David Ferrer: 2013's year-end #3

[El Dude]

I don't know if this has been mentioned anywhere, but I just thought it worth mentioning that with Andy Murray's injury, David Ferrer is likely to finish the year at #3. He's 890 points behind Murray in the year-to-date rankings, with three big tournaments left, plus the Valencia Open, an ATP 500 tournament which he's won three of the last five years.

At Shanghai he's got a relatively easy route to the Semifinals where he'll likely face Novak Djokovic (or possibly Roger Federer...I guess its possible!), which gives him a pretty easy 360 points. He would then only need to do reasonably well at the Paris Masters and Valencia Open to go into the World Tour Finals needing one match (at most) to pass Murray. If he makes it to the SF at Shanghai, wins Valencia again, and wins one match in Paris, then he's got #3 for the year.

Anyhow, who would have thought that David Ferrer would reach his highest ranking at age 31? He doesn't have the titles he had last year (7, only 2 this year) but he reached his first Slam final and his overall results have been just as good as last year. Murray's injury and Federer's decline have allowed him to (probably) sneak into the #3 spot.

It will be interesting to see how David does next year, at age 32. As I've written about before, the vast majority of tennis players take a big step back at age 32. David has had a rather rare career trajectory - having his best two seasons at age 30 and 31 - so who knows. Regardless, its hard not to root for the guy.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

There are new rumors that Murray is thinking of playing in WTF. If so, it would be
hard for David to finish as #3. Murray will have home court advantage in London.

Having said that, #3 or #4 does not matter much. Either one would fetch him
good seeding in the draws of AO and FO. He would be guaranteed to not face
Rafa or Nole until SF. That is the important thing.

 

[El Dude]

As good as Ferrer is, I just can't see him beating any of the Big Three in a Slam - in pretty much any circumstance. I suppose he'd have a decent chance against Murray at the French Open on clay, but that's about it.

The only way David Ferrer wins a Slam is if one or more of the Big Three is upset and he finds himself facing a Tomas Berdych or Jerzy Janowicz in the Final. Hey, it could happen. Its just very, very rare for Novak or Rafa or Andy to be upset at a Slam these days, aside from possibly Andy at Roland Garros and Rafa at Wimbledon (I don't think that will happen again for Rafa, though).

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I was not talking about he winning GS. Having a good seeding would help him go far
in GS (note that he is almost famous for not losing matches to whom he should not
lose) and that would fetch him more points and give him more opportunities.

 

[El Dude]

I know you weren't talking about him winning a GS, but I was.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

I know he deserves to finish world no 3 rank..but has the ever been a year end no3 that has got quite close to winning majors (qf,sf,f) but has always seemed so far away from winning,

its almost a foregone conclusion that whichever 'top' player he comes up against then daveeeed is going to lose..:huh:.

look at murray, rankings groundhog day..yet another year he ends no4 rank. YE RANK 2008-2013....4,4,4,4,3,4. :s

..still, he won WIMBLEDON so its not so bad. :celeb:

 

[El Dude]

Jesus, Nikolay Davydenko comes to mind. He finished each year from 2005 to 2009 in the top 6, including #3 in 2006, but never seemed like a real threat to win a Slam (his highest finish was a SF, which he did multiple times). Nikolay had the misfortune of peaking at the same time as Federer.

Ljubicic is another. His highest year-end was #5 but he did make it to #3 that year. I don't think he was a real threat to win a Slam.

Going back a bit, Alex Corretja comes to mind. While he was an excellent player for a few years and a good example of how if you don't win a Slam no one remembers you after a few years. But he finished 1998 at #3 and I don't think was considered a serious contender for a Slam, although he did make it the Final of the French Open twice, losing to Moya and Kuerten.

I know he won a Slam, but I can't help but think of Michael Chang. Chang won the French Open at the tender age of 17 and played until he was 31, but when Sampras and Agassi rose to dominance, I don't think anyone considered him a serious threat to win a Slam. He did make three more Finals, losing to Muster, Becker and Sampras, but only one went past three sets (Becker). Chang did win seven ATP 1000-level tournaments, so maybe at the time he was viewed as more of a threat, but in hindsight he seems like the 90s version of what David Ferrer has been the last few years - the most consistent of the near-elite, but possibly the least threatening to upset one of the elite players.

 

[calitennis127]

I don't know if this has been mentioned anywhere, but I just thought it worth mentioning that with Andy Murray's injury, David Ferrer is likely to finish the year at #3. He's 890 points behind Murray in the year-to-date rankings, with three big tournaments left, plus the Valencia Open, an ATP 500 tournament which he's won three of the last five years.

