I do agree. I am so disappointed with Delpo because back in 2010 I though he would actually be a regular top4 (or top5 then) player and that he will be fighting with Murray for the #4 spot all the time. To me, he was always the best out of the 2nd 4. I'm just trying to be objective here and let the results speak for themselves.
And I guarantee you that most of these posters who are defending Ferrer had similar thoughts back then.
You are completely missing the point or maybe just unable to find suitable arguments. Ferrer is not the better player if we consider their respective careers. He also doesn't have more potential of winning a slam in the future. But
he is the better player right now
. He is more consistent, has more match wins and better results in mandatory tournaments. If Del Potro were to win another major or even make another final, this discussion would change completely. But as it stands, Ferrer is absolutely maximising his potential, while Del Potro isn't (the reason is irrelevant). To get a higher ranking you need to have outperformed those ranked ahead of you in the last twelve months. It's the same for everyone, not just Del Potro. The concept is easy. All the potential in the world doesn't matter if you are unable to turn it into results. Winning a slam at one point in his career doesn't justify him being ranked ahead of players who never managed to win one until the end of time. Otherwise I could make a case for Lleyton Hewitt as well. What anyone thought in 2009/2010 has nothing to do with the discussion at hand either.