David Ferrer ...what a talent!

I am only half joking believe it or not. I was asked to describe what makes David reputation of talent less player.

Here is my reply...though I might be wrong....

"That's a good question. I actually think he is very talented, or more precisely, extremely skilled with great timing....but he is not very creative nor very gutsy (maybe because he is quite smart). It means that instead of hitting flat, he prefers to add lots of top spin and run to compensate. Like a businessman, he prefers to play safe cause he knows he has not got the guts to pull winners at wills....especially under pressure time. I see a talented player who stubbornly refuses to use his talent for any else but making sure his shots over the long term will win him matches and a decent career.

Had he had Nadal's power, he would have been a much better version cause with those muscles his mind would have been much stronger and he hits a cleaner ball...from closer to baseline.

He is an excellent returner, which means he can see and anticipate and hit the ball back cleanly. Murray even said he was the cleanest hitter on tour .

This above explains why he has been very successful. What he lacked to get to the next step, was power. The only way to add power was to hit flatter (too risky for the typical Spaniard mentality) or put on more muscles or get taller rather.

I think he has done extremely well. If you compare him with Davydenko who I believe was as talented if not more. Davy went through lots of ups and down while Ferrer managed to be very consistent throughout cause he chose to run to compensate for his less risky shots. Yet he manages often to dictate and not being dictated...unlike Nadal or Murray for instance.

I think someone of his frame with this type of game would struggle entering the top 20 without being very talented actually. Try to think of someone else similar? No-where to be seen in the top 20. Most have very special weapons there. Ferrer's weapon is actually fitness, stubbornness and clean striking of the ball! In fact Robredo is the other player very similar to Ferrer but with a SHBH. Robredo unlike Ferrer is more often on back foot trying to defend but really talented as well....just not gutsy. If you look at attacking players they are not doing well in our era..bar Federer. Stan has had his hour of glory but frankly what has he done beside that GS? So it is understandable why some talented players chose to add spin and play the safe game rather look good and lose. Ferrer, Robredo are typically those kind of players. Almagro who is as talented, is more flashy but gets nowhere either.

Where would you rather be...if you had to make a living for the years to come?

Ferrer is a hard worker, banker type, using his talent to invest in secure results...as opposed to use his talent for flashy, risky shots and a less lucrative career.

Thanks Tenez. Yes I certainly did not expect that!

Here in Pyongyang we are great fans of David Ferrer.
He has great grit and determination, and although he isn't the most talented player of all time unlike his compatriot, he still achieves fantastic results. 
What he is to tennis, Switzerland is to the world. 


Mentally his focus and intensity is good, the only thing we'd like to criticise is his lack of belief against top players.

Would you put him ahead of say Hewitt Tenez? Talent wise.

luvsports! wrote:Would you put him ahead of say Hewitt Tenez? Talent wise.

I'd say yes. Hewitt was lucky to be one of the first luxilon user and made the most of it while SVers did not know they were doomed trying to get to the net. Once everybody adapted the new strings, Hewitt went down the ranking. Besides Hewitt was in my view the first proper doper on tour. He was essentially retrieving and feeding dead balls until his opponents lost the will to live. Again, when the tour caught up with his fitness his game limitation was very obvious. A great fighter certainly but that's all he had. he did not wear out his joints for nothing.

Ferrer never got bagelled twice in a 3 setter by Federer!

And Hewitt is the player who got most bagelled by Federer: 5 bagels in 4 consecutive matches! ..plus a TB to love!!!

Hi LS (and others),
if it's not too much of an ask, can you please ask tennis questions on Ask Tenez Thread, so we can all see the answer!

I am not sure Ferrer is as talented as you make him out to be.

I only saw him live once against Agut in Wimbledon, and he was the only player who looked worse live than on TV.
His ball-striking is anything but clean.
He has zero creativity and all his shots are nothing but well drilled CC & occassional safe DTL patterns.
A similr player but properly talented is Fognini. Unfortunately, Fabio's head and hot temper let him down.
I don't think I've ever seen him play with open shoulders.

All the things you said about him as a businessman, you can say just about any other player more or less, Berdych is the same in that way: they both do the best they can and don't delude themselves with slam ambitions.

I read that Murray plays very flairful tennis in practice...

I think Agut is the talented version of Ferrer in fact. Wait till he beefs up in 2-3 years, he'll succeed Ferrer as he has the same calm, competitive mind you can only acquire once you are completely aware of your limits.

noleisthebest wrote:I am not sure Ferrer is as talented as you make him out to be.

I only saw him live once against Agut in Wimbledon, and he was the only player who looked worse live than on TV.
His ball-striking is anything but clean.
He has zero creativity and all his shots are nothing but well drilled CC & occassional safe DTL patterns.

