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.

JuliusHMarx wrote:2013 is still a good period for men's tennis, but I struggle to find a period that was not good, IMHO, so I suspect MHO doesn't count for much

It's not awful but I don't think it's vintage. It's hard to put it into context as the events are still unfolding.

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.

Calder, the warning was more about the repetitive nature of the era discussions, and IIRC, we welcomed fresh discussions, rather than the same old same old.

Hence JubbaIsle era thread yesterday was a welcome addition, and David Ferrer making (probably) number 2 in the world throws a new light on things.

Of course, if it then descends into the same old same old, then I'm sure posters will reflect on how boring they will all sound

I agree with your comment re: Ferrer, although I personally have little interest in watching his style of play.

CaledonianCraig wrote: what would you constitute a breakthrough?

Someone being able to consistently challenge those at the top of the game and consistently win significant events.

It descends because eventually someone brings up a players skill-set. Which leads to comparisons in skill set...

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.

kingraf wrote:It descends because eventually someone brings up a players skill-set. Which leads to comparisons in skill set...

It's hard to talk about David Ferrer and how he got to number 2 without talking about his skill-set.

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.

Yeah, I have to agree with that.

HM Murdoch wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote: what would you constitute a breakthrough?

Someone being able to consistently challenge those at the top of the game and consistently win significant events.

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?

Thats why the ending is inevitable...

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.

It's stimulating and thought provoking. That doesn't make it an era thread, I just know my audience and what gets their creative juices going.

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!

For me it just means we shouldn't put too much equity on rankings - in this homogenised era they are maybe more a measure of consistency than greatness. Its about the actual titles won - Ferrer has won only ONE Masters and reached only ONE slam final.
You can almost track the slowing of surfaces with Ferrer doing better and better. Ferrer is the speed index barometer.

I do agree there is a lack of talent emerging but we know the physical side means the gestation period from junior to top senior is much longer now. Dimitrov is a case in point...15 years ago I think he would have been top 10 already....but he will be top 5 soonish, make no mistake. The way he played against Bolleli in handling fast balls showed his innate talent, and that serve is actually a monster. The next #1 for me who is younger than the top 4.

you genius you BB. Giving the masses exactly what we need. We wont fall for it, David Icke warned us about you Snake people!!

Era debates are always good for the soul as long as we don't get sucked into Fedalovicisms.

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!

On your first point that just demonstrates how good that young generation was.

As for point two, I think Roger has alluded to this as have other ex-pros and stats back it up, for some reason players are breaking through and peaking later. True they aren't challenging those players you mention (regularly) but they have beaten them and proven they can beat them. It seems they need consistency and longevity of good form and then the breakthroughs may come.

Craig, I think the "breaking through later" quote is very diplomatic!

Let's put it this way - who "broke through" later? The top ten at the end of 2008 included Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Tsonga and Del Potro.

Do we really count the other 4 - Berdych, Gasquet, Wawrinka and Ferrer as "breaking through" when they have two slam finals between them?

The honest truth is that nobody has  broken through later.

What has actually happened is that nobody has broken through whilst young, which is not the same thing!

To be frank in 2008 JMDP made it to the top ten the "Ferrer way"... I dont think he beat a top ten player that entire year.

kingraf wrote:To be frank in 2008 JMDP made it to the top ten the "Ferrer way"... I dont think he beat a top ten player that entire year.

But in 2009 he beat top ten players several times and won a slam.

It was definitely a 'breakthrough' before injury stalled it. And he was aged 20 at the time, so I don't know where that fits into the 'breaking through later' idea!

Sorry, I don't want to labour the 'breaking through later' point but I'm afraid it irks me.

Tommy Haas has been riddled with injury for years. Over 2010 and 2011, he played a total of 26 matches.

Yet he, at aged 35, manages to get fit, battle through 5 setters and shoot up the rankings.

But the poor little lambs of the younger generation are being held back because it's so physical nowadays and they haven't had time to get fit enough?

The only reason they are not winning more is that they are either not good enough or haven't put the work into conditioning.

Rant over!

HM Murdoch wrote:Craig, I think the "breaking through later" quote is very diplomatic!

Let's put it this way - who "broke through" later? The top ten at the end of 2008 included Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Tsonga and Del Potro.

Do we really count the other 4 - Berdych, Gasquet, Wawrinka and Ferrer as "breaking through" when they have two slam finals between them?

The honest truth is that nobody has  broken through later.

What has actually happened is that nobody has broken through whilst young, which is not the same thing!

