Is Federer becoming the new Ferrer?

[El Dude]

People are over-reacting - its a legitimate question.

My response is "yes and no, or just maybe." Yes in that he's a step behind the Big Two and unlikely to win a Slam or Masters, but no because of what we saw in Dubai - he beat Novak - and what we almost saw in IW, where he held his own against Novak.

In other words, he's more of a threat than Ferrer ever was, which is where the "no" comes in.

In a way he's more like JMDP in that while JMDP has been less consistent than Ferrer, he is (or was) taken seriously as a dark horse to upset one of the Big Four because he can play at a very high level.

And of course we can counter in the question by asking another: Is there any player that would rather face Roger Federer than David Ferrer? Probably not, except maybe Kei Nishikori.

 

[Tennis Miller]

^ When was the last time Ferrer won a slam? An over the hill Federer won Wimbledon just 2 years ago and got back to number 1 again against the guys who are supposedly much better players than he dominated during his years of "weak competition". Not bad.

No one would ever seriously compare them as to playing styles, career results, and the like.

I'm really talking about the kind of results and ranking you MIGHT be able to expect from 2014 Fed (not 2012 Fed), as comparable to what Ferrer did for quite a few years.

The question was whether he is now becoming more like Ferrer was .( Not whether 2012 Fed is better than Ferrer ever was)

Cheers
TM

I understand what you were trying to say with the question, TM, but, no matter how many caveats you put in your OP, folks were going to see red at the comparison. However, I agree with your main point: That Roger is most likely to be around 3-5 in the rankings for this year, maybe next, and his better chances at big tournaments is in the MS. I mostly agree about Slams; though, with Murray still recovering, and Del Potro out for the year, Fed's chances look better than I would have said a month ago at snagging one more. It would take help, though. (Favorable draw, Rafa/Novak dumped out early.)

Thank you for understanding what I was getting at with my question! . Personally, I don't see Fed as a real threat to win another major. The serve is often missing, and I'd need to see the forehand hold up better. You just can't win a major when your two biggest weapons are frequently going AWOL within the course of fhe same match.

However, he may do well enough overall vis a vis everyone but the top 2 or 3 to keep his ranking in the 4-5 range. Hence my question of whether he was in danger of becoming more Ferrer-like in his results and ranking in 2014.

Cheers
TM

 

[Federberg]

TM.. I get what you're saying. But for any of us who remember the Pistol... don't ever count out a stone cold champion. They always have one more in them... Federer is that... Ferrer isn't

 

[britbox]

Federer is nothing like Ferrer.

 

[El Dude]

TM.. I get what you're saying. But for any of us who remember the Pistol... don't ever count out a stone cold champion. They always have one more in them... Federer is that... Ferrer isn't

This. Where I can't seeing Ferrer winning a Slam unless the Big Four all go out by upset or injury, I could see Roger upsetting one of the Big Four, or at least Novak or Andy.

 

[Kieran]

I can't see Roger beating Nole at a slam. But, for instance, if Rafa and Nole fell to the wayside and Roger met Ferrer in the final, well, I guess there's only one man coming out of that one weighing heavier than he did going into it.

But I don't think that's exactly TM's point. I don't read it as him saying that Federer is now "only" as good as Ferrer tennis-wise. I think he's saying that Federer has fallen far enough behind the top 2 as to be more or less considered an also-ran. I think it's harsh, given that everybody gets to that stage eventually, though again, I doubt it was anything more than an observation by TM, and not a criticism...

 

[Fiero425]

I can't see Roger beating Nole at a slam. But, for instance, if Rafa and Nole fell to the wayside and Roger met Ferrer in the final, well, I guess there's only one man coming out of that one weighing heavier than he did going into it.

But I don't think that's exactly TM's point. I don't read it as him saying that Federer is now "only" as good as Ferrer tennis-wise. I think he's saying that Federer has fallen far enough behind the top 2 as to be more or less considered an also-ran. I think it's harsh, given that everybody gets to that stage eventually, though again, I doubt it was anything more than an observation by TM, and not a criticism...

