Tracking the Race to London - 2014 WTF

[GameSetAndMath]

Yeah, Ferrer's last 2 tournament results have been poor and he's doing his best to not qualify for the WTF. He probably won't if there's any justice so we can watch someone else who'll do better there as he didn't win a single match there last year.

Ferrer is aging very fast. He lost to basically nobodies in Hamburg, Shenzhen and Beijing.

 

[Front242]

^ I like !

 

[Kieran]

No love for Ferrer. He's still younger than Federer but he's showing signs of decay. But personally, I think it would be better if he doesn't qualify. He brings little to the party, at this stage. Last year he showed up knackered...

 

[Front242]

No love for Ferrer. He's still younger than Federer but he's showing signs of decay. But personally, I think it would be better if he doesn't qualify. He brings little to the party, at this stage. Last year he showed up knackered...

Yup, he was a waste of a spot there last year but I don't think he'll qualify in any case whether he wants to or not. The others are likely to do better than him imo.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Ferrer is normally very good at not losing to players he is not supposed to lose.
But, look at his recent results.

Wimbledon --- Lost to Kuznetsov (ranked 118)
Bastaad --- Lost to Berloq
Hamburg --- Lost to Leonardo Mayer.
US Open --- Lost to Simon
Shenzhen --- Lost to Troiki
Beijing --- Lost to Granollers.

When this happens and no specific injury or personal/family reasons are known, you
can safely conclude, he is on decline. Ferrer is surely well on his path to oblivion. Most
probably, he will not qualify for WTF and this may be his last year in top 10.

He himself told explicitly at the beginning of the year itself that he is feeling the
effects of age.

 

[Kieran]

Hopefully. The Big 3+1, then Grigor, Cilic, Stanley Wow! and Nishi. That would sort of represent things more pleasingly...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Hopefully. The Big 3+1, then Grigor, Cilic, Stanley Wow! and Nishi. That would sort of represent things more pleasingly...

That is exactly the combination that I am rooting for too.

However, we have to keep in mind that although five from the list have made it,
Nishi, +1 and Grigor are not a shoe in yet (especially, the last two).

 

[El Dude]

Poor David Ferrer. He's actually had a great career, but has just been overmatched in finals of big tournaments - in Slams (0-1), WTF (0-1) and Masters (1-6) he's a total of 1-8 in finals.

He's been solid in ATP 500s (7-9) and pretty good in ATP 250s (13-7), but he's clearly a player who has accrued a bunch of titles by being consistently very good, but not great. I think you could make an argument that Ferrer has the best career of any player not to win a Slam (mind you, not the best player).

 

[Front242]

His final record is better than poor Benneteau's anyway. 0-10. Shocking that he's never won a title at even 250 level.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Poor David Ferrer. He's actually had a great career, but has just been overmatched in finals of big tournaments - in Slams (0-1), WTF (0-1) and Masters (1-6) he's a total of 1-8 in finals.

He's been solid in ATP 500s (7-9) and pretty good in ATP 250s (13-7), but he's clearly a player who has accrued a bunch of titles by being consistently very good, but not great. I think you could make an argument that Ferrer has the best career of any player not to win a Slam (mind you, not the best player).

No way. We had a SHEEP (Slamless Heroic Everlasting Excellent Player) thread discussing
specifically this. Davydenko and Nalbandian are the two prime contenders from the players
of recent times for this award. Davydenko has actually won a WTF and won two Masters.
I think the same applied to Nalby too. Ferrer's results do not come close to it. Ferrer has
won only one Masters, where as these guys have won two. Also, these guys have actually
won WTF.

 

[mrzz]

Poor David Ferrer. He's actually had a great career, but has just been overmatched in finals of big tournaments - in Slams (0-1), WTF (0-1) and Masters (1-6) he's a total of 1-8 in finals.

He's been solid in ATP 500s (7-9) and pretty good in ATP 250s (13-7), but he's clearly a player who has accrued a bunch of titles by being consistently very good, but not great. I think you could make an argument that Ferrer has the best career of any player not to win a Slam (mind you, not the best player).

No way. We had a SHEEP (Slamless Heroic Everlasting Excellent Player) thread discussing
specifically this. Davydenko and Nalbandian are the two prime contenders from the players
of recent times for this award. Davydenko has actually won a WTF and won two Masters.
I think the same applied to Nalby too. Ferrer's results do not come close to it. Ferrer has
won only one Masters, where as these guys have won two. Also, these guys have actually
won WTF.

And also, these guys were good. (sorry, couldn't resist)

 

[Kieran]

Yeah, in fairness to Ferrer, he's battled above his weight for centuries now and had some success. He's deserving of all the praise he gets, including some from Jimmy Connors, who praised him even ahead of Rafa as a warrior. And to be fair to Daveed2, he wins things. Berdych seems stickied to the top ten without ever beating anybody or winning anything. If he had Ferrer's heart, he'd be a world beater.

I'm hoping Berdych doesn't make the top 8 for this reason alone...

 

[mrzz]

^
While I was reading your post my evil twin passed behind me and glanced to the screen. Here's what he said:

"There's only one thing which can bore me more than David Ferrer: someone actually defending him".

 

[DarthFed]

^
While I was reading your post my evil twin passed behind me and glanced to the screen. Here's what he said:

"There's only one thing which can bore me more than David Ferrer: someone actually defending him".

:lolz::clap

 

[El Dude]

Poor David Ferrer. He's actually had a great career, but has just been overmatched in finals of big tournaments - in Slams (0-1), WTF (0-1) and Masters (1-6) he's a total of 1-8 in finals.

