Moxie629 said:
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.
Sorry Moxie, but you are putting words in my mouth. I don't need to go to the subjective notion of talent to make a case for Rios. As I said, I do think he would easily beat Ferrer, and I also think he would do it 70% of the time. But this is subjective also.
#1 for six weeks is not a small feat. even if you bring the weak era argument. If that is the case (that is, he only got it because the big guys slept), why Ferrer cannot do the same, whe he is not #3 or #2 now, or was last year? Federer is old, Murray was coming back and Nadal is somebody else. Same scenario, different results.
And Rios has 5 master titles against Ferrer's 1. That's a lot, specialy considering that Rios career was much shorter.
But this is not yet my main reason to think there is absolutely no comparison between the two. The one thing that Rios surely had (at least for a while) and Ferrer simply never had was that aura of "he is the best guy around", even with some all time greats around him. For some time, he was the guy to beat, and for a reasonably larger period people would give him a fair shot against anyone. Ferrer has always been the underdog against the best of his era, even against Djokovic and Murray when they both only had one slam between them.
It is a fact I am no fan of Ferrer, but that does not mean I cannot have and objective and reasonably unbiased opinion about him. That is, "strong dislike" is not the basis of my opinion.
In a nutshell, Rios had that "thing" (which is more than simply talent) that great champions have, even if for a short while, even if less than the great players we all know. And that is something Ferrer, like him or not, never had.
But, just to make you happy, I think Ferrer is a fine, solid player, and does a lot of good for the tour.
uzzled :nono :angel: :dodgy:
