And Roddick didn't take advantage in his lone slam win? Please. He played Juan Carlos Ferrero in the final for crying out loud. How did that guy (with two HC titles in his entire career) make the final of the USO? I'll tell you how, the tour was utter crap in 2003. Juan Carlos Ferrero is another guy that luck sacked a slam. He played Martin Verkerk in the final at RG in (you guessed it) 2003. Who the fuck is Martin Verkerk? Exactly.
Teleport Ferrer back to 2003 and he would have won RG (he's 3-1 against Ferrero on clay) and probably made the final of the USO in Ferrero's place, and he would have had a chance of beating Roddick too (he is 3-3 against him on HC's).
I don't know why everyone hates on Ferrer. It's completely unjustified. Fact is, Ferrer was unlucky to born into this era where he basically can't win anything because he's competing with three of the greatest players of all time. In any other era, he'd have at least one slam and more titles. He could have easily had a better career than Ferrero (his career is almost as good and he's basically been shutout of M1000 and slams due to some dudes named Nadal, Federer and Djokovic.
This is a general observation, but people are hating on the tier B ranked 5-10 crowd because they can't beat the top 4. Well, if you have to play against four of the best tennis players of all time, that's what would happen. It doesn't mean you're a vulture or a mug. These guys would have done much better in a weaker era.
Typical MTF post of a member looking at letters, numbers and such without analysing the play itself and the user to speak of most likely cannot remember a single thing about Juan Carlos Ferrero's 2003 US Open and Martin Verkerk's 2003 Roland Garros.
The second paragraph is quite possibly one of the most uneducated and quite frankly unintelligent posts I've ever read, so I will address you this one time only.
As for Juan Carlos Ferrero, the latter stages of his US Open were extremely convincing. His US Open had changed after he scraped past Todd Martin, who was always a difficult task in New York. He was lucky to get past Martin and in my opinion gained a false sense of accomplishment. Ferrero was just plain brilliant against Hewitt. His serve and forehand were at their best and he looked like a better version of Hewitt out there. Still, I didn't expect him to better Agassi. Despite the match being a 4 setter, it was very close and there wasn't much between the two but Ferrero was reeling with confidence. People forget that Ferrero had a forehand that would mix with the best of them and was recognised by many as the best forehand on tour for a short while. How you could possibly compare Ferrer with the level of tennis played in these 2 matches is utterly beyond me and testament to the fact you are too lazy to bother performing actual analysis before commenting. I have both of these matches on DVD and are extremely refreshing. They're refreshing because they have a great mix of attacking baseline tennis coupled with athleticism. The important thing to notice is that athleticism is secondary to attacking tennis and not vice versa.
I haven't seen the 2003 US Open final in some time but it was a pretty one sided match with Roddick serving well and timing well off the forehand. Roddick was performing dominantly on serve and Ferrero couldn't break through and didn't have many chances to. Roddick didn't either but he took his chances. Despite this, Ferrero was a well worthy finalist and looked like he could've shocked the tennis world.
Verkerk's 2003 Roland Garros run is one of the most impressive and enjoyable fortnight's a tennis fan could ever hope for. We've got this guy who's seen as a playboy (as he said himself, he could have chosen to become a 'playboy' or a tennis player) coming out of nowhere to deliver stunning all-court tennis. At 6'5'', Verkerk wasn't expected to glide around the court like Guillermo Coria but he wasn't far off. The amazing thing is that almost all of his opponents were good players and he was heavy underdog in 4 of the matches he managed to win. For a relatively lowly ranked player with absolutely no experience winning matches at slam level, he not only delivered but he delivered consistently when it mattered, only to falter in the final.
It's funny that many on this forum regard Robin Soderling's two finalist spots as great achievements, particularly in 2009, so it makes me wonder why Martin Verkerk doesn't get the credit he deserves. Well, it's easy to answer. It's because he's a no-name to most on the forum, who didn't even watch him perform. He was like a better, more complete version of Soderling. He had a better return and was far superior at the net but still with the power. Carlos Moya was in good form and was looking confident but he was seen away in an absolute thriller on Lenglen. Ferrer could only dream of playing tennis to this level. He doesn't possess the power, touch and brilliance that Verkerk exhibited.
Take Ferrer back to 2003 and he would've been sent packing by Luis Horna, never mind even reaching the likes of Moya or Coria or Ferrero. You'd need to possess genuine greatness to come out on top of these 3 matches in succession. These are men who've won the biggest titles to be won on clay and recently had won Barcelona, Hamburg and Monte Carlo. We're not talking about a 31 year old Robredo who's just played 3 consecutive 5 set matches and Tsonga who's never won a clay court title in his career. Ferrer has struggled to post games on the board against Nadal never mind even challenge for a set, he can't even hold serve. He's been beaten by players who are hardly legends of the game in the form of Monfils, Ramirez-Hidalgo, Melzer, Benneteau, Verdasco and whoever else. You're taking the piss if you think Ferrer has one iota of a chance to win 2003 Roland Garros.
He has a winning record against Ferrero because Ferrero had a very short lived career at the top, of which we can attribute this to illness and injury. I was never a fan of Ferrero during that period but he was quite clearly a shadow of his former self post 2003. Users minds are warped by the fact that today we have older tennis players for many reasons. Ferrero was done and was never destined to win anything of prestige after 2004, if there was any doubt, it was clear after he was defeated quite handily by Marat Safin at 2005 Roland Garros when he was playing pretty poorly himself. It took much more than that to defeat a prime Ferrero (see his dismantling of Safin at 2002 Roland Garros).
As for Roddick, as I've said previously, Roddick was never the same after coaching from Goldfine during mid 2005. All of their matches are after this period. Even a well past it Roddick was pushing Ferrer in every match they played and defeated him at the 2011 US Open when Roddick was an absolute non-factor.
You say that Ferrer hasn't won MS and Slams due to Murray, Djokovic, Federer and Nadal. Great players can achieve greatness regardless of who they've had to play
. Ferrer has BOTTLED it many times, in matches where he's had HUGE chances to win (see the Madrid Nadal match this year) and has lost to many other players outside of these guys.