At Shanghai he's got a relatively easy route to the Semifinals where he'll likely face Novak Djokovic (or possibly Roger Federer...I guess its possible!), which gives him a pretty easy 360 points. He would then only need to do reasonably well at the Paris Masters and Valencia Open to go into the World Tour Finals needing one match (at most) to pass Murray. If he makes it to the SF at Shanghai, wins Valencia again, and wins one match in Paris, then he's got #3 for the year.

Anyhow, who would have thought that David Ferrer would reach his highest ranking at age 31? He doesn't have the titles he had last year (7, only 2 this year) but he reached his first Slam final and his overall results have been just as good as last year. Murray's injury and Federer's decline have allowed him to (probably) sneak into the #3 spot.

It will be interesting to see how David does next year, at age 32. As I've written about before, the vast majority of tennis players take a big step back at age 32. David has had a rather rare career trajectory - having his best two seasons at age 30 and 31 - so who knows. Regardless, its hard not to root for the guy.

What I love about Ferrer's rise in the last two years is that it symbolizes the triumph of rationality, science, ambition, discipline, spiritual power, and personal development over stultifying social conventions.

Social convention would have it that Ferrer would have retired or at least pared back his schedule in one of the last two years. Instead, he chose to go the route of personal aspiration to improve and what science dictates about the human body, and he actually has peaked in the last two years, with possibly more to come in the years ahead. He increased his schedule and further enhanced his zeal, defying the boundaries of what mundane conventions typically dictate. This is very inspirational and exemplary.

I admire him in the extreme for this.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I don't know if this has been mentioned anywhere, but I just thought it worth mentioning that with Andy Murray's injury, David Ferrer is likely to finish the year at #3. He's 890 points behind Murray in the year-to-date rankings, with three big tournaments left, plus the Valencia Open, an ATP 500 tournament which he's won three of the last five years.

At Shanghai he's got a relatively easy route to the Semifinals where he'll likely face Novak Djokovic (or possibly Roger Federer...I guess its possible!), which gives him a pretty easy 360 points. He would then only need to do reasonably well at the Paris Masters and Valencia Open to go into the World Tour Finals needing one match (at most) to pass Murray. If he makes it to the SF at Shanghai, wins Valencia again, and wins one match in Paris, then he's got #3 for the year.

Anyhow, who would have thought that David Ferrer would reach his highest ranking at age 31? He doesn't have the titles he had last year (7, only 2 this year) but he reached his first Slam final and his overall results have been just as good as last year. Murray's injury and Federer's decline have allowed him to (probably) sneak into the #3 spot.

It will be interesting to see how David does next year, at age 32. As I've written about before, the vast majority of tennis players take a big step back at age 32. David has had a rather rare career trajectory - having his best two seasons at age 30 and 31 - so who knows. Regardless, its hard not to root for the guy.

What I love about Ferrer's rise in the last two years is that it symbolizes the triumph of rationality, science, ambition, discipline, spiritual power, and personal development over stultifying social conventions.

Social convention would have it that Ferrer would have retired or at least pared back his schedule in one of the last two years. Instead, he chose to go the route of personal aspiration to improve and what science dictates about the human body, and he actually has peaked in the last two years, with possibly more to come in the years ahead. He increased his schedule and further enhanced his zeal, defying the boundaries of what mundane conventions typically dictate. This is very inspirational and exemplary.

I admire him in the extreme for this.

Cali, it is surprising that you admire Ferrer. He is basically a poor man's version of
Nadal. You are so critical of Nadal calling him "a ball striker" and not "a stroke maker"
(although correctly). Ferrer is a second rate ball striker. He just wins based on
his pure persistence (just like Nadal) against players to whom he is not supposed to
lost (and he is very good at it).

 

[calitennis127]

I don't know if this has been mentioned anywhere, but I just thought it worth mentioning that with Andy Murray's injury, David Ferrer is likely to finish the year at #3. He's 890 points behind Murray in the year-to-date rankings, with three big tournaments left, plus the Valencia Open, an ATP 500 tournament which he's won three of the last five years.

At Shanghai he's got a relatively easy route to the Semifinals where he'll likely face Novak Djokovic (or possibly Roger Federer...I guess its possible!), which gives him a pretty easy 360 points. He would then only need to do reasonably well at the Paris Masters and Valencia Open to go into the World Tour Finals needing one match (at most) to pass Murray. If he makes it to the SF at Shanghai, wins Valencia again, and wins one match in Paris, then he's got #3 for the year.

Anyhow, who would have thought that David Ferrer would reach his highest ranking at age 31? He doesn't have the titles he had last year (7, only 2 this year) but he reached his first Slam final and his overall results have been just as good as last year. Murray's injury and Federer's decline have allowed him to (probably) sneak into the #3 spot.

