baby" in 2007...
Davydenko >> Ferrer by the way.. and he was #3 in 2013. :lol:
James Blake made the final of the WTF and had some good play during 2006.. who cares?
Same deal with Ljubicic.
Roddick at #6 isn't a bad thing either.
Robredo is still a top 20 player today, obviously he wasn't too weak.
Nalbandian at #8 is about as bad as Roddick at #6..
Ancic had good play in 2006 to warrant his ranking.
Gonzalez also soon became the #5 (should have been #4) after the AO.
So basically, you're dismissing players as weak without actually knowing about their results during that time period..
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
David Ferrer once said he was the worst player in the top 100. How far he has come
But anyway there are quite a few slam less players I'd rate over Ferrer. Any player who's made more than one slam final is above him IMO. It's hard for me to call Ferrer great at all, rather than just very good. To be sure, his consistency against players ranked below him is very impressive, but his record against those above him is dismal.
To me this thread makes me think of players who had all the tools to win a slam and were close but never quite managed it. Ferrer has never been that close IMO. (see 2013 RG final) Personally I really don't put too much stock in Ferrer's ranking or titles. Many were in depleted 250s where he was clearly the best player.
Yep, and I think he would have struggled to win a Slam even if the top 3/4 were removed from this era entirely.
Yes, he generally has a good winning record against many of the players just below the very best but the latter stages of Slams are not really just general matches, but are instead the matches where players should be reaching their personal top form, and a lot of those players like Wawrinka or even Nishikori probably have a higher top level than Ferrer. Typically, there is going to be someone with a big enough game in good enough form to topple Ferrer in the final or semi-finals of a Slam event, IMO.
And even if let's say for a moment that was a great top 10 (which it was anything but), you are making the claim that Federer and a far from prime Nadal along with the rest was better than a more accomplished Nadal, Federer, Djokovic (likely the best HC player ever) and Murray with a virtual even h2h vs Fed.
Too funny.
Too funny.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Hewitt had a 7-2 H2H lead over Federer at one point, just like Murray.
Roddick has taken multiple sets off Federer and has even nearly beaten him at Wimbledon in 2009 (which was Federer's prime). Guess who he took out to get to Federer by the way?
Once again, Nadal wasn't "far from prime" in 2007. He reached his prime in 2005, thus why he was ranked No. 2 and winning like 12 titles..
And I'd say Roddick + Hewitt of 2004-2005 > Murray + Djokovic of 2009-2010.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Agassi also claimed Federer is much better than Sampras.. I bet you don't agree with that though.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
I'm really looking forward very very much to hawkeye63's response.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Kind of funny considering Murray alone will probably end up with a better career than Hewitt and Roddick combined in terms of titles.
Jeez I've got fans already. Thanks Nate!
Here is the actual quote to which I agree:
“I think Federer is a class above, quite frankly,” Agassi said, according to the Huffington Post. “I mean, you’re talking about a guy who dominated pretty much on every surface, minus one guy on clay. He’s won everything. Pete was obviously off the hook on faster courts, but during the clay season, players wanted to play against him. It was [an] opportunity to get a win over him. You didn’t have that luxury with Fed. He was really the world class, all-around player.”
Sampras was the GOAT eventually dethroned by Fed who was inevitably dethroned by Nadal. Even Agassi said so.
He was right on both counts.
Listen, Roger is among the two best in history. The Weak Era was not his fault. He deserved way better.
I'm just glad tennis recovered and he got the competition he deserved. He couldn't really improve until he had the competition to push him the way the other Top 4 had.
Peace y'all. It's all good.
Here is the actual quote to which I agree:
“I think Federer is a class above, quite frankly,” Agassi said, according to the Huffington Post. “I mean, you’re talking about a guy who dominated pretty much on every surface, minus one guy on clay. He’s won everything. Pete was obviously off the hook on faster courts, but during the clay season, players wanted to play against him. It was [an] opportunity to get a win over him. You didn’t have that luxury with Fed. He was really the world class, all-around player.”
Sampras was the GOAT eventually dethroned by Fed who was inevitably dethroned by Nadal. Even Agassi said so.
He was right on both counts.
Listen, Roger is among the two best in history. The Weak Era was not his fault. He deserved way better.
I'm just glad tennis recovered and he got the competition he deserved. He couldn't really improve until he had the competition to push him the way the other Top 4 had.
