David Ferrer, World #2

First topic message reminder :

Not a joke. Not a bad dream. Very possibly the truth in two to six weeks.


Unless Federer outscores him in this event by 1125 points he will pass Roger. And if he out scores Murray by 505 points he passes him. And even if he doesn't, Murray is soon to lose his Olympics points.

So stand by for David Ferrer, Slamless #2.

This is the Golden Era, right?

EDIT: Some elaboration of the prospect that shows this is not a remote possibility, it's a high probability:

1. I am not even envisioning him getting to the final here. If he makes his semi, and Murray does likewise, they walk away 500 points apart, and then Andy drops 800 for the Olympics and Ferrer drops 70
2. Roger has to win the event to catch him if Ferrer makes the semi, and then Roger drops his 450 Olympics points.

HM Murdoch wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well we have seen Janowicz beat Murray, Dimitrov beat Djokovic and Raonic doing the same so are they really so very far away? Who knows? Remember these guys are being expected to topple Roger Federer (seen as the greatest player of all-time and still can mix it but on the wain consistency wise), Rafael Nadal (though now possibly injured), Novak Djokovic who may go on to become an all-time great and Andy Murray. That is asking a heck of a lot is it not?

There's a couple of things I'd say in response to that.

Firstly, even 07/08 when Federer was still close to his prime, it was clear that Rafa, Novak and Andy would be the next players at the top. Not just because of their comparative youth but because they were already starting to win significant tournaments.

Guys like Dimitrov and Janowicz are seen as the next generation only because of their age. They're not actually winning big events or even going deep with any consistency.

Which leads onto point 2.

Today's younger lot are not only failing to regularly challenge the top 4, they're not even challenging Ferrer, Tsonga, Berdych and Del Potro. The ones putting most heat on those guys recently have been Haas and Wawrinka!

I agree with this - you could make a great case for the younger generation taking their time but they are failing to challenge all the older guys much futher down the rankings than the four you mention above and the guys that are beginning to cause a few upsets against the top four are from the same generation.

In this way I wonder whether David Ferrer being seeded 2, if that eventuality should arise, might be a very positive kick up the derriere?  If Ferrer can consistently get the results without having a huge arsenal, then it should be a huge incentive to a guy like Dimitrov with a locker full of shots - I just wonder if some of the younger guys have the innate court savvy of a Tommy Haas?

Those players though also need the physical conditioning as talent alone is not enough in this day and age.

lydian wrote:BB, you know as well as I do that some people are simply more driven than others. Its very hard to innately motivate someone, but easy to demotivate. The wanting to go through conditioning pain is a discipline, but its discipline driven by a need to succeed to higher goals. Its like the 10,000 hour practice vs talent argument...you have to want to go through those 10,000 hours. Its not the same as easy ball striking talent but for me its another talent...because for me the ability to push yourself to the edge in any shape or form is something most people cannot do, never mind want to. They just drop out, I've seen it countless times. If you get a bunch of 5 year old kids at school and send them out on a race, some plod on at the back waiting for it to be over, others are at the front determined to win. Its not all about nurture/upbringing. Anything that most people cannot do but a few can is a form of physical or mental talent. For me high-end conditioning is all physical but its driven by an iron will to succeed.

There's a semantic argument in there but I see it this way; there's things we get for free and there's stuff we choose. Sure, the lines aren't in bold with double underlined, but in my view there's a difference (for example, you can improve your hand-eye co-ordination with practise, but I believe from a base).

Dropping out v sticking through is, in my opinion, mostly nurture. Don't forget those 5 year olds are pretty much formed individuals by then; their parents will have had thousands of opportunities to reinforce behaviour patterns, all the way from forgiving laziness every day, through to throwing a bottle of milk into a group of three babies and leaving them to get on with it. I'm going to stick my neck out and say that David Ferrer probably had sober, serious parents who promoted hard work and I know he had a tough trainer who pushed him. There's a reason why we subconsciously associate talent with fecklessness, and I think it's because we know it's the thing that allows results to come with less work.

