Real Top 8 Against Each Other at Slams [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Real Top 8 Against Each Other at Slams

Mark Lenders
04-01-2013, 03:51 AM
So Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, Soderling, Berdych and Tsonga - all the players who have either won a Slam (or more) or at least reached a Slam final since the Fedal era gathered full steam. They all beat each other at some point but how about at Slams:

Federer - 7/7, beat all of them. Lost to 7/7 too.

Nadal - 7/7. Lost to 6/7 (never lost to Berdych)

Djokovic - 6/7 (never faced Soderling). Lost to 5/7 (hasn't lost to Delpo, hasn't faced Soderling)

Murray - 6/7 (never faced Soderling) Lost to 5/7 (hasn't lost to Delpo, hasn't faced Soderling)

Del Potro - 4/7 (hasn't beaten Djokovic and Murray, hasn't faced Soderling) Lost to 4/7 (never lost to Tsonga or Berdych and never faced Soderling)

Soderling - 3/7 (hasn't faced Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro and Tsonga, beat all those he faced). Lost to 3/7 too.

Berdych - 3/7 (hasn't beaten Nadal, Soderling and Del Potro, hasn't faced Tsonga) Lost to 6/7 (never faced Tsonga)

Tsonga - 4/7 (hasn't beaten Del Potro, hasn't faced Soderling or Berdych) Lost to 5/7 (never faced Soderling or Berdych)


Overall internal Slam H2H:

Federer - 28-19 (positive against all but Nadal)
Nadal - 29-10 (positive against all but Tsonga, against whom he's even)
Djokovic - 20-14 (positive against all bar Federer and Nadal)
Murray - 8-14 (positive against Delpo and Tsonga, even with Berdych, negative with the other three)
Del Potro - 4-10 (positive against Tsonga and Berdych, even with Nadal, negaitve with everyone else)
Soderling - 2-8 (positive with Berdych, negative with Federer and Nadal)
Berdych - 4-13 (even with Murray, negative with everyone else)
Tsonga - 4-10 (negative with everyone bar Nadal, who he's even against).

rocketassist
04-01-2013, 03:54 AM
I miss Soderling :sad: But apparently he's started practicing again :D

Mark Lenders
04-01-2013, 03:57 AM
I miss Soderling :sad: But apparently he's started practicing again :D

Same here.

Bar Berdych vs Tsonga, all matchups between the real top 8 that haven't yet taken place at Slam level involve Soderling, shows how prematuraly he left the sport, but hopefully he will be back.

Ben D.
04-01-2013, 07:06 AM
where is Ferrer :p his stats must be frightening.

70-68
04-01-2013, 08:25 AM
How can someone who has been out with illness for almost 2 years be considered a "real member of the Top 8" :facepalm: Might as well just bring back Roddick from retirement, and name him a "real top 8 player".

BackhandDTL
04-01-2013, 08:54 AM
How can someone who has been out with illness for almost 2 years be considered a "real member of the Top 8" :facepalm: Might as well just bring back Roddick from retirement, and name him a "real top 8 player".

Yeah, sure, why don't we?

0-1 v. Del Potro
1-1 v. Nadal (both wins well outside the loser's primes)
1-1 v. Murray
1-1 v. Djokovic
1-0 v. Tsonga
2-0 v. Berdych

Wow, look at that! Yup! Nothing else to see here. Solid records at least. Mhmm.

No...other...record...to see here... :o


:bolt:

GSMnadal
04-01-2013, 09:04 AM
Conclusion? All hail GOAT Rafael Nadal

leng jai
04-01-2013, 09:07 AM
Conclusion? All hail GOAT Rafael Nadal

That's your conclusion for every thread in existence.

Topspindoctor
04-01-2013, 09:11 AM
That's your conclusion for every thread in existence.

Agreed, GSMNadal doesn't know what he is talking about. The real GOAT is obviously Haas. Would win 20 slams by now if he wasn't bothered by that scraped knee injury he picked up when he fell off his bike at 5 years old throughout his career :cool::smoke:


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

Marcoo
04-01-2013, 09:37 AM
Yeah, Soderling used to do great things in the slams. Miss him as well, when is actually he playing again ?

TheShowMustGoOn
04-01-2013, 09:44 AM
That's your conclusion for every thread in existence.You're right, he is consistently correct. ;)

MaxPower
04-01-2013, 10:39 AM
I miss Soderling :sad: But apparently he's started practicing again :D

Is that some recent news? Haven't heard anything from camp Soderling in a long time.

AgnRus
04-01-2013, 10:50 AM
Is that some recent news? Haven't heard anything from camp Soderling in a long time.
unfortunately not. just a bad source. repetition of the last year news under the guise of the new ones.

paseo
04-01-2013, 11:05 AM
Agreed, GSMNadal doesn't know what he is talking about. The real GOAT is obviously Haas. Would win 20 slams by now if he wasn't bothered by that scraped knee injury he picked up when he fell off his bike at 5 years old throughout his career :cool::smoke:


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

Finally, you see the light. Embrace it, Man.

leng jai
04-01-2013, 11:58 AM
Agreed, GSMNadal doesn't know what he is talking about. The real GOAT is obviously Haas. Would win 20 slams by now if he wasn't bothered by that scraped knee injury he picked up when he fell off his bike at 5 years old throughout his career :cool::smoke:


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

The poetic irony of Tdoc showing us a window to his true feelings on April Fool's day is more wonderful than I ever could have imagined.

Roy Emerson
04-01-2013, 12:36 PM
where is Ferrer :p his stats must be frightening.

:lol:

Snowwy
04-01-2013, 12:49 PM
Yeah, Soderling used to do great things in the slams. Miss him as well, when is actually he playing again ?

You mean lose in round 1 or 2? He lost in round 1 or 2 of at least one grand slam in ever season except 2011 when he played only 3 of the grand slams.

Only twice did he play all 4 grand slams and not lose in the first round or two twice. David Ferrer, on the other hand, has not lost in the first round of a grand slam since 2005.

Ferrer - Federer
Ferrer - Nadal 2-2
Ferrer - Djokovic 0-5
Ferrer - Murray 1-2
Ferrer - Del Potro 2-0
Ferrer - Berdych
Ferrer - Tsonga 0-1
Ferrer - Soderling 0-2

Ferrer (3/8) (hasn't faced Federer or Berdych, hasn't beaten Djokovic, Tsonga or Soderling)

Overall: 5 - 12

Chris Kuerten
04-01-2013, 12:58 PM
It seems that, in your excitement of including Söderling (which is weird in itself considering he is retired), you've forgotten to include Ferrer as well.

Federer: 0-0
Nadal: 2-2
Djokovic: 0-5
Murray: 1-2
Del Potro: 2-0
Berdych: 0-0
Tsonga: 0-1

Overall: 5-10

Weirdly enough it seems that he has a better record than Del Potro, Berdych and Tsonga.

Federer in 2
04-01-2013, 01:02 PM
It seems that, in your excitement of including Söderling (which is weird in itself considering he is retired), you've forgotten to include Ferrer as well.

Federer: 0-0
Nadal: 2-2
Djokovic: 0-5
Murray: 1-2
Del Potro: 2-0
Berdych: 0-0
Tsonga: 0-1

Overall: 5-10

Weirdly enough it seems that he has a better record than Del Potro, Berdych and Tsonga.

Weirdly enough? He is a better player than all of them. Nothing special to see here.

Chris Kuerten
04-01-2013, 01:04 PM
Weirdly enough? He is a better player than all of them. Nothing special to see here.Exactly. Luckily everyone who knows their tennis is aware of this.

ProdigyEng
04-01-2013, 01:06 PM
Weirdly enough? He is a better player than all of them. Nothing special to see here.

No slams for the vulture.

Moozza
04-01-2013, 01:41 PM
How is Ferrer not the the real top 5, never mind real top 8? :lol:

Deathless Mortal
04-01-2013, 02:03 PM
How is Ferrer not the the real top 5, never mind real top 8? :lol:

You see Lenders is into cartoons for 5 year olds, he likes living in a fantasy world.

Chris Kuerten
04-01-2013, 02:10 PM
You see Lenders is into cartoons for 5 year olds, he likes living in a fantasy world.:lol:

Murray=God
04-01-2013, 02:37 PM
It seems that, in your excitement of including Söderling (which is weird in itself considering he is retired), you've forgotten to include Ferrer as well.

Federer: 0-0
Nadal: 2-2
Djokovic: 0-5
Murray: 1-2
Del Potro: 2-0
Berdych: 0-0
Tsonga: 0-1

Overall: 5-10

Weirdly enough it seems that he has a better record than Del Potro, Berdych and Tsonga.

Number of slam finals for Sodering - 2

Number of slam finals for Ferrer - :shrug:

Chris Kuerten
04-01-2013, 02:43 PM
Number of slam finals for Sodering - 2

Number of slam finals for Ferrer - :shrug:GS wins Söderling: 0
GS wins Ferrer: 0

Murray=God
04-01-2013, 02:48 PM
GS wins Söderling: 0
GS wins Ferrer: 0

Soderking is in a whole different galaxy to Ferrer.

If you need proof of this I will gladly provide it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sJl0izPX84)

That was the very last time Soderking stepped out onto a court may I add. :sad:

Chris Kuerten
04-01-2013, 02:52 PM
Soderking is in a whole different galaxy to Ferrer.

If you need proof of this I will gladly provide it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sJl0izPX84)

Thar was the very last time Soderking stepped out onto a court may I add. :sad:Their careers are pretty much on par, with Söderling obviously displaying a higher peak level.

Mysterious retirement, with his last tournament containing a back to back beating of Berdych and Ferrer, losing only five games.

