David Ferrer, the greatest non-slam winner?

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Wimbledon official site has written an article about it.

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.

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.

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.

I picked some pieces from the article. You can read the full here: http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news...he_most_successful_man_not_to_win_a_slam.html
 
6

6-3 6-0

Guest
Nalbandian also comes to my mind.

The problem with Ferret is that he has consistency but not a high peak which is why he has never won a slam till now whereas guys like Nalbandian, Davydenko had a high peak but wasn't as consistent as Ferrer.
 

lukowicz

Banned
Hell no. He probably wouldnt even make the top 10 best non slam winners. Just off the top of my head Davydenko, Nalbandian, Okker, Clerc, Rios, Corretja are clearly better. Someone like Coria is so much better on clay than Ferrer is on any one surface that he also deserves a slam much more, and would be a more appropriate choice for the list.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Hell no. He probably wouldnt even make the top 10 best non slam winners. Just off the top of my head Davydenko, Nalbandian, Okker, Clerc, Rios, Corretja are clearly better. Someone like Coria is so much better on clay than Ferrer is on any one surface that he also deserves a slam much more, and would be a more appropriate choice for the list.
Henman is up there also. Also Philippoussis.
 

lukowicz

Banned
Henman is up there also. Also Philippoussis.

I dont think either one is even close to the best non slam winner, but both would have a case of being over Ferrer. I dont think Ferrer is even close to the best non slam winner either, and on a similar level to Henman and Philippousis.
 

thanu

Semi-Pro
This is why Ferrera is underrated. ...... you guys are just saying x player is better because you like their game more. How about listing their accomplishments compared to Ferrer..... Davydenko vs Ferrer.... Ferrer has had a better career, way more wins, 3 more titles, a slam final and is still going strong at number 8 in the world....
 
D

Deleted member 21996

Guest
how many slam finals did he reach yet? 1 and on his favourite surface. how did that work out for him?
 
D

Deleted member 21996

Guest
Pretty well. Laughing most of the journey to the bank with a well earned ¾ million dollars payday.

it's not his nor my fault you didnt have a talent to play pro sports or the hability to study into higher education!
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
This is why Ferrera is underrated. ...... you guys are just saying x player is better because you like their game more. How about listing their accomplishments compared to Ferrer..... Davydenko vs Ferrer.... Ferrer has had a better career, way more wins, 3 more titles, a slam final and is still going strong at number 8 in the world....

Well, Davy has WTF title. Some people use this theory that 1 slams is worth more than infinite number of masters. One masters title is worth infinite number of 500 titles.

So, from this perspective Davy is greater. It was when Murray had all those masters titles and nr.2 ranking but Delpo had a slam. A lot of people still put Delpo over Murray.

So, by the same logic some people might put Davy over Ferrer because of WTF title. Just throwing in another perspective.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Davydenko also has multiple Masters titles.. Ferrer has 1. Davydenko also was way more dangerous for the top guys. Ferrer is almost LOLworthy when he meets someone like Djokovic or Federer.
 

Sander001

Hall of Fame
it's not his nor my fault you didnt have a talent to play pro sports or the hability to study into higher education!
The crystal ball of a keyboard warrior is a poor one, always has been. You would have more success spending your life savings on a magic 8-ball.
 

lukowicz

Banned
Yeah, that would be very interesting, cuz Davy is a very bad matchup for Nadal, so Davy would even have a chance in RG 2005.

Davydenko has only ever beaten Nadal on hard courts. The only reason he has the tiny head to head lead that delusional Nadal haters/Fed fanatics love to milk like a cow is almost all their matches were on hard courts, and none in slams. On clay Davydenko is 0-3. He has no chance against Nadal either on any non hard court surface, nor in a slam (even if it were on hard courts). He was never beating Nadal had they played at that years RG.
 

TommyA8X

Hall of Fame
Davydenko has only ever beaten Nadal on hard courts. The only reason he has the tiny head to head lead that delusional Nadal haters/Fed fanatics love to milk like a cow is almost all their matches were on hard courts, and none in slams. On clay Davydenko is 0-3. He has no chance against Nadal either on any non hard court surface, nor in a slam (even if it were on hard courts). He was never beating Nadal had they played at that years RG.