I respect hard work, don't get me wrong, but if the word talent is to have any useful meaning distinct from success, then I can't accept broadening it to include working hard. On that basis David has minimal talent for his position and great hard work. I think he'd say as much, in fact I'm quite certain he would.

That is what I was saying Craig, isn't it? David Ferrer shows that with physical conditioning and focus you can make the most of your talents, and that should be a huge kick up the pants for guys who have far more versatility in their game to really apply themselves - they should feel that the sky is the limit for them.

In that way, DF making No 2 or 3 might be a very good thing in the end for the game?

Yes tp that is right. It may be the reason why we aren't getting youngsters coming through or may be they haven't the talent or maybe it is a bit of both. Boris earlier was suggesting a poor level of coaching.

lydian wrote:Yes but HMM, they need some muscle in this physical age, its not just about fitness unless you have an unreal talent for striking the ball which most don't have by definition. Haas is primarily extremely fit, you don't get down to that level of bodyfat without grinding the treadmill. Sure Novak is fit too, but he's pretty muscly as well, in a wiry kind of way.

Lydian, does your wife/partner ever look at your internet search history and wonder if you need to have a chat?!

What I get from the Novak picture is:
1) low body fat, he's obviously put the cardio work in.
2) he's not muscular as such but obviously has a strong core. This has to help his trunk rotation. I can concede that this may take some time to hone but I don't think it takes until mid-20s. Novak looked pretty much the same as that at 20!

Interesting debate on whether discipline is an inert talent or something that is nurtured. I think it can probably be both. It undoubtedly can be nurtured but I also know that some people just seem to be temperamentally inclined that way.

Had Ernests Gulbis been brought up in the same way as David Ferrer, would he be as disciplined as Ferrer? Tough to say.

HM Murdoch wrote:Lydian, does your wife/partner ever look at your internet search history and wonder if you need to have a chat?!

Though I have to tell you lydian that I am very grateful for your research!!

Calder106 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Calder106 wrote:I thought there was a strong warning about raising era threads a few months ago. However the OP seems to be allowed to bring in era's frequently. So are all peolpe allowed to do this now or only certains one's.

This is a thread about the soon to be current #2, and what it says about the current game that such a limited player can reach such an elevated position. By comparing it to comments made by others it is actually the very opposite of an era discussion.

What it points out is that stripping away fan hopes, the reality is that things don't really change that much.

I'll disagree here. The 'golden era' sentence is a jibe to provoke a reaction. You will not convince me otherwise.

Absolutely, spot on, this is not a new thread, or new argument. This is the same repetitive thread that has been done a hundred times, and that I have been accused of but rarely do I actually ever do a thread on weak era. I personally don't care if we have era discussions, I think it is part of tennis and stood up for people and their rights to not be pre-censored on valid tennis discussions. Next time Djokovic or Murray lose to a player over 30 I guarantee you will see another "era" discussion brought about by the same people who argued vociferously how these discussions brought this website down.

The OP himself has made this Ferrer argument at least a dozen times or more. More power to him, he has his opinions and likes to make them known. I will stand for his right to do it. Interestingly, when I was threatened by the management for quote repetitive threads about eras and GOATs none of the people having their whacks at Ferrer stood up for my right to speak on this issue and cheered the management.

Just to clarify, (a public accusation requires a public response I feel) socal was never threatened by the management for repetitive threads about eras and GOATs.
socal, I can explain why that is the case via PM if you wish, but I thought I already did a while ago.

lydian wrote:He's kind of Michael Chang-lite.
Chang was YE #2 in 1996 (7 years after winning RG).
However, he had got to F of RG95, AO96 and USO96.
Like Chang, Ferrer has become super consistent and improved his serve out of sight. However, he's no Chang in reality who had to compete on much faster surfaces as a 5'9 player...Chang is still probably the fastest guy to have appeared on ATP. But Ferrer is to be commended for his late career surge and doggedness...and he may yet surprise this Wimbledon.