BauerAlmeida
04-01-2013, 03:12 PM
I really miss Soderling, but unfortunately I really doubt he will ever play again, let alone win something big or have a big ran at a slam like he did in RG 2009/2010.


Weirdly enough? He is a better player than all of them. Nothing special to see here.

You should stick to writing "Federer in 2".

Murray=God
04-01-2013, 03:14 PM
Their careers are pretty much on par, with Söderling obviously displaying a higher peak level.

Mysterious retirement, with his last tournament containing a back to back beating of Berdych and Ferrer, losing only five games.

Think that's a fair assessment. Soderling a higher peak level but Ferrer more longevity.

Monocluosis strikes again. Took Ančić permanently out the game and now it seems to have taken Soderking out as well.

Snowwy
04-01-2013, 03:16 PM
Number of slam finals for Sodering - 2

Number of slam finals for Ferrer - :shrug:

Soderling number of R1 losses: 11
Ferrer number of R1 losses: 5

Murray=God
04-01-2013, 03:21 PM
Soderling number of R1 losses: 11
Ferrer number of R1 losses: 5

I think contesting more slam finals comes across as a slightly more noteworthy achievement than having fewer round 1 losses. :rolleyes:

Mark Lenders
04-01-2013, 04:11 PM
where is Ferrer :p his stats must be frightening.

Not in the real top 8, that's for sure.

NID that some people would try to derail this thread by mentioning random non-real top 8 players.

MalwareDie
04-01-2013, 04:22 PM
I miss Soderling :sad: But apparently he's started practicing again :D

Where did you hear/read about that?

Edit: Don't answer that. I think I found the article you got the information from.
http://tenisbrasil.uol.com.br/noticias/19094/Soderling-treina-e-considera-enfim-um-retorno/

Snowwy
04-01-2013, 06:24 PM
The stats that are shown in the original post, really show the difference between the top 4, and the 'next' 4. Any of the top 4 can beat any of each other, but the other guys have to face the right players to go far in a slam.

Federer in 2
04-01-2013, 06:31 PM
The theory about "Ferrer is not a real top 5 player", and Ferrer hating in general is probably the world's biggest bubble :lol:

Mark Lenders
04-01-2013, 07:08 PM
The theory about "Ferrer is not a real top 5 player", and Ferrer hating in general is probably the world's biggest bubble :lol:

Ferrer is not even a real top 8 player as proved beyond reasonable doubt in this thread, let alone top 5.

Federer in 2
04-01-2013, 07:22 PM
Ferrer is not even a real top 8 player as proved beyond reasonable doubt in this thread, let alone top 5.

No such thing was proved in this thread. The only people who blindly agree with such an absurd statement are tards like yourself, who apparently lack any logic or common sense whatsoever.
Never seen anything more needy than Ferrer-haters desperately hanging on to the only thing they have got left: The fact that he hasn't reached a Slam final.
7000 ranking points, 2 finals in the last 3 masters events, a lot of Slam semis (and this number will probably double or triple itself in the next few years), countless career titles, and overwhelming dominance in H2H are just a small taste of everything that Ferrer owns and that Del Potro and the rest of the ballbashers will not come close to.
Besides, at least Del Potro has something to show for his career. But bringing clowns like Berdych and Tsonga into that equation? Any sane tennis fan who might have read claims that they are even remotely as good as Ferrer in this thread, would immediately consider it an April's fool joke, and rightfully so. When compared to Ferrer, Berdych and Tsonga might as well be considered junior league players.

Newcomer
04-01-2013, 07:29 PM
vulturetards are such cuties :superlol:

Mark Lenders
04-01-2013, 07:34 PM
No such thing was proved in this thread. The only people who blindly agree with such an absurd statement are tards like yourself, who apparently lack any logic or common sense whatsoever.
Never seen anything more needy than Ferrer-haters desperately hanging on to the only thing they have got left: The fact that he hasn't reached a Slam final.
7000 ranking points, 2 finals in the last 3 masters events, a lot of Slam semis (and this number will probably double or triple itself in the next few years), countless career titles, and overwhelming dominance in H2H are just a small taste of everything that Ferrer owns and that Del Potro and the rest of the ballbashers will not come close to.
Besides, at least Del Potro has something to show for his career. But bringing clowns like Berdych and Tsonga into that equation? Any sane tennis fan who might have read claims that they are even remotely as good as Ferrer in this thread, would immediately consider it an April's fool joke, and rightfully so. When compared to Ferrer, Berdych and Tsonga might as well be considered junior league players.

7000 ranking points? Del Potro got that too and he was in the top 4 without needing anyone to leave for 7 months, not to mention he was actually the #2 player during 2009 at Slams, only Federer did better/got more points than him in those events.

2 Masters final in 3 events? Who exactly did he beat to reach those finals? I thought so, as soon as he faced a real top 7 player he lost, despite the fact said real top 7er played an awful match.

Countless career titles? I can count them, they are 20. Del Potro is 7 years younger and has 14, are you betting against him surpassing that count in the coming years? Not to mention Soderling in Valencia was the only noteworthy player Ferrer ever beat in those title runs.

Besides, you think Ferrer will be reaching many Slam semis after 31yo :lol:?

Berdych and Tsonga have much bigger wins than Ferrer at Slams besides having a final, same for Soderling. Ferrer's claim to fame is little league dominance; when it's time to face Federer, Nadal and Djokovic at Slams, the likes of Berdych, Tsonga and Soderling far surpass him. Not only at Slams even, three of Tsonga's 250/500/1000 title runs involved beating Djokovic.

vulturetards are such cuties :superlol:

Anyone visiting this site for the first time today will be led to believe their claims that Ferrer is better than Berdych and Tsonga or a real top 8 player are some sort of April Fool's gimmick, but they're actually serious :lol:

Federer in 2
04-01-2013, 07:58 PM
7000 ranking points? Del Potro got that too and he was in the top 4 without needing anyone to leave for 7 months, not to mention he was actually the #2 player during 2009 at Slams, only Federer did better/got more points than him in those events.

2 Masters final in 3 events? Who exactly did he beat to reach those finals? I thought so, as soon as he faced a real top 7 player he lost, despite the fact said real top 7er played an awful match.

Countless career titles? I can count them, they are 20. Del Potro is 7 years younger and has 14, are you betting against him surpassing that count in the coming years? Not to mention Soderling in Valencia was the only noteworthy player Ferrer ever beat in those title runs.

Besides, you think Ferrer will be reaching many Slam semis after 31yo :lol:?

Berdych and Tsonga have much bigger wins than Ferrer at Slams besides having a final, same for Soderling. Ferrer's claim to fame is little league dominance; when it's time to face Federer, Nadal and Djokovic at Slams, the likes of Berdych, Tsonga and Soderling far surpass him. Not only at Slams even, three of Tsonga's 250/500/1000 title runs involved beating Djokovic.



Anyone visiting this site for the first time today will be led to believe their claims that Ferrer is better than Berdych and Tsonga or a real top 8 player are some sort of April Fool's gimmick, but they're actually serious :lol:

-Del Potro might have gotten close to 7000 once in his life, but never again. Wanna try to predict for how much longer Ferrer can stay at the position of #4, let alone top 5? Much longer than Del Potro, I assure you.
#2 at Slams? Just a formality. Funny that you forgot to mention how his majesty Del Potro needed Nadal to call it quits from Wimbledon in order to be considered #2 at Slams, while you keep whining about Ferrer getting lucky about circumstances. I'm thinking Nadal would overcome Delpo's heroic run in Wimbledon 09, don't you?

-Doesn't matter who he beat. He played the players that the field could offer, and beat them. Needless to say that Del Potro and Tsonga (Not to mention Djokovic and Murray) played both Paris and Miami, yet Ferrer achieved great results. And if you already bring it up, who did Berdych and Tsonga beat to win THEIR masters? Ljubicic, Stepanek, Blake, Nalbandian...Not exactly unbeatable players. How about Del Potro? Who did he beat to win his Masters title?

-So what if Del Potro is younger than Ferrer? Age lies. Ferrer is currently at his peak, while Del Potro is years past his. Ferrer proved he is the better player time after time, and he will continue to win more titles than JMDP from this moment until both retire. Delpo will get to 20, I'm sure. But imagine how many Ferrer will have by that time.

-Yes, he will be able to reach Slam semis at 32 and 33 years old in a slow week with one hand on his junk. After all, he is not completely wasted after just one third of the season, Is he now? It's called fitness.

-They have a couple of big wins, but they have bigger losses. I know that consistency has no value in the eyes of Ferrer haters, but I wouldn't wanna be a fan of a player who can't produce quality for a long time. Take Del Potro for example: Reaches a Masters final for once in his life, and can't even drag himself through R2 in the next week. Pathetic.

Mark Lenders
04-01-2013, 08:24 PM
-Del Potro might have gotten close to 7000 once in his life, but never again. Wanna try to predict for how much longer Ferrer can stay at the position of #4, let alone top 5? Much longer than Del Potro, I assure you.
#2 at Slams? Just a formality. Funny that you forgot to mention how his majesty Del Potro needed Nadal to call it quits from Wimbledon in order to be considered #2 at Slams, while you keep whining about Ferrer getting lucky about circumstances. I'm thinking Nadal would overcome Delpo's heroic run in Wimbledon 09, don't you?

-Doesn't matter who he beat. He played the players that the field could offer, and beat them. Needless to say that Del Potro and Tsonga (Not to mention Djokovic and Murray) played both Paris and Miami, yet Ferrer achieved great results. And if you already bring it up, who did Berdych and Tsonga beat to win THEIR masters? Ljubicic, Stepanek, Blake, Nalbandian...Not exactly unbeatable players. How about Del Potro? Who did he beat to win his Masters title?