Agree but is he in the business of art? he is here to make money and win as much as he can. Imagine if he could hit winners like Dolgo....who would he rather be? The Dolgo losing in the second round or the player reaching consistently semis and finals?

I don't think I've ever seen him play with open shoulders.

Neither had Davydenko....yet very talented ball striker. Ferrer place his balls very well and though I do not like the way he chose to play he does what all players have got to do under those conds. Djoko is also a player who added lots of spin since he joined the tour. To me aesthetically there is not much difference between Djoko and Ferrer. In fact I prefer Ferrer's shots though Djoko is certainly more creative though I suspect it;s easier for Djoko as he is taller and can hit winners with more ease. Had djoko been shorter, his serve, retrieving and returning would have been really affected.

All the things you said about him as a businessman, you can say just about any other player more or less, Berdych is the same in that way: they both do the best they can and don't delude themselves with slam ambitions

.
Yes and no. I am pretty sure guys like Stan, Gasquet, Dolgo, Almagro or even Nalby and Federer, woudl have given up the game had they not been able to be successful with their own brand of tennis.  Berdych is a special case in the sense that his tall frame make his FH look better it is. I don't find his game very pleasing to the eye actually...though the clean winners are nice...but rarer and come with too many UEs, especially under pressure.

I read that Murray plays very flairful tennis in practice...

Murray also clearly chose the hard work road with the aim to use his talent as little as possible. And it payed cause on talent alone, he would have never got 2 slams.

I think Agut is the talented version of Ferrer in fact. Wait till he beefs up in 2-3 years, he'll succeed Ferrer as he has the same calm, competitive mind you can only acquire once you are completely aware of your limits.

Good point but what is Agut's ranking? What's Ferrer? Ferrer has not really beefed up.

I can see where you are coming from compring Nole to Ferrer, (mainly the wristy rallying FH, plus he plays classic Spanish retrieving tennis) but Nole is a head and shoulders above Ferrer, and I'm not talking about their height here

Against Nadal, Nole takes the ball early and crushes him from the base-line, Ferrer can't do it...but Nishi who is the same size can!

I have learnt to appreciate and enjoy Ferrer and the fact he beats his opponents with grit, he is even a bit simpatico in his unassuming ways.

But Ferrer could have tried to play flatter...he simply refused to do it from day one cause it was not his style.

Talent is about making difficult things look easy. The problem in tennis is that those who do make tennis look easy don;t win much.

Ferrer has a decent record v Nadal. They even share their last 4 encounter and has always given Nadal some run for his money on clay. being able to time Nadal's ball consistently on clay requires huge talent.

Tenez wrote:But Ferrer could have tried to play flatter...he simply refused to do it from day one cause it was not his style.

Talent is about making difficult things look easy. The problem in tennis is that those who do make tennis look easy don;t win much.

Ferrer has a decent record v Nadal. They even share their last 4 encounter and has always given Nadal some run for his money on clay. being able to time Nadal's ball consistently on clay requires huge talent.    

Do you think it can be a matter of style?

I always thought if you can hit flat consistently why would you spin?

So far I came up with two reasons: lack of guts, not enough talent.

From memory, Ferrer has always played the same, but definitely improved over the years.

I have just re-read your OP....silly me I didn't see you had a great laugh as you were typing it!
Mind you, when I read it last night I had just come back from my French class which was as exhausting as playing Nadal

Actually. I do believe he has some great talent. he is just not creative (or choses not to) and believes in hard work instead of easy risky points.

But having said that they are all quite talented. Just that Ferrer is probably amongst the top 10 in the top 100. With his frame, game and power, he'd get crushed by most had he not such a clean ball striking.

How much difference would an inch in height make in ball striking? 
Say a 5'6 rochus, compared to a 5'9 Ferrer.
Fognini is a much better ball striker than ferrer at 5'10 as is nishi at 5'10.
How much difference does those 3 inches make between Rochus and Ferrer? Then say Stan at 6' and ferrer at 5'9. Dolgo at 5'10/11 can hit insanely well, outhit delpo at times!

Obvs you know a lot more about it than me but I just don't see it.

May I but in with Aleksandra Krunic (from Serbia, of course . )5 ft 4 that strikes the ball quicker than Fognini and Nishi...she's the one that took Petra out of US open, serves 200 kph as well. Zero muscle. Fast as a bullet. Plenty of heart.
No growling, no grunting, lovely, calm but fiery competitor.

She is playing in Moscow this week, I think Pironkova's next.

For me, there is nothing sweeter than watching players with light feet and quick hands, and in at regard we have a feast tomorrow: Mannarino - Dolgopolov.