We know the anomaly here is Nadal...#1 by some distance in the race but ranked #5 with half a years results missing. Federer hasn't got to a slam final since last Wimby and that will show if he doesn't do well this year. Murray had a poor clay season. Ferrer has been strong across the last 12 months, there or thereabouts at most events. It all adds up on the ATP league table...like Man City being #2 in 2012/13 but winning nothing big.

So...does this tell us ranking positions are not as important as titles won?

I agree with this statement, Ferrer has played a lot more than Nadal, Murray, and Fed over the last 52 weeks. This shows up in the rankings but it doesn't make him a better player. The best players win masters and slams, Ferrer doesn't. Ferrer is getting his ranking for being healthy, consistent, and playing a but load more than the talented players ranked about him. No one sees Ferrer as the true #2 or even #4. It is an anomaly of the ranking system which is based on encouraging the top guys into playing as many tournaments as possible. Everyone knows Ferrer is at best the #5 player, he hardly ever beats a big 4 player except maybe murray on clay. In the last 52 weeks, murray has missed a slam, Nadal has missed 7 months, and Federer is playing a light schedule; the ranking system punishes absences from the tour and favors those who show up and show up often.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Just to clarify, (a public accusation requires a public response I feel) socal was never threatened by the management for repetitive threads about eras and GOATs.
socal, I can explain why that is the case via PM if you wish, but I thought I already did a while ago.

No Julius, I said my piece, lets not be repetitive, lets move on. I just think it is funny that I hardly ever start these era threads, let it be known the last dozen or more of these threads that none of them have been done by me. Either way I think it is a valid discussion for a tennis site anyway. If BB, wants to continually post the same "david Ferrer is ranked X, and this is a golden era?" more power to him. But lets not kid ourselves into saying this is a new discussion. He has repeatedly used David Ferrer as his example of how terrible the tennis is today. As if brad gilbert former world #4 with zero weapons whatsoever was any better. Frankly, I think Ferrer is like Chang, maybe not quite as accomplished but I don't see that much between the two.

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Just to clarify, (a public accusation requires a public response I feel) socal was never threatened by the management for repetitive threads about eras and GOATs.
socal, I can explain why that is the case via PM if you wish, but I thought I already did a while ago.

No Julius, I said my piece, lets not be repetitive, lets move on. I just think it is funny that I hardly ever start these era threads

Yes, we knew that all along.

Ferrer is just one guy, one player does not make a golden era, which in all fairness is an analogy to the kind of tennis we are seeing these days, bl**dy brilliant.

But Ferrer No2 ???? not on your Nellie, never in a millions years. Forget it.

REASON 1.........he won't make it past the quarters. end of.

<JubbaIsle slinks off to check Points Spy........ooh err>

So is Ferrer a sure no.3 now?

Where the hell is Cogen and his point spy threads, COGENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

invisiblecoolers wrote:So is Ferrer a sure no.3 now?

Where the hell is Cogen and his point spy threads, COGENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

Yes he is No.3.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:So is Ferrer a sure no.3 now?

Where the hell is Cogen and his point spy threads, COGENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

Yes he is No.3.

, Vamous Ferrer.

JubbaIsle wrote:Ferrer is just one guy, one player does not make a golden era, which in all fairness is an analogy to the kind of tennis we are seeing these days, bl**dy brilliant.

But Ferrer No2 ???? not on your Nellie, never in a millions years. Forget it.

REASON 1.........he won't make it past the quarters. end of.

<JubbaIsle slinks off to check Points Spy........ooh err>

Doesn't have to.

Murray is dropping 730 points relative to him after Wimbledon anyway.

I believe that after today's results of Daveeeeed losing and Andy winning, Ferrer will not be #2 after the Olympics points come off.

The era is rescued.

I am so glad David is gone.  With all the upsets left and right, I was starting to have nightmares about David Ferrer - the Wimbledon Champion.  I did not think Delpo would do it, let alone so smoothly, but I am happy it happened.

Yeah, but summer, Ferrer works so hard - he deserves to win Wimbledon, maybe 2 or 3 times, just for running around a lot.