It will be interesting to see how David does next year, at age 32. As I've written about before, the vast majority of tennis players take a big step back at age 32. David has had a rather rare career trajectory - having his best two seasons at age 30 and 31 - so who knows. Regardless, its hard not to root for the guy.

What I love about Ferrer's rise in the last two years is that it symbolizes the triumph of rationality, science, ambition, discipline, spiritual power, and personal development over stultifying social conventions.

Social convention would have it that Ferrer would have retired or at least pared back his schedule in one of the last two years. Instead, he chose to go the route of personal aspiration to improve and what science dictates about the human body, and he actually has peaked in the last two years, with possibly more to come in the years ahead. He increased his schedule and further enhanced his zeal, defying the boundaries of what mundane conventions typically dictate. This is very inspirational and exemplary.

I admire him in the extreme for this.

Cali, it is surprising that you admire Ferrer. He is basically a poor man's version of
Nadal. You are so critical of Nadal calling him "a ball striker" and not "a stroke maker"
(although correctly). Ferrer is a second rate ball striker. He just wins based on
his pure persistence (just like Nadal) against players to whom he is not supposed to
lost (and he is very good at it).

If Ferrer won 7 Slams and 10 MS titles playing this style, then I would object him to more.

But what I am complimenting him for more than anything here is how he has peaked at age 30 and 31. With Nadal I simply have seen a pattern of him winning big matches at a completely out-of-proportion rate and that's what bothers me.

 

[isabelle]

As good as Ferrer is, I just can't see him beating any of the Big Three in a Slam - in pretty much any circumstance. I suppose he'd have a decent chance against Murray at the French Open on clay, but that's about it.

The only way David Ferrer wins a Slam is if one or more of the Big Three is upset and he finds himself facing a Tomas Berdych or Jerzy Janowicz in the Final. Hey, it could happen. Its just very, very rare for Novak or Rafa or Andy to be upset at a Slam these days, aside from possibly Andy at Roland Garros and Rafa at Wimbledon (I don't think that will happen again for Rafa, though).

Ferrer beat Nadal in USO some years ago

 

[El Dude]

Ferrer beat Nadal in USO some years ago

Sure, its happened. But the record is 20-4 so chances are he won't beat Nadal at a Slam.

 

[ClayDeath]

ferru is far more talented than people realize.

he is just up against the greatest players in history. and that is his greatest liability.

Roddick used to say also that he was very unfortunate that nadal and Federer were around. they took everything under the sun.

 

[DarthFed]

He doesn't deserve to be #3 and hopefully it doesn't happen. Ferret is consistent and it helps that he plays a couple hundred tournaments a year but he is no threat at majors.

 

[El Dude]

ferru is far more talented than people realize.

he is just up against the greatest players in history. and that is his greatest liability.

Roddick used to say also that he was very unfortunate that nadal and Federer were around. they took everything under the sun.

I started a blog post related to this - exploring Generation Federer and questioning the belief that it was a weak generation, when it fact may have been at least moderate in strength but was overshadowed by Federer's, and then Nadal's, greatness.

We simply cannot know how a Ferrer would have done in, say, the weak 1998-2003 era, but we an guess how he would have done in this era without Roger, Rafa, and Novak.

 

[ClayDeath]

ferru is far more talented than people realize.

he is just up against the greatest players in history. and that is his greatest liability.

Roddick used to say also that he was very unfortunate that nadal and Federer were around. they took everything under the sun.

I started a blog post related to this - exploring Generation Federer and questioning the belief that it was a weak generation, when it fact may have been at least moderate in strength but was overshadowed by Federer's, and then Nadal's, greatness.

We simply cannot know how a Ferrer would have done in, say, the weak 1998-2003 era, but we an guess how he would have done in this era without Roger, Rafa, and Novak.

excellent post.

can you post a link to your blog here so I can check it out. also I might post that link at my own forum as well.

thanks.


this is a unique era. it is impossible for anybody win a slam unless your name happens to Federer, nadal, nole, and andy murray.

it is nearly impossible for anybody to win a masters event with these 4 sharks around.

 

[tented]

Ferrer has already been ranked No. 3, so it wouldn't be his first time.

 

[Front242]

ferru is far more talented than people realize.

he is just up against the greatest players in history. and that is his greatest liability.

Roddick used to say also that he was very unfortunate that nadal and Federer were around. they took everything under the sun.

I started a blog post related to this - exploring Generation Federer and questioning the belief that it was a weak generation, when it fact may have been at least moderate in strength but was overshadowed by Federer's, and then Nadal's, greatness.

