Ferrer vs Nalbandian: Greater Career

More distinguished career

  • David Ferrer

    Votes: 13 37.1%
  • David Nalbandian

    Votes: 22 62.9%

  • Total voters
    35

King No1e

G.O.A.T.
Career Titles
Ferrer - 27
Nalbandian - 11

Career Record
Ferrer: 726-371 (66%)
Nalbandian: 383-192 (67%)

World Championship
Ferrer - 0 wins, 1 final, 1 SF, 7 appearances
Nalbandian - 1 win, 2 SF, 3 appearances

Masters 1000 Titles
Ferrer - 1 (Paris)
Nalbandian - 2 (1 Madrid, 1 Paris)

Grand Slam Results
Ferrer -
AO: 2 SF
RG: 1 F
W: 2 QF
USO: 2 SF

Nalbandian -
AO: 1 SF
RG: 2 SF
W: 1 F
USO: 1 SF

Head 2 Head
Ferrer 9-5 Nalbandian

Records vs Top Players
Ferrer -
0-17 vs Federer
6-25 vs Nadal
5-16 vs Djokovic
6-14 vs Murray
4-10 vs Söderling
4-7 vs Roddick
3-1 vs Hewitt
7-7 vs Wawrinka
8-8 vs Berdych

Nalbandian -
8-11 vs Federer
3-3 vs Hewitt
3-6 vs Safin
4-5 vs Ljubicic
2-4 vs Roddick
2-5 vs Nadal
1-4 vs Djokovic
4-3 vs Moya
4-3 vs Ferrero
7-5 vs Davydenko
5-3 vs Gonzalez

Ranking
Ferrer - No. 3
Nalbandian - No. 3

Overall Career Timeline
Ferrer -
2018-11-11.png

Nalbandian -
2018-11-11.png


Who takes the cake?
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
Career Titles
Ferrer - 27
Nalbandian - 11

Career Record
Ferrer: 726-371 (66%)
Nalbandian: 383-192 (67%)

Masters 1000 Titles
Ferrer - 1 (Paris)
Nalbandian - 2 (1 Madrid, 1 Paris)

Grand Slam Results
Ferrer -
AO: 2 SF
RG: 1 F
W: 2 QF
USO: 2 SF

Nalbandian -
AO: 1 SF
RG: 2 SF
W: 1 F
USO: 1 SF

Head 2 Head
Ferrer 9-5 Nalbandian

Records vs Top Players
Ferrer -
0-17 vs Federer
6-25 vs Nadal
5-16 vs Djokovic
6-14 vs Murray
4-10 vs Söderling
4-7 vs Roddick
3-1 vs Hewitt
7-7 vs Wawrinka
8-8 vs Berdych

Nalbandian -
8-11 vs Federer
3-3 vs Hewitt
3-6 vs Safin
4-5 vs Ljubicic
2-4 vs Roddick
2-5 vs Nadal
4-3 vs Moya
4-3 vs Ferrero
7-5 vs Davydenko
5-3 vs Gonzalez

Ranking
Ferrer - No. 3
Nalbandian - No. 3

Overall Career Timeline
Ferrer -
2018-11-11.png

Nalbandian -
2018-11-11.png


Who takes the cake?

Not mention of Nalbandian's YEC win?
 

IowaGuy

Hall of Fame
Nalbandian very dangerous on all surfaces.

Top players did not look forward to playing against him, since if he showed up in good form he was tough to beat (kind of like Stanimal). I enjoy watching the re-runs of his Federer matches.

OTOH, sometimes he ate too much pizza that month and wasn't too quick on his feet... :)

0,,18691027-EX,00.jpg
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
Let me put it this way.
There's a consistency argument for Ferrer. He spend more weeks in the top-10, had more YE top-10 finishes, more career titles, more career runner-ups etc.
But Nalby's got him in
- biggest title (WTF)
- one more Masters
- percentage of wins vs. top-10 (36,8 vs. 30,6)
- top level of play
and had runs, Ferrer could never dream off - specifically his double Masters' run in late 2007, beating Fedal twice, Novak once, Birdman, Ferrer, Moya, Gasquet, Almagro, a young Delpo
https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/david-nalbandian/n301/player-activity?year=2007
 

Bukmeikara

Legend
Ferrer career earnings 31.000.000
Nalbandian 11.000.000

But in the end I still think that the gap is marginal between them and they would be rank equally.
 