Heck why stick at two or three as Federer ran around a lot and won it seven times.    

CaledonianCraig wrote:as Federer ran around a lot and won it seven times.

You did not read JHM's post properly.  Federer did not just run around a lot

summerblues wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:as Federer ran around a lot and won it seven times.

You did not read JHM's post properly.  Federer did not just run around a lot

Well in response to that - no players I know of in tennis history that have managed to win even just one ATP 250 title 'just for running around a lot'.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Yeah, but summer, Ferrer works so hard - he deserves to win Wimbledon, maybe 2 or 3 times, just for running around a lot.

You forgot to mention that he is indomitable, a 'terrier' and really brave.

Also probably the best behaved player on tour. Respect.

Jahu wrote:Also probably the best behaved player on tour. Respect.

You mean apart from when he hit a ball in the direction of a crying baby in the crowd?

...and almost had the temerity of beating Nadal in Spain at Madrid? He should know its Spanish law to fall on the patriotic sword in front of Nadal - that's disrespect right there!

Yes he tries hard, yes he's a warrior/terrier and every other "...ier", yes he was locked up by his coach with meal grubs and sewerage water to feed off for trying flare shots, yes he runs a marathon every day in the off-season and can rip up Yellow Pages books with those forearms, yes he's the the model pro and kisses babies heads... yes yes yes yes yes.............but by goodness he's tediously boring to watch.

Ferrer vs Granollers has to be the worst prospect for an ATP level match. I would rather have my front teeth drilled Laurence Olivier style than face the prospect of that.

Just to be clear - I do not really consider Ferrer to be indomitable, a terrier or brave.

Definitely not the latter. Almost a 100% choke rate on big points v the top 4.

This kind of exchange restores my confidence that discerning posters can see the wood for the trees.

Who doesn't like David and tip their hat to him for potential maximisation? But watching him play? No thanks.

Just imagine Nole skipping Bercy, barring Rafa giving a damn about HC, or Murray having a Super Summer, Ferrer could find himself seeded #1 for a MS1000!!

Deary me, no! That would evoke shades of AIR on the old 606 who described a certain Basel Bungler as "the computer #1 player".

Indeed BB. I know we discussed the talent of application the other day, and we can agree to disagree there but either way natural talent for ball striking isn't in abundance where Ferrer is concerned. Del Potro rather ruthlessly demonstrated the talent gap yesterday.

*ubiquitous disclaimer - nice guy notwithstanding.

Ferrer would win more slams if he stopped taking so many risks, notice how when he attacks he always hits the net or when he misses the line by 10 inches? I'm saying Ferrer has to play safer and stop ballbashing, he's a bit like Tsonga in that respect.

Ahh JM with his sense of humour. Good one.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Ferrer would win more slams

I like this

I will say this, I generally fast forward Ferrer matches. But lets be honest he hits it about 90 percent as his capability he is. I know he is listed as five nine or ten I have seen him live he looks five eight to me. And he did turn in one of the great matches I have seen in the last 5 years in Ferrer v. Tipsy. Ferrer can't really be successful and play any other way than he does. So while I find his matches boring I generally don't criticize him and give him a lot of credit. He really is not as bad as some people portray him as the tell tale sign of the death of modern tennis. There has always been these type of players like gilbert, chang, and Ferrer on tour. I can't stand to watch them play but they do at times bring out great performances in shotmaking from other players and can add an element to the tour like Ferrer did in that Tipsy match at the open. That being said I can think of a lot worse players who were ranked in the top 5 at some stage than Ferrer.

PS not everyone on tour plays like Ferrer despite the innuendo that the modern game is boring grinding, why is it we hear Ferrer repeated so often by the critics. If you look at the majority of the top players they hit big shots and go for winners, and play much differently than Ferrer. But Ferrer is picked out as Laverfan so accurately put it to beat his contemporaries over the head with, it is kind of boring actually.

Ferrer's chances of #2 later in the year dealt a blow by Murray.