This is where I fault the rest of the tour! It's more than a little pathetic when you allow the same players to take all major titles; not just most! In the past you had joke "goof" finals due to upsets and that's how some greats acquired such "big mumbers!" Sampras won a few majors that way playing the likes of Pioline, Phillippoussis, or Moya! McEnroe got an easy Wimbledon over Chris Lewis from NZ in '83! It's just sad to see how gutless the rest of the male players have been in this era to "bend over" like this again and again, allowing routine major wins for Federer, Nadal, and Nole! We can give an honorable mention to Murray and Del Po I suppose, but that been 4 events; 2 USO, 1 W, 1 Olympic gold medal! Wawrinka finally broke through like his supporters thought; bout time! He did what I hoped players like Soderling, Ferrer, Gasquet, Tsonga, or others to do more routinely; never happened though! The upsets few with no majors; not even a final save Soderling twice! Am I being too drama-filled or what? :nono lol! :lolz: :laydownlaughing

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I can't see Roger beating Nole at a slam. But, for instance, if Rafa and Nole fell to the wayside and Roger met Ferrer in the final, well, I guess there's only one man coming out of that one weighing heavier than he did going into it.

But I don't think that's exactly TM's point. I don't read it as him saying that Federer is now "only" as good as Ferrer tennis-wise. I think he's saying that Federer has fallen far enough behind the top 2 as to be more or less considered an also-ran. I think it's harsh, given that everybody gets to that stage eventually, though again, I doubt it was anything more than an observation by TM, and not a criticism...

I can totally see Roger beating Nole at Wimbledon. Nole still can look awkward on grass and an in form Roger can make things happen on grass.

My problem with the Ferrer thing is that it only looks at what a player can do now, without taking into account where the player is coming from. Ferrer was always Ferrer. But Roger came from somewhere else. Of course his level has to drop at some point. A year from now are we going to say "Roger is now the new Kohlschreiber" or two years from now " Roger is now the new Stepanek" ? Roger is Roger. You cannot compare him with other players that have a total different history. Pete never was the new Piolin when he started to slip in the rankings. Their history is different.

 

[Front242]

^ You can only beat the guy at the other side of the net in slam finals and clearly if he was good enough to make the final, he must've been playing very well. I think when people mention this silly weak competition crap they easily overlook that.

 

[Kieran]

I can't see Roger beating Nole at a slam. But, for instance, if Rafa and Nole fell to the wayside and Roger met Ferrer in the final, well, I guess there's only one man coming out of that one weighing heavier than he did going into it.

But I don't think that's exactly TM's point. I don't read it as him saying that Federer is now "only" as good as Ferrer tennis-wise. I think he's saying that Federer has fallen far enough behind the top 2 as to be more or less considered an also-ran. I think it's harsh, given that everybody gets to that stage eventually, though again, I doubt it was anything more than an observation by TM, and not a criticism...

I can totally see Roger beating Nole at Wimbledon. Nole still can look awkward on grass and an in form Roger can make things happen on grass.

My problem with the Ferrer thing is that it only looks at what a player can do now, without taking into account where the player is coming from. Ferrer was always Ferrer. But Roger came from somewhere else. Of course his level has to drop at some point. A year from now are we going to say "Roger is now the new Kohlschreiber" or two years from now " Roger is now the new Stepanek" ? Roger is Roger. You cannot compare him with other players that have a total different history. Pete never was the new Piolin when he started to slip in the rankings. Their history is different.

