In this forum, "points vulturing" is associated with defensive players and especially with Monaco and Ferrer.
I typically read that pure bullshit :
In tennis points vultures are often players who's game style is very defensive, so are unable to gain wins over higher ranked opponents and therefore try to play as many weaker players as possible to inflate their ranking.
This is pure bullshit concerning Ferrer, as he's got more wins against top-players than all of the other players outside of top-4 except Rodddick and Del Potro.
As far as Monaco is concerned :
- Monaco's worst optional result at the moment is 40 points, which is very low for players of the top-20.
- in recent years, Monaco actually played quite few events because he was often injured. How can you vulture points when you play few events ?
- Monaco qualified to two Masters 1000 semifinals, this is something which very very few players have done. Ok Monaco won Hamburg, then I guess Haas who was finalist also was a points vulture.
This "Points vulturing" notion and especially the association with defensive tennis has no reality of any kind, this is pure fan's imagination and I'm very angry with the fact that it has become like "common knowledge" on this website.
It might be possible to discuss the notion of "points vulturing" especially for players who take part in Asian or in a lesser extent south-American challengers with weaker fields, a typical player concerned being Lorenzi (or Stebe in 2011). Or worse for players who take part in futures in countries of Africa or Iran which have few futures.
But the association with defensive tennis (which I don't like) can only be made by people who never look at players' ranking breakdowns.