We simply cannot know how a Ferrer would have done in, say, the weak 1998-2003 era, but we an guess how he would have done in this era without Roger, Rafa, and Novak.

excellent post.

can you post a link to your blog here so I can check it out. also I might post that link at my own forum as well.

thanks.


this is a unique era. it is impossible for anybody win a slam unless your name happens to Federer, nadal, nole, and andy murray.

it is nearly impossible for anybody to win a masters event with these 4 sharks around.

Don't forget Juan Martin Del Potro.

 

[Moxie]

I don't know if this has been mentioned anywhere, but I just thought it worth mentioning that with Andy Murray's injury, David Ferrer is likely to finish the year at #3. He's 890 points behind Murray in the year-to-date rankings, with three big tournaments left, plus the Valencia Open, an ATP 500 tournament which he's won three of the last five years.

At Shanghai he's got a relatively easy route to the Semifinals where he'll likely face Novak Djokovic (or possibly Roger Federer...I guess its possible!), which gives him a pretty easy 360 points. He would then only need to do reasonably well at the Paris Masters and Valencia Open to go into the World Tour Finals needing one match (at most) to pass Murray. If he makes it to the SF at Shanghai, wins Valencia again, and wins one match in Paris, then he's got #3 for the year.

Anyhow, who would have thought that David Ferrer would reach his highest ranking at age 31? He doesn't have the titles he had last year (7, only 2 this year) but he reached his first Slam final and his overall results have been just as good as last year. Murray's injury and Federer's decline have allowed him to (probably) sneak into the #3 spot.

It will be interesting to see how David does next year, at age 32. As I've written about before, the vast majority of tennis players take a big step back at age 32. David has had a rather rare career trajectory - having his best two seasons at age 30 and 31 - so who knows. Regardless, its hard not to root for the guy.

What I love about Ferrer's rise in the last two years is that it symbolizes the triumph of rationality, science, ambition, discipline, spiritual power, and personal development over stultifying social conventions.

Social convention would have it that Ferrer would have retired or at least pared back his schedule in one of the last two years. Instead, he chose to go the route of personal aspiration to improve and what science dictates about the human body, and he actually has peaked in the last two years, with possibly more to come in the years ahead. He increased his schedule and further enhanced his zeal, defying the boundaries of what mundane conventions typically dictate. This is very inspirational and exemplary.

I admire him in the extreme for this.

Cali, it is surprising that you admire Ferrer. He is basically a poor man's version of
Nadal. You are so critical of Nadal calling him "a ball striker" and not "a stroke maker"
(although correctly). Ferrer is a second rate ball striker. He just wins based on
his pure persistence (just like Nadal) against players to whom he is not supposed to
lost (and he is very good at it).

If Ferrer won 7 Slams and 10 MS titles playing this style, then I would object him to more.

But what I am complimenting him for more than anything here is how he has peaked at age 30 and 31. With Nadal I simply have seen a pattern of him winning big matches at a completely out-of-proportion rate and that's what bothers me.

I have to say I was as surprised as GSM. Most people admire Ferru, but you despise Nadal's game, and others who do tend to be consistent in disliking Ferrer's. I guess you're just giving him a condescending pat on the head? You are a mystery. I thought what you objected to about Rafa was his game, but apparently it's just his results. Another tough year for you, I guess. How much more does Nadal have to do before you cry "uncle?" :wave

 

[Moxie]

I don't know if this has been mentioned anywhere, but I just thought it worth mentioning that with Andy Murray's injury, David Ferrer is likely to finish the year at #3. He's 890 points behind Murray in the year-to-date rankings, with three big tournaments left, plus the Valencia Open, an ATP 500 tournament which he's won three of the last five years.

At Shanghai he's got a relatively easy route to the Semifinals where he'll likely face Novak Djokovic (or possibly Roger Federer...I guess its possible!), which gives him a pretty easy 360 points. He would then only need to do reasonably well at the Paris Masters and Valencia Open to go into the World Tour Finals needing one match (at most) to pass Murray. If he makes it to the SF at Shanghai, wins Valencia again, and wins one match in Paris, then he's got #3 for the year.

Anyhow, who would have thought that David Ferrer would reach his highest ranking at age 31? He doesn't have the titles he had last year (7, only 2 this year) but he reached his first Slam final and his overall results have been just as good as last year. Murray's injury and Federer's decline have allowed him to (probably) sneak into the #3 spot.

It will be interesting to see how David does next year, at age 32. As I've written about before, the vast majority of tennis players take a big step back at age 32. David has had a rather rare career trajectory - having his best two seasons at age 30 and 31 - so who knows. Regardless, its hard not to root for the guy.

Just to point out, though, that Ferrer is defending Paris and Valencia, so he can't just do "reasonably well" without losing points. He has to win them to stay even. I'm a huge fan of David, but it would be astonishing if he can keep this level going into and through next year.