Their H2H surface distribution is much more realistic than the Fed-Nadal one, so your point??
 

lukowicz

Banned
Their H2H surface distribution is much more realistic than the Fed-Nadal one, so your point??

Even with a balanced distribution Nadal would own Federer in head to head. He obviously wins virtually every clay match, leads overall on hard courts both in slams and overall (while leading overwhelmingly on outdoor hard courts, the predominant surface on tour today), while barely trailing on grass. Davydenko cant beat Nadal anywhere but on a hard court, and even on hard courts can lose. They have never played in a slam, but if they had Davydenko would likely lose even on a hard court (forget Roland Garros or Wimbledon where he would be spanked, probably even by the Nadal of today losing early rounds at Wimbledon to mugs who were are even still better on grass than Davydenko).

Only in delusional Fed lala land is Davydenko a worse opponent for Nadal than Nadal is for Federer.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
F*ck you man :lol:

How about from now on you just point it out when I do it right? ;)



Awesome :lol:

That guy has nerves of steel, not even a smile.

Chris Morris is the GOAT, after all.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Even with a balanced distribution Nadal would own Federer in head to head. He obviously wins virtually every clay match, leads overall on hard courts both in slams and overall (while leading overwhelmingly on outdoor hard courts, the predominant surface on tour today), while barely trailing on grass. Davydenko cant beat Nadal anywhere but on a hard court, and even on hard courts can lose. They have never played in a slam, but if they had Davydenko would likely lose even on a hard court (forget Roland Garros or Wimbledon where he would be spanked, probably even by the Nadal of today losing early rounds at Wimbledon to mugs who were are even still better on grass than Davydenko).

Only in delusional Fed lala land is Davydenko a worse opponent for Nadal than Nadal is for Federer.

But how do you justify losing more times than winning in such a large sample size against a 0 slammer ?

You cannot club all hard courts together . Fed is 6-2 post FO. Fed won 12 of his 17 majors and 6 WTF in this season , while we all know Rafa's calendar ends in June
 

hawkeye63

Banned
But how do you justify losing more times than winning in such a large sample size against a 0 slammer ?

The same way you would have justified having a much worse 2-6 record that Fed had against Murray long before he won a slam.

Mr. Kettle, please meet Mr. Pot.
 

-snake-

Hall of Fame
Fed seems quite a tough matchup for Murray. Murray beat old Fed only once in majors and it was a close five set match.

But Murray beat Rafa and Nole four times at majors.

True, but he can't beat 2 top dogs in a row In the BO5 format. In 2013 he was close though.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Fed seems quite a tough matchup for Murray.

Outside the Majors, Fed was anything but a tough matchup for Murray. Prior to Murray's surgery in 2013, he was the only active player other than Nadal to boast a consistently positive H2H against him. Even now, post surgery, the H2H is 12-11 in Fed's favour, hardly the mark of a bad matchup for Murray!

Murray beat old Fed only once in majors and it was a close five set match.

In addition to the 2013 AO semi, Murray also beat Fed in the final of 2012 Olympics which was also a Bo5 match! That one was a straight sets win!

But Murray beat Rafa and Nole four times at majors.

Murray is 2-4 v Nadal and 2-4 v Djokovic in Slams.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Outside the Majors, Fed was anything but a tough matchup for Murray. Prior to Murray's surgery in 2013, he was the only active player other than Nadal to boast a consistently positive H2H against him. Even now, post surgery, the H2H is 12-11 in Fed's favour, hardly the mark of a bad matchup for Murray!



In addition to the 2013 AO semi, Murray also beat Fed in the final of 2012 Olympics which was also a Bo5 match! That one was a straight sets win!



Murray is 2-4 v Nadal and 2-4 v Djokovic in Slams.

We are talking slams only here. At slams Fed is a terrible matchup for Murray. In three slam finals Murray only won one set.

Yeah and 2+2=four.
 
Top