David Ferrer, World #2

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.

ATP is hitting WTA heights , we had countless no.1's who never won slams when they ranked no.1, I hope Haas upsets Djoko in the 4th round so Ferrer can push for the ultimate goal of NO.1 for the year end, we all could hail the greatest no.1 of all time and the greatest era of all time.

Note: This is considering Nadal at his peak, Murray at his peak, Djoko and Fed at ultimate peak  according to some posters.

Indeed Ferrer will set the newest and record breaking attempt to become the no.1 without winning a slam, Boy oh boy thats not easy, something Federer and Nadal could only dream off

Yes, that is funny.  Not likely, but not totally inconceivable he could be #2 in the world.  I doubt Roger will defend the title, in which case Ferrer is very likely to get up to #3 at least - even that is hilarious.

Marcelo Rios has done that before.

I am flabbergasted that a hardworking Ferrer is being maligned for being so hardworking that he can show, yet again that slams are not that important to be ATP #1.

He has a slam final, at the age of 31, the same age as Federer. He has lived in the shadows of his illustrious compatriot, Nadal. He played DC, when Nadal was unavailable, and helped beat US on HC. 

It is rather unfortunate that Ferrer is being used as a stick to make his peers look bad. I am pretty certain Churchill and Hitler were peers, were they not?

If he was a couple of inches taller (perhaps 1 or 2, he would be 5'10"-5'11" - like Agassi, McEnroe, Connors) and could have won more titles.

But he is not a couple of inches taller.  He is a good player, and good for him if he gets up there (he will not get to #1, but might indeed reach #2), but it still will be rather funny if he does get there.  He is 30+, never been in top 3, and hardly won anything of importance in his entire career - not your typical #2 player.

Every now and then the ATP ranking system throws out a anomaly, in terms of sense (In 2011, Djokovic would have taken over Nadal as numero uno win or lose at Wimbledon, meaming the world number one could have had one solitary slam vs the world number two's three), this is not one of them. Ferrer has put together a remarkable run of consistency in slams, (W-QF, USO - SF, AO - SF, RG - F), one himself a Masters 1000, made a few more semi's. He has hardly embarassed himself on the higher sections of the tour. Well done to him, if he gets it. I was hoping it would be Rafa, but consistency is rewarded on tour, and Ferrer, for all his limitations, has been a model of it.

2008 post Wimbledon Rafa was no.1 winning it, 2009 Post Wimbledon Federer became No.1 winning it, 2010 Rafa became no.1 winning Wimbledon, 2011 Djoko became No.1 winning the title, 2012 Fed became the No.1 winning the title, so 2013 gonna break the streak?

IC - but when you look at it, this is possibly due to the strength and unavailability of the big four in equal measures. Nadal, for all his glory, has actually only gotten points in one Slam. Murray missed RG, and Federer has already missed two MS1000's. Djokovic is present more often, and hes numero uno.
Not to mention the fact that he has been seeded four the last four Grand Slams, meaning he can get to Semi's now before he gets dusted.

Excuse me OP but wasn't Tim Henman once ranked No.2 in the world and was slamless? Heck more than that he was slam final-less unlike Ferrer so that proves absolutely zilch. I am not ridiculing Tim in anyway either just like I am not doing that with Ferrer.

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?

Some posters are missing the point.

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.

So the point is that Ferrer makes #2 not on optimistic projections, but high probability.


As for maligning him, I'm not. He is a solid, honest and steady pro who, if he were to have made #2 in 2005 would be held up as a condemnation of the period. He didn't; he couldn't. There were better players around.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Excuse me OP but wasn't Tim Henman once ranked No.2 in the world and was slamless? Heck more than that he was slam final-less unlike Ferrer so that proves absolutely zilch. I am not ridiculing Tim in anyway either just like I am not doing that with Ferrer.

No, Tim's best was #4.

Apologies OP as Henman only reached No.4 but the analogy still stands. Tim was similar in many ways results-wise though. He just failed against the top players when it mattered most very much like Ferrer now. Both are/were very capable of regularly beating players ranked below them though and often did hence their ranking held up.

I am sure we could delve back through time in tennis and uncover players who got to a similar ranking without being a slam winner as well. It happens but proves nothing.

It's a reflection of how much tennis conditions have slowed that Ferrer with his reduced skill base vs. others can attain #2. This shows where ATP is headed in terms of what type of player these conditions promote as a whole. We're back to the skill vs stamina argument.

lydian wrote:It's a reflection of how much tennis conditions have slowed that Ferrer with his reduced skill base vs. others can attain #2. This shows where ATP is headed in terms of what type of player these conditions promote as a whole. We're back to the skill vs stamina argument.

This.