Peace y'all. It's all good.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Good response.
Agassi hates Sampras. Not that he is neccessarily wrong on Federer being better than Sampras, but he shortchanges Pete in general at every opportunity. In fact Agassi hates the majority of top guys from his own era (Sampras for sure, Becker for sure, Muster a ton, Chang definitely, think he is sort of cool with Courier today even if hated him when they played for awhile, and likes Edberg).
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
oh the broken record that is so bad, with his scummy personal attacks on my nationality....
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Thomas Johansson winning slams was before 2004 when Fed dominated
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Well maybe because Hewitt played Federer most of the time before the finals of slams. That's why he didn't make finals consistently.
But I am not expecting you to understand that.
Would Nadal have made so many finals had Nole been on the semis instead of the final?
Mustard
Bionic Poster
When Nick Bollettieri was Agassi's coach, Agassi and Muster got on fine, friends even. Their relationship seemed to sour following their 1994 French Open match.
Here's what Bollettieri said after the Agassi vs. Muster quarter final at the 1996 US Open:
"There was no problem between Muster and Andre when I was coaching him. If something has been incited now, then those couple of years had something to do with it. Andre's got a long life ahead of him. He's a role model, and there shouldn't be that sort of thing going on between players."
mike danny. such passive aggressive anger in that statement.
Nole was intentionally put in Fed's half until he quit gluten and proved he could consistently beat Federer.
In fact, it happened 13 times in a row in non-clay slams, a 1 in 8192 chance of randomly occurring.
Yes The Weak Era began before Federer. There was tennis before Federer you know. Hard to believe for the hard core Fed fans. But they have trouble swallowing many tennis greats past and present opinion on GOAT.
Nole was intentionally put in Fed's half until he quit gluten and proved he could consistently beat Federer.
In fact, it happened 13 times in a row in non-clay slams, a 1 in 8192 chance of randomly occurring.
Yes The Weak Era began before Federer. There was tennis before Federer you know. Hard to believe for the hard core Fed fans. But they have trouble swallowing many tennis greats past and present opinion on GOAT.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
If Fed is a weak era byproduct why is he current world number 2 ,and just beat prime djoker , when he is well past it?
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
#NadalAgassi ?
mike danny
Bionic Poster
We are talking about slams here. Why was 2008-2010 better than 2004-2005?
Djoker and Murray weren't consistently resching slam finals.
Hewitt was stoppded by Federer plenty of times before the final in slams. There isn't anything aggressive in this statement. Hewitt would have consistently reached slam finals in 2004-2005 without Fed inhis way. Djoker was also stopped by Fed before the finals of slams.
A weak era byproduct??? You said it, not me. Federer is one of the best players of all time who can still win a slam. He is pretty much unrivalled on a fast hard court, low wind, best of five.
Resorting to putting words in my mouth now. How telling.
2008-2010 was better than 04-05 because there were three other guys that could legitimately challenge Federer. 04-05 there were none (other than baby Rafa and for the most part only on clay).
04-05 was fine if you had a Harlem Globetrotter fan mentallity.
Resorting to putting words in my mouth now. How telling.
2008-2010 was better than 04-05 because there were three other guys that could legitimately challenge Federer. 04-05 there were none (other than baby Rafa and for the most part only on clay).
04-05 was fine if you had a Harlem Globetrotter fan mentallity.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
If one contends that Federer dominated a weak era than the implication is he is a byproduct of a weak era.
So again how does a guy who only prospered because of weak competition win a slam and regain world number one , and this after his prime? How is he still 2 in the world?
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
2008 fed lost to rafa and Djoker at slams. Beat Djoker and Murray to win slams.
2009. Fed makes all 4 slam finals. Wins 2. Heats multiple top 10 players on route.
2010- weak year for top 10. Rafa wins 3 slams barely beating any top 10 players. Fed injured most of the year or playing badly.
Seems to me fed did just fine 08 to 09. Not as dominant but he was coming out of his prime years. Still did well.
2009. Fed makes all 4 slam finals. Wins 2. Heats multiple top 10 players on route.
2010- weak year for top 10. Rafa wins 3 slams barely beating any top 10 players. Fed injured most of the year or playing badly.
Seems to me fed did just fine 08 to 09. Not as dominant but he was coming out of his prime years. Still did well.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 77403
- General Pro Player Discussion
