David Ferrer had an incredible career year in 2012. His 76 wins and seven titles were both good for ATP-best. We discuss the tennis world’s perception of the World No. 5 in this week’s Changeover Chat, a quick back-and-forth exchange between the writing staff at The Changeover.
Amy: So, there are 144,000 search results when Googling “David Ferrer,” and “underrated.” Is David Ferrer underrated? Overrated? Both?
Lindsay: I think Ferrer is properly rated and respected as a tennis player by people on the circuit, but perhaps a little underrated when it comes to “celebrity,” if that makes sense.
Juan José: I propose looking at Ferrer’s under/over/properly-ratedness as a journey. I think Ferrer went through a period where he was definitely being underrated, then as he established himself near the top 5 and everybody still claimed he was underrated, Ferrer became overrated. But now, given his amazing 2012, he’s properly rated. Particularly after winning that elusive Masters 1000 crown.
Amy: Ferrer is a fantastic tennis player, but I do not think he is currently underrated in the tennis community, and I’m slightly tired of hearing him constantly described that way.
Juan José: I do think that he gets overlooked by a large chunk of tennis fans, but not so by the media or the players.
Lindsay: I’d agree with that. Before this year he had underachieved a bit – he had never made the semis of the French Open or won a Masters 1000!
Juan José: Tournaments tend to favor other lower-ranked and less accomplished players when they assign who plays on show courts, and let’s not forget that Indian Wells completely forgot to schedule a Ferrer match this year.
Lindsay: There’s a difference between underrated and overlooked – once again, I go back to the “celebrity” aspect, and the fact that he’s just a more under-the-radar personality than a lot of the showboats on tour.
Juan José: Yes, being overlooked and underrated are two separate things.
Amy: He is lower profile than some other top players. But there’s not a serious tennis fan, member of the tennis media, or tennis player who doesn’t highly respect his game and give him effusive praise.
Juan José: I agree with you, Amy – but the key thing is your term, “serious tennis fan.”
Amy: Many casual tennis fans hardly know anyone aside from the Big Four (or maybe even outside Federer and Nadal). That’s not unique to Ferrer.
And let’s not forget, there are other players who get similar treatment when it comes to the show courts, right or wrong. Juan Martin del Potro, 2009 US Open champion, didn’t get to play a match on Arthur Ashe his first year back after winning the title. (Of course, he wasn’t able to defend his title in 2010, but he didn’t get to play on Ashe in 2011 when he returned, despite playing three matches.) This year, it wasn’t until he was playing against Andy Roddick in the fourth round that he got to play a match there. In that case, Del Potro had even won a Major, but because he’s similarly low profile, he got the same kind of treatment we’re talking about with Ferrer. So I guess I’m saying, yes, Ferrer is low profile, but not uniquely so.
Juan José: The interesting thing about Ferrer is how he will handle next year, when he’s seen as a legit top 5 guy, and he’ll be trying to back up his best year on tour at age 30.
Lindsay: My issue with Ferrer isn’t exactly with him, but rather with the language the media uses to discuss him. In 2007, when he made his US Open breakthrough, the only talking points were how hard-working he is, how he used to think of himself as one of the worst players in the top 100, and how he was locked in the closet. Putting the focus on his work ethic and grinder mentality was appropriate since making the semifinals of the US Open that year was such a surprise. The “terrier” and “bulldog” and “pitbull” and “insert dog of choice here” analogies were somewhat appropriate. But five years later it’s time to talk about him in a different way. He’s a top player. He’s not the Big Four. His game has flaws, as does his mental state at times against the best of the best. Sometimes it feels like the praise he gets from commentators during matches is over-exaggerated because they don’t think he should really be there, and it strikes me as patronizing.
Amy: Yes, the language the media uses in discussing him gets under my skin.
Lindsay: I get frustrated because I feel like commentators won’t hold him up to the same scrutiny that they do a Berdych or a Tsonga because they think that he’s overachieved. But I think he’s a great tennis player and it’s time to talk about him like he deserves to be there, because he does. And when you deserve to be there, you also get criticized when you don’t bring your best. And I know this is confusing to express, but when I don’t see him being examined under the same microscope as other players, I almost find it insulting for him. David Ferrer is not a fluke.
