What are Ferrer's chances to win Gold? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

What are Ferrer's chances to win Gold?

tommyg6
07-24-2012, 12:46 PM
Well, what do you think? He made his best showing at Wimbledon this year.

I say he wins bronze.

nazzac
07-24-2012, 12:47 PM
Slim. Grass isn't his best surface i'm affraid. Bronze is very possible though

leng jai
07-24-2012, 12:51 PM
According to MTF the Olympics = MM.

Too bad it's a MM with a GOAT field so Pics still has no chance.

BroTree123
07-24-2012, 12:53 PM
Hi, I am Mark Lenders. IMO, Vultures can't win real tournaments.

n8
07-24-2012, 12:57 PM
He'll snare a valuable top 4 seed which could make a big difference.

duarte_a
07-24-2012, 12:58 PM
Ferrer is #4 seed right. Then he could make the semis if he avoids Tsonga.

As for winning the chances are slim imo. He just can't beat Roger it seems and djokovic is also very tough.

I'd give him 5% chance.

Moozza
07-24-2012, 01:00 PM
Very good. I can't see anyone outside the top 3 seeds beating him.

IOFH
07-24-2012, 01:14 PM
Very slim, medal is not out of the question though. Everything will depend massively on the draw, even for the top 3. A 3-setter with slick grass against a huge server isn't fun as your 1st or 2nd match.

romismak
07-24-2012, 01:22 PM
0, at best of 3 someone will outserve him from the court maybe earlier, i don´t think he will make SF like some think, because he is 4th seeded, Berdych or Tsonga in QF should be favorites vs him and i can see others to beat him before.

tommyg6
07-24-2012, 01:34 PM
Even if he gets to SF. He will probably play Fed. Cuz usually 4th seeds play 1st seeds in most events and Ferrer is like 0-12 against Feds. If not, he get blown off the court by a serve bot or ballbasher in the earlier rounds.

The Fearhand
07-24-2012, 01:41 PM
Silly question...how do the medal rankings work in tennis ? Winner gets gold, runner-up gets silver and 3rd one gets bronze. How do they define the 3rd player ? Do the 2 losers from SF's play eachother to determine that ? How does that work exactly ?

Looner
07-24-2012, 01:42 PM
Silly question...how do the medal rankings work in tennis ? Winner gets gold, runner-up gets silver and 3rd one gets bronze. How do they define the 3rd player ? Do the 2 losers from SF's play eachother to determine that ? How does that work exactly ?

:facepalm:. Amazingly enough you've fluked the right response. As for how they decide it - they play a tennis match against each other - who would have thought, eh?

Snowwy
07-24-2012, 01:43 PM
:facepalm:. Amazingly enough you've fluked the right response. As for how they decide it - they play a tennis match against each other - who would have thought, eh?

Yes, but they shouldn't play a bronze medal match. Both SF losers should be giving a bronze medal.

Chris Kuerten
07-24-2012, 01:44 PM
Even if he gets to SF. He will probably play Fed. Cuz usually 4th seeds play 1st seeds in most events and Ferrer is like 0-12 against Feds. If not, he get blown off the court by a serve bot or ballbasher in the earlier rounds.Yeah, because he always does so bad against servebots and ballbashers.

Looner
07-24-2012, 01:44 PM
Yes, but they shouldn't play a bronze medal match. Both SF losers should be giving a bronze medal.

Why :confused::confused::confused:

I'm really getting confused here. Do some of you only follow tennis? Have you ever seen the Olympics? It's normal for a bronze medal match to be present in a knock-out tournament.

Han Solo
07-24-2012, 01:46 PM
Err...not very good?

Chase Visa
07-24-2012, 01:48 PM
Not good on a quick grass surface. He needs someone to beat Federer early to have a shot.

n8
07-24-2012, 01:49 PM
Yes, but they shouldn't play a bronze medal match. Both SF losers should be giving a bronze medal.

I think it's good they have this match as it coheres with other Olympic sports and makes the event a bit more special when comparing to the regular tour.

Federer in 2
07-24-2012, 01:52 PM
Thanks to the #4 seeding, he is favorite to make it to the semis, regardless of who is in his quarter - Tsonga, Berdych or anyone.
He can make the final if someone knocks out Federer or Djokovic, but I don't see this happening so probably Ferrer loses in semi. in bronze medal match, he is the fave against anyone ranked below him, but he will have his chances against Murray.

Snowwy
07-24-2012, 01:55 PM
Why :confused::confused::confused:

I'm really getting confused here. Do some of you only follow tennis? Have you ever seen the Olympics? It's normal for a bronze medal match to be present in a knock-out tournament.

It was also normal to think the world was flat at one point. I know, it's off-topic but just a thought. ;)

I think that any event where the goal is to win (such as the Olympics), once that goal is lost, there should be no more matches. Now you can say that the goal is to always win, but anyone who has coached or played high level sports will tell you otherwise. Some events are there to allow practice or warmup where the goal is not winning but something else that you decide. These events are probably the slams and Olympics for tennis players, I am not a high level tennis player or coach so I couldn't tell you (if you want to know for basketball, I can tell you).