IowaGuy

Hall of Fame
Nalbandian beat 31 year old Federer with a broken ankle and back, he would have lost in straights as well to the 25 year old one Ferrer faced.

Nalby also beat a very-in-form Federer twice in 2003 at Grand Slams (AO and USO).

In between those defeats Federer won Wimbledon :)
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
Career Titles
Ferrer - 27
Nalbandian - 11

Career Record
Ferrer: 726-371 (66%)
Nalbandian: 383-192 (67%)

World Championship
Ferrer - 7 appearances, 0 wins, 1 final, 1 SF
Nalbandian - 3 appearances, 1 win, 2 SF

Masters 1000 Titles
Ferrer - 1 (Paris)
Nalbandian - 2 (1 Madrid, 1 Paris)

Grand Slam Results
Ferrer -
AO: 2 SF
RG: 1 F
W: 2 QF
USO: 2 SF

Nalbandian -
AO: 1 SF
RG: 2 SF
W: 1 F
USO: 1 SF

Head 2 Head
Ferrer 9-5 Nalbandian

Records vs Top Players
Ferrer -
0-17 vs Federer
6-25 vs Nadal
5-16 vs Djokovic
6-14 vs Murray
4-10 vs Söderling
4-7 vs Roddick
3-1 vs Hewitt
7-7 vs Wawrinka
8-8 vs Berdych

Nalbandian -
8-11 vs Federer
3-3 vs Hewitt
3-6 vs Safin
4-5 vs Ljubicic
2-4 vs Roddick
2-5 vs Nadal
4-3 vs Moya
4-3 vs Ferrero
7-5 vs Davydenko
5-3 vs Gonzalez

Ranking
Ferrer - No. 3
Nalbandian - No. 3

Overall Career Timeline
Ferrer -
2018-11-11.png

Nalbandian -
2018-11-11.png


Who takes the cake?
NIce work, but shouldn't this be in former pro section?

First off if we look at clay their really is no comparison despite Nalbandian having two RG SFs.

On grass both had a bad record. Nabaldian's Wimbledon final is akin to the likes of Pouille and Thiem winning Stuttgart on grass. Ferrer actually had good grass points numbers from 2008-2012, stronger than Nalbandian's.

For hard courts you have to say Nalbandian because of his wins at the end of the year. Nalbandian and Ferrer are the same age and one wonders what he might have done if he'd not succumbed to injury. Arguably, Nalbandian was robbed of his prime/peak years missing so much in 2009-2010. Probably his most impressive tournament wins (by who he beat in the field) were Madrid and Paris back to back in 2007. Looks like hips were becoming an issue after this and then a host of other injuries.

Nalbandian the greater career and yet Ferrer with nearly triple the career earnings.:p I for one would like to see some replays of his matches from the end of 2007.

Great post and I'd missed much of Nalbandian's career generally seeing his numerous early exits from slams post vacuum.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
...OTOH, sometimes he ate too much pizza that month and wasn't too quick on his feet.:)
0,,18691027-EX,00.jpg
Agreed, they hate Nadal because even as a slender fragile teenage boy he exposed the vacuum of the 2003 -- 2007 era and the Federar's lack of talent. Heck, Sampras may not care about the post-90s era, but I wouldn't blame him for salivating over it. The obesity epidemic, for one thing, did not take hold until post 2002, with the likes of Jesse Witten hauling their massive weight around in the slams and the likes of Nalbandian/Baghdatis saturating slam finals.
 

IowaGuy

Hall of Fame
Agreed, they hate Nadal because even as a slender fragile teenage boy he exposed the vacuum of the 2003 -- 2007 era and the Federar's lack of talent. Heck, Sampras may not care about the post-90s era, but I wouldn't blame him for salivating over it. The obesity epidemic, for one thing, did not take hold until post 2002, with the likes of Jesse Witten hauling their massive weight around in the slams and the likes of Nalbandian/Baghdatis saturating slam finals.