Breaking through is a very loose term though isn't it? People will have different ideas of what breaking through is and to what degree. Definitely, I agree it is worrying about the lack of youngsters breaking through though - surely there can be no denying that by any poster here whatever their agenda is. Who knows what the future will bring though? I have a sneaky feeling that four or five years down the line is when posters here may get their way. I think the ATP will see something has to change once they realise the next generation is not going to draw fans in to watch tennis. You may then see the faster courts that many of us want to see but time will tell.

I remember on the old 606 he was talked about in very disparaging terms. No one saw that a breakthrough anymore than they saw Jankovic's rise to #1.

HM Murdoch wrote:Sorry, I don't want to labour the 'breaking through later' point but I'm afraid it irks me.

Tommy Haas has been riddled with injury for years. Over 2010 and 2011, he played a total of 26 matches.

Yet he, at aged 35, manages to get fit, battle through 5 setters and shoot up the rankings.

But the poor little lambs of the younger generation are being held back because it's so physical nowadays and they haven't had time to get fit enough?

The only reason they are not winning more is that they are either not good enough or haven't put the work into conditioning.

Rant over!

Conditioning is key HM and do see what you are saying. A BBC piece on the live coverage as we speak just now.

kingraf wrote:To be frank in 2008 JMDP made it to the top ten the "Ferrer way"... I dont think he beat a top ten player that entire year.

R U crazy?

He beat Nadal 3 times in a row in 2009
Federer 2 times in a row 2009

let alone other major top 10's

He didn't reach World No.2 any time in his career including his stunning year of 2009, but today becoming a world no.2 has become much more easy than it was before . Quantity precedes over Quality.

King raf you totally making nonsense statements today in this thread, the worst was comparing Ferrer to Sampras, sorry I still cannot control my laughter bro, just to prove an adamant point you have gone extreme.

I am a big fan of Ferrer, you can see how many threads I have supported him viciously but lets be frank his game is very boring and attrition, neither his stats against top 3 is great, he is yet to beat TMF for 2 decades of play.

Great planning by Murray and Federer giving matches away to allow Ferrer to go above them and taking the attention off themselves.

I'm confused as to why no one else has come up with this conclusion?

In essence I would never have liked Ferrer's style of game when I first started watching tennis in 2001, I rather detested Lleyton and how he was able to win 2 slams and be number 1, but now I respect this way of playing more than I respect ball bashing by guys like Tsonga and Berdych, these guys could be so much better if they toned it down

IC - the key is "2008"...

Also I wasnt comparing Ferrer to Sampras, I was comparing skill sets required to succeed in the two eras.

I probably need to start using the quote function. You and a few others seem quite happy quoting me out of context... I dont even know how you missed CC's comment about the top ten in TWO THOUSAND and EIGHT, why you think JMDP's 2009 is what I'm referring to is beyond me as I clearly wrote 2008. Where he didnt win a MS1000, or a Slam final is beyond me.

HM Murdoch wrote:

kingraf wrote:To be frank in 2008 JMDP made it to the top ten the "Ferrer way"... I dont think he beat a top ten player that entire year.

But in 2009 he beat top ten players several times and won a slam.

It was definitely a 'breakthrough' before injury stalled it. And he was aged 20 at the time, so I don't know where that fits into the 'breaking through later' idea!

Dead right. In 2008 JMDP worried top players in a way that Ferrer never has and never will. Then in 2009 he played Fed 3 times at Slams; got annihilated in Australia, was very hard done to lose at RG and probably lucked out a bit (payback for RG?) at USO and subsequently narrowly beat him at the WTF. . In contrast David Ferrer is 0-14 to TMF and counts a set as a high point.

There is no late breakthrough phenomenon in evidence yet, there's just good enough to look good early, and not good enough.

HMM...how many of the current 18-21 yr olds have conditioning like this?



Not many. It takes years and years to get like this.
35 year old or not, that is some impressive physique right there.

He didnt win a set vs the big four in 2008, if Im not mistaken. I remember because thats the stick that was used to beat him. Now he was threatening them?

While Ferrer with his two three set defeats to Nadal, RG victory vs Murray last year, championship point in Miami, is less of a threat?

Look 2009 JMDP was a different beast, no doubt, but lets not be history revisionists.

I do certainly feel there is something in the physical conditioning theory. Now the game is very physical and is why you have Ferrer thriving (to a degree) as he is so well physically conditioned. Talent counts as well but if you have one (the physicality) without the other (supreme talent) you will not win slams. It also explains why there are no seventeen or eighteen year-olds breaking through as they are not physically conditioned to compete with the top players in the world. Perhaps the Janowicz, Raonic and Tomic of this world just don't have enough of either. That is my theory.

Raonic and Tomic are nowhere near enough conditioned. Janowicz is pretty fit actually.
Dimitrov is starting to make huge strides there as well - he's committed to get to the top, and will IMO.

