[Henry Kaspar]

One certainly has the sense that Ferrer can't put meaningful pressure on the top 4, exceptional circumstances aside (tornados, or a lacklustre Andy Murray on clay). Berdych, del Potro and Tsonga, by contrast, can on their day make anyone sweat, even though they tend to be less consistent.

Ferrer's last two GS semifinal participations also owe much to an exceptionally lucky draw. With Nadal out, Ferrer moved up to #4 seed. For the quarterfinals he was then paired both times with the #8 seed. The ##5-7 were all former GS finalists, but the #8 - Tipsarevic - had never made it past a GS QF, lacking the big weapons just as Ferrer (this time Tipsarevic then ceded his QF spot to Almagro, who'd never been past a QF either). It still took Ferrer gruelling five-setters to advance to the semis.

[star]

Originally Posted by Snowwy

You started watching tennis in 2006, no?

The thing I wonder is why do we idolize players with talent but no ability to maximize it and vilify players that a lacking talent but find a way to maximize their abilities. It seems backwards to me.

You must be quite puzzled about mtf all the time because even talented players who reach the number one spot are vilified as having no talent..

[star]

Originally Posted by Snowwy

I think maybe the answer is Kevin Curren, but of course I can be forgetting some players.

What was Harold Solomon's top ranking?

Checked. #5 was hitghest

[J99]

Originally Posted by Snowwy

You started watching tennis in 2006, no?

The thing I wonder is why do we idolize players with talent but no ability to maximize it and vilify players that a lacking talent but find a way to maximize their abilities. It seems backwards to me.

I don't, I do the opposite.

Don't you mean more players who just coast on their talent, but who aren't willing to work hard, for example Gulbis and Gasquet.

[lalaland]

I wonder why ppl think the likes of Berdych/Tsonga/DelPo are more deserving than Ferrer? what should the bar based on? their perceived Talents? their performances in slams? their respective match results from the last 2 days?

If it's by their perceived talents, then why is Gulbis not in Top 10. If by slam performances, then please refer to the chart below that stated their respective points earned in all classifications in 2012:

Player	Total	WTF	Slams	1000s	500s	250s	
Ferrer	6865	400	2520	1775	1670	500	
Berdych	4680	200	1270	1995	565	650	
DelPo	4210	400	990	1180	1140	500	
Tsonga	3555	-	1485	1090	580	400

If it's by results of the past 2 days, DelPo didn't make it to that past 2 days, what then? should he be ranked below Chardy?

And if Berdych/Tsonga/DelPo are more deserving bcos you guys think they are more talented, then why don't they just put up the numbers to show then? If they fail to get the pts to pass Ferrer, then how are they more deserving to be Top 5 than Ferrer?

If you think the ranking should solely be based on every player's ability to play against the Big 4, then go lobby ATP to change that. Otherwise, the ranking system is set at the moment based on points and everyone of them playing under this same set of rules. They only deserve their ranking if they earn those points.

[star]

How could I forget? Brad Gilbert was #5 in 1990. Awful to watch him play. Ferrer is poetic compared to Gilbert.

[star]

Originally Posted by lalaland

They only deserve their ranking if they earn those points.

You do understand that logic is not being applied, correct?

Andy Roddick used to be spat upon for being number 5. Can memories be so short here that his unworthiness is already forgotten?

Jimmy Arias -- 1984

[lalaland]

Originally Posted by star

You do understand that logic is not being applied, correct?

Yes I do. I just want to show that if logic is ever applied, it would have looked like what I just said .

[thrust]

Originally Posted by Deathless Mortal

Repeatedly beats players ranked below him, so I don't see how it's undeserving.

Much too logical and real for most of the ignorant haters here. If Ferrer is so bad, then how bad are those who have been ranked below him the last several years? He simply does not have the size and power to beat the top 4 when they are healthy. He simply gets the most out of his natural abilities, unlike most ranked below him.

[Certinfy]

Originally Posted by star

How could I forget? Brad Gilbert was #5 in 1990. Awful to watch him play. Ferrer is poetic compared to Gilbert.

Actually got to #4. Never even made a Grand Slam semi-final, just two quarter-finals.

[Chase Visa]

Originally Posted by Certinfy

Actually got to #4. Never even made a Grand Slam semi-final, just two quarter-finals.

The true vulture.

[Mark Lenders]

This fact is not 100% verified, found it on Twitter, but I assume it's correct:

There have been 15 Grand Slam semifinals in the open era where the winner lost five games or less. Ferrer was involved in two of them, today and vs Nadal at RG 2012. He and Johan Kriek are the only players to be on the losing end of two of these semis.

Now there's a record Ferrer can aspire to #strongtopfiveplayer

[Fishnet]

Originally Posted by star

You must be quite puzzled about mtf all the time because even talented players who reach the number one spot are vilified as having no talent..

Really? What do you mean?

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by thrust

Much too logical and real for most of the ignorant haters here. If Ferrer is so bad, then how bad are those who have been ranked below him the last several years? He simply does not have the size and power to beat the top 4 when they are healthy. He simply gets the most out of his natural abilities, unlike most ranked below him.

Exactly. Ferrer doesn't have the weapons to challenge the big 4 (other than against Murray on clay). He can and does beat everyone else. Where should such a player be ranked?

Under the current system, if you achieve the fifth best results, you're no.5. Berdych doesn't get extra points because he took a set off Djokovic in his inevitable loss, nor does Tsonga get points for taking two sets off Federer. Being able to pull off a big win 1/11 or 3/9 times doesn't allow you to keep your ranking for perpetuity; points drop off after a year. Being a threat doesn't give you any ranking points.

[pray-for-palestine-and-israel]

Originally Posted by Snowwy

I think maybe the answer is Kevin Curren, but of course I can be forgetting some players.

great to see the mod standards are high as ever

someone with 2 slam finals- 2 closely contested slam finals, who beat edberg, macenroe and connors on the way to the closely contested slam finals

is not as good as a vulture who has one of the worst SF records in history

bravo