Would it not be ridiculous to have a 3rd place match at every slam? To me, that would be a waste of time. Two players that usually do not want to be there playing for something they did not want, that was not part of their goal for the tournament.

Why is it normal to have a 3rd place match at the Olympics but no where else in tennis have they had a 3rd place match, at least in recent history. In tennis, you lose and you are out. They tried to change that for a year with the round robin system and that lasted all of one month.

leng jai
07-24-2012, 02:00 PM
It was also normal to think the world was flat at one point. I know, it's off-topic but just a thought. ;)

I think that any event where the goal is to win (such as the Olympics), once that goal is lost, there should be no more matches. Now you can say that the goal is to always win, but anyone who has coached or played high level sports will tell you otherwise. Some events are there to allow practice or warmup where the goal is not winning but something else that you decide. These events are probably the slams and Olympics for tennis players, I am not a high level tennis player or coach so I couldn't tell you (if you want to know for basketball, I can tell you).

Would it not be ridiculous to have a 3rd place match at every slam? To me, that would be a waste of time. Two players that usually do not want to be there playing for something they did not want, that was not part of their goal for the tournament.

Why is it normal to have a 3rd place match at the Olympics but no where else in tennis have they had a 3rd place match, at least in recent history. In tennis, you lose and you are out. They tried to change that for a year with the round robin system and that lasted all of one month.

Why overcomplicate things. In the Olympic format there is always a clear cut third winner in normal cases. Why should tennis be different? Your comparison to a normal tournament is irrelevant because they aren't confined to the same overbearing ruleset. Nothing with with a playoff for third and to question it is borderline complaining for the sake of it especially when the alternative is to give two bronze medals.

I believe the goal in any competitive sport is to "win". Your assertion that might not necessarily be the case for tournaments below Slam level is absurd.

Snowwy
07-24-2012, 02:00 PM
I think it's good they have this match as it coheres with other Olympic sports and makes the event a bit more special when comparing to the regular tour.

Yes, I understand why there is a bronze medal match, I just think there shouldn't be.

1. It matches tennis with the rest of the Olympics.
2. More money for organizers

I think it is not in the best interest for the athletes and coaches.

Looner
07-24-2012, 02:00 PM
It was also normal to think the world was flat at one point. I know, it's off-topic but just a thought. ;)
Moot point and really has nothing to do with the issue discussed.


Would it not be ridiculous to have a 3rd place match at every slam? To me, that would be a waste of time. Two players that usually do not want to be there playing for something they did not want, that was not part of their goal for the tournament.

Why is it normal to have a 3rd place match at the Olympics but no where else in tennis have they had a 3rd place match, at least in recent history. In tennis, you lose and you are out. They tried to change that for a year with the round robin system and that lasted all of one month.

You answered your own question. This is not a tennis event but the Olympics. It's about all sports together. Moreover, there are ranking points on the line for 3rd, so there is motivation tennis-wise plus medal-wise, of course.

The goal for most is to win a medal. Any medal. The bronze match is by no means an also-run event. All team sports have bronze medal matches, etc.

Again, your reasoning is very tennis-based whilst we know the Olympic tournament is very special in very few aspects.

Snowwy
07-24-2012, 02:01 PM
Why overcomplicate things. In the Olympic format there is always a clear cut third winner in normal cases. Why should tennis be different? Your comparison to a normal tournament is irrelevant because they aren't confined to the same overbearing ruleset. Nothing with with a playoff for third and to question it is borderline complaining for the sake of it.

I believe the goal in any competitive sport is to "win". You assertion that might not necessarily be the case for tournaments below Slam level is absurd.

It is not like that in all sports though. In a few tournament sports, such as boxing and judo, two bronze medals are awarded in each event - one for each eliminated semi-finalist or for the winners of the repechage brackets.

Tennis is a tournament sport, no? ;)

Snowwy
07-24-2012, 02:02 PM
Again, your reasoning is very tennis-based whilst we know the Olympic tournament is very special in very few aspects.

Boxing and judo have two bronze medals because they are tournament based events.

leng jai
07-24-2012, 02:02 PM
The concept of two bronze models doesn't make sense in the first place.

Snowwy
07-24-2012, 02:04 PM
The concept of two bronze models doesn't make sense in the first place.

It does though, what elite athlete wants to play for 3rd. Elite doesn't even have to be that good, look at national or provincial level events, you still do not want to play for third. You are unmotivated playing that game and really it is just an opportunity to get hurt.

Gagsquet
07-24-2012, 02:09 PM
negative

mooncreek
07-24-2012, 02:38 PM
I don't know about gold but I can see him medaling, thanks to that #4 seed position and how well he's played in Davis Cup. It would require a player ranked lower than him to also make the semis - that way Ferrer would be favored in either the SF match or the bronze medal match.