My mistake he won a set vs Murray in 2008

There's no way Raonic or Tomic look anything resembling these 2...




As CC says, talent isn't enough...conditioning isn't enough...but both together and you have a future tennis star.

lydian wrote:Raonic and Tomic are nowhere near enough conditioned. Janowicz is pretty fit actually.
Dimitrov is starting to make huge strides there as well - he's committed to get to the top, and will IMO.

Yes but my point is that in today's game you need both. Raonic and Tomic don't have either in my opinion to become slam winners, Janowicz I would say isn't physically there yet and needs work on aspects of his game but I wouldn't write him off yet. Dimitrov I think may very well get there one day perhaps in a year or two's time.

Janowicz isn't as talented as some, and physically has some way to go but he's already ahead of others his same age I'd reckon.
Dimitrov from a very slender, slight frame has made enormous strides...he knows this is what Federer had to do as well.
I don't think it will take 2 years time for this guy to break through.

Ferrer is excellently conditioned hence where he is. His team have handled him very well and improved him in areas to get him to where he is but he lacks the talent of ground shots to harm the very best players hence he'll never get that slam win in my opinion. His physical conditioning, however, will get him through matches against players not so well-conditioned players. I am not sure I like that if I am being honest but surely those lesser players must realise they have to raise their own bar - physical conditioning-wise and they will probably then displace Ferrer quite readily.

CC - I get what youre saying. In my boxing gym there is an ethos written on the wall, which says "Your'e not 'meant' to achieve anything". What that basically means is that that nothing is achieved by divine right. One has to work for everything (some harder than others), so in that aspect Im very happy for Ferrer. Hard work beats talent when talent doesnt work hard.

lydian wrote:HMM...how many of the current 18-21 yr olds have conditioning like this?



Not many. It takes years and years to get like this.
35 year old or not, that is some impressive physique right there.

I did at 21. Sadly I developed in the reverse direction

Turning yourself into the conditioned machine of Haas above is a talent of its own - i.e. you have to have the strength of will to put yourself your years of daily conditioning pain. Its easy to think we can all become super conditioned but its not. Talent is defined in so many ways. From a ball striking perspective Ferrer isn't top 20 but he is top 4 conditioning.

The other thing to bear in mind is that guys do get better with age, and now that their bodies are generally lasting longer their physical peaks are being sustained into their technical peaks. Martina and Boris on BBC said last night that they were better tennis players at 31 than 21 but in Boris case he didn't focus enough on conditioning into his 30s. I believe that the sight of guys like Haas at 35-36 will become much more common place in the years ahead given the science of fitness, recovery and injury management is light years ahead of what it used to be.

lydian wrote:Turning yourself into the conditioned machine of Haas above is a talent of its own - i.e. you have to have the strength of will to put yourself your years of daily conditioning pain. Its easy to think we can all become super conditioned but its not. Talent is defined in so many ways. From a ball striking perspective Ferrer isn't top 20 but he is top 4 conditioning.

The other thing to bear in mind is that guys do get better with age, and now that their bodies are generally lasting longer their physical peaks are being sustained into their technical peaks. Martina and Boris on BBC said last night that they were better tennis players at 31 than 21 but in Boris case he didn't focus enough on conditioning into his 30s. I believe that the sight of guys like Haas at 35-36 will become much more common place in the years ahead given the science of fitness, recovery and injury management is light years ahead of what it used to be.

I fully agree lydian.

There's no way I'd say the discipline to try hard is a talent, it's just control or interest.

Talent is something you get for free. Discipline is upbringing or motivation.

^^ agree completely.

Murray was No 2 in 2010 despite not winning a slam...

lydian wrote:HMM...how many of the current 18-21 yr olds have conditioning like this?



Not many. It takes years and years to get like this.
35 year old or not, that is some impressive physique right there.

None.

But that's physique not fitness.

Novak for example doesn't have a physique anything like that. Federer, even in his prime, wasn't built like that. And, as much as we talk about Nadal's strength, he's not stacked like that either, (apart from the biceps).

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.



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.

Another extremely dull course in body build by bare chest prying Lydian, let's just make a separate body building thread for those who wish not to talk about tennis

Oh shut up JM, get with the current times.
I live and breathe tennis every day of the week more than you'll ever know.
Let's hear your insights into actual tennis then

It is clear to me today. To succeed in tennis you need talent of course but without the physical conditioning you won't win slams or be competitive at business ends of them and vice versa. Murray realised this and sorted out the physical conditioning side as did Djokovic earlier than Murray. It is up to others to get that physical conditioning or else players like Ferrer will grind them down.