Ferrer/Berdych/Tsonga probaby will not win a grand slam, Cilic or Nishikori will

D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Ferrer made it to the FO final, but had to play Nadal there. Whoopsie.
Tsonga also did the dirty job of taking out Federer for Ferrer.

In all seriousness, I'm happy Nishikori and Cilic have made the final (especially Cilic, all his work with Goran has paid off). I'm hoping Cilic wins. :)
 

mad dog1

G.O.A.T.
In all seriousness, I'm happy Nishikori and Cilic have made the final (especially Cilic, all his work with Goran has paid off). I'm hoping Cilic wins. :)
In all seriousness, I'm happy Nishikori and Cilic have made the final (especially Nishikori, all his work with Chang has paid off). I'm hoping Nishikori wins. :)
 

HunterST

Hall of Fame
I thought of this. I'm happy some new guys get a chance to win a slam, but there are people who are more deserving than these two.

Would have been awesome to see Ferrer be rewarded for his years of hard work.
 

SoBad

G.O.A.T.
like Wawrinka did on his 1st grand final

i'm fan of Ferrer and Tsonga but that make them look bad
LOL Ferrer and Tsonga had five years to pile up slams in 2003 – 2007, but instead lounged around all day long with a bunch of little tweety birds flying around their heads. Yes, their form and attitude have improved tremendously since, but it won’t do them much good with the likes of Nishikori around these days!:lol:
 
Last edited:

PMChambers

Hall of Fame
I thought Tonga had the weapons but just needed better point development. He also had the ability to use hard hitting all court game style to nullify deep counter punchers. He might have been a better player for the 90's with flatter less spin games and decent net play. Shorter points definitely suit his style.
 

Charlemagne

Hall of Fame
I thought of this. I'm happy some new guys get a chance to win a slam, but there are people who are more deserving than these two.

Would have been awesome to see Ferrer be rewarded for his years of hard work.
NO. I wholeheartedly disagree. Djokovic played badly, and Federer- even worse. Cilic and Nishi DESERVE to be in the final, with how badly both Fed and Djoker played. As big a Fed fan as I am, if he can't beat Cilic, then he doesn't deserve the title. He almost lost to Monfils in 4 for Christ's sake. He didn't deserve it, neither did Djokovic (although he deserved it more than Fed because of his draw imo).
 

conway

Banned
I thought of this. I'm happy some new guys get a chance to win a slam, but there are people who are more deserving than these two.

Would have been awesome to see Ferrer be rewarded for his years of hard work.
What makes them more deserving. Nishikori and even Cilic are still young and getting better. Berdych, Ferrer, and Tsonga all peaked years ago, although they have roughly stayed at their peak for awhile now, and it clearly isn't good enough to win a major for any of them.

Ferrer shouldn't get a slam just because he works hard. Nishikori is like a better hitting and mentally tougher version of Ferrer. Cilic has way more weaponary in his game than Ferrer ever had.
 
like Wawrinka did on his 1st grand final

i'm fan of Ferrer and Tsonga but that make them look bad
that is true, however you have to consider that they had their best time during nadals and novaks peak and when fed was still close to his best.

fed is now really getting old and nadal declining too. novak is still going strong but he might be slowing down a little too.

in a few years the draws will be wide open.
 

HunterST

Hall of Fame
NO. I wholeheartedly disagree. Djokovic played badly, and Federer- even worse. Cilic and Nishi DESERVE to be in the final, with how badly both Fed and Djoker played. As big a Fed fan as I am, if he can't beat Cilic, then he doesn't deserve the title. He almost lost to Monfils in 4 for Christ's sake. He didn't deserve it, neither did Djokovic (although he deserved it more than Fed because of his draw imo).
What makes them more deserving. Nishikori and even Cilic are still young and getting better. Berdych, Ferrer, and Tsonga all peaked years ago, although they have roughly stayed at their peak for awhile now, and it clearly isn't good enough to win a major for any of them.

Ferrer shouldn't get a slam just because he works hard. Nishikori is like a better hitting and mentally tougher version of Ferrer. Cilic has way more weaponary in his game than Ferrer ever had.
I know these guys earned their spots and they are deserving in that way. However, neither have been consistently top players. They've been solid but not elite top 20 players and now, suddenly, one will be a grand slam champion.