The point here is that a very limited player is likely to reach number two in the world. This tells me that you can succeed and indeed be incredibly successful playing a one size fits all game - with NO ADJUSTMENTS required for different surfaces (which is what Ferrer basically does). What does this say about the homogenisation of surfaces?

Even a few years ago (05-07) Ferrer wasn't doing as well as this. He was 24-6 at that time ie peak age, yet his results weren't anywhere near as consistent, especially at the slams.

Of course there was David Nalbandian - slamless yet reached No.3 in the word, Rainer Shuettler got as high as No.4 in the world yet never reached a slam final, Todd Martin reached No.4 but never won a slam and Brad Gilbert reached No.4 in the world and never got beyond a slam quarter-final!  I am sure there are many more.

emancipator wrote:

lydian wrote:It's a reflection of how much tennis conditions have slowed that Ferrer with his reduced skill base vs. others can attain #2. This shows where ATP is headed in terms of what type of player these conditions promote as a whole. We're back to the skill vs stamina argument.

This.

The point here is that a very limited player is likely to reach number two in the world. This tells me that you can succeed and indeed be incredibly successful playing a one size fits all game - with NO ADJUSTMENTS required for different surfaces (which is what Ferrer basically does). What does this say about the homogenisation of surfaces?

Even a few years ago (05-07) Ferrer wasn't doing as well as this. He was 24-6 at that time ie peak age, yet his results weren't anywhere near as consistent, especially at the slams.

That old saying of 'One man's meat is another man's poison' springs to mind. Whereas there are a number of posters here who don't rate Ferrer and don't like his style of play you will find he has plenty of fans around the world. Ask them and they may find a tennis player popular here as not their kind of player. It is all about opinions really.

Of course it is CC. Ferrer is a great role model in terms of work ethic, determination and extracting every last ounce of tennis talent you were lucky to be embued with in the first place.

However, he hasn't got particularly great hands or ball striking ability which are better markers of innate talent. His talent is fight, spirit, never give in and the ability to hit a decent length ball all day long.

Those other players you mention haven't been as solid as Ferrer to be honest. Nalby was never staple top 5, neither Schuttler, Martin, etc. It was hard to be back then unless you were a true all rounder who could adapt play/tactics across all surfaces and their variances. In this era, e.g. post 2009 when all carpet courts went, a guy like Ferrer can be so consistent with the one-shop approach. It's also of course why we see the same 4 guys winning everything. 

I applaud Ferrer for his efforts, and a nicer man on tour couldn't be met, but he's not even a patch on Chang of the 90s in reality...if conditions were quicker he simply wouldn't have the leg speed to keep up, or the hand skills to take the ball early enough.

So in short different conditions, suit a different type of player and moulds a different type of player and brings out different qualities. If we were to have those old Top Trump cards then the likes of Gilbert, Nalbandian and Martin may beat Ferrer in some areas conversely he would beat them in other areas.

Part of Ferrer's ranking is due to air miles though.

Wimbledon is already his 14th tournament of the year!

For Novak and Roger, by way of contrast, Wimbledon is their 9th tournament.

Yeah I get goose-bumps watching the enormous skill Marcelo Rios had... Absolute titan, wasnt he?

Im sorry but this reduced skill-base nonsense is... nonsense. Pistol Pete, he of the advanced skillbase which imcluded... Serve-volley-pass, he who rallied his way to fourteen Slams. Or John McEnroe, he of two Clay wins, or 0 time clay winner Boris Becker? There is a huge distinction between a different skill set, and a Reduced skillset.

Rios's career was blighted by injury kingraf - something I'm sure you would have sympathy for
His career was pretty much over by the time he was 24.

JHM - Of course I do (You read to many of my comments ha ha). But its grossly unfair to accuse Ferrer of having a reduced skill set (forget that Ferrer called him the best returner on tour), and thus him being the world #2 is somehow a stick to beat this era with, when for the longest time guys like Cedric Piolone could make Slam finals...

Wasn't Murray the last slamless no.2 just prior to the US Open in 2009? I guess at that time he was counting similar slam results: a USO F, W SF, AO QF (not sure about RG but doubt it was impressive) but also a couple of Masters. I'm sure that was considered an anomoly too due to Nadal's knee issues (Nadal being the only slam holder below him at the time).

Guess there was a slight difference in that some of the big points Murray had came from beating the other "big 4" players whereas I don't think any of Ferrer's do (last "big 4" win against Murray at RG now dropped off). However, he beats the rest of the field and once you get those high seedings, beating the field will keep you there.

BB, I think even post Olympics it gets worse for a while as I think don't think he has much to defend right through to Valencia & Paris other than the US Open SF. I don't recall him doing well at Toronto/Cincy last year and think he skipped Shanghai altogether.

For a player who looked rather broken after the Miami final this year, he's done not bad.