-So what if Del Potro is younger than Ferrer? Age lies. Ferrer is currently at his peak, while Del Potro is years past his. Ferrer proved he is the better player time after time, and he will continue to win more titles than JMDP from this moment until both retire. Delpo will get to 20, I'm sure. But imagine how many Ferrer will have by that time.

-Yes, he will be able to reach Slam semis at 32 and 33 years old in a slow week with one hand on his junk. After all, he is not completely wasted after just one third of the season, Is he now? It's called fitness.

-They have a couple of big wins, but they have bigger losses. I know that consistency has no value in the eyes of Ferrer haters, but I wouldn't wanna be a fan of a player who can't produce quality for a long time. Take Del Potro for example: Reaches a Masters final for once in his life, and can't even drag himself through R2 in the next week. Pathetic.

-Not much longer. Also, Nadal also skipped a Slam last year and Ferrer still couldn't do better than him at the Slams in his suppose 'peak' year.

-Tsonga beat Djokovic and Nalbandian to win Bercy 2008, are you saying Nalbandian playing well on an indoor court is an easy opponent, especially compared to Janowicz and Llodra, etc...? May I remind you that in that final Nalbandian was defending the title won an year earlier where he routined Federer and Nadal back to back? Del Potro might not have a Masters title, but beating Djokovic and Murray back to back is more impressive than anything Ferrer did at Masters level (or any level) anyway :shrug:

-Del Potro is past his peak, are you serious? He has been improving every year since he returned from surgery, he's on the upward, not downward. Not to mention he can coast to a top 8 ranking while playing a lot of tournaments through injury and still be the biggest thread to the top 4 by a distance - in the last 10 matches vs top 4 players, his record is 5-5, won the last 2 vs Federer and the last one vs Djokovic and Murray. You must think this is a really weak period of tennis when the de facto fifth best player is a player past his prime (and overrated to begin with) who can barely remain injury free for any sustained periods of time :lol:

Your Del Potro example is awful. He's one of the few active players to win four tournaments in a row ever and never had problems stringing quality tournaments - actually about half of his overall titles were stringed in back to back weeks and he won a five-set Slam final, which makes the myth that his fitness is a huge issue even more bizarre. He played since Dubai through left wrist pain forcing him to slice almost every BH (which didn't stop him from doing what Ferrer even at his peakiest of peaks 100% healthy can't do and beat Djokovic in a tournament SF and push Nadal in a big final), it was expected he'd not want to keep forcing it. Tsonga would be a better example, he can be awfully inconsistent, but still if you're Federer, Nadal or Djokovic, you'll still prefer to face Ferrer over him because he has the big game to beat them on every given day if he steps up, unlike Ferrer.

ProdigyEng
04-01-2013, 08:26 PM
Mods may as well change Federer in 2's name to Ferrer in never

Tag
04-01-2013, 08:33 PM
Think that's a fair assessment. Soderling a higher peak level but Ferrer more longevity.

Monocluosis strikes again. Took Ančić permanently out the game and now it seems to have taken Soderking out as well.

but swiss blamed this for AO loss in 2008?

after all he needed an excuse

to explain the drop in his

level of play

after producing 'genius' against

titans like roberdo

and fat slow roddick

the previous year in AO, no?

at least djokovic beat real champions for AO titles...

lucyfur
04-01-2013, 08:39 PM
-Del Potro might have gotten close to 7000 once in his life, but never again. Wanna try to predict for how much longer Ferrer can stay at the position of #4, let alone top 5? Much longer than Del Potro, I assure you.
#2 at Slams? Just a formality. Funny that you forgot to mention how his majesty Del Potro needed Nadal to call it quits from Wimbledon in order to be considered #2 at Slams, while you keep whining about Ferrer getting lucky about circumstances. I'm thinking Nadal would overcome Delpo's heroic run in Wimbledon 09, don't you?

-Doesn't matter who he beat. He played the players that the field could offer, and beat them. Needless to say that Del Potro and Tsonga (Not to mention Djokovic and Murray) played both Paris and Miami, yet Ferrer achieved great results. And if you already bring it up, who did Berdych and Tsonga beat to win THEIR masters? Ljubicic, Stepanek, Blake, Nalbandian...Not exactly unbeatable players. How about Del Potro? Who did he beat to win his Masters title?

-So what if Del Potro is younger than Ferrer? Age lies. Ferrer is currently at his peak, while Del Potro is years past his. Ferrer proved he is the better player time after time, and he will continue to win more titles than JMDP from this moment until both retire. Delpo will get to 20, I'm sure. But imagine how many Ferrer will have by that time.

-Yes, he will be able to reach Slam semis at 32 and 33 years old in a slow week with one hand on his junk. After all, he is not completely wasted after just one third of the season, Is he now? It's called fitness.

-They have a couple of big wins, but they have bigger losses. I know that consistency has no value in the eyes of Ferrer haters, but I wouldn't wanna be a fan of a player who can't produce quality for a long time. Take Del Potro for example: Reaches a Masters final for once in his life, and can't even drag himself through R2 in the next week. Pathetic.

:facepalm:

Kyle_Johansen
04-02-2013, 12:05 AM
Ferrer is not better than Berdych, Delpo, and Tsonga and shouldn't be higher ranked. The only reason he is is because the tour values endurance and fitness in today's games, both attributes David has in spades.

BauerAlmeida
04-02-2013, 12:59 AM
No such thing was proved in this thread. The only people who blindly agree with such an absurd statement are tards like yourself, who apparently lack any logic or common sense whatsoever.
Never seen anything more needy than Ferrer-haters desperately hanging on to the only thing they have got left: The fact that he hasn't reached a Slam final.
7000 ranking points, 2 finals in the last 3 masters events, a lot of Slam semis (and this number will probably double or triple itself in the next few years), countless career titles, and overwhelming dominance in H2H are just a small taste of everything that Ferrer owns and that Del Potro and the rest of the ballbashers will not come close to.
Besides, at least Del Potro has something to show for his career. But bringing clowns like Berdych and Tsonga into that equation? Any sane tennis fan who might have read claims that they are even remotely as good as Ferrer in this thread, would immediately consider it an April's fool joke, and rightfully so. When compared to Ferrer, Berdych and Tsonga might as well be considered junior league players.

I will not even bring JDMP to the discussion given that he has a slam and an olympic medal despite being a lot younger than the rest of them and had a serious injury.

Tsonga has only one slam semi less than Ferrer and one less QF. The difference in titles is irrelevant since most of them are 250s. Both have 1 M1000, but Tsonga had to beat Nalbandian to win it, not Llodra and Janowicz. And Tsonga has a grand slam final, you call that the "desperately hanging on to the only thing they have got left". But what does Ferrer have on him? One more GS quarter or semi when Tsonga is a few years younger. Tsonga beat every top 4 at the slams, including Federer at Wimbledon and Djokovic at the AO.

And Berdych is pretty much the same case. Not to mention these conditions are far more beneficial to Ferrer than to Tsonga and Berdych and the latter still have a career a bit superior and are younger.

delboy
04-02-2013, 02:04 AM
Ferrer is not better than Berdych, Delpo, and Tsonga and shouldn't be higher ranked. The only reason he is is because the tour values endurance and fitness in today's games, both attributes David has in spades.

The ranking is what it is. and he has a winning h2h against all those guys. he might vulture and lack pure talent but if these guys you listed aint good enough to beat him then he deserves his ranking.

Mark Lenders
04-02-2013, 02:16 AM
Ferrer is not better than Berdych, Delpo, and Tsonga and shouldn't be higher ranked. The only reason he is is because the tour values endurance and fitness in today's games, both attributes David has in spades.

Great post.

I will not even bring JDMP to the discussion given that he has a slam and an olympic medal despite being a lot younger than the rest of them and had a serious injury.

Tsonga has only one slam semi less than Ferrer and one less QF. The difference in titles is irrelevant since most of them are 250s. Both have 1 M1000, but Tsonga had to beat Nalbandian to win it, not Llodra and Janowicz. And Tsonga has a grand slam final, you call that the "desperately hanging on to the only thing they have got left". But what does Ferrer have on him? One more GS quarter or semi when Tsonga is a few years younger. Tsonga beat every top 4 at the slams, including Federer at Wimbledon and Djokovic at the AO.

And Berdych is pretty much the same case. Not to mention these conditions are far more beneficial to Ferrer than to Tsonga and Berdych and the latter still have a career a bit superior and are younger.

Great post.

The ranking is what it is. and he has a winning h2h against all those guys. he might vulture and lack pure talent but if these guys you listed aint good enough to beat him then he deserves his ranking.

Awful post. He does not deserve anything if he can't step up in big matches, or rather doesn't have the ability or mental strength to do so. That's why he's not part of this real top 8. Soderling, not Ferrer, is the real 8th member of the top 8.

n8
04-02-2013, 02:29 AM
The goal of Lenders' OP is more about the purposeful absence of Ferrer than the stats. Lenders' 'sharp' trolling. :worship:

I am worried about his motivation and sanity when Ferrer retires. :sad:

BackhandDTL
04-02-2013, 02:35 AM
The goal of Lenders' OP is more about the purposeful absence of Ferrer than the stats. Lenders' 'sharp' trolling. :worship:

I am worried about his motivation and sanity when Ferrer retires. :sad:

Don't be. heya has a much worse obsession with Roddick and it really seems to have mellowed out upon his retirement, right!? ........Right?

Mark Lenders
04-02-2013, 02:38 AM
The goal of Lenders' OP is more about the purposeful absence of Ferrer than the stats. Lenders' 'sharp' trolling. :worship:

I am worried about his motivation and sanity when Ferrer retires. :sad:

No need to worry, according to 'Federer in 2' Ferrer is just entering his prime while Del Potro is past his, so at least another decade of Ferrer should be secure.