He's been solid in ATP 500s (7-9) and pretty good in ATP 250s (13-7), but he's clearly a player who has accrued a bunch of titles by being consistently very good, but not great. I think you could make an argument that Ferrer has the best career of any player not to win a Slam (mind you, not the best player).

No way. We had a SHEEP (Slamless Heroic Everlasting Excellent Player) thread discussing
specifically this. Davydenko and Nalbandian are the two prime contenders from the players
of recent times for this award. Davydenko has actually won a WTF and won two Masters.
I think the same applied to Nalby too. Ferrer's results do not come close to it. Ferrer has
won only one Masters, where as these guys have won two. Also, these guys have actually
won WTF.

I think you're being hyperbolic, GSaM, especially if we take my specific words--" I think you could make an argument that Ferrer has the best career of any player not to win a Slam." Look beyond titles - Ferrer has done much better at Slams, much better year in and year out, certainly than Davydenko but also (arguably) than Nalbandian. Compare their Slam records, for instance:

Ferrer: 1 F, 5 SF, 9 QF
Davydenko: 0 F, 4 SF, 6 QF
Nalbandian: 1 F, 4 SF, 5 QF

Ferrer's records at Slams is better. Or look at titles won:

WTF/Masters/500/250

Ferrer: 0/1/7/13
Davydenko: 1/3/1/16
Nalbandian: 1/2/1/7

Davydenko and Nalbandian--as you point out--had more wins at WTF and Masters, but David was better at lesser tournaments.

There are other factors, though, and it really would require an in-depth study. But again, I didn't say he WAS, but that an argument could be made - and I stand by that.

 

[Front242]

WTF titles show you beat all the players you faced out of the top 8 in the world and winning masters 1000 is also a decent feat. Not Ferrer's fault he won Paris where most top seeds fall early or don't even play but even so it was still a much easier ride to the title than the ones Nalbandian and Davydenko won with much higher ranked opponents. I'd say those WTF titles put Davy and Nalby well above Ferrer for that record. He's never won a tournament with a max amount of 1500 points up for grabs which is 2nd only to the slams.

 

[herios]

WTF titles show you beat all the players you faced out of the top 8 in the world and winning masters 1000 is also a decent feat. Not Ferrer's fault he won Paris where most top seeds fall early or don't even play but even so it was still a much easier ride to the title than the ones Nalbandian and Davydenko won with much higher ranked opponents. I'd say those WTF titles put Davy and Nalby well above Ferrer for that record. He's never won a tournament with a max amount of 1500 points up for grabs which is 2nd only to the slams.

Your arguments in demonstrating that Davydenko and Nalbandian have results which put them "well" above Ferrer are debatable at least and your vehemence which you bring to the discussion just shows how subjective you are simply because you cannot stand him.

And while taste and preference in players is always subjective, at least, do not argue when there is not much substance behind your affirmation. That lone WTF title will not make neither Davydenko, nor Nalbandian that much better players at the end of the day, especially when in some other results, David Ferrer was better than them.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Milos passes David for London. I don't know who is more disliked here, but go Milos.

 

[isabelle]

Milos passes David for London. I don't know who is more disliked here, but go Milos.

I love Daveeed but Milos is not my cup of tea, big servers aren't so appealing for me

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Poor David Ferrer. He's actually had a great career, but has just been overmatched in finals of big tournaments - in Slams (0-1), WTF (0-1) and Masters (1-6) he's a total of 1-8 in finals.

He's been solid in ATP 500s (7-9) and pretty good in ATP 250s (13-7), but he's clearly a player who has accrued a bunch of titles by being consistently very good, but not great. I think you could make an argument that Ferrer has the best career of any player not to win a Slam (mind you, not the best player).

No way. We had a SHEEP (Slamless Heroic Everlasting Excellent Player) thread discussing
specifically this. Davydenko and Nalbandian are the two prime contenders from the players
of recent times for this award. Davydenko has actually won a WTF and won two Masters.
I think the same applied to Nalby too. Ferrer's results do not come close to it. Ferrer has
won only one Masters, where as these guys have won two. Also, these guys have actually
won WTF.

I think you're being hyperbolic, GSaM, especially if we take my specific words--" I think you could make an argument that Ferrer has the best career of any player not to win a Slam." Look beyond titles - Ferrer has done much better at Slams, much better year in and year out, certainly than Davydenko but also (arguably) than Nalbandian. Compare their Slam records, for instance:

Ferrer: 1 F, 5 SF, 9 QF
Davydenko: 0 F, 4 SF, 6 QF
Nalbandian: 1 F, 4 SF, 5 QF

Ferrer's records at Slams is better. Or look at titles won:

WTF/Masters/500/250

Ferrer: 0/1/7/13
Davydenko: 1/3/1/16
Nalbandian: 1/2/1/7

Davydenko and Nalbandian--as you point out--had more wins at WTF and Masters, but David was better at lesser tournaments.

There are other factors, though, and it really would require an in-depth study. But again, I didn't say he WAS, but that an argument could be made - and I stand by that.

This is ridiculous. You said in your original post that an argument could be made that
Ferrer is the best player not to have won a Slam. Once you ignore slams, the most
important tournaments are WTF and Masters. Now that your argument is demolished
by me completely by showing his WTF and Masters record are inferior to both
that of Davy and Nalby, you are going to "David was better at lesser tournaments".
Come on, one does not measure greatness by success at lesser tournaments.

What next, you will pick a guy who has won many challenger trophies and
call him the best player not to have won a slam?

Finally, it is funny that you call me hyperbole after that.