Which requires more skill...a fast dipping ball to your knees which must be volleyed into the opposite corner or hitting regulation balls from the back for 80% of the time?

Pete had great ground strokes, probably top3 FH of all time along with Federer and Nadal...but he didn't have stamina on clay due to his anaemia. Remember at RG he beat Bruguera and Courier one year only to have nothing left in the tank vs Kafelnikov his usual whipping boy.

Anyway, on homogenised surfaces you need less tools in the bag to compete through the year, so yes it's a reduced skill set.

I think it's slightly tongue-in-cheek kingraf, given how many sticks the 2003-2007 'era' has been beaten with for the last several years.

However, I'm pretty sure Pete Sampras' skill-set far out-weighs David Ferrer's. Better serve, better volley, better forehand, better return of serve. The SHBH vs the DHBH might be comparable.

Let's put the rankings in context. It doesn't show us who is best it shows who has accumulated the most points.

Ferrer has won nearly 1000 points this year against less-than-stellar fields at Oeiras, Acapulco, Buenos Airies and Auckland.

All his ranking shows us is that he is a) consistent and b) plays a lot.

That's not a dig at him. But if you play 5 more tournaments than the guy above you in the rankings, you stand a fair chance of reeling him in.

It's even laughable we compare Ferrer to Sampras.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I think it's slightly tongue-in-cheek kingraf, given how many sticks the 2003-2007 'era' has been beaten with for the last several years.

However, I'm pretty sure Pete Sampras' skill-set far out-weighs David Ferrer's. Better serve, better volley, better forehand, better return of serve. The SHBH vs the DHBH might be comparable.

But isn't that a somewhat skew-whiff comparison. Nobody today is claiming Ferrer is one of the all-time greats so why try comparing him with an all-time great? It is akin to comparing Roger Federer to Todd Martin.

If you were to get a time machine and ferry Ferrer back in time to the early 1990's to play for a year he would not make it into that year's top twenty maybe even more. However, do the same for a player in the early 1990's, Todd Martin for example and bring him forward in time to today he'd suffer just as much and maybe more. Players are ingrained into the conditions, courts, equipment and other oddities of their specific era and to succeed they used their strengths to get the necessary results. The successful players are those that end up as all-time greats - Ferrer won't go down as that and neither will those other names mentioned in this thread from earlier times in tennis.

kingraf wrote:Im sorry but this reduced skill-base nonsense is... nonsense. Pistol Pete, he of the advanced skillbase which imcluded... Serve-volley-pass, he who rallied his way to fourteen Slams. Or John McEnroe, he of two Clay wins, or 0 time clay winner Boris Becker? There is a huge distinction between a different skill set, and a Reduced skillset.

Oh ok, David Ferrer can be compared to John McEnroe for skill now?

Wow, the defenders of 2013 know no boundaries.

No... I never compared the two. Although you could match up Tsonga vs Ferrer the same way, and there is only one way thats finishing.

Bogbrush, you know thats not what I was saying is: " There is a huge
distinction between a different skill set, and a
Reduced skillset.
”
McEnroe would get rallied under the floor by... well nearly every clay player he faced. Of course you would apso deny that Ferrer was fitter...

kingraf wrote:Bogbrush, you know thats not what I was saying is: " There is a huge
distinction between a different skill set, and a
Reduced skillset.
”
McEnroe would get rallied under the floor by... well nearly every clay player he faced. Of course you would apso deny that Ferrer was fitter...

I think it is all about court conditions and equipment. Ferrer playing McEnroe on 1970's conditions only ever one winner but play them on today's conditions and it is a different matter. Play them on alien conditions to them both and my money would be on McEnroe every time.

No no... I mean in the 80s CC, not with mordern equipmemt

Sorry but in the 1980's with wooden racquets then Mac wins by a country mile. The court speeds wouldn't enable Ferrer to get any sort of a foothold in a rally in my opinion.

To those saying this is only because of player unavailability, I'd say is it possible to have a Golden Era based on 4 players when one player only does the clay season, another is free of all ATP obligations and takes extended sabbaticals, and a third only won one Slam anyway, and has missed another due to injury?

Bottom line, David Ferrer is going to be the #2 pretty soon, barring a very surprising defeat pre-semis. That's a fact and it can't be rationalised out of existence, and is a "worse" effect than any of the so-called weak era indicators from previous times. I say this not to denigrate this period but to remind those who periodically get very excited about this period that it's not all that special.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Excuse me OP but wasn't Tim Henman once ranked No.2 in the world and was slamless? Heck more than that he was slam final-less unlike Ferrer so that proves absolutely zilch. I am not ridiculing Tim in anyway either just like I am not doing that with Ferrer.

His highest ranking was 4.

The biggest indictment of 2013 is not that Ferrer could be ranked #2 (which can be distorted by tournaments played) but rather that the last 12 months have been his most successful year in the slams by some distance!