Juan José: I think that’s definitely an issue. But it’s not an issue that’s only affecting Ferrer, though. I mean, how many times did we hear about Roddick dropping 20 pounds? Djokovic going gluten-free? Mardy Fish dropping 20 pounds? Nadal adding ounces to the frame of his racquet? Azarenka’s shorts? Tennis media loves to attach a narrative to a player, and unless things radically change, that player will be stuck with the narrative forever. To the detriment of us having to listen to that tired discourse over and over again.
Lindsay: That’s true. But it’s been five years now. FIVE. It’s time to adjust the narrative and the expectations.
Amy: Well said, Lindsay. All we ever hear about Ferrer is talk that he’s underrated, various dog or animal comparisons, and praise of his great work ethic. It seems impossible to talk about the weaknesses in his game like we would with any other top player, for fear of appearing like we don’t appreciate him enough. Like you said, it’s insulting to him for us to act like he deserves no scrutiny. We criticize far more accomplished players than Ferrer with no hesitation. We expect great things from great players. Why should he be any different?
Juan José: To your point, Linz, I don’t think Ferrer is in the same talent class as Berdych or Tsonga. He doesn’t have the big weapons those guys have. He does have incredible stamina and amazing speed (apart from being a great returner). But in terms of weapons, Ferrer is a classic underdog: having to work harder than those blessed with greater talents.
Amy: What is talent, really? Ferrer’s talent lies in his court movement and consistency. Discussions of talent shouldn’t only encompass having big shots. Court movement is a weapon, too.
Lindsay: He might not have the weapons and flashy shot making, but he can hit some impressive winners. And like Amy said, court movement and instincts are weapons, and frankly they’re weapons that a lot of the other top players don’t have.
Amy: I’m sure plenty of players would love to have Ferrer’s talent in moving around the court, his technically sound groundstrokes, or his tennis IQ. So I guess I just wish we could have a real discussion about Ferrer’s game once in a while, discarding some of the clichés. Yes, he’s a hard worker, but he’s also very talented.
Juan José: It’s definitely true that hardly anyone talks about Ferrer’s limitations. For example: his inability to get depth consistently. This is the single reason why he’s never beaten Roger Federer, yet nobody will mention it, because Ferrer “fights so hard.” We never talk about how Ferrer rarely if ever goes down the line with his backhand, which gets him in trouble against guys with good backhands, because “Ferrer is so dogged.” And we never really heard about how Ferrer underachieved for years at the French Open by running himself into the ground before the biggest slam on his best surface, because “Ferrer is so professional.”
Regarding talent, let’s just frame it as the ability to win points in the easiest way possible. It’s eminently easier for Berdych, Tsonga, Federer, et al. to win a single tennis point than it is for David Ferrer, who doesn’t have an overpowering serve (although he has improved it significantly over the past two years) to get free points, doesn’t have a huge forehand that penetrates the court and alters the dynamics of a point with one swing, doesn’t have a consistent slice backhand to draw errors and change up the pace, and can’t really finish points or change the direction of the ball all that well with his backhand. On the other hand, you have someone like Tsonga, who has a big serve, a big forehand, and incredible athleticism at net. Winning points becomes a much simpler task for someone like him. Same for Berdych.
Do you guys really think Berdych or Tsonga would switch their skill set with Ferrer’s, if they could? Absolutely not. Why would they? To get the same results they get now, only with a ton more work?
Amy: I’m not sure about that. I think they’d like to have his consistency. But back to Ferrer, if we’re being totally honest, he has as many mental issues against the Big Four as Tsonga and Berdych do. We don’t talk about Ferrer as if he’s a head case against the top guys the way we do with Tsonga and Berdych, but he really is. Just look at the World Tour Finals match against Federer this year. That was all mental.
Juan José: Ferrer has been slowly chipping away at his mental block against the Big Four. Let’s remember that this guy went on record saying that he was the worst player in the top 100. It’s been a long and slow process to get from that statement to where he is now.
Amy: How exactly is he chipping away though? He had just one win over the Big Four this year, coming at the French Open against Andy Murray, who had a generally lackluster clay season. Ferrer had more (three) wins against the Big Four in 2011. I just don’t see any progress there.