And no, my OP is a legit stat compilation about the real top 8 :shrug:

n8
04-02-2013, 02:50 AM
No need to worry, according to 'Federer in 2' Ferrer is just entering his prime while Del Potro is past his, so at least another decade of Ferrer should be secure.

And no, my OP is a legit stat compilation about the real top 8 :shrug:

From the minute I read the opening sentence of your OP I knew that Ferrer would be discussed more than the stats and I'm sure you thought the same.

Mark Lenders
04-02-2013, 03:08 AM
From the minute I read the opening sentence of your OP I knew that Ferrer would be discussed more than the stats and I'm sure you thought the same.

I kind of did, but that's not a slight on my very relevant OP, but on the rabid Ferrertards who feel the need to bring up his name in unrelated threads (like threads about real top 8 players) - it certainly wasn't I who introduced that subject ;)

heya
04-02-2013, 08:36 AM
Don't be. heya has a much worse obsession with Roddick and it really seems to have mellowed out upon his retirement, right!? ........Right?

Who's worse? A paranoid moderator or this young clown's "comment"?
Mmk, I'll take the bait.

Legitimate gripes against Roddick're the same as hatred of Ferrer, hmm?

No one shall hurt Roddick's reputation; Federer will look bad in his 2003-4 era. Too bad it was so weak after 2004, no one remembered Roddick

jcempire
04-02-2013, 01:26 PM
where is Ferrer :p his stats must be frightening.

I go with you

Where is Ferrer

Pirata.
04-02-2013, 02:13 PM
Ferrer is not better than Berdych, Delpo, and Tsonga and shouldn't be higher ranked. The only reason he is is because the tour values endurance and fitness in today's games, both attributes David has in spades.

Considering his H2H with Delpo, Ferrer is clearly the better player.

ETA: heya :worship:

Mark Lenders
04-02-2013, 03:06 PM
Considering his H2H with Delpo, Ferrer is clearly the better player.

ETA: heya :worship:

I hope the people making this assertion, mostly Federer fans, admit by the same token that Nadal, and not Federer, is the greatest player of the millennium so far since his H2H stats against relevant players (and pretty much everyone) are unrivaled, including 19-10 over Federer.

Abel
04-02-2013, 03:35 PM
Considering his H2H with Delpo, Ferrer is clearly the better player.


http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6cbokjymk1qfvcb1o1_500.gif

Chris Kuerten
04-02-2013, 03:38 PM
I hope the people making this assertion, mostly Federer fans, admit by the same token that Nadal, and not Federer, is the greatest player of the millennium so far since his H2H stats against relevant players (and pretty much everyone) are unrivaled, including 19-10 over Federer.It would be foolish to deny that. Federer won most of his slams in a period where his main competitors were worse than Ferrer is now.

Mark Lenders
04-02-2013, 03:49 PM
It would be foolish to deny that. Federer won most of his slams in a period where his main competitors were worse than Ferrer is now.

Wait, you think Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, etc... in their prime were worse than Ferrer is now :lol:?

barbadosan
04-02-2013, 03:51 PM
It would be foolish to deny that. Federer won most of his slams in a period where his main competitors were worse than Ferrer is now.

So you posit that 999 of the 1000 ATP players in Federer's domination period had nose-dived into total weakness and that is why he dominated. The alternative of course, is that one man was so much better than the rest of a capable field of atheletes - a field that had hitherto through the ages of tennis been considered to be capable. But according to you, suddenly, at this one period in time, 999 players had taken leave of their talents to allow one man to shine.

I commend to you the theory of Occam's razor - that where there are two conflicting theories, the more likely one is the more obvious one - in this case, 999 players suddenly dropping their levels so dramatically is less likely than one man being so much more gifted.

Otherwise, you're next going to be claiming that Einstein was no genius, but a mediocre brain who only happened to have developed so many theories and discovered so many priniciples because the whole pantheon of scientists who lived at the same time as he did, were so "weak"

Federer in 2
04-02-2013, 03:52 PM
Trollolololololol, Lenders himself said Federer was the GOAT. But hey, I guess that's only true when it helps his arguments :lol:

Mark Lenders
04-02-2013, 03:55 PM
Trollolololololol, Lenders himself said Federer was the GOAT. But hey, I guess that's only true when it helps his arguments :lol:

Did you even read the posts? Pirata said that 'Ferrer's H2H vs Del Potro proves that he is the better player', to which I responded that by the same logic we have to consider Nadal the greatest player of the XXI century due to his dominant H2Hs against every relevant player, especially Federer.

In no way do I agree with this logic at all: I think Del Potro is better than Ferrer and that Federer is the greatest player I saw in my lifetime. Basically it helps my arguments that Federer is the GOAT here ;)

rocketassist
04-02-2013, 03:57 PM
It would be foolish to deny that. Federer won most of his slams in a period where his main competitors were worse than Ferrer is now.

You think peak Roddick and Hewitt are worse than the current Ferrer? :rolls:

Chris Kuerten
04-02-2013, 03:59 PM
Wait, you think Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, etc... in their prime were worse than Ferrer is now :lol:?Would've been great if they reached that peak for a sustained period of time between 2003 and 2007, which isn't the case :shrug:

Roddick and Hewitt are hugely overrated as serious competitors anyway and were lucky to snatch up some slams when tennis was at its all-time low :wavey:

Mark Lenders
04-02-2013, 04:04 PM
Would've been great if they reached that peak for a sustained period of time between 2003 and 2007, which isn't the case :shrug:

Roddick and Hewitt are hugely overrated as serious competitors anyway and were lucky to snatch up some slams when tennis was at its all-time low :wavey:

That might be the case, but at their peak they could obviously match peak Federer and even beat him like Safin did at AO 2005. How many times do you think 'peak Ferrer' would have even taken Federer to 5 sets if he played vs him in all 20 Slams from 2003 to 2007? My guess is 0.

As for Roddick and Hewitt, you can't be serious, they were shut down by Federer everywhere but that's it, still put up a much greater fight than 'peak' Ferrer puts against a far past their prime Federer. Against anyone apart from Federer, they can hold his own and win.

Chris Kuerten
04-02-2013, 04:06 PM
That might be the case, but at their peak they could obviously match peak Federer and even beat him like Safin did at AO 2005. How many times do you think 'peak Ferrer' would have even taken Federer to 5 sets if he played vs him in all 20 Slams from 2003 to 2007? My guess is 0.

As for Roddick and Hewitt, you can't be serious, they were shut down by Federer everywhere but that's it, still put up a much greater fight than 'peak' Ferrer puts against a far past their prime Federer. Against anyone apart from Federer, they can hold his own and win.Put peak Hewitt and Roddick in this era and they would be 'Ferrered' by the top 4 just as bad.

BroTree123
04-02-2013, 04:11 PM
Put peak Hewitt and Roddick in this era and they would be 'Ferrered' by the top 4 just as bad.

Lolwut..

Mark Lenders
04-02-2013, 04:11 PM
Put peak Hewitt and Roddick in this era and they would be 'Ferrered' by the top 4 just as bad.

The same Hewitt who can still take sets off Djokovic and even push him to the limits (Olympics) millions of surgeries later? You're greatly underestimating those players, only prime Federer made them look 'weak', no one else.

Moozza
04-02-2013, 04:17 PM
I like Roddick but peak Ferrer would own him.

rocketassist
04-02-2013, 04:18 PM
I like Roddick but peak Ferrer would own him.

Only on clay.

Mark Lenders
04-02-2013, 04:23 PM
I always knew Ferrer was the most overrated player on MTF, but this 'peak Ferrer > peak Roddick' nonsense takes the cake definitely :facepalm:

Moozza
04-02-2013, 04:24 PM
Only on clay.

And slow hard.

Chirag
04-02-2013, 04:25 PM
Lenders making a thread just to diss at Ferrer :lol:

But peak Roddick was a great player and many players are under rating him . He had a deadly forehand and a fantastic serve .He would easily beat Ferrer on every surface bar clay . He lost his way when he sacked brad in 2004

Chris Kuerten
04-02-2013, 04:36 PM
The same Hewitt who can still take sets off Djokovic and even push him to the limits (Olympics) millions of surgeries later? You're greatly underestimating those players, only prime Federer made them look 'weak', no one else.That's like saying Ferrer is a better HC player than Nadal because he's 2-0 against him in slams. Grass is also Djokovic's worst surface and Hewitt's best, one match doesn't say anything.

heya
04-02-2013, 09:55 PM
So you posit that 999 of the 1000 ATP players in Federer's domination period had nose-dived into total weakness and that is why he dominated. The alternative of course, is that one man was so much better than the rest of a capable field of atheletes - a field that had hitherto through the ages of tennis been considered to be capable.
I commend to you the theory of Occam's razor - that where there are two conflicting theories, the more likely one is the more obvious one - in this case, 999 players suddenly dropping their levels so dramatically is less likely than one man being so much more gifted.

Otherwise, you're next going to be claiming that Einstein was no genius, but a mediocre brain who only happened to have developed so many theories and discovered so many priniciples because the whole pantheon of scientists who lived at the same time as he did, were so "weak"

What a genius, this Fed.
Brad Gilbert & the McEnroes told
Roddick that the weak era field was not good enough to lose any talent. Even they redeemed themselves with this observation.
Please share with us how great Roddick was in 45 failed Slam efforts and embarrassing Olympics/Davis Cup joke runs.
He was busy looking for an 18-year-old trophy girlfriend and couldn't spend his millions on Taco Bell beef burritos & sushi to later vomit out in his matches, in the "memorable athletic 2002-2006 years".