It tough to reconcile the fact that a hard working but rather limited player has his greatest success at age 31 with the idea that 2013 is good period for men's tennis.

bogbrush wrote:To those saying this is only because of player unavailability, I'd say is it possible to have a Golden Era based on 4 players when one player only does the clay season, another is free of all ATP obligations and takes extended sabbaticals, and a third only won one Slam anyway, and has missed another due to injury?

Bottom line, David Ferrer is going to be the #2 pretty soon, barring a very surprising defeat pre-semis. That's a fact and it can't be rationalised out of existence, and is a "worse" effect than any of the so-called weak era indicators from previous times. I say this not to denigrate this period but to remind those who periodically get very excited about this period that it's not all that special.

I agree with what you are saying but would say that it is plain we are moving on from the Fedal era which people did talk up. This now is definitely a different such era. Nadal is troubled by injury and doubts hover over him, Roger is in the twilight of his career though still mixing it on grass and we have Djokovic and Murray competing regularly for slam wins. A different era from Fedal wouldn't you agree?

Believe it or not, this "sham" of a future #2 once beat Former #1 Andy Roddick on Carpet 1 & 3 in 2007, so if he is a joke then inevitably...
Wee Keira...

Great based on one match we can declare an era weak..

HM Murdoch wrote:The biggest indictment of 2013 is not that Ferrer could be ranked #2 (which can be distorted by tournaments played) but rather that the last 12 months have been his most successful year in the slams by some distance!

It tough to reconcile the fact that a hard working but rather limited player has his greatest success at age 31 with the idea that 2013 is good period for men's tennis.

This is a very pertinent point.

I remember Ferrer as being more of a fourth rd/quarter finalist at the slams during 05-07. Yet today he seems to be averaging semifinals on ALL surfaces. How bizarre.

As for the comparisons with Mac and Sampras.. just silly. It was bad enough when he was being compared to Hewitt.

HM Murdoch wrote:The biggest indictment of 2013 is not that Ferrer could be ranked #2 (which can be distorted by tournaments played) but rather that the last 12 months have been his most successful year in the slams by some distance!

It tough to reconcile the fact that a hard working but rather limited player has his greatest success at age 31 with the idea that 2013 is good period for men's tennis.

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

The problem we have at the moment is that the conveyor belt has stopped.

Federer emerged as Sampras called time. Rafa emerged a couple of years later, Novak and Andy a couple of years after that.

Who has broken through since Novak and Andy? Nobody. Del Potro looked like he would but injury appears to have blocked his progress.

And what's worse is that nobody appears on the cusp of a breakthrough either.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I think it's slightly tongue-in-cheek kingraf, given how many sticks the 2003-2007 'era' has been beaten with for the last several years.

However, I'm pretty sure Pete Sampras' skill-set far out-weighs David Ferrer's. Better serve, better volley, better forehand, better return of serve. The SHBH vs the DHBH might be comparable.

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.

Anyway back on subject. I think nearly all of us agree that the 1 year system is the best way to create the current rankings. I know I do. Therefore if Ferrer gets to number 2 it will be fully earned. He has managed his schedule to maximise the points he could get. If you look at his rankings breakdown the number of tournaments he plays allows him to drop events like Barcelona where he does badly with impunity. He also has admirably taken full advantage of his rankings boost due to Nadal's absence. In the 3 slams since he has reached SF, SF, F. Finally he stepped up in Paris to win the Masters1000 there when others either didn't play or went out tamely probably thinking about the WTF the following week. He also got to the Miami final when Nadal and Federer didn't play and Djokovic went out early.

Therefore although not the most talented player on the tour he certainly takes it seriously and if he gets to number 2 well done to him. It could be an example to others who, more talented, only seem to play strongly for a few weeks in the year.

Well, he made the 2007 WTF final (beat Roddick there too) and 2007 USO SF.. Tied 1-1 with Safin. 4-0 vs Haas, 2-1 vs Hewitt, 5-5 vs Gonzales...

HM Murdoch wrote:The problem we have at the moment is that the conveyor belt has stopped.

Federer emerged as Sampras called time. Rafa emerged a couple of years later, Novak and Andy a couple of years after that.

Who has broken through since Novak and Andy? Nobody. Del Potro looked like he would but injury appears to have blocked his progress.

And what's worse is that nobody appears on the cusp of a breakthrough either.

If you remember though that no up and coming juniors have broken through since the class of 2005/2006 so it isn't just something of a problem over the last year or two. True nobody appears to be on the cusp of a breakthrough but what would you constitute a breakthrough? Remember Tsonga has reached slam semis of late so is that a breakthrough? At Wimbledon we may (just may) see Dimitrov or Janowicz break into the quarters - would that constitute a breakthrough?