Well, an in-form Nalbandian did smoke 3-time GS winner Nadal pretty good twice in 2007 (including a bagel).

In fact, Nalbandian with his fantastic BH (disguise + power) matched up very well against Nadal's FH.
 

mightyjeditribble

Hall of Fame
In the end, I had to go with Nalbandian - 2 MS to 1, that WTF win. Also SF at all four slams. He burned bright when he was on (those two MS wins!), but unfortunately that wasn't always.

On the other hand, for consistency, longevity and maximizing your potential, you can't beat David Ferrer. I feel kind of bad giving Nalbandian the nod, but in the end Nalbandian's results at the top win out, I think. Both better players than some who have won a slam, for sure.
 

axlrose

Professional
Ferrer earns 3-time more than Nalbandian. I don't give a s how good peak Nalbandian was, which ATG he defeated... I'd choose Ferrer's career without any hesitation.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Ferrer earns 3-time more than Nalbandian. I don't give a s how good peak Nalbandian was, which ATG he defeated... I'd choose Ferrer's career without any hesitation.
Me too.

But Nalbandian played at a higher level, he was just unfit, lazy and didn't fulfill his potential. Ferrer is the literal opposite.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Nalbandian. YEC already trumps Ferrer's career. And everyone will remember Nalbandian won the YEC, particularly beating Federer in the finals to do it, while almost nobody will remember Ferrer won 27 titles.
Most of Ferrer's titles are at 250 level I believe. Then again a lot of good to even great players have a huge amount of 250 trophies in their cabinet.

Ferrer is a very, very good player however. He has beaten Nadal in majors multiple times, made a GS final, reached World No. 3 despite never holding a major in his career, won a MS-1000 and been very consistent in and outside majors to maintain his ranking.
 

redrover

Rookie
Most of Ferrer's titles are at 250 level I believe. Then again a lot of good to even great players have a huge amount of 250 trophies in their cabinet.

Ferrer is a very, very good player however. He has beaten Nadal in majors multiple times, made a GS final, reached World No. 3 despite never holding a major in his career, won a MS-1000 and been very consistent in and outside majors to maintain his ranking.

I agree on all of that. Ferrer can be very proud of his career. However the vast majority of people will remember Nalbandian's career as superior just for the YEC title, plus the multiple Masters title, since both have only 1 slam final, and spent similar time ranked in the same sort of area. Nalbandian's respectably good head to head with Federer is also known by most tennis fans, even casual ones. All of that makes his career preferable to Ferrer's. Nalbandian is even up with Ferrer in most consistency stats, ranking stats, slam semis (he has been to the semis of every slam actually, Ferrer hasnt) and quarters, etc...Ferrer's only edge is number of small titles which definitely doesnt overtake the YEC, let alone the other things I mentioned with that.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
I agree on all of that. Ferrer can be very proud of his career. However the vast majority of people will remember Nalbandian's career as superior just for the YEC title, plus the multiple Masters title, since both have only 1 slam final, and spent similar time ranked in the same sort of area. Nalbandian's respectably good head to head with Federer is also known by most tennis fans, even casual ones. All of that makes his career preferable to Ferrer's. Nalbandian is even up with Ferrer in most consistency stats, ranking stats, slam semis (he has been to the semis of every slam actually, Ferrer hasnt) and quarters, etc...Ferrer's only edge is number of small titles which definitely doesnt overtake the YEC, let alone the other things I mentioned with that.
Yeah I remember Nalbandian was hanging up there for a while after he made his GS final in 02. He spent a bit of time in the top 10 from 2003-2008ish. He dropped out sometimes cuz of his inconsistency but you'd see him back there now and then. He then had that surgery in 2010 and completely vanished.
 

mr tonyz

Professional
How about we combine Ferrer's mentality & sheer unrelenting work ethic (when he wasn't smoking or feasting on McDonald's after matches) with Nalbandian's raw silky talent?

2-3 slam range? Or 5-7?

Let's not forget , that not even peak Fed would be a lock against peak Nalbo @ AO & USO.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
How about we combine Ferrer's mentality & sheer unrelenting work ethic (when he wasn't smoking or feasting on McDonald's after matches) with Nalbandian's raw silky talent?

2-3 slam range? Or 5-7?

Let's not forget , that not even peak Fed would be a lock against peak Nalbo @ AO & USO.
Maybe wins a slam, but unlikely because that was not an era in which you could vulture slams. It does not absolutely nothing to fix the biggest flaws in Nalbandian's game. It just gives him more consistency at the top level.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Ferrer had the longer career and was much more consistent. Both made 1 Slam final and were ranked as high as #3. Ferrer has more than twice as many titles: 27 v 11 but Nalbandian has 3 big ones: YEC plus Madrid and Paris v just 1 for Ferrer: Paris. Nalbandian definitely had the higher peak.
 

Bukmeikara

Legend
However the vast majority of people will remember Nalbandian's career as superior just for the YEC title, plus the multiple Masters title, since both have only 1 slam final, and spent similar time ranked in the same sort of area.

Vast majority of people cant make a difference between Indian Wells and Us Open. Vast majority of people dont know by names/or their games 50% of the players inside the top 50. So tell me how the "vast majory of people" could evalute correctly something that they dont understand even sligthly?! This is not a popularity contest. Saying that one title beats an entire career is just sloppy. By your logic Dimitrov is a lot better Ferrer, NO?! Nalbandian won 4 matches in that YEC tournament vs Coria(retired after 1 year), Ljubicic, Davydenko and Federer. Ferrer won 4 matches in the same tournament in 2007 vs Djokovic, Nadal, Roddick(number 2,3,4) and Gasquet. The difference is that Nalbandian had the "fortune" to win the final match and David didnt.

Also they didnt spend similar time ranked in the same area. Ferrer has 7 years inside top 10 + another 5 inside top 20. Nalbandian has 5 years inside top 10 and another 2 as top 20. This is five years difference in the top Tier.

Nalbandian's respectably good head to head with Federer is also known by most tennis fans, even casual ones.

Tennis players play the game to win titles and money, not to win vs one particular opponent. How is better to beat Federer in R16 and lose after that to Schuttler in the QF compared to reaching the SF while not beating Federer?! How many peopel would preffer that?!

Using your logic Ferrer has respectable 4-4 record vs Nadal outside clay and two of those wins came in Slams.

Nalbandian is even up with Ferrer in most consistency stats, ranking stats, slam semis (he has been to the semis of every slam actually, Ferrer hasnt) and quarters, etc...Ferrer's only edge is number of small titles which definitely doesnt overtake the YEC, let alone the other things I mentioned with that.


Given that they are both born 1982 and played in the exact same eras of tennis, money is the best metric tool to evalute them fairly. I know that Ferrer success came later with the increased prize money funds but still 20mln gap is way much of a distance. Also something to check:

Dimitrov 280 wins
Raonic 320 wins
Nishikori 380 wins

The gap in match wins between Ferrer and Nalbandian 350 wins.

In the end which is more difficult to accomplish, Ferrer's career or Nalbandian's one?! Given that Nalbandian is probably the better player, the answer is easily Ferrer. So his career should be rated sligthly higher from avid tennis fans.
 

redrover

Rookie
Vast majority of people cant make a difference between Indian Wells and Us Open. Vast majority of people dont know by names/or their games 50% of the players inside the top 50. So tell me how the "vast majory of people" could evalute correctly something that they dont understand even sligthly?! This is not a popularity contest. Saying that one title beats an entire career is just sloppy. By your logic Dimitrov is a lot better Ferrer, NO?! Nalbandian won 4 matches in that YEC tournament vs Coria(retired after 1 year), Ljubicic, Davydenko and Federer. Ferrer won 4 matches in the same tournament in 2007 vs Djokovic, Nadal, Roddick(number 2,3,4) and Gasquet. The difference is that Nalbandian had the "fortune" to win the final match and David didnt.