Mannarino has the most timed serve ever, almost quiet on contact, whereas Dolgo is all in the wrist (breathtaking, how he does it I'll never know).

luvsports! wrote:How much difference would an inch in height make in ball striking? 
Say a 5'6 rochus, compared to a 5'9 Ferrer.
Fognini is a much better ball striker than ferrer at 5'10 as is nishi at 5'10.

So Fog is a much better ball striker than Ferrer but Ferrer leads by a convincing 7/0 in their H2H!!!
Nishi is certainly very talented too as he is one of the few who can take the ball early and be consistent. But still the H2H is very close between those 2.

How much difference does those 3 inches make between Rochus and Ferrer? Then say Stan at 6' and ferrer at 5'9. Dolgo at 5'10/11 can hit insanely well, outhit delpo at times!

It makes a big difference. I'd say the shorter they are the earlier they have (and can) take the ball. They cannot generate the same power so the only way to keep up is take the ball early. Dolgo can hit very well....but frankly can he keep the ball in court?...enough to reach the business end of tournaments?

That's why Ferrer is deceptively good cause though he spin the ball, his shots are still powerful and well placed....and to do that means he doesn't moonball as much as we think. In a way he is a bit of a Federer (who also spins the ball) but has not the power nor the grace but still a great ball striker.

I am loving this thread!

I still think you are laughing as you are typing, T!
Well...at least I am after you mentioned Fed and Ferru & talent in the same sentence.

I suppose problem we have is that it's not fair to other players to be compared to Federer's talent as he is the only one who has been able to display it in fullness without having to turn into a businessman  

Kohli at 5'10 is a lot more talented than ferrer imo.

I actually think Ferrer and Kholi are not very different.

Their playing style is, but the ability is quite similar. They are typical product of their respective tennis schools: German and Spanish.

Would be curious to see where you see Gasquet in this who,e conversation.

I disagree big time. I thought you would be lapping up the shbh of kohli. 

Why is their ability similar? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6YiMHI4NBg
SOme of this tennis is just unreal.

Some of the hitting he finished well inside the baseline, taking the ball very early. Guile, feel, touch, power, variety, it is all there.

When people here talk about talent, and your post above is just one example, they ignore one key aspect: reproducibility of shots. 

Being able to hit two good shots in a row is harder than just one; youtube videos can specifically select the shots that look good and ignore the similar attempts which failed.

What this above post fails to realise is that without some evidence, generally your argument falls flat.
Therefore I typed kohlschreiber into youtube, first vid.. bingo.

When you defend nadal for his touch or volleying you post one video up of one shot. That is less than what I am showing with a 8 min clip.

p.s. 104 winners in one match. That's crazy!

luvsports! wrote:
Therefore I typed kohlschreiber into youtube, first vid.. bingo.

That is my point; it's unlikely they'd have a video with 8 minutes of unforced errors first up on youtube.

luvsports! wrote:
When you defend nadal for his touch or volleying you post one video up of one shot. That is less than what I am showing with a 8 min clip.

Nadal has great reflexes, but it's clear volleying is not the most important element of his game. If I had access to all ATP and Slam matches for Nadal I could probably make an 8 minute clip of him making lots of volleys.

But my point is not for Nadal or any specific player; it applies to how certain people ignore such an important aspect when considering 'talent' to suit their own personal preferences.

luvsports! wrote:I disagree big time. I thought you would be lapping up the shbh of kohli. 

Why is their ability similar? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6YiMHI4NBg
SOme of this tennis is just unreal.

Some of the hitting he finished well inside the baseline, taking the ball very early. Guile, feel, touch, power, variety, it is all there.

I don't think SBH is a guarantee of talent, for me it's more anout quick hands which is why I see Nishi and especially Dolgo more talented than Kholi, despite their DBH.

I am pretty sure if Kholi was Spanish, he'd play like Ferrer and vice versa.

In a sport such as tennis, I see talent as a combination of many things:

-ability
-reflexes/ hand-eye coordination
-shot selection
-reproducibility of shots
-mental strength

Edit: On this basis; let's take what Luvsports said about my posting a video with a great reflex volley from Nadal- now that may be evidence of a few things on this list- but one video is certainly not evidence of reproducibility of shots. So that counter point would be fair.

Reproducibility of shots is a big factor which separates players like Gonzalez and Blake from true greats like Federer.

noleisthebest wrote:I am loving this thread!

I still think you are laughing as you are typing, T!
Well...at least I am after you mentioned Fed and Ferru & talent in the same sentence.

yes I realised that. But Ferrer does something very well and has great results. Let's not underestimate what makes a player successful. Is he particularly fast? no. is he particularly strong? no. Does he uses his stamina to win? not that much. He can win many matches pretty swiftly. His game is not great to watch but he has an excellent control of the ball, while hitting hard....something no other bar the 3 better ranked than him can do.