Kyle_Johansen
04-02-2013, 10:43 PM
Put peak Hewitt and Roddick in this era and they would be 'Ferrered' by the top 4 just as bad.

That is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. Roddick had the best serve in the world and a huge forehand and he'd be able to hang with the top 4. I mean, he did just three years ago when he beat Nadal and won Miami (and he was very close to beating him at the WTF later that year). Hewitt was the quickest guy on tour and was a much better player than Ferrer is now.

Topspindoctor
04-02-2013, 10:48 PM
That is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. Roddick had the best serve in the world and a huge forehand and he'd be able to hang with the top 4. I mean, he did just three years ago when he beat Nadal and won Miami (and he was very close to beating him at the WTF later that year). Hewitt was the quickest guy on tour and was a much better player than Ferrer is now.

Roddick was a mug. End of story. Just have a look at how many times he dropped soap when facing Nose. It was like a scene from a prison shower when he faced him :tape:

Kyle_Johansen
04-02-2013, 10:50 PM
Roddick was a mug. End of story. Just have a look at how many times he dropped soap when facing Nose. It was like a scene from a prison shower when he faced him :tape:

You don't win 30+ titles and a title for what, 10 straight years, if you are a mug. And that term is stupid anyways. He struggled with Fed because it was a bad matchup for him. But you already know that, of course.

Moozza
04-02-2013, 11:00 PM
Ferrer has many wins over peak Roddick and leads the head to head 7-4. I know the haters won't like it but the truth is peak Ferrer>peak Roddick. The stats don't lie.

Kyle_Johansen
04-02-2013, 11:06 PM
Ferrer has many wins over peak Roddick and leads the head to head 7-4. I know the haters won't like it but the truth is peak Ferrer>peak Roddick. The stats don't lie.

1 Slam to 0 Slams. 5 Slam finals to 0 Slam finals. World #1, 5 Masters to 1, and 9 finals to 2.

Chris Kuerten
04-02-2013, 11:07 PM
Best serve in the world and huge forehand, but still has an embarrassing record against Federer, LOL! You have bad match-ups and you have Roddick taking it to a whole new level.

Moozza
04-02-2013, 11:10 PM
1 Slam to 0 Slams. 5 Slam finals to 0 Slam finals. World #1, 5 Masters to 1, and 9 finals to 2.

Didn't say he never had the better career. This is about who wins in peak Ferrer Vs peak Roddick.

Kyle_Johansen
04-02-2013, 11:14 PM
Best serve in the world and huge forehand, but still has an embarrassing record against Federer, LOL! You have bad match-ups and you have Roddick taking it to a whole new level.

It's not like he was blasted off the court all the time. There were some very competitive matches in there - 2001 Basel, 2003 Canada, 2006 USO, 2006 TMC, 2007 USO, 2008 and 2009 Miami, 2009 Wimby of course, 2009 Madrid, and then 2012 Miami. Andy was the best match-up for Federer's game and he had the variety that Roddick couldn't deal with. Not like he was the only one to struggle with the superiority of Federer's game though.

Kyle_Johansen
04-02-2013, 11:15 PM
Didn't say he never had the better career. This is about who wins in peak Ferrer Vs peak Roddick.

#1. Who cares?

#2. Roddick.

Chris Kuerten
04-02-2013, 11:21 PM
Even Ferrer had competitive matches with Federer and that's a far worse match-up.

rocketassist
04-02-2013, 11:24 PM
Even Ferrer had competitive matches with Federer and that's a far worse match-up.

Roddick 3 wins, Ferrer 0 wins.

heya
04-02-2013, 11:25 PM
Do you know the meaning of
quality matches?

Hewitt won Halle against Federer, just like Haas did.
If it weren't for painful REAL injuries instead of cowardice, Hewitt & Haas would own at least a Slam the last 4 years.

Roddick, in contrast, was 20 pounds overweight, but he chose to be a fake hero. He was scared of disappointing his mommy by admitting he sucked in more ways than one; he called his supporters a bunch of "bad apples". LOLOL

He blamed Federer for failing due to his own bad genetics & "slow mind".

Winner doesn't stay for years to collect money & brag about the 2003 US Open. Winners go away when they realize they're useless, deceitful, sneaky, conniving, abusive, media-hogging, pitifully confused chokers at age 21.
If he loves "less privileged" children, he'd start a charity for
mentally ill, greedy media whores who have phoney parents & fanboys.

Moozza
04-02-2013, 11:25 PM
#1. Who cares?

#2. Roddick.

#1. Don't know. You tell me.

#2. No. Try again.

Kyle_Johansen
04-02-2013, 11:28 PM
If Ferrer was better than Roddick, the results would show it.

Chris Kuerten
04-02-2013, 11:40 PM
Ferrer peaked in the Spartan era. Roddick won a slam and Masters by beating Ferrero, Fish, Coria and Berdych on hardcourt, while failing to convert against Canas and Ljubicic :facepalm:

Unbeatable opponents for Ferrer? No, he would be a favorite against all of them.

Moozza
04-02-2013, 11:44 PM
If Ferrer was born a few years earlier he'd have definitely won an RG imo.

heya
04-02-2013, 11:46 PM
Did Ferrer lose to all top 10 players at Davis Cup ties?
Did Ferrer wish he had retired in 2007?
Did Jimmy Connors say "Ferrer lost passion for tennis. You can't improve an old dog"?
Did Ferrer go on court with his opponent and then quit before the match in Cincinnati?
Did Ferrer try to pick up a quick $100000 paycheck from an illegal charity event?

Chris Kuerten
04-02-2013, 11:50 PM
If Ferrer was born at the same time as Roddick he'd have definitely won an RG imo.Born = peaked, they're born in the same year ;)

But yes, it's unfortunate, he would've been a serious contender at the other Slams too in that pre-Federer transitional era.

Moozza
04-02-2013, 11:56 PM
Born = peaked, they're born in the same year ;)

But yes, it's unfortunate, he would've been a serious contender at the other Slams too in that pre-Federer transitional era.

Forgot Roddick was so young. Anyway, yeah what I meant was if Ferrer peaked earlier(i.e. before Nadal) he would have won RG.

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 12:00 AM
Best serve in the world and huge forehand, but still has an embarrassing record against Federer, LOL! You have bad match-ups and you have Roddick taking it to a whole new level.

Pretty funny stuff coming from a Ferrer fan considering Vulture took a grand total of 3 sets in 14 matches against Federer (and forced like 3 or 4 tiebreaks overall) in what is surely the most loopsides matchup between top 5 players ever.

And :superlol: at the now edited post about how Ferrer would win a Slam if he had been born in the same year as Roddick... which he was :spit:

rocketassist
04-03-2013, 12:03 AM
I'd love to know which slams Ferrer would win if his current form competed in the early 2000s cause I really can't see one. Maybe AO 2002 given how many guys mugged out, and Safin's awful final display but besides that?

Moozza
04-03-2013, 12:05 AM
I'd love to know which slams Ferrer would win if his current form competed in the early 2000s cause I really can't see one. Maybe AO 2002 given how many guys mugged out, and Safin's awful final display but besides that?

RG and probably AO.

rocketassist
04-03-2013, 12:06 AM
RG and probably AO.

You think he's beating Agassi in 2000, 2001 or 2003 or Federer in 2004 or Guga in 2000 and 2001? Don't think so pal.

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 12:08 AM
I'd love to know which slams Ferrer would win if his current form competed in the early 2000s cause I really can't see one. Maybe AO 2002 given how many guys mugged out, and Safin's awful final display but besides that?

Lol what? Johansson >>> Ferrer.

He could have won the Acapulco Slam or something but that's all. Ferrer is the most overrated player in men's tennis.

Moozza
04-03-2013, 12:10 AM
You think he's beating Agassi in 2000, 2001 or 2003 or Federer in 2004 or Guga in 2000 and 2001? Don't think so pal.

We were talking 2002.

I think he would have won 2 slams that year.

Newcomer
04-03-2013, 12:13 AM
Ferrer always at "peak".
Can't see big difference at his level during AO s\f or miami f.
His peak is when his opponent playing like shit.

rocketassist
04-03-2013, 12:15 AM
We were talking 2002.

I think he would have won 2 slams that year.

I mentioned the AO 2002 as opening up but RG? Very strong clay court field full of influential dirtballers- his lack of a money shot would be exposed by at least one of the likes of Corretja, Costa, Ferrero, Kuerten, Gaudio, Coria, Moya etc.

I don't hate Ferrer like Lenders does but people overrate him as much as underrate him, the guy has more than maximised his talents.

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 12:16 AM
Ferrer always at "peak".
Can't see big difference at his level during AO s\f or miami f.
His peak is when his opponent playing like shit.

Good that some people are starting to get this. Ferrer is a robot, he always does the same things, the same patterns with the same effectiveness, never any variation. What people perceive as his 'level' is actually fully dependent on his opponent. He has no say in the outcome of matches.

Newcomer
04-03-2013, 12:18 AM
We were talking 2002.

I think he would have won 2 slams that year.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTyz2iZhHYRYTi_jT9eQT3VKgPw7bpu9 _-LMC_Th-ieeddOblG1JA

ProdigyEng
04-03-2013, 12:22 AM
I always knew Ferrer was the most overrated player on MTF, but this 'peak Ferrer > peak Roddick' nonsense takes the cake definitely :facepalm:

Your Ferrer obsession kinda takes the cake as well.

One would think Ferrer didn't sign an autograph for you at Estoril or something.

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 12:26 AM
Your Ferrer obsession kinda takes the cake as well.

One would think Ferrer didn't sign an autograph for you at Estoril or something.

I'm the victim here. I make a perfectly legitimate thread about the real top 8 and stats of Slam matches between said real top 8, but Ferrertards feel the need to spam and derail the discussion with off topic nonsense, Ferrer this, Ferrer that. If it was up to me, his name wouldn't even have been mentioned in this thread.

