WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
Fashion trends are for women, kids, and fruity men so I'm not seeing your point.
Ferrer vs Gaudio: who had the better career?
- Thread starter spirit95
- Start date
Fashion trends are for women, kids, and fruity men so I'm not seeing your point.
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
Sebastien Chabal (rugby player)lol. Not surprisingly, both of these guys look like effeminate twerps.
Show me a masculine looking guy with a man bun. Hell, show me a guy who can grow a beard with a man bun. Gyllenhaal from Nightcrawler doesn't count since he was playing a character.
Also Ibrahimovic looks quite like a man to me (not Chabal like but again not many look like Chabal).
InsideOut900
Legend
I am just curious,those who took Gaudio instead of Ferrer,would they also take Coria over Ferrer?
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Gaudio peaked higher and, as a result, got himself on the list of Grand Slam champions (a very select list) and so therefore will be remembered for that achievement alone!
Ferrer has obviously enjoyed a much better overall career and won many more titles and generally performed much better at the Slams but he never peaked in any memorable way like Gaudio did so is not likely to be remembered for anything in particular other than maybe for being a very consistent player.
In short, Ferrer definitely had the better career but Gaudio had the higher peak achievement and his name, unlike Ferrer's, is permanently etched on a Grand Slam trophy!
Ferrer has obviously enjoyed a much better overall career and won many more titles and generally performed much better at the Slams but he never peaked in any memorable way like Gaudio did so is not likely to be remembered for anything in particular other than maybe for being a very consistent player.
In short, Ferrer definitely had the better career but Gaudio had the higher peak achievement and his name, unlike Ferrer's, is permanently etched on a Grand Slam trophy!
N
nowhereman
Guest
I would say Ferrer had the better overall career, but if I had to choose, I'd take Gaudio's tbh. I'd much rather have a slam to my name, even if I didn't much else outside of those 2 weeks.
mattosgrant
Banned
lol. Not surprisingly, both of these guys look like effeminate twerps.
Show me a masculine looking guy with a man bun. Hell, show me a guy who can grow a beard with a man bun. Gyllenhaal from Nightcrawler doesn't count since he was playing a character.
To each their own. I can tell you they have a ton of female fans and get thousands of love letters from women, so obviously not everyone feels that way.
mattosgrant
Banned
I would probably take Coria over Ferrer. He managed more Masters titles and came much closer to a slam title in an extremely short prime than Ferrer did in his extremely long one. Also Coria on clay >> Ferrer on any particular surface. Peak to peak I don't know if Ferrer is even better on hard courts or non clay surfaces to be honest, I think they would be roughly equal, but Ferrer does deserve credit for his amazing longevity and consistency which he has overall virtually everyone even much greater players than himself like Hewitt, Safin, and Roddick). That is a drawback for Ferrer in a way too though, he had such a long relatively injury free career, was near the top so long, so why only 1 slam final and 1 Masters title? Coria did a lot for such an extremely short prime, even with the huge heartbreak of that 04 RG final he so should have won.
Ultimately Gaudio is inferior to both in many ways, but got the one thing both Coria and Ferrer would have wanted most badly of all.
InsideOut900
Legend
Yeah,exactly the type of answer I was expecting.
Coria in his prime:2003-2004 1QF/1SF/1F+ 2 Masters
Ferrer in his prime:2012-2013 at least QF for 8 consecutive Slams(10 if you count 2014)-3SF out of them and 1 F+1 Masters
All court consistency beats clay only and Coria couldn't even capitalize on clay events,at least Ferrer lost to a member of Big4 outside of the Master he won.
And Gaudio is not Nadal of 2013 for sure
Outside of peak years,Ferrer is way above.
Same thing goes with Gaudio,he could have no problem lost as Coria held match points.
On perspective,those 2 points changed the career of one of them forever,yet it is not enough to make them better players than Ferrer.
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
I doubt it. You don't understand women if you think that.
mattosgrant
Banned
I know it for a fact. It isn't even speculation. There is a group of fans (mostly women) who raised a 5 figure sum of money for Joe after his latest Survivor appearance for no other reason than they find him hot and are in love with him.
mattosgrant
Banned
Yeah,exactly the type of answer I was expecting.
Coria in his prime:2003-2004 1QF/1SF/1F+ 2 Masters
Ferrer in his prime:2012-2013 at least QF for 8 consecutive Slams(10 if you count 2014)-3SF out of them and 1 F+1 Masters
All court consistency beats clay only and Coria couldn't even capitalize on clay events,at least Ferrer lost to a member of Big4 outside of the Master he won.
And Gaudio is not Nadal of 2013 for sure
Outside of peak years,Ferrer is way above.
Same thing goes with Gaudio,he could have no problem lost as Coria held match points.
On perspective,those 2 points changed the career of one of them forever,yet it is not enough to make them better players than Ferrer.
Yes in all surface performance and overall career Ferrer would have to be tops. In terms of the achievement you would most want it is Gaudio. In terms of level and potential it is Coria. It all depends on perspective.
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
Where I come from, women would mock someone like that. Then again, I don't know anyone who still watches Survivor.
accidental
Hall of Fame
Gaudio
He won a grand slam, Ferrer has not. Ferrer has played 48 grand slams and has only reached 1 final, where he was straight setted.
in 20-30 years time people will remember Gaudio as a French Open champ, but ferrer will be remembered as just a top 10 player, no mater how consistent he's been
He won a grand slam, Ferrer has not. Ferrer has played 48 grand slams and has only reached 1 final, where he was straight setted.
in 20-30 years time people will remember Gaudio as a French Open champ, but ferrer will be remembered as just a top 10 player, no mater how consistent he's been
nmanimaran15
Rookie
Comparing him with Gaudio is an absolute insult for Ferrer. Ferrer is a very good player who deserves two grand slams and four or five masters 1000 titles.
NatF
Bionic Poster
If he deserved them he would have won them or at least made a few more finals.
nmanimaran15
Rookie
He played in the strongest era where three Giants of tennis dominated. Otherwise he would have won them.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Nope. If he played in the 80's against Borg, Connors, McEnroe or later Lendl, Becker, Wilander and Edberg he'd win nothing as well. The 90's had Becker, Edberg, Courier for a bit and of course Sampras, Chang and Agassi when he showed up. Even in the weaker later 90's a players like Rafter, Kafelnikov or Moya are all stilll better than Ferrer plus you had Agassi around guarding the AO which is where the easy slams would come in the middle of that decade. The fact is the very vast majority of slam winners are all better players than he is. He would have a very small window to peak and grab a slam, even so he would be up against a superior player in most cases.
I struggle to see him winning slams in any era. There's never been a slam where he actually looked in dominating form before running into the Big 3. He's also had plenty of losses to lesser players as well. The guy ain't that good, sorry to tell you that mate.
mattosgrant
Banned
I also find it offensive to just randomly say he deserves the same # of slams as guys like Safin or Hewitt, or more than Roddick. Guys who achieved much more in every category, were all ranked #1 at one point, and were a much bigger threat to the top players.
I would never say Wawrinka (a better player than Ferrer, despite his much shorter prime) deserved 2 slams if he didn't have them and win them with such inspired performances and big wins.
mattosgrant
Banned
His best chance would definitely be in that 98-2002 period. He could maybe sneak out a slam (or if really lucky even 2) but there is a very good chance he still wins 0. In that era I would see him roughly being Corretja, who peaked then and didn't win a slam either. Someone like Tomas Johansson, a big surprise slam winner in that period, even had more firepower so while Ferrer is probably a better player overall, Tomas with his power and weapons would be more likely to put together and unlikely run for a slam title.
NatF
Bionic Poster
This. The glorification of the modern game is tiresome. Virtually every slam winner had to come up with something special to win. Even in his losses I've never found Ferrer to come up with something special. These comments come from people who I would hazard to guess have very little grasp of past era's - like I said even a player like Moya is a clearly superior player to Ferrer in basically every way and he only managed one slam competing in the rather weaker late 90's. Yet Ferrer should have 2 slams. If he said Ferrero I might agree...
mattosgrant
Banned
Yeah exactly. The Moya comparision is a good one, and since he clearly is a better player than Ferrer, with a very similar playing style and surface preferences, it pretty much sums up what one could expect from Ferrer even had he peaked then. Moya btw only made 2 slam finals and even 3 slam semis total. Tons of losses in slam quarters and round of 16s.
I have heard things thrown about like Ferrer was so unlucky to have Nadal at RG. However he didn't even play Nadal at RG between 2005 and 2013 or something like that. He has never lost to Djokovic or Federer at RG as he never got far enough to play either, and hasn't beaten Federer on any surface, including clay.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Ferrer lost in the QF of the FO 2005 to Nadal and then the 2012 SF at the FO Nadal. Other than that no I don't think he met him between those years.
I can imagine Ferrer sneaking in some more masters wins maybe, but less than 5 and mostly because they weren't mandatory and sometimes lacked top player participation. Ferrer's consistency is helped by the lack of a new generation. No matter when he peaked he'd have a small window, he'd have to hope it came in brief transitions between top players and generations. Even then he would find it hard as even players like 20 year old Safin, Hewitt were clearly much better than him.
mattosgrant
Banned
Not to mention he gets nervous trying to close out sets and matches against top players. He had a chance to finally get his first win over Federer in Cincinnati a few years back, and tightened up at the end of the 2nd set. The end of that Miami final with Murray was a jarring choke. His 2 Australian Open semis with Murray he had big chances in the middle of the match, in 2011 should have gone up 2 sets to 0, and got tight. Many times in big matches against Nadal he has tightened up when trying to close out sets or on key points. So if he did have opportunities it is unlikely he would take them. He is a real fighter, but that is different from being a great closer.
Gazelle
G.O.A.T.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Coria was also a far better clay courter than Gaudio has ever been
Indeed, but Gaudio at least went through a tough draw and played great tennis for 2 weeks. More than I can say for Ferrer.
mattosgrant
Banned
Gaudio walloped Hewitt in straight sets in the quarters (I know some will roll their eyes and say Hewitt on clay is nothing, but his only other slam losses in 04-05 were 5 times to Federer and once to on fire Safin in Australia, and Hewitt won his other clay meetings with Gaudio by overcoming big deficits). He then beat Nalbandian in straight sets in the semis, and I think many would have expected Nalbandian to win as clay isn't a bad surface for him. Then the epic upset and comeback against Coria in the final. Not an easy draw and very impressive run.
I don't see Ferrer going through a draw like that to win a slam.
I don't see Ferrer going through a draw like that to win a slam.
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Nalbandian beat Kuerten (who was fresh off beating Federer) the round before and made the final of Rome that year. So a good win for Gaudio.
You said "career" right? This is not even close. Ferrer has a far better career but Gaudio got hot for 2 weeks, including getting lucky that Coria started choking out of nowhere. 2 weeks does not make a career. For personal glory - yes, Gaudio can say he's a grand slam winner. For a career, in which you want to retire from, feed your family, and live well off of, Ferrer by a mile.
accidental
Hall of Fame
Pe
People tend to think of Gaudio's win as a massive fluke and that he had a ton of luck. The reality is more that it was a Stan Wawrinka like effort and that he played a string of exceptional matches against some very good players.
The field was also quite strong that year, with the RG champs from previous years all there, Ferrero, Costa, Kuerton, Moya, Agassi, and excellent clay court players like Federer, Nalbandian and Coria
People tend to think of Gaudio's win as a massive fluke and that he had a ton of luck. The reality is more that it was a Stan Wawrinka like effort and that he played a string of exceptional matches against some very good players.
The field was also quite strong that year, with the RG champs from previous years all there, Ferrero, Costa, Kuerton, Moya, Agassi, and excellent clay court players like Federer, Nalbandian and Coria
mattosgrant
Banned
You are so right. I think one reason people tend to forget that is the way the final went down was kind of strange with Gaudio coming out clearly nervous and unable to perform, as well as getting totally outplayed by a masterful Coria. Then the crowd getting involved, giving Gaudio a lift, Coria being shaken and getting tight and even starting to choke, then cramping for awhile. So that he went through a tough draw with numerous good wins at a time the clay field was quite deep gets forgotten in the just the general strangeness of the final.
I'm sorry but provided you are looking purely at achievements (not prize money or money from endorsements) then you have to take Gaudio's career everyday of the week!!
I completely agree that Ferrer has shown incredible consistency and may go down as best player to never win a Slam but that in itself is cause for an element of regret, no matter how much you highlight the other achievements!
I bet Gaudio doesn't look back on his career with regret....bet he looks back with a smile ear to ear knowing that whilst he may not of been the best player on tour he capitalized on an opportunity that most other tennis players can only dream of and probably exceeded his potential.
I completely agree that Ferrer has shown incredible consistency and may go down as best player to never win a Slam but that in itself is cause for an element of regret, no matter how much you highlight the other achievements!
I bet Gaudio doesn't look back on his career with regret....bet he looks back with a smile ear to ear knowing that whilst he may not of been the best player on tour he capitalized on an opportunity that most other tennis players can only dream of and probably exceeded his potential.
mattosgrant
Banned
Yeah I feel I am almost contradicting myself in a way since I am the same one who started a thread about slam wins aren't everything. However winning 1 slam to winning none at all is the biggest difference there is. Ferrer isn't even the best to not win a slam, heck might not even be top 10, but he still was a top player for a long time, and anyone who was a contender for a long time but didn't get that 1 slam victory it is sure to be a regret. Then someone like Gaudio was arguably not even quite a real top player ever, yet did get that big win every tennis player aspires to.
As for money I am sure both guys are rich enough to be happy. I doubt Gaudio himself isn't living life the way he wants to for the rest of his life.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Gaudio is indeed the archetypal 'One Slam Wonder' but you make that sound like it is a bad thing. For one moment in his career, Gaudio was a wonder Slam champion and that puts him in a very select and illustrious list. Ferrer, although definitely the better overall player, unfortunately never achieved that 'wonder' moment. I do wonder if he would swap everything he has achieved so far for that one moment of glory that Gaudio had?
mattosgrant
Banned
Gaudio is indeed the archetypal 'One Slam Wonder' but you make that sound like it is a bad thing. For one moment in his career, Gaudio was a wonder Slam champion and that puts him in a very select and illustrious list. Ferrer, although definitely the better overall player, unfortunately never achieved that 'wonder' moment. I do wonder if he would swap everything he has achieved so far for that one moment of glory that Gaudio had?
As a former athlete myself I find coments like "one slam wonder" pretty funny too. Maybe because I am a former elite athlete I can appreciate how hard it is to achieve anything at any level than some others here. I made it to the NFL and played only 6 official games, which is the equivalent of being a futures player for 6 months on the ATP or WTA tour, and I considered that an amazing feat, but I guess if I were even relevant enough to be talked about I would be called a major mug, even by people sitting on their couches, weighing 400 pounds, and eating a bag of potatoe chips (their 10th of the week).
Winning 7 matches against the worlds best player is a phenomenal feat under any circumstances. Especialy in this day and age when all the top players (health permitting) play each slam, so Gaudio's RG title can not be equated to say the Australian Open tites of Barbara Jordan, Chris O Neill, and Roscoe Tanner (and even thos were an admirable feat). Any of who play tennis would love to be a 1 slam winner like Gaudio, and it would beyond the wildest dreams of any players here.
duaneeo
Legend
You created another thread saying there needs to be a change in the general mindset that slam wins are everything. But here you state that Gaudio had the better career than Ferrer, even though other than that one slam title, every other important stat favors Ferrer (1 slam final, 5 slam semis, 11 slam QFs, 1 Masters title, 6 Masters finals, 10 Masters semis, 1 WTFs final, 10 Tour 500s, 15 Tour 250s, titles won on all 3 surfaces, a career high of #3).
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
duaneeo
Legend
Of course winning a slam is difficult, and IMO 'one slam wonder' means just that...it's a wonder that the player was able to achieve such a difficult achievement. I don't think the phase applies to every player who's only won one slam, but it does to Gaudio.
mattosgrant
Banned
Many posters here won multiple slams actually...on Topspin 4
Haha that is great. I burst out laughing at that one.
mattosgrant
Banned
You created another thread saying there needs to be a change in the general mindset that slam wins are everything. But here you state that Gaudio had the better career than Ferrer, even though other than that one slam title, every other important stat favors Ferrer (1 slam final, 5 slam semis, 11 slam QFs, 1 Masters title, 6 Masters finals, 10 Masters semis, 1 WTFs final, 10 Tour 500s, 15 Tour 250s, titles won on all 3 surfaces, a career high of #3).
1 slam win vs 0 is a way bigger difference than say 14 to 12 or 8 to 7 IMO. It is the difference between reaching the pinnacle and never doing so.
Also I concede Ferrer probably has the better career, but I am saying I would rather have Gaudio's probably.
duaneeo
Legend
Gaudio faced Coria in the Roland Garros final. Ferrer faced (then) 7-time, 3-time defending champion Nadal. That's a way bigger difference.
mattosgrant
Banned
Sure but Ferrer wouldn't be favored over Coria either. Coria is a much better clay courter than Ferrer. So for Gaudio (who was a huge underdog) to beat Coria was still a huge win.
Similar threads