Well that's true - although I disagree about Roger beating Nole at Wimbo. Unless Nole has an off-day and Roger catches fire again. Maybe it'd happen if he knew Ralphy wasn't waiting, sharpening his blades for finals day... :snigger

 

[Front242]

^ He was over the hill in 2012 and beat both Djokovic AND Murray at Wimbledon. He can do it again although it'd take a huge performance. But he can do it again 100%

The guy relishes the chance to prove the naysayers wrong and rub egg in their faces. You listening Martina, you pouty, grumpy cow. Though I enjoyed watching you play

 

[Kieran]

^ He was over the hill in 2012 and beat both Djokovic AND Murray at Wimbledon. He can do it again although it'd take a huge performance. But he can do it again 100%

He was holder of a couple of MS titles and close to the very pinnacle of the rankings heading in to Wimbledon 2012. I think that today, he's shown great fire and commitment to getting his game back on track, but we'll have to wait and see about the other stuff. Who knows? He's still Federer...

 

[Front242]

^ Just saying, I agree with Murat re the ability to beat Novak on grass. Anywhere else at this stage I'd be inclined to say no in best of 5 but on grass if his serve and FH are clicking then it's a resounding yes imo. If Fed makes it to the latter stages of Wimbledon he's very dangerous.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I can't see Roger beating Nole at a slam.

He still has a pretty decent shot at Wimbledon, and maybe even the US Open.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I can't see Roger beating Nole at a slam. But, for instance, if Rafa and Nole fell to the wayside and Roger met Ferrer in the final, well, I guess there's only one man coming out of that one weighing heavier than he did going into it.

But I don't think that's exactly TM's point. I don't read it as him saying that Federer is now "only" as good as Ferrer tennis-wise. I think he's saying that Federer has fallen far enough behind the top 2 as to be more or less considered an also-ran. I think it's harsh, given that everybody gets to that stage eventually, though again, I doubt it was anything more than an observation by TM, and not a criticism...

I can totally see Roger beating Nole at Wimbledon. Nole still can look awkward on grass and an in form Roger can make things happen on grass.

My problem with the Ferrer thing is that it only looks at what a player can do now, without taking into account where the player is coming from. Ferrer was always Ferrer. But Roger came from somewhere else. Of course his level has to drop at some point. A year from now are we going to say "Roger is now the new Kohlschreiber" or two years from now " Roger is now the new Stepanek" ? Roger is Roger. You cannot compare him with other players that have a total different history. Pete never was the new Piolin when he started to slip in the rankings. Their history is different.

Well that's true - although I disagree about Roger beating Nole at Wimbo. Unless Nole has an off-day and Roger catches fire again. Maybe it'd happen if he knew Ralphy wasn't waiting, sharpening his blades for finals day... :snigger

If Roger plays well (not necessarily catch fire), and he's done so this year in numerous matches, including ones against Djokovic, he doesn't need Novak to have an off day on grass. It's Novak who needs to be playing REALLY good.

Roger didn't "catch fire" when he beat him in the 2012 Wimbledon semi. He played very well, but within himself. Novak wasn't terrible either.

 

[Kieran]

We'll see. It'll take a huge effort for Roger to maintain his best tennis over a five setter against Nole. He's gonna have to catch fire - and hope Nole is off. It's not impossible, but it would be going against the natural order.

But, as I say, he's still Federer, so who knows what he'll do...

 

[Front242]

In peak form (meaning serving extremely well) and no sore shoulder I'd even give Tommy Haas a very good shot against Novak in early rounds at Wimbledon. Certainly a very tough match in any case even if he lost. He'd take a set for sure and a TB in peak form. Watch his match against Fed at Indian Wells again (pavlik89 posted it in that thread) and you'll see his level was incredible and took an even more incredible performance from Fed to win that day. His game is totally suited to grass and Novak, despite having won Wimbledon, looks slightly dodgy there compared to everywhere else. Not natural on grass at all.

 

[Kieran]

Roger didn't "catch fire" when he beat him in the 2012 Wimbledon semi. He played very well, but within himself. Novak wasn't terrible either.

I beg to differ about Nole. He dumped the third and deferred far too readily in the fourth, as he often does...

 

[Front242]

^You're lucky he had an off day at RG 2013 so.

 

[Kieran]

^You're lucky he had an off day at RG 2013 so.

Well, even having an off-day, he won 9-7 in the fifth...