mrzz said:
Kirijax said:
Well, it's starting to look like the Frontierers have spoken. Ferrer the champ! According to the poll anyways. :snicker
Not anymore...
...I wonder how many games Ferrer could score against Rios with them both playing their best.
Anyway, being world #1 is an indisputable argument for me.
Rios was #1 for 6 weeks, in an era when Pete was waning and Andre was at his nadir. Look at how many times #1 changed hands in the late 90s-early 2000s. Everyone will have their criteria for who is the "greatest never to win a Slam." Some go with results, and some, like yourself, with the more nebulous and subjective vote for "talent" as you perceive it. Or having gotten to #1 when they were handing it out like for basically having a couple of good tournaments. Rios made one Slam final (AO,) and never even another SF.
Ferrer comes in for a lot of strong dislike around here, but he has very solid results. He hasn't beaten the best of his era, in any significant way, but he's playing in a really tough era. Unlike Rios. And Nalbandian, if you want to go there. Nalby could have and should have done more before the competition got trickier beyond Roger. Additionally, Ferrer is pretty much the shortest guy in the top 50, in an age where Big Man tennis can knock most anyone out, on a given day. And, contrary to urban legend, he has two good weapons beyond his toughness and fitness: his serve, and his inside-out forehand.
A basic problem for many is probably the wording. "Greatest" is a complicated term, and some folks have difficulty assigning "greatness" to Ferrer. But perceived potential greatness in players with higher top levels is very subjective, whereas actual results can be measured. Tennis is littered with potentially great players that never lived up to their perceived capabilities. I have a hard time ranking them above the ones who did live up to their best level, or even achieved more than expected.
