That is hilarious. If those players are good, they have to beat Ferrer. He's an ultimate mug filter - before facing the big boys, you need to beat him. Don't be mad, "the vulture" owns Del Bashtro in h2h
This is the best expression ever.
Coria won like 30 something matches in a row on clay and was the best player on the surface before Nadal appeared. He really wasn't that vulnerable to the occasional surprising loss, leaving aside that memorable choke against Gaudio. But that happen because it was his first grand slam final, he routined easily any inferior oppponent. He also won a few masters 1000 on the surface, defeating the likes of Ferrero and Moya. And against Nadal the matches were close. In that Rome epic he was 2 points away from wining. Nadal maybe wasn't at his peak as a player, but on clay he was unbeatable pretty much since 2005. I think he did not lose a match on clay that season since his first title and was unbeaten untill 2007. Peak Coria was definitely superior to Ferrer, although the latter had a much longer career obviously.
Well, if Coria was not vulnerable to surprise losses, then how did he not win RG? Of course the choke to Gaudio was special, but the reason why it was his only final was that he got beaten by someone else in other years. He lost to Verkerk, Davydenko...
And my point is precisely that Nadal wasn't there.
Ferrer also routines easily any inferior opponent, that's even his trademark. And if he hadn't lost to Rafa so often, his stats on clay would be pretty similar to Coria's.
Also, Coria for various reasons was unable to keep playing at this level for long, so in that regard Ferrer is far superior which probably makes up for the areas in which he can be considered inferior.