Meanwhile, other guys have been staples in the top 10 and have only failed to win grand slams because someone in the top 4 stopped them.

Just personal preference, but I would have liked to have seen one of those guys finally get a slam rather than one of these two getting one out of the blue.
 

The Lad

New User
Don't think the finger needs to be pointed at Ferrer like he is an underachiever. He battled hard to take as much as he could from the game. He will be disappointed not to take a slam but he took the game up to the limits of his ability and should be respected for it.
 

FreeBird

Legend
Tsonga, Berdych were born at wrong time. Their peak age collided with peak of 'Big 4'. Ferrer, I don't know, he could beat the top players at slams to win it.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Lol Tipsa...this would have been a really impressive thread if you had started it last year or even a month ago!! :wink:
 

Phalagoo

Rookie
like Wawrinka did on his 1st grand final

i'm fan of Ferrer and Tsonga but that make them look bad
I don't get this thread. Of course Nishikori or Cilic is going to win a grand slam; they are both finalists at the same grand slam. And you can't wait 6 years, 4 years and 1 year after Tsonga, Berdych and Ferrer reach a grand slam final to say that they probably won't win a grand slam. That's not exactly saying much.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Ferrer made it to the FO final, but had to play Nadal there. Whoopsie.
Like Ferer, Berdych came up against the same problem (at 2010 Wimbledon). Maybe if he can persuade his country's greatest male tennis star to help him out like he did Murray, his fortunes might change. But he'd better get a move on!

Tsonga did have more of a fighting chance against Djokovic when he played his only Slam final at 2008 AO as neither had won a Slam at that point. But he fell short! However, he did rouse himself to win another Masters title this summer. Maybe if he can rouse himself just a little bit more, he can do a Stan Wawrinka at next year's AO? :)
 

conway

Banned
Like Ferer, Berdych came up against the same problem (at 2010 Wimbledon). Maybe if he can persuade his country's greatest male tennis star to help him out like he did Murray, his fortunes might change. But he'd better get a move on!

Tsonga did have more of a fighting chance against Djokovic when he played his only Slam final at 2008 AO as neither had won a Slam at that point. But he fell short! However, he did rouse himself to win another Masters title this summer. Maybe if he can rouse himself just a little bit more, he can do a Stan Wawrinka at next year's AO? :)
Nadal is not unbeatable at Wimbledon, like Roland Garros. Good grief he has a losing record in Wimbledon finals (2-3), and we all know his string of embarrassing early losses in his prime/near prime there. The best things you can say is his semifinal and quarterfinal records there are superb (5-0 in both), and he both battled hard and beat peak/near peak Federer there. Still Berdych didn't fall easily since he facing an unstoppable force like he would have been at RG, but because he simply isn't good enough and not a slam caliber player.

Tsonga's moment to win a slam was 2008 Australia for sure. He blew that one a bit, and he will never have a chance like that again largely due to his inconsistency, despite that his peak playing level is way higher than Berdych.

Ferrer most of all simply isn't good enough. Really consistent, but not the playing level needed for a slam in this era. On hard courts he cant compete with Federer or Djokoic, and on clay he cant compete with Nadal or a prime Djokovic.
 

conway

Banned
I know these guys earned their spots and they are deserving in that way. However, neither have been consistently top players. They've been solid but not elite top 20 players and now, suddenly, one will be a grand slam champion.

Meanwhile, other guys have been staples in the top 10 and have only failed to win grand slams because someone in the top 4 stopped them.

Just personal preference, but I would have liked to have seen one of those guys finally get a slam rather than one of these two getting one out of the blue.
Nishikori and Cilic should stay in the top 10 for awhile now, barring injuries. Both are a lot younger than the players you mentioned (3 or 4 years younger than Berdych and Tsonga, and many years younger than Ferrer), and those guys didn't even start to be top 10 regulars until their mid 20s as well.

I look at Berdych getting ***** and bullied off the court at his own power game the last 2 slams by Cilic, and think why on earth would Cilic be a less worthy slam winner than Berdych. Also thinking of Berdych losing something like 24 of his last 25 matches vs Nadal/Djokovic, and that is not a slam caliber player.

Ferrer could win a slam in some other eras, he is kind of a poor mans Chang or poor mans Hewitt when they were at their best, but in this era he is simply not great enough to ever win one.

Tsonga of those three is the only on who really has a game to win a slam. However his terrible consistency and headcaseness prevent it from happening, and seemingly were always likely to prevenet it.

I think Cilic and Nishikori at their best have more game, and have more potential moving forward, than Berdych and Ferrer easily. I don't think just because you stay in the top 10 a long time means you deserve a slam, or it I a shame you don't win one. In my best players to not win a slam poll on the Former Pro section the names of Berdych, Ferrer, and Tsonga never came up, amongst the 15 or so others that did.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Nadal is not unbeatable at Wimbledon, like Roland Garros. Good grief he has a losing record in Wimbledon finals (2-3), and we all know his string of embarrassing early losses in his prime/near prime there. The best things you can say is his semifinal and quarterfinal records there are superb (5-0 in both), and he both battled hard and beat peak/near peak Federer there. Still Berdych didn't fall easily since he facing an unstoppable force like he would have been at RG, but because he simply isn't good enough and not a slam caliber player.
Back in 2010, Nadal was at the height of his prowess at Wimbledon. He had been in 4 of the last 5 finals (he missed 2009 because of his injury) and had been the only guy ever to beat Federer in a final there. Berdych had taken out both Djokovic and Federer but came up against an insurmountable force that year just like everyone else did everywhere else (Nadal went on to win USO as well). Nadal's sharp decline on grass did not come until 2 years later.
If it had been anyone else in the final that year (maybe even Federer), I think Berdych might have stood a better chance.

Tsonga's moment to win a slam was 2008 Australia for sure. He blew that one a bit, and he will never have a chance like that again largely due to his inconsistency, despite that his peak playing level is way higher than Berdych.
Yes, consistency and lack of focus have always been his greatest weaknesses but I was impressed by his run to the Toronto title this summer (taking out Murray, Djokovic and Federer, all former multiple titlists there, back to back). It gave me hope that he could still put a good run together and if he could just up the ante slightly, he might conceivably be able to do a repeat of his 2008 run at next year's AO.

Ferrer most of all simply isn't good enough. Really consistent, but not the playing level needed for a slam in this era. On hard courts he cant compete with Federer or Djokoic, and on clay he cant compete with Nadal or a prime Djokovic.
I agree with this. His best chance is on clay and so that means RG but there are at least 3 players he can never get past there ie. Nadal, Federer and Djokovic. If he could somehow dodge all 3 or at least 2 with the other having a really bad day, he might have a chance. But, at this stage, age is rapidly catching up with him. I think the window of opportunity s fast shutting for him if it hasn't already.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Nishi will be a deserving winner. I don't believe anyone of Ferrer, Tsonga or Berdych have done so much in one major.
 

HunterST

Hall of Fame
Nishikori and Cilic should stay in the top 10 for awhile now, barring injuries. Both are a lot younger than the players you mentioned (3 or 4 years younger than Berdych and Tsonga, and many years younger than Ferrer), and those guys didn't even start to be top 10 regulars until their mid 20s as well.

I look at Berdych getting ***** and bullied off the court at his own power game the last 2 slams by Cilic, and think why on earth would Cilic be a less worthy slam winner than Berdych. Also thinking of Berdych losing something like 24 of his last 25 matches vs Nadal/Djokovic, and that is not a slam caliber player.

Ferrer could win a slam in some other eras, he is kind of a poor mans Chang or poor mans Hewitt when they were at their best, but in this era he is simply not great enough to ever win one.

Tsonga of those three is the only on who really has a game to win a slam. However his terrible consistency and headcaseness prevent it from happening, and seemingly were always likely to prevenet it.

I think Cilic and Nishikori at their best have more game, and have more potential moving forward, than Berdych and Ferrer easily. I don't think just because you stay in the top 10 a long time means you deserve a slam, or it I a shame you don't win one. In my best players to not win a slam poll on the Former Pro section the names of Berdych, Ferrer, and Tsonga never came up, amongst the 15 or so others that did.
You're just saying this because those two happen to be in a slam final right now.