TigerTim
07-24-2012, 03:18 PM
very good, very good indeed. Djokovic is rubbish on grass, Federer old, Murray a choker with a bad back, Nadal out, Tsonga rubbish, Berdych being in a failed state and Roddick balding who can stop him tbh?

henke007
07-24-2012, 03:29 PM
HAha , but it should be chances to win Bronze, and they are good.

Sophocles
07-24-2012, 03:55 PM
Zero.

TigerTim
07-24-2012, 04:00 PM
Zero.

no, thats Nadal; Below is a picture of the two just to get your barings, Ferrer has 100% chances :)

http://c308991.r91.cf1.rackcdn.com/SiteFiles/Artists/179/DENNIS-FERRER-main.gif

nastoff
07-24-2012, 04:02 PM
It does though, what elite athlete wants to play for 3rd. Elite doesn't even have to be that good, look at national or provincial level events, you still do not want to play for third. You are unmotivated playing that game and really it is just an opportunity to get hurt.

When there's an Olympic medal at stake? of course they do.

very good, very good indeed. Djokovic is rubbish on grass, Federer old, Murray a choker with a bad back, Nadal out, Tsonga rubbish, Berdych being in a failed state and Roddick balding who can stop him tbh?

All of the above are capable of stopping him on grass, and even some more.

EddieNero
07-24-2012, 04:08 PM
Have Ferrer ever won a tournament which Federer, Djokovic or Nadal participated in? Thanks.

TigerTim
07-24-2012, 04:11 PM
Have Ferrer ever won a tournament which Federer, Djokovic or Nadal participated in? Thanks.

Davis Cup.


http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5dw9cTBL21r5x6pd.gif

Mark Lenders
07-24-2012, 04:13 PM
Below zero.

I have a better chance of getting a threesome with Julia Georges and Maria Kirilenko tonight than Ferrer has of winning the Olympic gold medal.

Lugburz
07-24-2012, 04:54 PM
slim to none.

Mechlan
07-24-2012, 05:48 PM
Very slim. Should be a very interesting QF, whoever's section he gets drawn in though.

emotion
07-24-2012, 06:06 PM
i dont think he can beat fed or novak on grass. Really 0 chance vs fed, maybe he can hope murray takes fed out though
i think he either loses early or gets bronze/4th

Mateya
07-24-2012, 06:12 PM
His chances of winning gold medal are about equal to chances of Seppi or Starace knocking on my door tonight.
The chances are statisticly higher in Umag, but still close to zero. :D


I have a better chance of getting a threesome with Julia Georges and Maria Kirilenko tonight than Ferrer has of winning the Olympic gold medal.

:spit:

Allez
07-24-2012, 06:26 PM
Eh ...nada ?

rocketassist
07-24-2012, 06:27 PM
It was also normal to think the world was flat at one point. I know, it's off-topic but just a thought. ;)

I think that any event where the goal is to win (such as the Olympics), once that goal is lost, there should be no more matches. Now you can say that the goal is to always win, but anyone who has coached or played high level sports will tell you otherwise. Some events are there to allow practice or warmup where the goal is not winning but something else that you decide. These events are probably the slams and Olympics for tennis players, I am not a high level tennis player or coach so I couldn't tell you (if you want to know for basketball, I can tell you).

Would it not be ridiculous to have a 3rd place match at every slam? To me, that would be a waste of time. Two players that usually do not want to be there playing for something they did not want, that was not part of their goal for the tournament.

Why is it normal to have a 3rd place match at the Olympics but no where else in tennis have they had a 3rd place match, at least in recent history. In tennis, you lose and you are out. They tried to change that for a year with the round robin system and that lasted all of one month.

Because Olympic medals regardless of colour are very precious commodities even if bronze is worth less than the other two, look how much it meant to Djokovic to win his bronze at the Beijing games. Nothing like a third place playoff at a slam.

mooncreek
07-24-2012, 06:36 PM
The question about the bronze medal isn't that stupid. There was a time they did award two bronze medals - both 1988 (Edberg, Brad Gilbert) and 1992 (Ivanisevic, Andrei Cherkasov) had that. 1996 was the first year of the bronze medal match.

Rafa is the GOAT
07-24-2012, 06:47 PM
He has a good shot at a medal I quess
I see him reaching the SF
If his Roger and Djokovic are upset he'll probably go to the finals
and if not he has a good shot a bronze if Murray is upset before the SF

Roger the Dodger
07-24-2012, 07:10 PM
He has a good shot at a medal I quess
I see him reaching the SF
If his Roger and Djokovic are upset he'll probably go to the finals
and if not he has a good shot a bronze if Murray is upset before the SF

I see a fight over the bronze medal between Murray and Ferrer.

TBkeeper
07-24-2012, 08:05 PM
:spit: :spit: :spit: