Wimbledon 2013 June 24-July 7

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Terry Tuffnutz

as said above, everyone is then 'shit' comparatively, which is just a ridiculous thing to say. ferrer has a strong head to head with del potro and whilst the guys you mentioned have big weapons, they have areas of their games that they continue to suffer with. ferrer has very few and is a strong all rounder, which is why his ranking is so high. when one of their big plus points isn't working, then they don't have as much to fall back on as ferrer.

the reason the feds, nads and novaks have got to where they are is not because of specific individual parts of their games but making sure all the facets are absolutely sensational. ferrer hasn't achieved near that level - and at his age never will - but he has made sure his all round game is as strong as it can be.

---

I don't think Del Potro is, he's just been injured a lot. My point was more about their ability to challenge the best players in granslams etc, I just think they have a better chance than Ferrer, I agree he's solid and has made the best of what he has, but what he lacks is what means he'll never be up there with the top players. The likes of Del Potro, Berdych and Soderling can and in some cases have, sadly injuries and health issues have stopped them doing so.

He beat Nadal at the Australian Open 2011, that was their last meeting away from clay.

Del Potro did win the US Open and he was incredible but it's becoming increasingly likely and as much as I like him that might be Del Potro's only ever success - he hasn't made a semi-final since, that was back in 2009, a time where based on the first line must be 'going quite a long time for those victories'. He did get a bronze at the Olympics and well done to him for that though.

You're just listing their strengths but not realising they haven't meant a great deal, in terms of doing anything that David Ferrer hasn't regularly superceded, recently. I'd back David Ferrer against Murray on clay every single time and also mostly against Nadal on hard courts and grass. He's never faced Federer in a Slam, so who knows on that score. I'd reckon Djokovic would beat him across the board though he does have some losses against him.

Tsonga is a head case. He beats Federer in straight sets and then goes down in straight sets to David Ferrer, tamely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arse n Wonga

Delp Potro has had a lot of injuries which as affected his form and record to be fair, whenever he manages to stay fit you start to see how good he actually is, his game is very powerful and he can beat the top guys.

---

They're what ifs Zim. At his size, he's always going to have injuries and that is a downer on his ability as a player - it's like saying what if Nadal never had injuries, in Del Potro's case, it's a natural consequence of his size and trying to bludgeon the ball at every opportunity.

If power was everything, Federer would never have won what he has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arse n Wonga

I don't think Del Potro is, he's just been injured a lot. My point was more about their ability to challenge the best players in granslams etc, I just think they have a better chance than Ferrer, I agree he's solid and has made the best of what he has, but what he lacks is what means he'll never be up there with the top players. The likes of Del Potro, Berdych and Soderling can and in some cases have, sadly injuries and health issues have stopped them doing so.

---

there are a lot of ifs, buts and maybes across sporting history. would nadal be the best or most decorated player of all time if his knee's weren't so problematic? we don't know. the game is filled with guys like del potro who have massive talent but never really fulfill it for a number of reasons - all of the variants have to be overcome by each player in their career. we can only go on what we now see which is ferrer is better than any of those other guys. when i see ferrer drawn against a top four player, i expect a contest. when i see the others, i expect a victory for the big guns. they may have the 'potential' to achieve more than ferrer, but they rarely ever do and the reasons go much further than just injuries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arse n Wonga

Delp Potro has had a lot of injuries which as affected his form and record to be fair, whenever he manages to stay fit you start to see how good he actually is, his game is very powerful and he can beat the top guys.

---

Diaby :bow:

:haha:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McNamara That Ghost...

He beat Nadal at the Australian Open 2011, that was their last meeting away from clay.

Del Potro did win the US Open and he was incredible but it's becoming increasingly likely and as much as I like him that might be Del Potro's only ever success - he hasn't made a semi-final since, that was back in 2009, a time where based on the first line must be 'going quite a long time for those victories'. He did get a bronze at the Olympics and well done to him for that though.

You're just listing their strengths but not realising they haven't meant a great deal, in terms of doing anything that David Ferrer hasn't regularly superceded, recently. I'd back David Ferrer against Murray on clay every single time and also mostly against Nadal on hard courts and grass. He's never faced Federer in a Slam, so who knows on that score. I'd reckon Djokovic would beat him across the board though he does have some losses against him.

Tsonga is a head case. He beats Federer in straight sets and then goes down in straight sets to David Ferrer, tamely.

---

Yeah because Nadal was injured that day so it was really beating him on a level playing field.

Del Porto's career sadly is affected by injuries and that's the reason he's not done much since 2009, not really his fault. Ferrer has stayed fit though and he's not really done an awful lot at grand slams against the big guns, he got to the French final recently of course but by avoiding all the big guns who got knocked out or were on the other side of the draw (he did beat Tsonga, but although he's got the weapons he seems to be a bit of a bottler like most of the French players).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McNamara That Ghost...

They're what ifs Zim. At his size, he's always going to have injuries and that is a downer on his ability as a player - it's like saying what if Nadal never had injuries, in Del Potro's case, it's a natural consequence of his size and trying to bludgeon the ball at every opportunity.

If power was everything, Federer would never have won what he has.

---

Del Potro has some notable victories against the big guns and a grand slam win which ultimately requires you to beat top players somewhere along the line, Ferrer doesn't despite his ranking and injury free career, neither does he really have any notable fully fit scalps which highlights his limitations in some ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Terry Tuffnutz

there are a lot of ifs, buts and maybes across sporting history. would nadal be the best or most decorated player of all time if his knee's weren't so problematic? we don't know. the game is filled with guys like del potro who have massive talent but never really fulfill it for a number of reasons - all of the variants have to be overcome by each player in their career. we can only go on what we now see which is ferrer is better than any of those other guys. when i see ferrer drawn against a top four player, i expect a contest. when i see the others, i expect a victory for the big guns. they may have the 'potential' to achieve more than ferrer, but they rarely ever do and the reasons go much further than just injuries.

---

I disagree that the game is full of players like Del Potro, there's only a handful of players with talent like him, Soderling, Berdych and a handful of others, but in the end injuries are out of the players control.

For me if I see Ferrer against the top guys it's pretty much and guaranteed route through for the big guns, with Del Potro etc I at least think there's the chance of an upset, Ferrer is moving up to number 3 but he's only really there because the likes of Del Potro, Soderling and Nadal have suffered from injuries, when they stayed fit they were above him. He's benefited from their bad luck.

Nadal makes a point of never making excuses for his losses, so I don't think it's right for someone else to do it for him either.

David Ferrer has been to the same amount of finals as Berdych and Tsonga, Soderling has been in two. All of them lost in three. He is consistently beaten by the top players in those tournaments because he is consistently the one that is making QF or better. Berdych slunk out of the French Open in the first round (keeping up his impressive record of doing it at least once every year).

David Ferrer has a winning record over Tsonga, Berdych and Del Potro and is only down 3-2 in Slams to Nadal (I think).