Juan José: To beat the big guys repeatedly, you need to have a certain kind of swagger, to see yourself as their equal, and I’m not sure Ferrer is there, or if he’ll ever be there. He treats his wins over the Big Four as some sort of accident. But in terms of progress in that department, you’re right, he regressed in 2012, although I will point to that Wimbledon quarterfinal against Murray, where he gave the eventual finalist all he could handle, on what’s surely his worst surface. That was progress.
Also, Ferrer does have more wins against the Big Four than Berdych and Tsonga (Ferrer has 14, Berdych has 13 and Tsonga has 12). Ferrer’s problem is that he’s 4-30 combined against Federer and Nadal, while only 10-15 against Murray and Djokovic. In a way, Ferrer has more of a Federer and Nadal problem, and less of a Big Four problem.
Lindsay: I think that something that is underrated is Ferrer’s indoor court prowess. He has the label of a clay court specialist, when until this year his best Slam results came on hard courts, and on indoor courts he is so, so dangerous due to his above-mentioned movement and instincts. He’s so quick and so smart on court that he is deadly when he gets in the zone on that surface. It doesn’t surprise me that his Masters title came indoors. Davis Cup opponents continuously discount this when picking the surfaces.
Juan José: I agree, Lindsay – Ferrer has been awesome on fast indoor surfaces, which used to be Enemy No. 2 (after grass) for clay-courters. Let’s not forget, Ferrer has won a grass tournament twice, and made the aforementioned quarterfinals at Wimbledon.
Lindsay: He played so well in that fourth round match against Roddick this year. Roddick was actually close to the top of his grass court game, but Ferrer was just lethal after the first set. He is no one-trick pony. (We should at least mix up the animal references.)
Juan José: Something about Ferrer: what if Nadal doesn’t ever come around? How much does that impact Ferrer’s career? I bring this up because Ferrer has often talked about how he is dying to win Barcelona. He’s lost that final four times to Nadal. He’s lost two Masters 1000 finals to Nadal. I mean, isn’t it a little unfortunate that as a great clay courter (which he is), you run into the Greatest Clay Courter Ever right as you’re in your prime?
Would Ferrer have the same confidence to win a major had he won those big clay tournaments? The confidence players get from winning that type of tournament is what translates into confidence to beat the big guys and win the big trophies.
Lindsay: Or has Nadal pushed Ferrer in a way?
Juan José: That’s a good question, but I feel like Ferrer has had a tough time rebounding from those losses.
Lindsay: To reach both of his Grand Slam hard court semifinals he’s beaten Nadal – although it’s worth noting that at the 2011 Australian Open, Nadal was ailing. But still, Troicki would have found a way to lose to an injured Djokovic.
Juan José: Yep – Nadal was injured both times Ferrer beat him at Slams. It’s funny that Ferrer made the semifinals at the hard court Slams before making the last four at the French. I think he approaches hard court majors in a much more healthy way, kind of with the “nothing to lose” mentality.
Lindsay: Also he also doesn’t kill himself during warm-up tournaments.
Amy: So, can Ferrer build on his success next year, or is this as good as it gets?
Juan José: That’s the half-million dollar question. I wonder how Ferrer would feel if at some point he manages to be ranked ahead of Nadal. It could happen this year.
Lindsay: I think if Nadal struggles to find his form, particularly in clay season, that Ferrer might find the room to squeak into the top 4 and get another Masters title. But it’s hard to see him as an actual Slam threat – I’d say that even without Nadal he’s at least No. 7 going into any slam, behind Del Potro, Berdych, and Tsonga. Other than his impressive quarterfinal scrap against Murray at Wimbledon this year, he went out tamely in the other Slams (to Djokovic twice and to Nadal at the French Open).
Amy: Look no further than the last half of 2012 to see that Nadal’s absence didn’t move Ferrer much closer to winning a Slam. Hypothetically, let’s say Nadal doesn’t even play Roland Garros in 2013 (only for the sake of argument). Ferrer reaches the final and faces Djokovic, Murray, or Federer. I don’t think he wins a Grand Slam final against those guys. His only chance would be if Del Potro or another good matchup manages the upset to reach the final. Even with Nadal hypothetically out, a lot of things would have to go right for him to even threaten to win a Slam. Of course, Nadal will likely be there anyway.
Juan José: Hey, if you’re putting Andy Murray in the French Open final, you bet I’m picking Ferrer over him.
Here’s a brutal stat: Ferrer is 1-13 against Nadal on clay. I think this has to hurt Ferrer’s confidence, since he sees himself as a clay courter and calls clay his best surface. It has to be depressing to lose over and over again to the same person when you’re playing well in the conditions you love the most.
Lindsay: Unless Nadal isn’t in top form during clay season.
Amy: It’s likely Ferrer can pass Nadal in the rankings for the first part of the year, since Nadal has Australian Open final points to defend and Ferrer has only quarterfinal points to defend. But after that, Ferrer has to back up a year in which he won the most matches out of anyone on the ATP World Tour. And he’ll be 31. His game is so physical, what happens if he goes the way of someone like Hewitt? Unfortunately that grinding game gets harder and harder to sustain as you get older. Then again, he was playing so incredibly well at the end of the year, and I see no valid reason to assume he won’t keep playing well next year.
Lindsay: His year was amazing. We’re being tough on him out of respect, but really, what an excellent year he had. And I’m still not over the scars from how well he played in Austin in Davis Cup in 2011.
Amy: Absolutely. Ferrer especially set an example of consistency for those ranked just under him, Berdych, Delpo, and Tsonga. He’s a huge cut above them in that regard, and they can learn a great deal from his example.
Juan José: Yes – Ferrer has had an amazing year, and it’s been a great story. I think the last month of the season was simply amazing. The only misstep in that whole stretch (and his lone loss) was that weak performance against Federer at the World Tour Finals.
Lindsay: My wish for Ferrer in 2013 is that he gets to reap the benefits of his great 2012 in other ways – I hope he gets more show courts, is requested for interviews, and that he finds the confidence and desire to open up to the media a bit so people can get to know him. Basically I just hope that he’s appreciated. Because maybe when people go on and on about how underrated he is, they really mean underappreciated and overlooked. It’s almost a Davydenko situation.
Amy: Agreed with all that, Lindsay. And my hope for 2013 is that we can discuss Ferrer in an intellectually honest way, and stop calling him a terrier. He’s not a dog; he’s a really good tennis player. And we should treat him as such.
Juan José: I share your wish, Linz, and add one thing: I hope Ferrer finally beats Federer!
Amy: Of course you do!
Lindsay: Ferrer’s no longer the chain-smoking, McDonalds-eating surprise of the 2007 US Open. Time to adjust our hopes, expectations, and rhetoric.
Juan José: What if the guy who takes the most out of Davis Cup is actually Ferrer? If anything, he was the one who put on the Djokovic-in-2010 performance. The difference for Spain was that Almagro couldn’t seal the deal.
Amy: I think it’ll be Stepanek. He’ll go on to win two Slams next year. Book it.
Juan José: HA, AMY.
Amy: Wearing his rat shirt.
Lindsay: Doing the worm.
Well, I think over the past few years Ferrer has gotten the most out of Davis Cup. It’s been a huge blessing for him to have Nadal out of Davis Cup so often. He’s shown that he can step up and be the leader, which is a different aspect to his personality.
Juan José: I agree only partially with that, Linz. I do think that being the Spanish No. 1 in Davis Cup has helped Ferrer get used to being the alpha male and handling expectations better. But I’m pretty sure he’d rather be the No. 2 behind Nadal. And Spain would have another Davis Cup if that would have happened in Prague.
Amy: I’m actually going to have to disagree on this one. In the Davis Cup final, Ferrer won his matches against Stepanek and Berdych in really impressive fashion, but the Spanish team was a bit of a mess in some ways. Numerous observers pointed out the lack of enthusiasm on the Spanish bench, and Feliciano Lopez was creating drama in the media over not being picked to play. You could feel palpable tension during Nicolas Almagro’s matches. I am not sure if Ferrer could’ve done anything about that, but I hesitate to say the team didn’t struggle somewhat in Nadal’s absence without a more vocal leader.
Juan José: That’s where they missed Nadal the most. No way Nadal lets them get away with being so passive.
Amy: Let me be absolutely clear that I’m not placing the blame solely on Ferrer. That would be unfair. But there was a strange vibe there without Nadal. And in my opinion, it hurt them.
Juan José: It really did.
Amy: Someone needed to step in, and no one did. I believe that Rafa would have done something.
Lindsay: That’s true. On court, Ferrer is great at showing up and dealing with the pressure, but off-court he is still not the alpha male type. They certainly seemed to be missing a leader during the Davis Cup final.
Juan José: I wonder what Ferrer gleaned from that experience (and what Nadal had to say about it).
Amy: This Davis Cup issue illustrates our earlier points. Ferrer’s personality isn’t the same as the Big Four. He’s a quiet, subdued guy. The media’s portrayal of him reflects that, sometimes in unfortunate ways that do him a disservice.
Lindsay: He doesn’t do the work for the media so they rely on the same narratives over and over. Also, he’s not that comfortable in English, which is a huge deal.
Amy: Exactly. He gives them virtually no material. He just goes about his business, which is a great quality for a tennis player, but it doesn’t lend itself to building a media persona. And like you said, he doesn’t speak English very well in a rather English-centric sport.
Lindsay: Right, but it also doesn’t mean he’s an outright victim of the media, which is how some fans act.
Juan José: I agree completely with the media thing. It’s the Davydenko story all over again. And it’s not his fault at all; it’s been the media’s laziness.
Amy: Yup. Final thoughts?
Lindsay: I want to see Ferrer flourish and completely believe in himself. My gut tells me that he’s reached his ceiling, but I’d like to see him prove me wrong.
Amy: It’s always fun to see older players come into their own. I hope he does a little better against the top guys next year, because I firmly believe he can.
Juan José: I really can’t wait to see what Ferrer does next year. I’ve always liked him, and always feared whenever my favorites played him. I also admire the journey he’s been on as a pro: from top 20 guy to top 10 guy, to top 5 guy and winner of a Masters 1000 as well as worthy Spanish No. 1 in Davis Cup. I admire that he keeps going, that he keeps improving, even as he crossed the 30-year-old mark.
He’s due for a slam. Imagine how hilarious it would be if Ferrer bags the ’13 USO.
That would be the shortest trophy ceremony in history. They might not show it on TV altogether.
But in all seriousness…I think a great deal of events have to go right for Ferrer to even be in a final, let alone win it. BUT…my own Ecuadorian compatriot Andrés Gómez won his first and only Slam at age 30, when a couple of breaks (most noticeably, Lendl’s obsession with Wimbledon) gave him the chance. So you never know!
This was a great read and I agreed with everything – including that people should criticize him the same way they do the other top players – up until this one sentence:
“Right, but it also doesn’t mean he’s an outright victim of the media, which is how some fans act.”
I feel very ambiguous about this statement. On the one hand, I do agree that we, as Ferrer fans, sometimes go too far in our frustration with how he is – and has been – portrayed in and treated by the media, but I think we have a good reason to. There is a history there. Just because the media and fan interest has been growing the last few years – I’d say, the last two years it’s really improved – doesn’t mean there wasn’t a huge lack of interest and respect all those years before.
And it still happens. A huge tournament *forgot about him*. Imagine them forgetting to put a Murray match on the schedule, or a Berdych match. The idea is laughable. And he used to get put on back courts all the time. We haven’t forgotten about this and I think it clouds how we Ferrer fans treat the attention he does get. Because it *is* often patronizing, the way the media/commentators treat him. I remember well that he beat Tsonga in Paris and the commentators were only talking about Tsonga. Often when David beats top guys, the commentators will talk about how said top guys failed to do something, instead of talking about what David did to beat them.
I think we’re too pigheaded to forget about all that. XD (Then again, I can only speak for myself.)
Thanks for reading Christy! I must say that I was curious as to what your reaction would be.
I think it’s natural for fans to be over-sensitive. I guarantee that Federer fans can remember every time he has been “slighted” or counted out by media members, and same for all the other players. It’s human nature to hear the negative louder. If I write something and there are 10 positive comments and one negative, I’ll harp on the bad one. I completely agree that Ferrer has gotten the short end of the stick at times–and the Indian Wells thing was inexcusable– i just don’t think it’s quite as conspiracy-driven as it is sometimes portrayed.
I love the way you support him though–you’re a great fan. I have nothing but respect for him, but do think it’s important to dig deeper into the traditional narrative.
All I could think of when I read your comment, Christy, is “fans never forget”. And Ferrer’s case presents an interesting situation, since he was a late bloomer, so there’s more slights to remember than with others who developed faster.
What kills me about the media coverage is that by simplifying their narrative about Ferrer to the max, they forgo the opportunity to have an interesting conversation about the great things Ferrer does on the court (other than “run a lot”, “never give up”, etc), which would be quite educational for people watching.
I think it will be interesting to see how the media and the tournaments treat Ferrer next year, particularly if/when he gets inside the top 4. He’s got a M1000 now, too. Like you, we’ll be watching closely, and something like Indian Wells will not go unnoticed on this space.
LOL @ Step riding the wave of DC momentum & winning slam.
SOB @ Davydenko narrative. I miss Davydenko the play-station.
We all do, Jess. We all miss Nicky D. At least he did get two wins over Federer before it was all said and done!
I am really glad you guys discussed this issue. It’s a feature on my TL quite often. A few things that ran through my mind.
1. I get why Juan equates talent with the big shots. But when we follow stats, you’ll be surprised by how many winners David Ferrer hits. and his biggest plus point? unlike Berdy, Tsonga and the lot, his UFEs are way lesser. so he triumphs through ratio. So as you said Amy, he has his own set of talents too. He’s also been coming in much more than in the past. I’ve been watching him with sole focus on that transition.
2. It always amazes me that without the power, he is a legitimate top 10 threat though. That USO QF vs Tipsarevic was very telling on just how good Ferrer is. I look at it in the scheme of things. Andy doesn’t have a second in command in Britain. I think it’s best if we don’t talk about Stan and “second to Federer” in the same sentence. He might find me and tell me all about St. David’s Cup. Tipsa as the second in command for Novak. easily Ferrer takes the cake. The pressure to perform and keep up with your legendary compatriot. And I think Ferrer is the most recognized tennis athlete behind Rafa in Spain. he is their much-loved DC hero. that’s not easy to achieve given he has 0 slams. You’ve got to establish yourself in some way.
3. About Rafa’s presence on the DC team. I once heard about a story where David was playing and not doing too well. Rafa went to the washroom and wrote some uplifting message on the mirror which David saw and came out and blasted his opponent. Cheerleader Rafa is awesome. but I don’t think it was him missing as much as all that awkwardness over picking Nico instead of Feli for the finals. Sometimes, the confusion can put a damper on the team spirit. Ferrer rose above it because, well he is a top 5 player for a reason.
4. Animal nicknames are vile. and rude. I really wish BG would stop encouraging it. Thanks for bringing that to light guys.
5. The unfairness of the media in this scenario is how much more attention they pay to Tsonga and Berdy compared to Ferrer. People tend to skip over no. 5 and go straight on to no. 6. it’s very insulting. I know that it’s likely Ferrer will be no. 4 in January and its partly because Rafa has been MIA since Wimbledon. But why does the media not appreciate the fact that Ferrer put himself in that position above all the others to be at no.5 so that he can take no. 4 if/when Rafa drops out. he may not be top 4, but ranking wise, he is obviously the best among the rest right now. And at 30, he’s still improving and transitioning.
6. But Juan, I agree with you about his self-confidence. He is also very shy. That is definitely hampering him from pushing further. That match vs Andy at FO. I agree Andy was not having a good clay season. But Ferrer played really well. lets forget the drumming he got in the SF because if Andy had been there, it would have been the same scenario given his form. Pico and Ferrer got blasted out of court playing as well as they did. Only Nico and Novak really challenged Rafa at the FO. But.. but.. Can we agree that being in the SF by beating any of the top 4 members in the QF is a big deal? Look at all the press Tsonga got at 2011 Wimbledon. What coverage did Ferrer get for his first FO SF appearance? minimal at best. unless it’s a double judgement of Ferrer and Any. it’s the harsh truth that no one but the “Serious fan” knows or recognizes him while Berdy and Tsonga are much more famous. Are the media obliged to cover him? No. but it would be nice if they did.
I really don’t do short responses do I? sigh..
Thanks for that, Mithi. And since we don’t have length restrictions on posts, why should you have them when replying?
Plus, I agree with all of your points. One thing I wanted to discuss was Ferrer’s winners count. When I read that I was initially surprised, but then I thought about it and came up with a viable explanation: Ferrer thrives on out-maneuvering people (particularly when he’s being purposeful and aggressive), so he often generates opportunities for winners after rallies of some length. It’s not like he can take a neutral rally and turn a shot into a winner out of the blue: he has to yank his opponent around, and set up the killer shot, which for him is always very safe, with a lot of margin. Again, not a knock at all – it’s brilliant strategy given his skillset. I event think more talented players could benefit from studying how Ferrer constructs points.
I wonder if Ferrer would get this media treatment if he were from an English-speaking country. I mean, he’s far more accomplished than late-bloomer Mardy Fish, and Fish got a ton of coverage last year (for MAKING the top 10 and dropping 20 pounds).
Fair point. but you gotta admit that Novak and Rafa built a career out of out-maneuvering their opponents. Although they have much more fire power than Ferrer of course. Ferrer is extremely skilled at RoS and the wide-angle forehands like Nole and can retrieve as well as Rafa along with the net finishing which is similar. his only “flaw” literally is his physique. I agree with you on the Mardy Fish comparison. But when you think about it, American media is much more powerful than Spanish media. so there’s always that.
Hi guys.. just wanted to say kudos on the format of this post. A very entertaining way to discuss tennis. Thoroughly enjoyed it.
I have a comment on how Ferrer would feel if he’s ranked higher than Rafa. I asked him this question at a press conference in London this year, and he genuinely seemed like he doesn’t care. He kind of answered more about being No4 in the world rather than responding to my question about possibly becoming Spanish No1, but his response was basically ‘I don’t care about being No4 or No5’. He said he was No4 before and it didn’t really matter. He also seems like he has no Rafa complex whatsoever. He 100% believes that Rafa is better than him and he said that even if he surpassed Rafa in the rankings, he knows it wouldn’t be a “real” achievement because it’s only because Rafa was injured.
It also seems that he likes being under the radar when it comes to the media. He prefers it. And like you guys said, his English doesn’t help, but I’ve had conversations in Spanish with him and I still found him pretty reserved. Maybe that’s just me, but I think he likes being where he is. Am I saying he wouldn’t want to be world No1, of course he would, but it also seems that he views himself as having done the maximum with the talent he has been given. That’s the impression I’ve been getting from him.
So I guess my wish for him would be to raise that ceiling he has set for himself. I think if he was a bit more ambitious, he would’ve maybe added some shots to his game, like Rafa did, over the years which would’ve possibly helped him improve his record against Rafa/Roger. He works hard that’s for sure, but I feel like he works hard on the same thing, over and over again, if that makes sense.
Thanks so much for weighing in, Reem, and I especially appreciate the insider info. I’ve never been in press with him before–and I don’t speak Spanish–so I haven’t really been able to test my theories. You are dead on about the fact that now it’s time for him to adjust his expectations–as Amy said, he has the same mental block against the big 4 that the other players do. But he’s a mainstay in the top of the game now, and if he doesn’t adjust his expectations for himself then it’s hard to expect the media and fans to do the same.
A discussion about the notion of an “overrated” or “underrated” or “underappreciated” or “overlooked” player naturally invites discussions of what it means to be any or all of those things.
In terms of show-court assignments and other measurable, visible signs of a player’s prominence, there is no question that David Ferrer gets the short end of the stick from tournaments and other corners of the global tennis community. A player of his caliber and ranking should not be dismissed in such a fashion, a unanimous sentiment among tennis fans and followers.
However, on the matter of paying Ferrer the same amount of (media) attention as Berdych and Tsonga, or (similarly) picking apart his weaknesses to the same extent as Berdych and Tsonga, I’m going to defend the status quo for the most part.
The main definitions of the word “talent” include the magnifying word “special.” (see dictionary.com ) If a word distinguished “talent” from “skill,” the word “special” would reasonably qualify.
Court movement is a weapon, but its “talent-to-skill” ratio is more evenly balanced. Hitting a thumping serve or clocking a mean forehand rates much more highly on the talent-to-skill ratio. Juan Jose makes a very important point when he refers to talent as the ability to win a point easily.
Distilled to its essence, the notion of “tennis talent” basically means, “How well do you wave the magic wand in your hand?” Sure, the elite tennis players manage to run really well, but the key distinction is that they know how to wield the stick and make ridiculous gets with their racquets. Ferrer’s hit his share of running winners over the years, but his comparative lack of weaponry and shotmaking prowess is reflective of someone who flourishes more because of his talent for minimizing errors (that IS a talent, a part of waving the magic wand; it’s just not a flashy one…) than his ability to end a point easily.
This leads to the next pair of key points.
When you hold lightning – great power, fearsome power – in your body, you have that much more of a responsibility to use that power wisely and effectively. “To whom much is given, much is expected.”
Berdych and Tsonga have been given more (and bigger, and more conspicuous) talents than Ferrer. It is not insulting to Ferrer, but appropriately critical of Berdych and Tsonga, to hold the Czech and the Frenchman to a higher set of expectations. The tennis gods gave them more to work with; accordingly, a solid and workmanlike Ferrer quarterfinal or semifinal in a major doesn’t rate as a news story the way Berdych or Tsonga crashing out (or, conversely, beating Federer or making a major final) does.
When Ferrer makes a major quarterfinal, it is as though a plane landed safely. Not news.
When Tsonga or Berdych loses in round one or two, it is as though a plane crashed. News!
When Tsonga or Berdych makes a major final, it is as though landmark legislation was finally passed after years of gridlock. News!
Here is the one respect in which Ferrer’s weaknesses/shortcomings are not sufficiently addressed: Precisely because his career has gained much more mileage than many others due to his steady, low-error, psychologically anchored approach to tennis, Ferrer’s tendency to shrink in tiebreaks and big-stage matches against inconsistent members of the Big Four is a mark against him. If this mentally tough professional could merely retain said toughness on the days when a Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Murray is not playing particularly well in a major, Ferrer could make a major final and win a major title.
I think of last year’s Wimbledon QF second set against Murray. I think of the tiebreak in the Aussie QF against a not-entirely-in-form Djokovic. I think of the first set in Paris against Nadal last June. I think of the WTFs against a scuffling Federer. It almost makes the pre-2012 Olympic version of Andy Murray look good.
(Almost.)
Ultimately, each player’s balance of talent and skill is different. Some combinations are more conspicuous, some harder to discern. Those with more profound talents and prodigious abilities should be viewed a bit more closely, in my mind.
Let’s frame the discussion with a Juan Jose term of expression: Who has left more money on the table in his career? Ferrer or Berdych? (One could substitute Tsonga for Berdych; nothing’s meant by that choice.) Surely, it’s Berdych. Ergo, picking apart Berdych’s failures and noting how (or wondering if) the Czech can rebound is a more compelling story/narrative/uncertainty than Ferrer’s journey.
When one looks at Davydenko’s career, one sees the same basic dynamics in abundance.
It is what it is. If Ferrer had Marat Safin’s body, we wouldn’t be having this conversation… but, alas, we are.
It is what it is.
Matt, I don’t think I can love your comment any more than I do. Thank you so much for that!
You made all the points about the talent issue that I wanted to make (but didn’t), and much more eloquently than I would have. Also, I loved how you brought back the “leaving money on the table” thing.
Again, what an awesome comment.
Fernando likes the topic. Fernando is visiting The Changeover more often. There is intelligence here.
This Matt Zemek has some potential. His analysis on Ferru is very good. But he should be careful to keep his writing snappy and readable.Too much erudition and overuse of flowery, esoteric adjectives can make the prose difficult to slog through. The Tignor has the same issues. With respect.
I am Fernando @vivafernando
Great read, and great comment by (the other) Matt. I think Ferru is getting the same “rep” as Hewitt – a dogged (insert word) fighter but not much else.
While respecting his will and ability to “grind it out” is one thing, favoring him as a player because of it is completely subjective.
What that means is that flashier players with similar levels of success will always be more popular and therefore get more coverage.
I also love the point about not criticizing due to his amazing work ethic – it makes no sense.