ProdigyEng
04-03-2013, 12:27 AM
I'm the victim here. I make a perfectly legitimate thread about the real top 8 and stats of Slam matches between said real top 8, but Ferrertards feel the need to spam and derail the discussion with off topic nonsense, Ferrer this, Ferrer that. If it was up to me, his name wouldn't even have been mentioned in this thread.

I'm not a Ferrer tard, but even I am getting annoyed with your obsession with Ferrer right now.

It's not healthy Lenders, and I am actually quite worried about your obsession with Ferrer. I wonder, do you think about Ferrer even during sex?

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 12:35 AM
I'm not a Ferrer tard, but even I am getting annoyed with your obsession with Ferrer right now.

It's not healthy Lenders, and I am actually quite worried about your obsession with Ferrer. I wonder, do you think about Ferrer even during sex?

There's no obsession, it wasn't I who turned this thread into a thread about Ferrer. I'd be more than happy to get back to the original discussion.

ProdigyEng
04-03-2013, 12:39 AM
There's no obsession, it wasn't I who turned this thread into a thread about Ferrer. I'd be more than happy to get back to the original discussion.

:spit:

Murray Mint
04-03-2013, 01:05 AM
Speaking of sex, I bet Ferrer is great in the sack. He could grind away all night.

BackhandDTL
04-03-2013, 01:09 AM
This thread has turned into a collection of some of the dumbest thoughts ever expressed on MTF.

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 01:10 AM
Speaking of sex, I bet Ferrer is great in the sack. He could grind away all night.

Soderling got his wife pregnant while he was dealing with mono (which affects people's overall energy levels big time), so even on those grounds he deserves to be considered the 8th member of the real top 8.

vpmrosulate
04-03-2013, 01:25 AM
Since the main topic is still apparently Ferrer, I'd make this analogy:

When I was younger, I enjoyed a certain math competition, of which one component was a 30-problem round starting with very easy questions and ending with very hard ones. I personally loved the challenge of the final problems, so I sped (maybe too carelessly) through the earlier ones and tried to spend no more than 1 minute on each of them, because that way I'd save enough time to think about the tricky final ones and maybe get them right. This was my strategy because I was too lazy to actually practice to become a top contestant who could work through earlier problems with speed and accuracy and still get to think about the hard problems.

Ferrer would be the type of contestant who knew how to do the earlier problems, and only the earlier problems, and spent all his time practicing those, because that's where his ceiling was. So he would end up getting all of the first 20-25 right, out of 30, leaving no time, energy, or even mental preparedness for the hard problems at the end. But someone like him would often get a higher score than someone like me, because I wasn't as focused on the easy points. I could have gotten those 20-25 if I'd been using his strategy, but I also knew I could get the last 5 if I tried, so I did, whereas he might get close if he tried, but wouldn't ultimately succeed anyway, so the smarter strategy for him would be to perfect his mastery of the easy questions. That's not to slight him too much, since average untalented contestants wouldn't be able to get more than 10-15 right, and he was consistently and aptly beating them by wide margins.

What makes this analogy even more appropriate is that there is also seeding at the final stage, the championships, so a Ferrer-like contestant would score higher on this round than myself and thereby get a higher seed, which means better draws at slams, or for us, at the one-on-one speed round that determines final ranking for the top 10, so he gets to face lower-seeded people first in that round, and I might have to fight tooth and nail with a top seed from the start--although I'd also have the potential to upset them, and have done so. Ferrer, on the other hand, at the final parts of the speed round, when he faces the real top seeds, the ones who got 1-25 as well as the last 5 questions all correct, his true level gets exposed, and he isn't able to upset them.

Murray Mint
04-03-2013, 01:27 AM
Soderling got his wife pregnant while he was dealing with mono (which affects people's overall energy levels big time), so even on those grounds he deserves to be considered the 8th member of the real top 8.
:lol: :yeah:

mark73
04-03-2013, 01:44 AM
Ferrer is not even a real top 8 player as proved beyond reasonable doubt in this thread, let alone top 5.

How high would you rank ferrer? 150th in the world? Would you place him in the top 10,000 or is that too high?

SliceAce
04-03-2013, 03:32 AM
Does anyone think Mooza actually watched the period of tennis before Mugray? Does anyone think he/she watches it even now beyond whatever Wimbledon match is on the BBC? Greatest thing about Federer is the Swiss aren't very nationalistic, so the whole globe appreciated his game. Much nicer than all the Spaniards who latched onto Nadull, the Serbian nationalists who suddenly cared about tennis in 2011, and now the wave of British and especially Scots who suddenly know all about tennis (until Mugray retires).

Anyway, Ferrer is a nice guy but he's a very bad player, anyone who thinks he's comparable to Roddick is a clown and I don't even like Roddick.

vpmrosulate
04-03-2013, 03:48 AM
Does anyone think Mooza actually watched the period of tennis before Mugray? Does anyone think he/she watches it even now beyond whatever Wimbledon match is on the BBC? Greatest thing about Federer is the Swiss aren't very nationalistic, so the whole globe appreciated his game. Much nicer than all the Spaniards who latched onto Nadull, the Serbian nationalists who suddenly cared about tennis in 2011, and now the wave of British and especially Scots who suddenly know all about tennis (until Mugray retires).

Anyway, Ferrer is a nice guy but he's a very bad player, anyone who thinks he's comparable to Roddick is a clown and I don't even like Roddick.

The Chinese who turned Li Na into the 2nd highest earning WTA player after Sharapova. :rolleyes: Anyway, I don't know this Mooza very well obviously but one could easily get into tennis because of nationalism but then come to appreciate earlier periods or other current players, though I guess the bias may stick regardless.

My point being that sometimes it's not about what one has watched, but rather the attitude with which one watches things, which is either mutable or, well, not. I got into tennis because my favorite NBA player is friends with Nadal and Ferrer and the rest of the armada, but none of my current favorites are from Spain. Granted, I'm not Spanish, but change does happen given a certain mindset, while other mindsets remain rock solid no matter what kinds of exposure there is. I don't consider my appreciation of tennis any less valid than someone who didn't start off favoring Spain as much as I did. And anyway, I used to play a bit...

BauerAlmeida
04-03-2013, 03:51 AM
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTyz2iZhHYRYTi_jT9eQT3VKgPw7bpu9 _-LMC_Th-ieeddOblG1JA

Everyone is trying to answer that question. For his sake I hope he is just a bad troll.

Topspindoctor
04-03-2013, 03:51 AM
I'm not a Ferrer tard, but even I am getting annoyed with your obsession with Ferrer right now.

It's not healthy Lenders, and I am actually quite worried about your obsession with Ferrer. I wonder, do you think about Ferrer even during sex?

Implying that Lenders actually has sex :facepalm:













:superlol:

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 04:09 AM
How high would you rank ferrer? 150th in the world? Would you place him in the top 10,000 or is that too high?

I'm not biased, I fully recognize Ferrer might have a good case for being the real #9.

Implying that Lenders actually has sex :facepalm:

:superlol:

He was obviously referring to my hand + the occasional cheap hooker whenever I manage to gather enough money from begging on the streets, thought that was obvious.

vpmrosulate
04-03-2013, 04:16 AM
I'm not biased, I fully recognize Ferrer might have a good case for being the real #9.

Just curious, two students: Regardless of whatever gimmicks each one pulls (i.e. my post earlier about math contests) one gets an 85 on every single test, another gets 100 on many of them but just barely passes the rest and gets an average of, say, 80. The latter is more intelligent, sure, but does he deserve a higher class rank?

TennisPhan1
04-03-2013, 05:11 AM
Just curious, two students: Regardless of whatever gimmicks each one pulls (i.e. my post earlier about math contests) one gets an 85 on every single test, another gets 100 on many of them but just barely passes the rest and gets an average of, say, 80. The latter is more intelligent, sure, but does he deserve a higher class rank?

Consistency vs peak performances. Consistency is favored i think.

Ferrer bores the hell out of me. I can@t even watch him for an entire set (unless its fed who is toying with him), but i believe he deserves more credit than lenders is giving him. I realized this last year when he surprised me and beat del po, tsonga murray and berdych at slams. Its not his fault that the other 3 ranked lower than him cannot be as consistent as he is. That requires skills too. The argument that ferrer is a robot is bs. What is so special about berdych or del pos game? They are just as repetitive as he is. Tsonga has more variety than them, but least consistency so he is the worst of their group.

Lenders if we focused on peak abilty, ferrer would barely make top 30, but that logic is stupid. We all know peak fed moments in one match surpass all other peaks, but he cant sustain that level long enough to beat nadal or djokovic most of the time. That is why the other 2 are currently ranked higher and plain and simple BETTER than him now. Same goes for ferrer situation.

Join reality with us. U can hate ferrers boring talentless game all u want but it wont change reality. Kiss

vpmrosulate
04-03-2013, 05:30 AM
Consistency vs peak performances. Consistency is favored i think.

Ferrer bores the hell out of me. I can@t even watch him for an entire set (unless its fed who is toying with him), but i believe he deserves more credit than lenders is giving him. I realized this last year when he surprised me and beat del po, tsonga murray and berdych at slams. Its not his fault that the other 3 ranked lower than him cannot be as consistent as he is. That requires skills too. The argument that ferrer is a robot is bs. What is so special about berdych or del pos game? They are just as repetitive as he is. Tsonga has more variety than them, but least consistency so he is the worst of their group.

Lenders if we focused on peak abilty, ferrer would barely make top 30, but that logic is stupid. We all know peak fed moments in one match surpass all other peaks, but he cant sustain that level long enough to beat nadal or djokovic most of the time. That is why the other 2 are currently ranked higher and plain and simple BETTER than him now. Same goes for ferrer situation.

