Players who occupy uncharacteristically high positions in the rankings? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Players who occupy uncharacteristically high positions in the rankings?

Satasonic
09-18-2012, 09:47 AM
I know that there was probably a thread or two about this topic before, but I decided to open a new one:


Have you ever thought that there is a player that is sort of useless to the ATP tour? He doesnt bring anything to the table, over performs in challenger and MM events and under performs in grand slams and masters? Who are these players, and why in your opinion they are ranked so high?


Oh, and also- This isnt a topic about Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Murray or any of the top 10. This is created for the average top 100 player.


My opinion:
Melzer- Hasnt done anything since Memphis and except Memphis. Barely got through round 1 in most tournaments of the year, has been in terrible form since the start of the year. Deserves a top 80 ranking if you ask me, nothing more.

Andujar- How he keeps a top 40 ranking for so long is beyond me. A completely average player with an average clay game, while a decent yet choking player like Malisse is fluctuating in the 50-100 ranking.

Soeda- Nothing to say really. Watched him in davis cup- Just terrible. Doesnt deserve a top 150 spot.

Lorenzi- Needless to say, the tour doesnt need him. Players like Petzschner, Sela, Llodra, Gulbis would easily defeat him in straights and they arent even in the top 100.

I could go on and on with the examples of Granollers, Matosevic, Troicki, Ito, but they all are average players and can play average tennis at times, unlike the mugs I mentioned above.


Lets find out about your idea of a "useless" player in the ATP rankings :wavey:

Time Violation
09-18-2012, 09:51 AM
Have you ever thought that there is a player that is sort of useless to the ATP tour? He doesnt bring anything to the table, over performs in challenger and MM events and under performs in grand slams and masters? Who are these players, and why in your opinion they are ranked so high?

By that definition, almost anyone outside top 4 is useless.

Satasonic
09-18-2012, 09:55 AM
No, you didnt understand. Ill give you an example: Benneteau does not suit the list, he can trouble the top players and not go out in the first rounds of a slam. Fognini has a Roland Garros QF. Klizan just appeared on the tour and doesnt deserve a "useless" tag near his name. Garcia-Lopez defeated Nadal in a MM event. Those guys are all top 100 players, and nowhere close to the top 20, yet they are still not mugs at all.

bjurra
09-18-2012, 09:56 AM
Ito takes the cake.

Melzer is a good player in terrible form. He should be top 40 if he can find his groove again.

duong
09-18-2012, 09:57 AM
None of them.

Klizan had climbed in the rankings in challengers "oh what a shit" then people saw him in a slam and said "oh well he's good" :lol:

to climb when you're not known, you need to play through challengers.

Besides, I'm sure we're going to read about poor Asian challengers but well, Lu and even Soeda also do well in other tournaments.

Satasonic
09-18-2012, 09:58 AM
You are right about Ito, but he will probably drop down the rankings soon. He doesnt win ATP matches of ten like the players I mentioned.

Mark Lenders
09-18-2012, 09:58 AM
Ferrer and Monaco take the cake here.

Why are they ranked so high? For the same reason every player ranked above his real level is: vulturing.

Action Jackson
09-18-2012, 09:59 AM
Ferrer and Monaco take the cake here.

Why are they ranked so high? For the same reason every player ranked above his real level is: vulturing.

Such a poor attempt at trolling. It's not good enough Jorge Mendes.

duong
09-18-2012, 10:00 AM
Mostly the players I read are players who haven't emerged for long.

And the players who are underranked are players whose ranking has decreased because they got old or anything.

You just need to get used to them :shrug:

What would people have said about Rosol one or two years ago ? :lol:

Rosol had been struggling in challengers for years, and Dodig even worse. When they beat Nadal they became gods of MTF :lol:

Time Violation
09-18-2012, 10:01 AM
Ferrer and Monaco take the cake here.

Why are they ranked so high? For the same reason every player ranked above his real level is: vulturing.

Lol, why nobody else does that then? Sounds easy, go and do some vulturing and you can get as high as #5. I bet many guys would love to be #5 - why aren't they doing that then? Could it be the vulturing is the best kept secret of the ATP? :eek:

Satasonic
09-18-2012, 10:04 AM
Ferrer and Monaco take the cake here.

Why are they ranked so high? For the same reason every player ranked above his real level is: vulturing.

This topic isnt about Ferrer, or any other top 10 player. Besides, Ferrer is a solid top 5 player and is much better than BirdBrain, Clownga, or Mugtro.

Mark Lenders
09-18-2012, 10:06 AM
Lol, why nobody else does that then? Sounds easy, go and do some vulturing and you can get as high as #5. I bet many guys would love to be #5 - why aren't they doing that then? Could it be the vulturing is the best kept secret of the ATP? :eek:

Integrity. And competitive spirit too.

Ferrer is a top 5 player

You answered your own OP right here.

Wing Man Frank
09-18-2012, 10:10 AM
Raonic at 15 is a joke.

Satasonic
09-18-2012, 10:10 AM
Integrity. And competitive spirit too.


Jokes aside, whats wrong with vulturing? I dont understand. Blame the system, not Ferrer. Its not like Ferrer is winning Wimbledons left and right, he wins south American clay 500, its not his fault Nadull chooses not to go there. Why cant Tsonga win Metz and Marseille? That would make the same amount of points as Ferrer does, at 500.

Why does Berdych mug out in the first round of a slam each year? I know that Berdych isnt a clay courter but to take 5 sets against Mugaco in davis cup to get a hard fought win is embarrasing. Monaco doesnt deserve a top 10 spot, but is he a solid top 15 spot? I think so.

Action Jackson
09-18-2012, 10:13 AM
Integrity. And competitive spirit too.

Slam semi and quarter finals don't help either, nice one Mendes.

Time Violation
09-18-2012, 10:13 AM
Integrity. And competitive spirit too.

Integrity? :spit: :lol: The truth is, Ferrer owns all of them.

sexybeast
09-18-2012, 10:20 AM
Quite obviously Monaco, he is just not worthy to even be in top 25. Granollers is another one who deserves to be outside top 50 but found his place because of vulturing in one tournament.

Troicki completes my top 3, even if he has dropped a bit lately to a more worthy position.

No one beats however good old Boredo, he had almost a magical touch for vulturing and even found a way to win a master series on clay in the Fedal era, playing Stepanek in the final.

duong
09-18-2012, 10:22 AM
Jokes aside, whats wrong with vulturing? I dont understand. Blame the system, not Ferrer. Its not like Ferrer is winning Wimbledons left and right, he wins south American clay 500, its not his fault Nadull chooses not to go there. Why cant Tsonga win Metz and Marseille? That would make the same amount of points as Ferrer does, at 500.
Why does Berdych mug out in the first round of a slam each year? I know that Berdych isnt a clay courter but to take 5 sets against Mugaco in davis cup to get a hard fought win is embarrasing. Monaco doesnt deserve a top 10 spot, but is he a solid top 15 spot? I think so.

Ferrer-Berdych 5-3

in 2011, Berdych was moe consistent than Ferrer but had less top-results.

those consistency legends are bullshits, Ferrer just has a different style of play, and Berdych vultured (yes it's provokation for those bullshitters ;) ) a MS1000 win in Bercy indoors in 2005 when top-players didn't care.

duong
09-18-2012, 10:26 AM
Quite obviously Monaco, he is just not worthy to even be in top 25. Granollers is another one who deserves to be outside top 50 but found his place because of vulturing in one tournament.

Granollers is number 30 in the Race, excluding Valencia.
Sorry but you will have to suffer him in the top-30 longer than you think :shrug:

Federer in 2
09-18-2012, 10:30 AM
Manuel at it again :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

You are welcome to stop anytime, you know. The vulture has better Slam results then all of your super aggressive and brainless ballbashers. He also owns them in H2H. And if that's not enough, he is the #4 best player on clay, above Murray, which can't be said about either Berdych, Del Potro or Tsonga on any surface.

Slasher1985
09-18-2012, 10:32 AM
Lol, this turned into yet another vulture conversation, and lol, naming Ferrer a vulture.:spit:

henke007
09-18-2012, 10:33 AM
Tipsarevic playing 30 tourneys and counting six 150/250 points is not good..

uxyzapenje
09-18-2012, 10:39 AM
Lenders you need to shut up about Ferrer. I mean, I get it, I don't like him eather, but you are talking shit. What is vulturing? Some says Granollers vutured Valencia? As I remember Tsonga, Delpo and Ferrer were all in Valencia. And I fucking hate Gruntollers, but rly, he won ATP500 and you can't take that away from him. Yes, Ferrer is vulturing, but only bcs he is good enough. You don't see Youzhny, Gulbis, Cilic, Tomic, Raonic etc vulturing tournaments bcs they are NOT good enough. The point is that Ferrer can vulture bcs he is better than all except TOP few players (reed few as many as 8 or 9 if you want, but you know it's like 4-6), still his vulturing is based on his ability to beat most of the players bcs he's better than them. You turn every thread about Ferrer and I don't like it. Nothing wrong with vulturing, get points and money. Every player knows the rules, why deosn't some other player come in and vultures the tournament ahead of Ferrer? Bcs he is worse than him and will lose to him. That's the end of his vulturing...

That said, Ramos, Andujar, Berlocq, Granollers, Lorenzi are all overranked.

sexybeast
09-18-2012, 10:41 AM
Lol, this turned into yet another vulture conversation, and lol, naming Ferrer a vulture.:spit:

How could a thread about players with uncharacteristially high positions in ranking not turn into a discussion about players who vulture?

Vulturing is almost the only way to get there, you can also have massive amount of luck of course.

Only error is to call Ferrer a vulture when he is quite capable against anyone outside the top 4.

uxyzapenje
09-18-2012, 10:41 AM
Tipsarevic playing 30 tourneys and counting six 150/250 points is not good..

And who exactly is that better player than him who is ranked below him?

Slasher1985
09-18-2012, 10:43 AM
How could a thread about players with uncharacteristially high positions in ranking not turn into a discussion about players who vulture?

Vulturing is almost the only way to get there, you can also have massive amount of luck of course.

Only error is to call Ferrer a vulture when he is quite capable against anyone outside the top 4.

I don't really see the connection. Although, that may be because I don't really believe in the term "vulture". That may be sacrilegious to some of the members here, but that's the fact.:D

duong
09-18-2012, 10:45 AM
Monaco will finish his fourth year in a row in the top-30, fifth year in total.

Played two MS1000 semifinals on hardcourts.

Then there must be something about him :shrug:

Acasuso never did anything like that.

duong
09-18-2012, 10:48 AM
I don't really see the connection. Although, that may be because I don't really believe in the term "vulture". That may be sacrilegious to some of the members here, but that's the fact.:D

there's a connection because the word "vulture" is theoretically about winning points and money by taking easy opportunities if I understand well.

(in that sense, the specialists I can think about are rather Sela or Karol Beck or Lu, not especially grinders, Lorenzi as well yes, Ito and in a lesser extent Soeda this year as well, Matosevic this year in a lesser extent)

But the problem is that some people who bombard their ideas on this board have associated it with a style of play, and with Ferrer and Monaco.

Their bombarding has been so effective that when Tsonga spoke about a player by whom he was afraid because he won many small tournaments, people immediately said here that it was Ferrer, whereas he had precisely said in the French media it was Tipsarevic, and for good reasons he said that.

That said, Tipsarevic has had many other good results and is not number 9, nearly 8, only because of "vulturing".

In this thread, these people start to impose their bombarding again (and yes, Lenders is one of the most obsessive of these people).

Slasher1985
09-18-2012, 10:50 AM
there's a connection because the word "vulture" is theoretically about winning points and money by taking easy opportunities if I understand well.


I know what the idea is all about. It's just that I don't believe in it, because it's too relativistic. Some members may view world #30 vulturing an ATP 250 tournament because there are too few of his fellow ranked players there, others do not.

Mark Lenders
09-18-2012, 10:52 AM
Integrity? :spit: :lol: The truth is, Ferrer owns all of them.

Who exactly does Ferrer own :confused:? Good tennis players and pressure situations have long been known to be Ferrer's kryptonite, hence his lack of even relative success in any events below 500.

Manuel at it again :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

You are welcome to stop anytime, you know. The vulture has better Slam results then all of your super aggressive and brainless ballbashers. He also owns them in H2H. And if that's not enough, he is the #4 best player on clay, above Murray, which can't be said about either Berdych, Del Potro or Tsonga on any surface.

:spit: :superlol:

So he makes his first Roland Garros semifinal at 30yo with a pathetically weak draw and gets the worst trashing in a Slam SF in years, and suddenly he's the fourth best player on clay :spit: He's better than Murray on the surface, I grant you that, but so are Berdych and Del Potro (:secret: and they are better than Ferrer too).

sexybeast
09-18-2012, 10:53 AM
Tipsarevic and Ferrer can play incredible matches against top players from time to time, but what the hell is Monaco doing anywhere close to the top 10?

I dont understand how he got there, must have been one of those clown clay tournaments during the summer I have forgotten. Hamburg or Stuttgart maybe?

philosophicalarf
09-18-2012, 10:54 AM
Melzer has had a metric crapton of injuries the last two years. One small thing after another, and he's not the youngest anymore either.

Andujar is a strange one - so many clay 250 finals, but often has done nothing the rest of the year. He has won Casablanca and made the Bucharest final this last year though, and is adding more week to week consistency to his game. Finally seems to have figured out hard court this year too.


Monaco's ranking isn't hard to explain, he's had a solid top20 class season, but boosted by winning Hamburg (500pts), Houston+Chile (2x250), the Valencia final (300), and Miami semis (360). He'll probably fall back a bit admittedly, doesn't have the weaponry or serve to maintain that ranking imo.

sexybeast
09-18-2012, 10:56 AM
Who exactly does Ferrer own :confused:? Good tennis players and pressure situations have long been known to be Ferrer's kryptonite, hence his lack of even relative success in any events below 500.



:spit: :superlol:

So he makes your first Roland Garros semifinal at 30yo with a pathetically weak draw and gets the worst trashing in a Slam SF in years, and suddenly he's the fourth best player on clay :spit: He's better than Murray on the surface, I grant you that, but so are Berdych and Del Potro (:secret: and they are better than Ferrer too).

Ferrer would defeat Delpo or Berdych on clay 3 times out of 4 and unlike those 2 he can beat Djokovic on clay aswell.

Only thing that Delpo and Berdych got over Ferrer on clay is that they can beat old Federer on clay on a good day and if Fed got a bad day because he isnt fast enought to defend against their powershots anymore.

Mark Lenders
09-18-2012, 11:05 AM
Ferrer would defeat Delpo or Berdych on clay 3 times out of 4 and unlike those 2 he can beat Djokovic on clay aswell.

Only thing that Delpo and Berdych got over Ferrer on clay is that they can beat old Federer on clay on a good day and if Fed got a bad day because he isnt fast enought to defend against their powershots anymore.

No, he wouldn't. A fluke run to the semis with a draw full of mugs (Granollers in R4, WTF) and Murray on clay as the toughest test and people seem to forget the years he spent getting his ass handed to him in Paris by the likes of Monfils, Verdasco, Melzer and even Ramirez Hidaldo. Now he gets a piss easy draw to the semis, gets the worst trashing in recent Slam SF memory there and suddenly he's a great player on the surface?

And Ferrer can't beat Djokovic on clay at all, this is not 2010 anymore, Djokovic isn't losing to random mugs any more. Hell, even Tsonga has a better chance to beat Nole on clay, in fact he had four match points to do so at Roland Garros. I hope you don't seriously think Nole would rather face Delpo or Tomas on clay instead of Ferrer.

Federer in 2
09-18-2012, 11:08 AM
:spit: :superlol:

So he makes his first Roland Garros semifinal at 30yo with a pathetically weak draw and gets the worst trashing in a Slam SF in years, and suddenly he's the fourth best player on clay :spit: He's better than Murray on the surface, I grant you that, but so are Berdych and Del Potro (:secret: and they are better than Ferrer too).

Some of the most ridiculous delusions I've ever heard :haha: :haha: :haha:

Delpo and Berdych better than Murray on Clay? Let alone Ferrer?
Oh boy, no comment. :superlol:

ogbg
09-18-2012, 11:10 AM
Ferrer has winning records against both Berdych and JMDP both overall and on clay but it's pretty close to be fair. I think Ferrer is being over-rated by some (saying he'd win 3 out of 4 on clay agaist these guys) as much as he is being under-rated by Mark Lenders.

Time Violation
09-18-2012, 11:10 AM
No, he wouldn't. A fluke run to the semis with a draw full of mugs (Granollers in R4, WTF) and Murray on clay as the toughest test and people seem to forget the years he spent getting his ass handed to him in Paris by the likes of Monfils, Verdasco, Melzer and even Ramirez Hidaldo. Now he gets a piss easy draw to the semis, gets the worst trashing in recent Slam SF memory there and suddenly he's a great player on the surface?

Yes he would. He beat Del Potro three times in a row, and on every surface.

ogbg
09-18-2012, 11:13 AM
Some of the most ridiculous delusions I've ever heard :haha: :haha: :haha:

Delpo and Berdych better than Murray on Clay? Let alone Ferrer?
Oh boy, no comment. :superlol:

They are better than Murray on clay. In 4 matches Murray has only beaten them once on clay when JMDP retired. Murray's overall clay win-loss is 61%, Berdych is 64.1%, JMDP is 73.2%.

duong
09-18-2012, 11:14 AM
Who exactly does Ferrer own :confused:? Good tennis players and pressure situations have long been known to be Ferrer's kryptonite, hence his lack of even relative success in any events below 500.

Ferrer-Djoko 5-9 // Berdych-Djoko 1-9
Ferrer-Murray 5-6 // Berdych-Murray 4-3
Ferrer-Nadal 4-15 // Berdych-Nadal 3-12
Ferrer-Federer 0-13 // Berdych-Federer 5-11 : hurray for you but on clay, Ferrer met Fed in Madrid or Hamburg, on Fed's favorite clay, or a long long time ago when Ferrer was not emerging yet

Already, it's far from convincing for Berdych except his hurray-record against Fed, but look at the following carefully : you will see that most of the time, Ferrer has positive H2Hs against other best players while it's the opposite for Berdych :

Ferrer-Del Po 5-2 // Berdych-Del Po 2-4
Ferrer-Berdych 5-3 // Berdych-Ferrer 3-5
Ferrer-Tsonga 1-1 // Berdych-Tsonga 1-1
Ferrer-Söderling 4-10 // Berdych-Söderling 3-6

Ferrer-Roddick 7-4 // Berdych-Roddick 5-6
Ferrer-Davydenko 2-3 // Berdych-Davydenko 2-9
Ferrer-Nalbandian 8-5 // Berdych-Nalbandian 1-4
Ferrer-Ljubicic 6-1 // Berdych-Ljubicic 2-3
Ferrer-Haas 2-0 // Berdych-Haas 2-2
Ferrer-Gonzo 5-5 // Berdych-Gonzo 3-4
Ferrer-Blake 1-2 / Berdych-Blake 3-2
Ferrer-Youzhny 3-4 // Berdych-Youzhny 5-6
Ferrer-Robredo 5-2 // Berdych-Robredo 4-3

Ferrer-Gasquet 7-1 // Berdych-Gasquet 2-4
Ferrer-Monfils 0-3 // Berdych-Monfils 3-0 : hurray, you've got your case, Berdych owns Monfils while Monfils owns Ferrer !
Ferrer-Baghdatis 3-1 // Berdych-Baghdatis 3-2
Ferrer-Wawrinka 5-3 // Berdych-Wawrinka 4-5
Ferrer-Simon 4-1 // Berdych-Simon 2-4
Ferrer-Almagro 11-0 // Berdych-Almagro 7-3

Ferrer-Raonic 4-0 // Berdych-Raonic 0-1
Ferrer-Isner 4-1 // Berdych-Isner 2-2
Ferrer-Cilic 3-1 // Berdych-Cilic 4-1
Ferrer-Dolgopolov 4-1 // Berdych-Dolgopolov 2-0

Mark Lenders
09-18-2012, 11:15 AM
Some of the most ridiculous delusions I've ever heard :haha: :haha: :haha:

Delpo and Berdych better than Murray on Clay? Let alone Ferrer?
Oh boy, no comment. :superlol:

What's your criteria for clay prowess? Who can get the biggest trashing when they reach the semis? In that case Berdych and JMDP really can't compete as they lost tight five setters in their semis. Maybe word of this will reach them and they will bring the lube next time :superlol:

But yeah, Del Potro > Berdych > Ferrer > Murray on clay. For the moment of course, Murray is sure to achieve far more on the surface than Ferrer, after all he didn't have to wait till he was 30yo with a mug draw to make his first SF (he did have an even muggier draw with Troicki and Chela, but he was 24).

duong
09-18-2012, 11:16 AM
And Ferrer can't beat Djokovic on clay at all, this is not 2010 anymore, Djokovic isn't losing to random mugs any more.

in 2011 it was EXTRA-Djokovic on clay, wasn't it ? Djokovic only won 6-4 4-6 6-3 in Madrid in a very tight match before defeating Nadal in the final.

And Djokovic has lost all of his other 3 meetings against Ferrer on clay.

sexybeast
09-18-2012, 11:19 AM
No, he wouldn't. A fluke run to the semis with a draw full of mugs (Granollers in R4, WTF) and Murray on clay as the toughest test and people seem to forget the years he spent getting his ass handed to him in Paris by the likes of Monfils, Verdasco, Melzer and even Ramirez Hidaldo. Now he gets a piss easy draw to the semis, gets the worst trashing in recent Slam SF memory there and suddenly he's a great player on the surface?

And Ferrer can't beat Djokovic on clay at all, this is not 2010 anymore, Djokovic isn't losing to random mugs any more. Hell, even Tsonga has a better chance to beat Nole on clay, in fact he had four match points to do so at Roland Garros. I hope you don't seriously think Nole would rather face Delpo or Tomas on clay instead of Ferrer.

Yeah, he got Murray on clay QF. Berdych got the same when he got to RG SF, Delpo got Tsonga.....

Seriously, stop with this anti-Ferrer nonsense. "This isnt 2010 anymore..", even in 2011 Ferrer was pretty close to beating Djokovic in the only match where Djokovic ever beat Ferrer on clay, but this isnt 2011 anymore and Djokovic is pretty much the same as he was 2008-2010.

So Ferrer is still 3-1 against Djokovic on clay, ok 2-1 if we remove the one when they played in 2004.

Ferrer is 3-2 against Berdych on clay and 2-1 on hardcourt, Ferrer is 1-0 against Delpo on clay and 5-2 on any surface, Ferrer is 3-0 against Murray on clay, Ferre is 1-0 against Tsonga on clay and only Soderling out of contenders for nr4 on the "clay throne" has a positive h2h against Ferrer on clay 4-2.

Yeah, I would put Soderling as nr4 on clay but in his absense Ferrer is clearly better than the likes of Berdych, Delpo and Murray. He got a better W/L on clay, he got more titles than all of them together, more finals and deep runs in master series.

Federer in 2
09-18-2012, 11:20 AM
Ferrer-Djoko 5-9 // Berdych-Djoko 1-9
Ferrer-Murray 5-6 // Berdych-Murray 4-3
Ferrer-Nadal 4-15 // Berdych-Nadal 3-11
Ferrer-Federer 0-13 // Berdych-Federer 5-11 : hurray for you but on clay, Ferrer met Fed in Madrid or Hamburg, on Fed's favorite clay, or a long long time ago when Ferrer was not emerging yet

Already, it's far from convincing for Berdych except his hurray-record against Fed, but look at the following carefully : you will see that most of the time, Ferrer has positive H2Hs against other best players while it's the opposite for Berdych :

Ferrer-Del Po 5-2 // Berdych-Del Po 2-4
Ferrer-Berdych 5-3 // Berdych-Ferrer 3-5
Ferrer-Tsonga 1-1 // Berdych-Tsonga 1-1
Ferrer-Söderling 4-10 // Berdych-Söderling 3-6

Ferrer-Roddick 7-4 // Berdych-Roddick 5-6
Ferrer-Davydenko 2-3 // Berdych-Davydenko 2-9
Ferrer-Nalbandian 8-5 // Berdych-Nalbandian 1-4
Ferrer-Ljubicic 6-1 // Berdych-Ljubicic 2-3
Ferrer-Haas 2-0 // Berdych-Haas 2-2
Ferrer-Gonzo 5-5 // Berdych-Gonzo 3-4
Ferrer-Blake 1-2 / Berdych-Blake 3-2
Ferrer-Youzhny 3-4 // Berdych-Youzhny 5-6
Ferrer-Robredo 5-2 // Berdych-Robredo 4-3

Ferrer-Gasquet 7-1 // Berdych-Gasquet 2-4
Ferrer-Monfils 0-3 // Berdych-Monfils 3-0 : hurray, you've got your case, Berdych owns Monfils while Monfils owns Ferrer !
Ferrer-Baghdatis 3-1 // Berdych-Baghdatis 3-2
Ferrer-Wawrinka 5-3 // Berdych-Wawrinka 4-5
Ferrer-Simon 4-1 // Berdych-Simon 2-4
Ferrer-Almagro 11-0 // Berdych-Almagro 7-3

Ferrer-Raonic 4-0 // Berdych-Raonic 0-1
Ferrer-Isner 4-1 // Berdych-Isner 2-2
Ferrer-Cilic 3-1 // Berdych-Cilic 4-1
Ferrer-Dolgopolov 4-1 // Berdych-Dolgopolov 2-0

:worship:
Only thing Berdych does better is make random upsets once every couple of years, but hey, that's what being a brainless ballbasher is all about. You can beat anybody when you have a good day (1 times out of 10), but you lose to mugs the other 9 (Gulbis, Darcis, Raonic, Isner, maybe I forgot someone).

Ferrer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Berdych.

sexybeast
09-18-2012, 11:24 AM
What's your criteria for clay prowess? Who can get the biggest trashing when they reach the semis? In that case Berdych and JMDP really can't compete as they lost tight five setters in their semis. Maybe word of this will reach them and they will bring the lube next time :superlol:
.


Dont be stupid now, you cant compare playing Federer/Soderling in semi to playing fckng Nadal in great form in RG semi. Ferrer would make a fight against Djokovic, Soderling and maybe even bad matchup Federer.

Nadal could trash Berdych any day on clay, ofcourse if Berdych gets trashed in Wimbledon final by Nadal obviously you cant expect him to do anything in RG semi.

uxyzapenje
09-18-2012, 11:29 AM
Ferrer-Tipsarevic 3-1 // Berdych-Tipsarevic 3-5 :)

Federer in 2
09-18-2012, 11:30 AM
And WTF does the fact that he is 30 yo has to do with anything? This is his best time. He is mature, he is smart, he is a mental giant. In other words, he is the opposite of Tsonga.
Some players do better when they are young, but he is at his best right now. As I said, Delpo is done with big achievements. The only problem is that most of Ferrer's career is over, but Delpo still has more years, and that's why people who are convinced that Delpo has something left in him are excited that he has good wins while being 23, with no idea that this is as far as it goes. Sad, but true.

AZ-12
09-18-2012, 11:34 AM
I can agree with Mark Lenders that Ferrer doesn't have the game to threaten the very best players, unless they happen to be a bit off. But to explain his ranking success with vulturing is ridiculuos. Take away all his points from 250 and 500 tournamnets means he looses 1550 points. Del Potro and Berdych would then pass him, but he would still be top 7. Ferrer must be the only player who manage to vulture at the master and slam level?

duong
09-18-2012, 11:40 AM
I can agree with Mark Lenders that Ferrer doesn't have the game to threaten the very best players, unless they happen to be a bit off. But to explain his ranking success with vulturing is ridiculuos. Take away all his points from 250 and 500 tournamnets means he looses 1550 points. Del Potro and Berdych would then pass him, but he would still be top 7. Ferrer must be the only player who manage to vulture at the master and slam level?

Hey Berdych and Del Po also have points in ATP250/500 tournaments :lol:

in optional tournaments, Ferrer has 1845 points, Berdych 1750 and Del Po 1500.

Mark Lenders
09-18-2012, 11:41 AM
Dont be stupid now, you cant compare playing Federer/Soderling in semi to playing fckng Nadal in great form in RG semi. Ferrer would make a fight against Djokovic, Soderling and maybe even bad matchup Federer.

Nadal could trash Berdych any day on clay, ofcourse if Berdych gets trashed in Wimbledon final by Nadal obviously you cant expect him to do anything in RG semi.

Berdych or Del Potro would never do as badly against Nadal. Del Potro breadsticked Nadal in their last clay match despite poor fitness at the time; hell, as a teenager outside the top 100 in 2007 he put up a sterner resistance to Nadal than Ferrer did in Paris.


:worship:
Only thing Berdych does better is make random upsets once every couple of years, but hey, that's what being a brainless ballbasher is all about. You can beat anybody when you have a good day (1 times out of 10), but you lose to mugs the other 9 (Gulbis, Darcis, Raonic, Isner, maybe I forgot someone).

Ferrer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Berdych.

Doesn't change the fact that Ferrer will never, ever play in a Slam final or win a Masters, because he doesn't have the ability to do it.

And WTF does the fact that he is 30 yo has to do with anything? This is his best time. He is mature, he is smart, he is a mental giant. In other words, he is the opposite of Tsonga.
Some players do better when they are young, but he is at his best right now. As I said, Delpo is done with big achievements. The only problem is that most of Ferrer's career is over, but Delpo still has more years, and that's why people who are convinced that Delpo has something left in him are excited that he has good wins while being 23, with no idea that this is as far as it goes. Sad, but true.

It means his career is approaching its end. Del Potro at 20yo had already completely eclipsed his career. Even if Del Potro keeps getting injured every other week, he will still keep doing better than Ferrer; the gulf in talent, ability and mentality is just that big. As long as he can swing a FH, JMDP will always be better than Ferrer. And what if he was done with big achievements? Ferrer didn't even get started with those, so that wouldn't exactly help him in this discussion.

And Ferrer a mental giant? You mean except in big pressure situations where he invariably folds like a deck of cards?

duong
09-18-2012, 11:43 AM
Ferrer-Tipsarevic 3-1 // Berdych-Tipsarevic 3-5 :)

Ferrer-Monaco 3-4 // Berdych-Monaco 6-0

Berdych performs better against pushers, "vulturers" like Monaco and Monfils, Ferrer better against best players :p

duong
09-18-2012, 11:46 AM
Berdych or Del Potro would never do as badly against Nadal.

in their last 11 meetings Berdych only won 2 sets against Nadal :p

Federer in 2
09-18-2012, 11:47 AM
Doesn't change the fact that Ferrer will never, ever play in a Slam final or win a Masters, because he doesn't have the ability to do it.



Is Baghdatis better than Ferrer?

Wing Man Frank
09-18-2012, 11:47 AM
Think it's fair to say that anyone who belittles David Ferrer is a clueless idiot.

bjurra
09-18-2012, 11:48 AM
Can't believe this thread ended up being about Ferrer! Yes, he is rubbish against top players but he deserves a top 8 ranking because he is an ultraconsistent fighter who rarely loses to players outside the top 20. A nutcase like Tsonga might have more upset potential and more Slam final potential but that does not make him a better player.

Action Jackson
09-18-2012, 11:50 AM
Lenders has his Ferrer insults on Microsoft Word, that it's copy and paste. Facts are Ferrer has done well in Slams played to his ability, won 500s which anyone can play with the right ranking.

No son of Jorge Mendes there are no ranking points for style or players you like more.

Time Violation
09-18-2012, 11:51 AM
Doesn't change the fact that Ferrer will never, ever play in a Slam final or win a Masters, because he doesn't have the ability to do it.

Del Potro never won a masters either and if he ends up with 1 slam in the end, people will probably say it was the biggest fluke of the decade.

Guy_American
09-18-2012, 11:54 AM
Melzer- Hasnt done anything since Memphis and except Memphis. Barely got through round 1 in most tournaments of the year, has been in terrible form since the start of the year. Deserves a top 80 ranking if you ask me, nothing more.

For his age and his number of injuries he is still showing great tennis. Sometimes it is not that effective, but still interesting. Moreover, he's just got married :)

Chase Visa
09-18-2012, 11:55 AM
People are still biting Lenders?

I mean I like the guy yet he shows no sign of objectivity when talking about Ferrer.

Wing Man Frank
09-18-2012, 11:58 AM
I think one of the main problems is that people see the likes of a Berdych or a Tsonga performing out of their skin to beat Federer or Nadal in a slam and think that somehow that makes them far more deserving of a higher ranking than Ferrer. They seem to forget that the ranking system is made up of an entire season and not a one-off victory in a slam quarter-final. The mere fact that they (Berdych and Tsonga) always get beaten in the next round is oblivious to them.

Tennis is about winning. Whether you like it or not, Ferrer does it a lot better than the others. If they don't like it, they can get up off their arses and put in the effort that he does.

Getting to a final or a semi-final of a slam without actually winning the thing whilst beating a Nadal or Federer along the way is still a failure and we shouldn't forget that.

Ferrer wins more titles, more money and deserves to be ranked fifth. Stop crying and get over it.

Singularity
09-18-2012, 12:11 PM
Ferrer and Monaco take the cake here.

Why are they ranked so high? For the same reason every player ranked above his real level is: vulturing.
Ignore all ATP 250/500 tournaments and Ferrer would still be ranked no.5.

Ben.
09-18-2012, 12:17 PM
Lenders with his monotonous trolling and yet almost everyone in the thread is responding to him :facepalm:

duong
09-18-2012, 12:20 PM
I think one of the main problems is that people see the likes of a Berdych or a Tsonga performing out of their skin to beat Federer or Nadal in a slam and think that somehow that makes them far more deserving of a higher ranking than Ferrer. .

not only that !

I mean I read "Ferrer can only beat top-players when they're a little bit off",

but does Berdych beat them at their best ?

I know people still think that Fed was at his best in Wimbledon 2010 but no he wasn't, and if Federer had made as many errors against Ferrer as he made against Berdych this year, I'm far from sure of the result.

And Berdych didn't outplay Fed by his power : actually he made much less winners and less UE than Fed !

The problem he gives to Fed is ... his return.

And only because Berdych returns Fed's serve very well, you would say that he's completely different from Ferrer against top-players ?

On clay, Ferrer is 3-1 against Djokovic, and well, I'm a Fed-fan, but saying he would always beat Ferrer in Roma or Monte-Carlo is bullshit when he lost there to Volandri, Gasquet or Wawrinka !

Fed is more afraid of Simon than of Berdych then do you really think he doesn't fear at all a player like Ferrer who makes very few errors ?

Really there are many prejudice on that topic. Ask Djokovic if he prefers playing Berdych or Ferrer ;) Ask Del Potro who said after all of his recent losses to Ferrer, sometimes harsh, that well, "I do my best but he's just better than me" about Ferrer.

duong
09-18-2012, 12:21 PM
Lenders with his monotonous trolling and yet almost everyone in the thread is responding to him :facepalm:

there are too many prejudice on that topic and there has been too much bombarding about that from Lenders and a few others.

Maybe it's possible to silent these a little bit, at least give it a try :p

as anyway the topic of the thread is quite useless imo :p

mooncreek
09-18-2012, 12:21 PM
I can understand the argument regarding Monaco but this Ferrer argument is a waste of space. You make 2 SFs and 2 QFs in one Slam year, you earned that ranking. To have that much hate because the little guy knocks out your lower-ranked favorites is sad.

stebs
09-18-2012, 12:22 PM
Even those defending Ferrer forget he has 2x wins over Nadal in slams. :lol: The evidence against Ferrer fitting the mould of 'vulture' as painted by some posters here is totally overwhelming. There is no debate, only dogmatic resistance to facts and evidence can possibly avoid accepting Ferrer for his fairly achieved results and legitimate status.

For what it's worth, I'll offer one potential take on why people can fallaciously see Ferrer as 'consistent but not threatening'. I think it is more difficult to see fluctuations in form when a player has Ferrer's style. This is because, for players of his mould, depth is such an important indicator and manifestation of form. When Ferrer is hitting deep consistently he is a nightmare to play against (see Wimbledon this year where he totally outplayed JMDP and a very good Murray barely beat him in a match of exceptional baseline quality).

It is clearly a lot easier to notice ups and downs of a guy like Berdych who hits winners and errors, than a guy like Ferrer, for whom regular differences in length of shot are the more consistent constitutive feature of form. A similar syndrome can be seen in fans (usually anti-Nadal ones) who see Nadal's form as static (and dips and rises in results as caused by his opposition only). Results and statistics are the better indicator of reality than biased and un-perceptive armchair analysts. Ferrer has better results in grand slams this year than all other than the 'big 4'. The reason he can do this now and couldn't before is that he's playing better. When he is returning well and keeping impeccable depth, he is a legitimate top player, too good for anyone outside the top 10 and too good for anyone outside the top 5 unless they provide something above their level. For examples, see duong's large list of H2H evidence. Overall, Ferrer is just a better player right now than Berdych and JMDP.

Note: I also don't think Ferrer should be overestimated. JMDP has a higher peak level than he does and so does Berdych on faster surfaces (peak Ferrer could beat peak Berdych on clay imo). However, it is a lot closer than people imagine. JMDP would've had to play incredibly well to match Ferrer at Wimbledon this year (where Ferrer played the best GS match I've seen him play).

duong
09-18-2012, 12:28 PM
For what it's worth, I'll offer one potential take on why people can fallaciously see Ferrer as 'consistent but not threatening'. I think it is more difficult to see fluctuations in form when a player has Ferrer's style. This is because, for players of his mould, depth is such an important indicator and manifestation of form.

yes, and actually when Ferrer is in bad form, he loses in first round, as it's happened quite often to him ... then people don't see him.

But more than that, I think it's a matter of style of play and the fact that many people can only understand some shots when they're powerful. They're only impressed when a shot is hit with power. Many on MTF love ballbashers, that's clear.

It's all about "having power", having weapons", etc ...

Ferrer can create very annoying angles, but I think many people here don't even notice them.

The reason he can do this now and couldn't before is that he's playing better.

another reason is his seed ... but it's also the case for Berdych and Tsonga :shrug: Look at Berdych's results in mandatory tournaments in 2011 : QF QF QF QF QF ...

Moozza
09-18-2012, 01:03 PM
Ferrer has reached the QF's or better at all slams this year, one of only 4 players to do that. His slam results this year havae easily been that of a top 5 player. I don't see the problem with him being #5 ahead of Berdych, Tsonga, Potro as he is clearly a better player.

TigerTim
09-18-2012, 01:05 PM
Berdych is way too high. As is Tsonga, attacking play has no place in the modern game. They lack weapons to win today.

Certinfy
09-18-2012, 01:11 PM
The current top 8 are fine. I don't like Ferrer but he's been consistent enough beating mugs. Berdych, Tsonga and Del Potro all have great results every here and now too, so all deserving top 8 players.

Anyway Monaco for sure. Guy shouldn't even be top 20, I mean Berdych was absolutely shocking a few days ago and yet this mug couldn't beat him, on his favourite surface and in his home country. Worst player to ever break the top 10 I say. Literally doesn't have a weapon, disgrace to tennis.

Nr 1 Fan
09-18-2012, 01:16 PM
Viktor Troicki? He has no business being top 30 (and he even was top 20 for a while if I remember correctly).

Nr 1 Fan
09-18-2012, 01:20 PM
People are still biting Lenders?

I mean I like the guy yet he shows no sign of objectivity when talking about Ferrer.

Yes, he is a good and rational poster but when it comes to Ferrer I don't even read his posts anymore. No matter how many good arguments people will give, he will always be a vulture to Mark Lenders, although everybody who is objective about this knows he isn't.

Nr 1 Fan
09-18-2012, 01:22 PM
Other candidates:

Radek Stepanek
Marcos Baghdatis
Albert Ramos
Marcel Gruntollers

Nr 1 Fan
09-18-2012, 01:24 PM
And I see Matosevic is top 50? Also a bit overranked.

UKTennisMag
09-18-2012, 01:40 PM
I'd agree with those saying Monaco. I have no idea how he managed to break the top 10, a very, very average player. Ferrer is an excellent player, he may be poor against the top 4 in Slam quarters/semis but he beats everybody else to get there. I doubt the top 4 enjoy playing him either, Murray in particularly sneaked through at Wimbledon after a couple of really close sets.

seljanin
09-18-2012, 01:46 PM
Other candidates:

Radek Stepanek
Marcos Baghdatis
Albert Ramos
Marcel Gruntollers

Why? Because you don't like him? Or is there any objective reason as well? Steps is a well-deserving top-50 player, definitely not overranked.

Disagree about Baghdatis as well.

Slasher1985
09-18-2012, 01:47 PM
I'd agree with those saying Monaco. I have no idea how he managed to break the top 10, a very, very average player. Ferrer is an excellent player, he may be poor against the top 4 in Slam quarters/semis but he beats everybody else to get there. I doubt the top 4 enjoy playing him either, Murray in particularly sneaked through at Wimbledon after a couple of really close sets.

He's ranked 5 for a reason. If that reason is not "beating everybody ranked below Top 4" I don't know what is. Also, he's close to 6000 points. He's not number 5 by 10 points ahead of the next player.

My pick would be John Isner. He's not consistent enough to be Top 10, although I wouldn't see him below 20 yet. I would second that with Kevin Anderson and Bogomolov Jr, although both of them might just be in a not so good moment of their careers and they can recover and get back to winning more consistently.

Nr 1 Fan
09-18-2012, 01:57 PM
Why? Because you don't like him? Or is there any objective reason as well? Steps is a well-deserving top-50 player, definitely not overranked.

Disagree about Baghdatis as well.

Maybe it's bad luck, but every match I saw him play this year he was so bad. I always thought to myself: how is this guy still top 50? But maybe I just missed the good matches he played (if he did).

Baghdatis just has become irrelevant on tour I think, he never threatens top guys anymore (except for Murray in Wimbledon) and frequently loses to lower ranked opponents. Plus, his fitness level is awful.

Nr 1 Fan
09-18-2012, 01:59 PM
He's ranked 5 for a reason. If that reason is not "beating everybody ranked below Top 4" I don't know what is. Also, he's close to 6000 points. He's not number 5 by 10 points ahead of the next player.

My pick would be John Isner. He's not consistent enough to be Top 10, although I wouldn't see him below 20 yet. I would second that with Kevin Anderson and Bogomolov Jr, although both of them might just be in a not so good moment of their careers and they can recover and get back to winning more consistently.

I think he's a very good player who can defintely have a shot at top 20 one day if he plays a consistent season with a few exceptions.

Slasher1985
09-18-2012, 02:00 PM
I think he's a very good player who can defintely have a shot at top 20 one day if he plays a consistent season with a few exceptions.

That's what I meant by the fact that they may be on a bad moment of their career and they can recover. I like Kevin, I really wish he can become consistent.:)

GOATsol
09-18-2012, 02:13 PM
Agreed that Isner is ranked too high.

rocketassist
09-18-2012, 02:14 PM
Monaco top 10. Definitely taken full advantage of a weak field. Any field with depth and he'd be lucky to be a top 32 seed.

At least Ferrer's reached slam QF/SFs and beat three slam champions to get those results. Harsh to compare Monaco to him.

The biggest joke was Troicki on the fringe of top 10. Tennis lacks depth in the 10-32 range compared to say, 2004.

duong
09-18-2012, 02:29 PM
Monaco top 10. Definitely taken full advantage of a weak field. Any field with depth and he'd be lucky to be a top 32 seed.

as I said, this year will be the fourth year in a row when Monaco has finished in the top-30, fifth year overall. For Troicki he can also finish in top-30 for the fourth year in a row

I can understand that some have chicken hair of them having spent a few weeks in or near the top-10 but some people really exaggerate here.

And I read again this bullshit "he has no weapon" : it's all about power for many people !! What "weapon" does Gilles Simon have for God's sake ? Yet, he's a very dangerous player for many players. And the legs are one very important weapon in modern tennis. And not surprisingly legs are Monaco's and Troicki's most important "weapon", yet of course nobody sees it as a "weapon" here.

Anyway, I think that many of the comments in this thread are related to people not watching all tournaments.

Stepanek, Monaco and all are all very good from time to time, it's just not all the time, and then it depends when you see them.

Frankly speaking I had a very bad opinion of Massu, worse than of Monaco's, but for sure, I didn't see him play when he won the Olympics.

Rosol is a "mug" 99% of the year yet this it's now forgotten on MTF because of one match.

duong
09-18-2012, 02:39 PM
And Troicki and Granollers are still young, and considering the bad young generations coming, please deal with it people : you'll have to accept Troicki and Granollers in top-30 for long :lol:

Sexier players like Bellucci or Fognini have not been able to enter the top-30 for an extended period yet. And I don't speak of Gulbis :lol:

JurajCrane
09-18-2012, 03:02 PM
As a Slovak, I have to say Lacko. He is still ranked 57, but hasn't show anything since that Zagreb final.

8 straight loses since Wimbledon 3rd round and if we don't count grass matches 14 consecutive loses since Miami Masters.

Points that are holding him up : Bratislava 110 (falls on November), Aussie Open (115), Zagreb (150), Dubai (65) - all fall on February.

rocketassist
09-18-2012, 03:07 PM
as I said, this year will be the fourth year in a row when Monaco has finished in the top-30, fifth year overall. For Troicki he can also finish in top-30 for the fourth year in a row

I can understand that some have chicken hair of them having spent a few weeks in or near the top-10 but some people really exaggerate here.

And I read again this bullshit "he has no weapon" : it's all about power for many people !! What "weapon" does Gilles Simon have for God's sake ? Yet, he's a very dangerous player for many players. And the legs are one very important weapon in modern tennis. And not surprisingly legs are Monaco's and Troicki's most important "weapon", yet of course nobody sees it as a "weapon" here.

Anyway, I think that many of the comments in this thread are related to people not watching all tournaments.

Stepanek, Monaco and all are all very good from time to time, it's just not all the time, and then it depends when you see them.

Frankly speaking I had a very bad opinion of Massu, worse than of Monaco's, but for sure, I didn't see him play when he won the Olympics.

Rosol is a "mug" 99% of the year yet this it's now forgotten on MTF because of one match.

In a field with depth, Monaco would never be top 10. A lot of these guys are having their best results close to 30. It shows a lack of quality/depth. Fish did the same. Ferrer's a top 10 fixture but he's 31, an age you'd think he would be on the wane.

bjurra
09-18-2012, 03:20 PM
As a Slovak, I have to say Lacko. He is still ranked 57, but hasn't show anything since that Zagreb final.

At least he has proven he is capable of good tennis. Unlike Ito. I hope Lukas can regain some confidence, he has a really nice game.

Mark Lenders
09-18-2012, 03:28 PM
Is Baghdatis better than Ferrer?

Yes, of course.


Del Potro never won a masters either and if he ends up with 1 slam in the end, people will probably say it was the biggest fluke of the decade.

People can say whatever they want. They'd be very, very wrong, but the funny thing is that even if they were right and it was the biggest fluke ever it'd not matter at all. Fluking a Slam is far better than never winning any big title.

Lenders with his monotonous trolling and yet almost everyone in the thread is responding to him :facepalm:

Can you blame me though? What's the incentive to come up with new material when the old one still does the trick :shrug: ?

TigerTim
09-18-2012, 03:29 PM
Ferrer is a better player than Del Potro, thats for sure. Tsonga and Berdych not so much, probably equal.

Slade
09-18-2012, 03:39 PM
1. Muger Frauderer

1. Monaco
2. Raonic
3. Isner
4. Maybe Verdasco?

Lurking
09-18-2012, 03:49 PM
And Troicki and Granollers are still young, and considering the bad young generations coming, please deal with it people : you'll have to accept Troicki and Granollers in top-30 for long :lol:


http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Versus-Top-10-Career-List.aspx

249/250 for Troicki.

Monaco's pretty respectable.

Verdasco is woeful, he's also done nothing for the past year outside of a random Acapulco run and fluke win over Nadal on blue clay.

Thunderfish8
09-18-2012, 04:12 PM
THis discussion about who is best on clay is pretty much useless.
The last relevant post I have seen was back on page 1.

For those of you who use upsets to rank how good players are on different surfaces, you are relatively dillusional.

Every player within the top 100 has the ability to play better than the top 4 guys.

That's why the top guys almost never win 6-0 6-0.

For every game that the opponent won, they have played better than their opponent for a few minutes.

There's no point in saying that Berdych is better than Ferrer because he causes bigger upsets at bigger events. All it means is that he played better that one day.

What makes a player incredible is when they can keep up their level of play for months especially on your best surface.
If I recall correctly, Berdych (who loves fast surfaces) did not win a single match on grass this year. Not only that, but he lost to two players who were not even relatively close to him in the rankings. Sure, you could say that Ferrer lost to Nishikori and Wawrinka this summer, but Nishikori is a bright rising start in the top 20. Stan is the same. Those losses are not comparable to players like Gulbis and Darcis that are constantly playing challengers to keep any kind of form.

In addition, some of the logic being used here is borderline retarded.

I see people saying that Berdych>Monfils>Ferrer.

Well by that logic, Ferrer>Del Potro>Berdych.
Or perhaps Ferrer>Raonic>Berdych.

Hope this helps

motorhead
09-18-2012, 04:24 PM
Stan is the man!

fixed

Pirata.
09-18-2012, 04:28 PM
NID that Mark Lenders would manage to make this entire thread about Pics :rolleyes:

motorhead
09-18-2012, 04:40 PM
NID that Mark Lenders would manage to make this entire thread about Pics :rolleyes:

he's a funny guy though

Thunderfish8
09-18-2012, 05:00 PM
fixed

haha true

Nr 1 Fan
09-18-2012, 06:59 PM
Yes, of course.




People can say whatever they want. They'd be very, very wrong, but the funny thing is that even if they were right and it was the biggest fluke ever it'd not matter at all. Fluking a Slam is far better than never winning any big title.



Can you blame me though? What's the incentive to come up with new material when the old one still does the trick :shrug: ?


You are such a clown when it comes to Ferrer :eek:

Cereal Killer
09-18-2012, 07:02 PM
he's a funny guy though

If other people's stupidity gets you off, then sure.

Ferrer is by no means over-ranked. He has outperformed every single player this year (bar the top 4) and not just in smaller tournaments, but in slams as well. I don't know how this is even up for discussion.

I'm gonna go with Isner and Monaco.

Orange Wombat
09-18-2012, 07:50 PM
Go Soeda. He's actually a solid player, but I have no idea how he got to No.49.

The Prince
09-18-2012, 07:54 PM
Go Soeda.

misty1
09-18-2012, 08:01 PM
go soeda

r2473
09-18-2012, 08:03 PM
Have you ever thought that there is a player that is sort of useless to the ATP tour? He doesnt bring anything to the table, over performs in challenger and MM events and under performs in grand slams and masters? Who are these players, and why in your opinion they are ranked so high?

Nobody really fits the mold 100%.

The closest I can think of is "Funky" Florian Mayer. He's ranked 25 now and has been pretty consistently hovering around 40 for a few years now. True, he did make it the the Quarters of Wimbledon this year, but I think that was mostly due to his draw. Beyond that, he's done pretty much nothing this year (he has a Shanghai quarters to defend) and I can't recall him doing much in previous years either. Yet, he stays top 50 and is now 25. Pretty amazing.

He doesn't have a game that troubles any of the better players on tour.

TigerTim
09-18-2012, 08:03 PM
go soeda

Sanya
09-18-2012, 08:05 PM
I must think about current situation, but when Troicki was #11... :facepalm: I even slept worse than usual. :)

Legendary Lopata
09-18-2012, 08:25 PM
Florian Mayer

Mark Lenders
09-18-2012, 11:40 PM
NID that Mark Lenders would manage to make this entire thread about Pics :rolleyes:

I merely gave my opinion on the OP's question, mentioning both Ferrer and Monaco. I can't be blame if people were so interested in my post, let alone if they only wanted to talk about Ferrer.


he's a funny guy though

Thanks :D


You are such a clown when it comes to Ferrer :eek:

Baghdatis is a much more talented tennis player than Ferrer.

ogbg
09-18-2012, 11:45 PM
Hope this helps
It doesn't

Pipsy
09-18-2012, 11:48 PM
I have to say, when I saw the thread title I immediately thought of Bjorn Phau. A decent player, and one I quite like but I was surprised that he'd climbed into the top 75 recently. He has been hovering around 100 for ages but he's 33 in October so good luck to him!

Freak3yman84
09-18-2012, 11:50 PM
Klizan, but before his 4th round at the USO. He seriously came out of nowhere.

TigerTim
09-18-2012, 11:51 PM
He's from Slovakia actually.

Freak3yman84
09-18-2012, 11:53 PM
He's from Slovakia actually.

:p I wonder what his take is on Slovenia...

uxyzapenje
09-18-2012, 11:54 PM
He's from Slovakia actually.

Yes, Klizan came from Bratislava :shrug:

TigerTim
09-18-2012, 11:54 PM
:p I wonder what his take is on Slovenia...

:haha:

Sapeod actually gave a reasoned answer on that one.

What is your take on the muzzles?

Federer in 2
09-18-2012, 11:55 PM
Yes, of course.

That's my sign to ignore your trolling :zzz:

Freak3yman84
09-19-2012, 12:03 AM
:haha:

Sapeod actually gave a reasoned answer on that one.

What is your take on the muzzles?

:lol: I'm surprised he even bothered to answer :p ...And the muzzles one :haha: I purposely phrased that question like a caveman!

duong
09-19-2012, 09:44 AM
The closest I can think of is "Funky" Florian Mayer. He's ranked 25 now and has been pretty consistently hovering around 40 for a few years now.

There are several players who fit that definition, notably Lopez, Nieminen, Seppi, Benneteau, Tipsarevic until last year ... but not Flo Mayer : he had only been top-40 years ago before last year.

If you mean consistent around top-50-60, there are even more players.

Besides, I completely disagree with your comment on Mayer's game : he's one of the only ones with Djokovic who has defeated a healthy Nadal as this one looked awfully disappointed after his loss in Shanghai last year saying he felt in very good form and ready to win the tournament.

And Mayer has troubled many other players ...

But I think citing Flo Mayer is one more evidence that many on MTF only can understand power in tennis.

duong
09-19-2012, 09:47 AM
Klizan, but before his 4th round at the USO. He seriously came out of nowhere.

he came out of challengers, just like Bellucci a few years ago.

Challengers are also part of the ATP tour and most of the players ranked higher than 50 play them.

Thunderfish8
09-19-2012, 10:58 AM
It doesn't

yes that's why i said HOPE this helps

thank you for your feedback. using your constructive criticism i can become a better poster each day and maybe one day i will have the classiness of a truly intelligent poster such as yourself

Looner
09-19-2012, 11:13 AM
It doesn't

:worship:

bouncer7
09-19-2012, 02:36 PM
Federer, Cilic, Troicki, Tomic

out_grinder
09-19-2012, 03:24 PM
Troicki's game is just the blandest thing in all of sports.