Nalbandian and Ferrer both have 1 slam final. They both have 5 slam semis I believe. Nalbandian in addition to the YEC has more Masters titles. They both have a career high ranking of #3 and years in and around the top 10, and some in the top 5. So no the comparision is nothing like Dmitrov vs Ferrer. Ferrer's only edge is a large mass of 250 tournaments, and those do not beat a YEC title, more Masters, and more success vs the top players.

I laugh at your Nalbandian had the "fortune" to win the final match comment. More like he had the ability to win the final match. Ferrer never had a shot to win the final vs Federer since he doesnt have enough game, he doesnt even have a single career win over Federer, while Nalbandian has 8, and one of them being that big YEC final match.
 
Both made slam finals. Nalbandian won the YEC and won an extra masters. Also more of a threat to the top guys. Ferrer undoubtedly more consistent but Nalbandian takes this

No way. Nalbandian was a great talent but no way one wtf and an extra masters make up for 16 more titles and two more slam semis and 4 more slam QFs.

Yeah nalbandian was a bigger threat to top players but Ferrer made almost 3 times as much career price money (31 vs 11 M).

Ferrer easily had a better career.
 

IowaGuy

Hall of Fame
Ferrer never had a shot to win the final vs Federer since he doesnt have enough game, he doesnt even have a single career win over Federer, while Nalbandian has 8, and one of them being that big YEC final match.

Yes, Federer:Ferrer = 17:0 head to head.

Ouch! :)
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
No way. Nalbandian was a great talent but no way one wtf and an extra masters make up for 16 more titles and two more slam semis and 4 more slam QFs.

Yeah nalbandian was a bigger threat to top players but Ferrer made almost 3 times as much career price money (31 vs 11 M).

Ferrer easily had a better career
Prize money is a total non-factor. Prize money increases warp this stat heavily. Murray 16 was the second highest earning season ever. That puts it into perspective (unless you want to argue it's even close to the second best season ever)

As I said, Ferrer was more consistent, hence more titles. But 16 of these were 250s. It shows consistency and longevity for sure but Connors having the title record doesn't put him above Sampras. Ferrer's Paris masters win wasn't all that impressive either. Faced none of the big 4 to win it. Nalbandian OTOH beat Fed and Nadal in both his wins, Djokovic as well in Madrid. This doesn't make them more important than Ferrer's, but it indicates he was capable of cutting through the top guys to win; Ferrer wasn't. He also has 2 to Ferrer's 1.

Then there's TMC win. Beating Fed over 5 sets is more impressive than getting trashed in 3 like Ferrer was. Simply put, he has more 'big' titles and they were won under more impressive circumstances. He also has a higher peak level of play and had more success against the top guys. Ferrer was a great player and I admire his hard work and tenacity. But Nalbandian was better and his career was more impressive to me
 

redrover

Rookie
No way. Nalbandian was a great talent but no way one wtf and an extra masters make up for 16 more titles and two more slam semis and 4 more slam QFs.

I could only maybe see your point if Ferrer had more 500 titles. Most of his titles are 250 titles, and absolutely a WTF >>>>>>>>>> a bunch of 250 titles. 250 titles are in fact next to meaningless in a top players career.

500 titles are the absolute lowest that have any real value for a top player.
 

underground

G.O.A.T.
The fact that Nalby has the WTF and one of the best back-to-back runs at Masters 1000 should made this thread non existent in the first place.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I could only maybe see your point if Ferrer had more 500 titles. Most of his titles are 250 titles, and absolutely a WTF >>>>>>>>>> a bunch of 250 titles. 250 titles are in fact next to meaningless in a top players career.

500 titles are the absolute lowest that have any real value for a top player.

Disagree here imo it depends on the 250. I think Doha 2017 and even 2016 definitely had some value as Djokovic beat a very good Murray and an average Nadal in them (but the Nadal win was savage). Likewise for years Queen's was a 250 but often had very good draws. For me it depends on the draws and on the tennis. Masters and 250's alike only have 5 rounds and are BO3. The full field being present makes Masters much more prestigious but there can be cases where in practice the draws for lesser tournaments are more difficult.
 
Top