Join reality with us. U can hate ferrers boring talentless game all u want but it wont change reality. Kiss

Mostly agree, but sometimes I think it's the consistency that might limit one's peak. Obviously not true in every case, but as I was saying earlier, Ferrer might be the Energizer bunny, but even he doesn't have endless energy, and the time he spends playing 1) habitually against weaker fields, and 2) weeks and weeks in a row, might have influenced his reaction to top players. Pure conjecture, of course. In general I do think his absolute ceiling wouldn't be enough to beat the top players anyway, but had he scheduled differently he might have been slightly less of a breeze for top 4.

Also, since I like JMDP I'll say he's at least never prone to being called "weaponless," and nor is he a one-dimensional ballbasher. For example, he's been pushing a lot lately (hey, it's a dimension) and occasionally serves well and has developed a good slice. I've also seen some lovely angles from him (could be imagining that, just as I've been imagining all his drop shots to be horrible failures). So I think there are changes toward variety, and if nothing else, it's just interesting to observe him returning to good form, not quite the same player he used to be, but almost as good, maybe. :confused: Why am I so bad at complimenting my favorites?

BroTree123
04-03-2013, 05:35 AM
Implying that Lenders actually has sex :facepalm:













:superlol:

:haha: Good one.

TennisPhan1
04-03-2013, 06:36 AM
Mostly agree, but sometimes I think it's the consistency that might limit one's peak. Obviously not true in every case, but as I was saying earlier, Ferrer might be the Energizer bunny, but even he doesn't have endless energy, and the time he spends playing 1) habitually against weaker fields, and 2) weeks and weeks in a row, might have influenced his reaction to top players. Pure conjecture, of course. In general I do think his absolute ceiling wouldn't be enough to beat the top players anyway, but had he scheduled differently he might have been slightly less of a breeze for top 4.

Also, since I like JMDP I'll say he's at least never prone to being called "weaponless," and nor is he a one-dimensional ballbasher. For example, he's been pushing a lot lately (hey, it's a dimension) and occasionally serves well and has developed a good slice. I've also seen some lovely angles from him (could be imagining that, just as I've been imagining all his drop shots to be horrible failures). So I think there are changes toward variety, and if nothing else, it's just interesting to observe him returning to good form, not quite the same player he used to be, but almost as good, maybe. :confused: Why am I so bad at complimenting my favorites?

I really enjoyed JMDP's performance at IW. Even against Nadal (until he ran out of gas), the forehand was on fire! He has a very strong game overall and hope to see him repeat this level at slams. Ferrer does have weapons, he goes for the lines too. People just hate his grinding style. I find Nadal very boring for the same reason too.

I'm a fan of beautiful tennis and grinders play the opposite of that. JMDP is a mix. I like when players are agressive, powerful and try to finish the point ASAP. That's why my favs are Fed and Serena.

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 08:02 AM
Just curious, two students: Regardless of whatever gimmicks each one pulls (i.e. my post earlier about math contests) one gets an 85 on every single test, another gets 100 on many of them but just barely passes the rest and gets an average of, say, 80. The latter is more intelligent, sure, but does he deserve a higher class rank?

Yes, he does. He's clearly the brighter and more insightful student of the two.

Mostly agree, but sometimes I think it's the consistency that might limit one's peak. Obviously not true in every case, but as I was saying earlier, Ferrer might be the Energizer bunny, but even he doesn't have endless energy, and the time he spends playing 1) habitually against weaker fields, and 2) weeks and weeks in a row, might have influenced his reaction to top players. Pure conjecture, of course. In general I do think his absolute ceiling wouldn't be enough to beat the top players anyway, but had he scheduled differently he might have been slightly less of a breeze for top 4.

Also, since I like JMDP I'll say he's at least never prone to being called "weaponless," and nor is he a one-dimensional ballbasher. For example, he's been pushing a lot lately (hey, it's a dimension) and occasionally serves well and has developed a good slice. I've also seen some lovely angles from him (could be imagining that, just as I've been imagining all his drop shots to be horrible failures). So I think there are changes toward variety, and if nothing else, it's just interesting to observe him returning to good form, not quite the same player he used to be, but almost as good, maybe. :confused: Why am I so bad at complimenting my favorites?

You're not bad at complimenting your favorites, but when has Del Potro ever been pushing? Thoughtful point construction is not pushing. He's doing very well, the only question is whether he can remain healthy enough for long enough periods to gather momentum and become an even stronger challenger. He's already easily the fifth best player in the world though.

Chris Kuerten
04-03-2013, 09:07 AM
Soderling got his wife pregnant while he was dealing with mono (which affects people's overall energy levels big time), so even on those grounds he deserves to be considered the 8th member of the real top 8.I'm not biased, I fully recognize Ferrer might have a good case for being the real #9.



He was obviously referring to my hand + the occasional cheap hooker whenever I manage to gather enough money from begging on the streets, thought that was obvious.I'm worried about your sleeping pattern, less than three hours between these posts. Also could be you went to sleep at 5 and woke up less than four hours later: Yes, he does. He's clearly the brighter and more insightful student of the two.



You're not bad at complimenting your favorites, but when has Del Potro ever been pushing? Thoughtful point construction is not pushing. He's doing very well, the only question is whether he can remain healthy enough for long enough periods to gather momentum and become an even stronger challenger. He's already easily the fifth best player in the world though.Either way, I'm concerned.

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 09:12 AM
I'm worried about your sleeping pattern, less than three hours between these posts. Also could be you went to sleep at 5 and woke up less than four hours later: Either way, I'm concerned.

First day of uni after a 1.5 week break, sleeping patterns a bit messed up as a result. Had to wake up earlier, 'forgot' I should sleep earlier. Probably just too enthralled in this fascinating discussion to go to sleep.

BackhandDTL
04-03-2013, 09:19 AM
Lenders could produce the most lethargic, incoherent, and vacuous rant right now, and it would still make more sense than suggesting that Ferrer is better than the New Balls players.

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 09:31 AM
Lenders could produce the most lethargic, incoherent, and vacuous rant right now, and it would still make more sense than suggesting that Ferrer is better than the New Balls players.

My claim that Soderling is the 8th member of the top 8 because he got his wife pregnant while suffering from mono makes more sense than such suggestion - in fact hardly anything can make less sense than claiming that peak Ferrer > peak Roddick or other New Balls players.

tribalfusion
04-03-2013, 11:02 AM
My claim that Soderling is the 8th member of the top 8 because he got his wife pregnant while suffering from mono makes more sense than such suggestion - in fact hardly anything can make less sense than claiming that peak Ferrer > peak Roddick or other New Balls players.

You are just as bad as the rabid fans of the top guys who go on about peak this and that.

Ferrer has a winning head to head against Roddick including on hard and was beating him on hard 7 years ago the first time they played on that surface. But I am sure peak will now be custom designed such that it represents a few months or matches in classic MTF style.

The argument never was that Ferrer produces the most brilliant or unpredictable tennis of all time anyway but you clearly enjoy your internet notoriety more than you do comprehending an actual point here.

Arguably the best players of Federer's generation other than Roger himself (obviously a true giant lest some Federer fanatic feel the need to go on about that) were generally some combination of: inconsistent, not strong across all surfaces, often injured and perhaps even less than fully motivated no matter how much ball striking talent they may be said to possess.

The difference between THAT group and the group we have today is clear to anyone willing to look.

Chris Kuerten
04-03-2013, 01:21 PM
Great post, tribalfusion.

Orka_n
04-03-2013, 04:48 PM
You are just as bad as the rabid fans of the top guys who go on about peak this and that.

Ferrer has a winning head to head against Roddick including on hard and was beating him on hard 7 years ago the first time they played on that surface. But I am sure peak will now be custom designed such that it represents a few months or matches in classic MTF style.

The argument never was that Ferrer produces the most brilliant or unpredictable tennis of all time anyway but you clearly enjoy your internet notoriety more than you do comprehending an actual point here.Haha the H2H comparison, classic. I like Ferrer and despise Roddick but fact is David's career is light years from Roddick's and yes, Roddick's peak level is easily better. David is a bad matchup for Roddick because of Ferrer's great return but that changes nothing.

And by the way just so no one forgets this, Ferrer is 31 and he is NOT a player of this generation, he is from Federer's. That he gets his best results after 30 speaks volumes of today's competition because, Ferrer has not improved in the last years. When a top player plays well against him he cannot raise his level to match it and he loses, and it's been like that his whole career. And I say this as a fan.
Ferrer's weapons are and have always been his tenacity, consistency and to some extent his inside-out forehand. These are not to be underestimated but as I said, Ferrer is where he is because he has a high "lowest level".

Arguably the best players of Federer's generation other than Roger himself (obviously a true giant lest some Federer fanatic feel the need to go on about that) were generally some combination of: inconsistent, not strong across all surfaces, often injured and perhaps even less than fully motivated no matter how much ball striking talent they may be said to possess.

The difference between THAT group and the group we have today is clear to anyone willing to look.What a load of garbage. The only thing the current era really has that 04-07 is missing is Murray and Djokovic (and they were already on their way up at that time). Nadal, Davydenko, Agassi, Ferrer, Hewitt were all very consistent and they played alongside Federer for long patches in 04-07. (And spare me the Babydal bullshit, Rafa was winning slams already in 05.)

Now, add players that are incosistent but have a very high level like Safin, Nalbandian, Gonzalez, Haas, Grosjean, Soderling...

...and fact is that you'll have a top 10 that is AT LEAST as strong as today's and actually a lot more dangerous. Has tennis ever been more predictable than it is now?

