Ferrer vs Nalbandian: Greater Career

More distinguished career

  • David Ferrer

    Votes: 13 37.1%
  • David Nalbandian

    Votes: 22 62.9%

  • Total voters
    35

redrover

Rookie
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.

Well we know Ferrer went through hardly difficult draws to win the events, since he hardly ever beats the top players anyway.
 

Bukmeikara

Legend
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.

Ferrer has 19(10-9) finals in ATP 500, Nalbandian has 2(1-1). Of those nine losses 5 are against Nadal on clay and two against Djokovic on hard. The gap between Ferrer and Nalbandian measured in match wins is ~ 340 wins in favor of Ferrer, that is the career of a decent top 10 player like Nishikori, Dimitrov or Raonic being near 30 years old.

Yes, he had the fortune because Federer was nursing injury at the time and skipped Madrid, Basel and Paris. He had the fortune because Roddick, Hewitt, Safin and Nadal(4 of the top 5) missed the tournament and because of that the whole event was subpar, Gaudio reached the SF and lost 6-0 6-0! Roger lost sets in each of his round robin matches against Coria, Ljubicic and Nalbandian and given his problems if the top dogs were there he would have hardly reached the final. I mean this is the line up - Federer, Nalbandian, Ljubicic, Coria, Puerta, Agassi(withdrawed after the first match), Davydenko, Puerta and it seems more like a Barcelona field..

Nalbandian having 8 wins against Federer means that he matched well with Roger and kudos to him. His 2007 run was also incredible and probably one of the coolest things in tennis history but he didnt even reach the WTF with near full season that year. So bottom line is, nice record vs Roger + 2 flashy titles against 350 extra wins+more deep runs, 30 extra finals and 20 extra titles. Yes, Nalbandian was the better player but at what point you draw the line and stop giving extra points for talent and "what if's". Nalbandian had his chances and a lot of people say that he was lazy and far from proffesional.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Well we know Ferrer went through hardly difficult draws to win the events, since he hardly ever beats the top players anyway.

My comment was on the principle more than anything else. I definitely do look at total titles even if a lot of them are small.
 

Bukmeikara

Legend
Well we know Ferrer went through hardly difficult draws to win the events, since he hardly ever beats the top players anyway.

Nalbandian retired at 30-31 years. Ferrer has lost ~72 times against the Big 4, 36(50%) of those losses came from 2012 onwards or near his 30th birthday. I believe that if Nalbandian remained on Tour he would have hardly done any better

Also WTF 2005 line up - Federer, Ljubicic, Nalbandian, Gaudio, Agassi(1 match), Puerta, Davydenko, Coria
Brisbane 2017 line up - Nadal, Wawrinka, Nishikori, Raonic, Thiem, Dimitrov, Ferrer, Pouille

As it seems there are "250" events with a better draw than the WTF that Nalbandian won
 
Last edited:

redrover

Rookie
Considering Nalbandian and Ferrer both have only 1 slam final, Nalbandian has almost as many slam semis in a much shorter career, and Nalbandian made the semis of all 4 slams which Ferrer did, I would put Nalbandian atleast equal with Ferrer in slams. And his WTF title and 2 Masters clearly trumps anything Ferrer did outside of slams.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
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.

Queens and Halle have been 500s from 2015 onwards.
From 2015 onwards, we also got an extra week of grass season.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Queens and Halle have been 500s from 2015 onwards.
From 2015 onwards, we also got an extra week of grass season.

I know and before that they were 250's which is what I said "For years Queens was a 250..." e.g. past tense.

F*ck man it's a pet peeve on mine when people try to correct me on stuff like this :rolleyes: I know damn well Queens and Halle are 500 level events now.
 

octobrina10

Talk Tennis Guru
One of 2 RAFA's toughest opponents. 1:06

David Nalbandian and Rafa have had a good relationship. DN visited Rafa in Mallorca today:

Dr08759WsAYeG70.jpg:small
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
I know and before that they were 250's which is what I said "For years Queens was a 250..." e.g. past tense.

F*ck man it's a pet peeve on mine when people try to correct me on stuff like this :rolleyes: I know damn well Queens and Halle are 500 level events now.

my bad. I didn't read your post properly.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
my bad. I didn't read your post properly.

It's ok man. Like I said just a pet peeve of mine, get irrationally annoyed when people try to tell me things I already know, probably says something about me :laughing:
 
D

Deleted member 757377

Guest
Slam losses to 10+ slam finalists:

Ferrer:

1 final
5 semifinals
7 quarterfinals
1 first round


Nalbandian:

1 semifinal
2 quarterfinals
2 third round
 

mightyjeditribble

Hall of Fame
Here is the real question. Should Zverev somehow manage to win the WTF this year, whose career is better - Nalbandian, or Zverev at 21?

Zverev already has more Masters (3 vs 2), more ATP 500 (2 vs 1). Of course, on the GS level he has some catching up to do. :)
 

tacou

G.O.A.T.
Jeez I love Nalbandian too but neither won a major and Ferrer has more than 300 additonal wins!! Saying Ferrer was "more consistent" is such an undersell.

Nalbandian had the higher peak level, no question. But Ferrer's career was much, much more impressive imo, regardless of David's WTF win.
 

upchuck

Hall of Fame
Nalbandian had a higher peak, but I'm not sure his single extra masters 1000 title and his lone WTF title is enough to outweigh Ferrer's impressive consistency. As the guy above me said, Ferrer had 300 more victories. For sure I'd prefer to have had Ferrer's career since he made a whopping $20 million more than Nalbandian despite being the same age.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Nalbandian had a higher peak, but I'm not sure his single extra masters 1000 title and his lone WTF title is enough to outweigh Ferrer's impressive consistency. As the guy above me said, Ferrer had 300 more victories. For sure I'd prefer to have had Ferrer's career since he made a whopping $20 million more than Nalbandian despite being the same age.
Both would be comfortable. I don't think Nalbandian or Ferrer are ever going to live a life of poverty after tennis. When it comes to the amount they've earned it hardly matters. It's more about the achievements.

And besides the WTF Ferrer leads there. He can also retire knowing he gave his career everything he got and pushed his body to the limit. Nalbandian had more upside than Ferrer but did poorer. He never hung around the top 10 anywhere near as long as he did.
 
Top