Would you have REALLY said Nishikori and Cilic had more game than Berdych and Ferrer before this tournament? No.

This is one result. Nishikori and Cilic did well to get to the finals, and whoever wins will be a grandslam champion as legitimate as any other.

However, you're kidding yourself if you think this was as hard of a road as Berdych/ferrer and others would have had to have traveled a few years ago.

There were a lot of players better than these two a few years ago, but couldn't get through because of each member of the big 4 being in form. Berdych, Roddick, Ferrer, and other players who proved themselves as top players over a long period of time would have definitely won if this type of situation had come up for them.

I'm just saying I would have liked to have seen some of the guys who have been falling just short of slam victories finally get one. That would have been cooler for me than to see these guys who have barely been top 15 players get one out of nowhere.
 

conway

Banned
You're just saying this because those two happen to be in a slam final right now.

Would you have REALLY said Nishikori and Cilic had more game than Berdych and Ferrer before this tournament? No.
Hell yeah. Watching Cilic and Berdych play at Wimbledon, and watching Nishikori and Raonic's rise up this year, I would have already said those guys had more game than the never more than generic 'good' Berdych and Ferrer, before this tournament.

What makes Berdych better than Cilic for instance? Berdych is absolutely nothing but a power player, and Cilic hits every shot better and with more power than he can. So that leaves Berdych superior at what? He is better looking, but that is it. Watch their matches at Wimbledon and the U.S Open this year and say without laughing Berdych has more game, lol!

Nishikori is like a Ferrer with more weapons and stronger mentality. He is atleast as fast and good defensively (if not better), returns just as well, and uses and redirects his opponents pace as well. He doesn't get tight on big points the way Ferrer does, and hits the ball harder. So again what is Ferrer's edge, other than experience.
 

Bukmeikara

Legend
Hell yeah. Watching Cilic and Berdych play at Wimbledon, and watching Nishikori and Raonic's rise up this year, I would have already said those guys had more game than the never more than generic 'good' Berdych and Ferrer, before this tournament.

What makes Berdych better than Cilic for instance? Berdych is absolutely nothing but a power player, and Cilic hits every shot better and with more power than he can. So that leaves Berdych superior at what? He is better looking, but that is it. Watch their matches at Wimbledon and the U.S Open this year and say without laughing Berdych has more game, lol!

Nishikori is like a Ferrer with more weapons and stronger mentality. He is atleast as fast and good defensively (if not better), returns just as well, and uses and redirects his opponents pace as well. He doesn't get tight on big points the way Ferrer does, and hits the ball harder. So again what is Ferrer's edge, other than experience.
stamina, endurance
 

conway

Banned
Back in 2010, Nadal was at the height of his prowess at Wimbledon. He had been in 4 of the last 5 finals (he missed 2009 because of his injury) and had been the only guy ever to beat Federer in a final there. Berdych had taken out both Djokovic and Federer but came up against an insurmountable force that year just like everyone else did everywhere else (Nadal went on to win USO as well). Nadal's sharp decline on grass did not come until 2 years later.
If it had been anyone else in the final that year (maybe even Federer), I think Berdych might have stood a better chance.
Probably so. I dont think he was certain to win even not playing Nadal though. Murray could have beaten him if that had been the final instead (which it would have been had Nadal gone out early in 1 of his 5 setters), and had he played Federer in the final instaead of the quarters I have a much harder time seeing him winning. Still Nadal is the only one he had absolutely no chance against; Nadal has owned him mentally ever since Wimbledon 2007 and he will never beat him again.

Either way that is the closest I see him ever getting to a slam. Might make another semi or two if lucky, and that is the max, especialy as like Tsonga and Ferrer he is getting up there now.

Yes, consistency and lack of focus have always been his greatest weaknesses but I was impressed by his run to the Toronto title this summer (taking out Murray, Djokovic and Federer, all former multiple titlists there, back to back). It gave me hope that he could still put a good run together and if he could just up the ante slightly, he might conceivably be able to do a repeat of his 2008 run at next year's AO.
His run in Toronto was great, as was his Australian Open final run (usually you would win a slam with that many big wins). However it is much harder to beat the top guys in a slam than in a Masters. I could see him beating 1 or 2, but probably not the 2 or 3 the draw would require. He just isn't consistently or mentally tough enough, even if he arguably has enough game. I see him having another run or two like Wimbledon a couple years ago when he beat Federer, but lost to Djokovic, but not winning a big title.


I agree with this. His best chance is on clay and so that means RG but there are at least 3 players he can never get past there ie. Nadal, Federer and Djokovic. If he could somehow dodge all 3 or at least 2 with the other having a really bad day, he might have a chance. But, at this stage, age is rapidly catching up with him. I think the window of opportunity s fast shutting for him if it hasn't already.
I don't even know if Ferrer is better on clay than hard courts. I think he is about the same on both and whether he does better vs someone is more dependent on which surface they are stronger on (eg- Nadal clay vs hard courts when playing Ferrer, Murray clay vs hard courts when playing Ferrer). Either way the hard court field is much stronger than the clay, so clay is his best chance, but he will never win a French if Nadal is there at the end, and beating Djokovic or Federer (given his matchup problems with Federer, even if old Roger is very beatable on clay for many others) would be a big task too.
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
What makes them more deserving. Nishikori and even Cilic are still young and getting better. Berdych, Ferrer, and Tsonga all peaked years ago, although they have roughly stayed at their peak for awhile now, and it clearly isn't good enough to win a major for any of them.

Ferrer shouldn't get a slam just because he works hard. Nishikori is like a better hitting and mentally tougher version of Ferrer. Cilic has way more weaponary in his game than Ferrer ever had.
Agree. Ferrer typically chokes against the Big Four. He needs to settle his issues before trying to contend for a major. How many times has he said, "no, no, I am not good enough?" (Paraphrasing).
 

HunterST

Hall of Fame
Hell yeah. Watching Cilic and Berdych play at Wimbledon, and watching Nishikori and Raonic's rise up this year, I would have already said those guys had more game than the never more than generic 'good' Berdych and Ferrer, before this tournament.

What makes Berdych better than Cilic for instance? Berdych is absolutely nothing but a power player, and Cilic hits every shot better and with more power than he can. So that leaves Berdych superior at what? He is better looking, but that is it. Watch their matches at Wimbledon and the U.S Open this year and say without laughing Berdych has more game, lol!

You're obviously jumping on the bandwagon here. Berdych has outperformed Cilic every year, has a winning H2H against him, and has over double the career prize money.

Nishikori is like a Ferrer with more weapons and stronger mentality. He is atleast as fast and good defensively (if not better), returns just as well, and uses and redirects his opponents pace as well. He doesn't get tight on big points the way Ferrer does, and hits the ball harder. So again what is Ferrer's edge, other than experience.
Saying Nishikori is mentally tougher than Ferrer is an absolute joke. Nishikori pulls out of tournaments if he stubs his toe.
 

conway

Banned
Well if Berdych wants to keep his winning record vs Cilic he had better retire ASAP, as he will lose virtually any of their future encounters, being hit clean off the court just like he was at Wimbledon and the U.S Open.

You are entitled your opinion but I NEVER thought of guys like Berdych and Ferrer as slam winning material, never expected them to win a slam, and don't have any yearning to see good second tier players with mediocre peak levels win a slam. Tsonga I do feel is slam winning material (game wise) but had concluded long ago he was too inconsistent to get it done. I have been waiting for players of the Cilic/Nishikori/ Raonic/Dmitrov generation to step up and am glad to see it finally happening this year. IMO that is far better for the game than any of the long time second tier who are older than Nadal/Djokovic/Murray winning their maiden slams, after losing to Nadal like 15 times in a row (Berdych), or to Federer 15 times in a row (Ferrer).

Nishikori is easily tougher mentally than Ferrer. Ferrer is a good fighter but chokes in important moments of important matches. Ferrer would not have pulled out the matches with Wawrinka or Djokovic at the US Open with the same level of play (not that he is capable of duplicating Nishikori's level of play from those matches either, especialy the semifinal), as he would blow it on the important points. As for your comment to what supposably makes Nishikori weak, then by your logic Nadal who is generally regarded as one of the toughest in history must be weak mentally. After all he pulls out of countless events with injuries, or after bad losses.
 
Last edited:
Top