You said Fed's generation was inconsistent and as I mentioned that's true for some, but what about the second half of today's top 10 then? Yep, they are inconsistent as well. And the injuries are there too, see Rafa, Delpo etc.

There's not that big a difference, except that if anything tennis was more interesting with different styles clashing back then. There were true clay court specialists like Coria & Gaudio and Serve&Vollyers like Henman.

So yeah, Gustavo Kuerten, I'm sorry I have to say this but for once Lenders is right. (His bullshit that Ferrer belongs at #9 is nonsense though of course, as if consistency shouldn't count for anything.)

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 11:49 PM
Haha the H2H comparison, classic. I like Ferrer and despise Roddick but fact is David's career is light years from Roddick's and yes, Roddick's peak level is easily better. David is a bad matchup for Roddick because of Ferrer's great return but that changes nothing.

And by the way just so no one forgets this, Ferrer is 31 and he is NOT a player of this generation, he is from Federer's. That he gets his best results after 30 speaks volumes of today's competition because, Ferrer has not improved in the last years. When a top player plays well against him he cannot raise his level to match it and he loses, and it's been like that his whole career. And I say this as a fan.
Ferrer's weapons are and have always been his tenacity, consistency and to some extent his inside-out forehand. These are not to be underestimated but as I said, Ferrer is where he is because he has a high "lowest level".

What a load of garbage. The only thing the current era really has that 04-07 is missing is Murray and Djokovic (and they were already on their way up at that time). Nadal, Davydenko, Agassi, Ferrer, Hewitt were all very consistent and they played alongside Federer for long patches in 04-07. (And spare me the Babydal bullshit, Rafa was winning slams already in 05.)

Now, add players that are incosistent but have a very high level like Safin, Nalbandian, Gonzalez, Haas, Grosjean, Soderling...

...and fact is that you'll have a top 10 that is AT LEAST as strong as today's and actually a lot more dangerous. Has tennis ever been more predictable than it is now?

You said Fed's generation was inconsistent and as I mentioned that's true for some, but what about the second half of today's top 10 then? Yep, they are inconsistent as well. And the injuries are there too, see Rafa, Delpo etc.

There's not that big a difference, except that if anything tennis was more interesting with different styles clashing back then. There were true clay court specialists like Coria & Gaudio and Serve&Vollyers like Henman.

So yeah, Gustavo Kuerten, I'm sorry I have to say this but for once Lenders is right. (His bullshit that Ferrer belongs at #9 is nonsense though of course, as if consistency shouldn't count for anything.)

I never said Ferrer belongs at #9. I said he might have a case for being the real #9, it's definitely not a given as there are other candidates. But that's a topic for another thread.

tribalfusion
04-04-2013, 08:25 AM
Haha the H2H comparison, classic. I like Ferrer and despise Roddick but fact is David's career is light years from Roddick's and yes, Roddick's peak level is easily better. David is a bad matchup for Roddick because of Ferrer's great return but that changes nothing.


You're missing the point somewhat predictably. I brought up the head to head because as in all the discussions of Ferrer some people here want to decide that they "know" who is a better player even if the player they denigrate consistently beats their "better" player (as well as racking up comparable and in some respect better results overall).

It's hardly ridiculous to claim that Ferrer is in the same class as some of the people referenced and that his best level could be more than enough to beat some of those people on various surfaces.

So what's peak Roddick on clay compared to Ferrer? Who is more well-rounded in his "peak"? Could peak Roddick take Djokovic to a third set on clay and beat him the other 3 times etc?

All these discussions do is illustrate that some people have their own fantasy world of who is better by referring to peaks, valleys and vultures.

heya
04-04-2013, 09:54 AM
It's hardly ridiculous to claim that Ferrer is in the same class as some of the people referenced and that his best level could be more than enough to beat some of those people on various surfaces.

So what's peak Roddick on clay compared to Ferrer? Who is more well-rounded in his "peak"? Could peak Roddick take Djokovic to a third set on clay and beat him the other 3 times etc?

All these discussions do is illustrate that some people have their own fantasy world of who is better by referring to peaks, valleys and vultures.

Ferrer "shockingly" had self-awareness for a decade. He's proud of his improvements no matter if he wins a Slam or not. Roddick, despite having fans feeling sorry for him with their rose-color glasses & Kool-Aid, was destroyed by his personality disorder & nosey behavior (He acted weak in front of Federer & strong interviewers but he belittled umpires' character to waste time before he stopped breathing so hard & in interviews, he mocked opponents even though he was ridiculed by Ljubicic & Federer). He kept a fake veneer of classy manners but he had no ability to maintain physical agility, endurance and return simple rallies, volley consistently & serve with much placement/flexibility. Roddick was just there on court and was proud that he showed embarrassment at being on court with Ferrer, Nalbandian, Hewitt & daddy Fed.

StevieMardenboro
04-04-2013, 04:43 PM
Would've been great if they reached that peak for a sustained period of time between 2003 and 2007, which isn't the case :shrug:

Roddick and Hewitt are hugely overrated as serious competitors anyway and were lucky to snatch up some slams when tennis was at its all-time low :wavey:


Yes Hewitt was very lucky to find himself against a no-hoper in the US Open Final. Think he was called Pete Sampras.

rocketassist
04-04-2013, 04:47 PM
You're missing the point somewhat predictably. I brought up the head to head because as in all the discussions of Ferrer some people here want to decide that they "know" who is a better player even if the player they denigrate consistently beats their "better" player (as well as racking up comparable and in some respect better results overall).

It's hardly ridiculous to claim that Ferrer is in the same class as some of the people referenced and that his best level could be more than enough to beat some of those people on various surfaces.

So what's peak Roddick on clay compared to Ferrer? Who is more well-rounded in his "peak"? Could peak Roddick take Djokovic to a third set on clay and beat him the other 3 times etc?

All these discussions do is illustrate that some people have their own fantasy world of who is better by referring to peaks, valleys and vultures.

A past it Roddick beat Ferrer in the 2011 US Open on an outside court. Ferrer is undoubtedly the superior clay courter but Roddick takes it on other surfaces, not even close.

tribalfusion
04-04-2013, 05:42 PM
A past it Roddick beat Ferrer in the 2011 US Open on an outside court. Ferrer is undoubtedly the superior clay courter but Roddick takes it on other surfaces, not even close.

It's not that simple. If you read my post earlier you know that Ferrer beat a non-past it Roddick on hards and leads the head to head even on that surface.

So "not even close" is nonsense

HKz
04-04-2013, 05:45 PM
Ferrer "shockingly" had self-awareness for a decade. He's proud of his improvements no matter if he wins a Slam or not. Roddick, despite having fans feeling sorry for him with their rose-color glasses & Kool-Aid, was destroyed by his personality disorder & nosey behavior (He acted weak in front of Federer & strong interviewers but he belittled umpires' character to waste time before he stopped breathing so hard & in interviews, he mocked opponents even though he was ridiculed by Ljubicic & Federer). He kept a fake veneer of classy manners but he had no ability to maintain physical agility, endurance and return simple rallies, volley consistently & serve with much placement/flexibility. Roddick was just there on court and was proud that he showed embarrassment at being on court with Ferrer, Nalbandian, Hewitt & daddy Fed.

heya is the definition of "your brain on drugs."

Marcoo
04-04-2013, 06:06 PM
I've always enjoyed Nadal against Federer, they are so perfect against each other ;)

Mountaindewslave
04-04-2013, 06:13 PM
Haha the H2H comparison, classic. I like Ferrer and despise Roddick but fact is David's career is light years from Roddick's and yes, Roddick's peak level is easily better. David is a bad matchup for Roddick because of Ferrer's great return but that changes nothing.

And by the way just so no one forgets this, Ferrer is 31 and he is NOT a player of this generation, he is from Federer's. That he gets his best results after 30 speaks volumes of today's competition because, Ferrer has not improved in the last years. When a top player plays well against him he cannot raise his level to match it and he loses, and it's been like that his whole career. And I say this as a fan.
Ferrer's weapons are and have always been his tenacity, consistency and to some extent his inside-out forehand. These are not to be underestimated but as I said, Ferrer is where he is because he has a high "lowest level".

What a load of garbage. The only thing the current era really has that 04-07 is missing is Murray and Djokovic (and they were already on their way up at that time). Nadal, Davydenko, Agassi, Ferrer, Hewitt were all very consistent and they played alongside Federer for long patches in 04-07. (And spare me the Babydal bullshit, Rafa was winning slams already in 05.)

Now, add players that are incosistent but have a very high level like Safin, Nalbandian, Gonzalez, Haas, Grosjean, Soderling...

...and fact is that you'll have a top 10 that is AT LEAST as strong as today's and actually a lot more dangerous. Has tennis ever been more predictable than it is now?

You said Fed's generation was inconsistent and as I mentioned that's true for some, but what about the second half of today's top 10 then? Yep, they are inconsistent as well. And the injuries are there too, see Rafa, Delpo etc.

There's not that big a difference, except that if anything tennis was more interesting with different styles clashing back then. There were true clay court specialists like Coria & Gaudio and Serve&Vollyers like Henman.

So yeah, Gustavo Kuerten, I'm sorry I have to say this but for once Lenders is right. (His bullshit that Ferrer belongs at #9 is nonsense though of course, as if consistency shouldn't count for anything.)

mid 2000s were arguably considerably better in quality than today, it's funny how people are to blind to accept that the existance of Federer tainted the reception and appearance of his opponents-
but good post
and Lenders my god move on from this Ferrer nonsense, real #9? what is a 'real' top 8 list? what the fuck?
rankings are given depending on results, either from doing well at a few big events, well at a lot of small events, or both
I'm glad the ATP determines ranking credentials and not you