I suppose problem we have is that it's not fair to other players to be compared to Federer's talent as he is the only one who has been able to display it in fullness without having to turn into a businessman  

True. To me he is like a good snooker potter without flair and control of the cue ball.....but an excellent potter. That's where is talent is.

Next time you watch him check the depth and angles of his shots. Great control of the ball.

luvsports! wrote:Kohli at 5'10 is a lot more talented than ferrer imo.

Kholi looks better but again what's his ranking?

If you think ferrer is not talented ..what do you think makes him successful then? Top 5 players for a couple of years if not more.

luvsports! wrote:I disagree big time. I thought you would be lapping up the shbh of kohli. 

Why is their ability similar? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6YiMHI4NBg
SOme of this tennis is just unreal.

Some of the hitting he finished well inside the baseline, taking the ball very early. Guile, feel, touch, power, variety, it is all there.

Your link does not work.

luvsports! wrote:p.s. 104 winners in one match. That's crazy!

Crazy against anybody bar Roddick. Look at how many sitters Rod gives to Kholi.

So again how can you explain that such talent as Kholi..only has a fraction of Ferrer's record?

Think of Lendl. Did he look talented, more so compared to Mc? However he was doing something extremely well. When I say well I mean bording on the genius. Best FH of all time until fed came up. Most of Lendl's talent was in his wrist. He could paint the lines with his FH. He had power and extreme precision. Yet for many he looked very robotic.

Ferrer is a bit like that. He can hit a ball hard and yet place the ball 10% more accurately than most of the guys on tour. This is why he is successful!

Tenez wrote:

luvsports! wrote:Kohli at 5'10 is a lot more talented than ferrer imo.

Kholi looks better but again what's his ranking?

If you think ferrer is not talented ..what do you think makes him successful then? Top 5 players for a couple of years if not more.

Defence, court coverage, outlasting players, waiting for the opponent's error.
He doesn't volley well or have good touch either.

Tenez wrote:

luvsports! wrote:p.s. 104 winners in one match. That's crazy!

Crazy against anybody bar Roddick. Look at how many sitters Rod gives to Kholi.

So again how can you explain that such talent as Kholi..only has a fraction of Ferrer's record?

Think of Lendl. Did he look talented, more so compared to Mc? However he was doing something extremely well. When I say well I mean bording on the genius. Best FH of all time until fed came up. Most of Lendl's talent was in his wrist. He could paint the lines with his FH. He had power and extreme precision. Yet for many he looked very robotic.

Ferrer is a bit like that. He can hit a ball hard and yet place the ball 10% more accurately than most of the guys on tour. This is why he is successful!

Because I don't believe that just because you are successful, that automatically means you are more talented than someone, e.g. Nalbandian.

luvsports! wrote:

Tenez wrote:

luvsports! wrote:Kohli at 5'10 is a lot more talented than ferrer imo.

Kholi looks better but again what's his ranking?

If you think ferrer is not talented ..what do you think makes him successful then? Top 5 players for a couple of years if not more.

Defence, court coverage, outlasting players, waiting for the opponent's error.
He doesn't volley well or have good touch either.

he is not defending actually. This is a preconceived idea!..except versus fed and other rare big hitters. Most of the time he is the agressor. An agressor with average weapons but he is an attacking player.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LXmdI1wsik

Look at this match. He was tired in that wtf cause he had played a lot the previous weeks. Yet he keeps attacking. Deep and angle shots. He goes for it. He doesn't outlast players, he tires them down by making them run...more than he runs most of the time.

You are right. He doesn't have great touch or good volley cause clearly that's not part of his game. But he hits a good ball...consistently. You can't beat nadal on clay and have constantly bothered him, without being able to control Nadal's powerful spin. Most other players simply can't cope with nadal's clay shots. Not only he can but he hurts Nadal.....from his 5'10 frame.

luvsports! wrote:

Tenez wrote:

luvsports! wrote:p.s. 104 winners in one match. That's crazy!

Crazy against anybody bar Roddick. Look at how many sitters Rod gives to Kholi.

So again how can you explain that such talent as Kholi..only has a fraction of Ferrer's record?

Think of Lendl. Did he look talented, more so compared to Mc? However he was doing something extremely well. When I say well I mean bording on the genius. Best FH of all time until fed came up. Most of Lendl's talent was in his wrist. He could paint the lines with his FH. He had power and extreme precision. Yet for many he looked very robotic.

Ferrer is a bit like that. He can hit a ball hard and yet place the ball 10% more accurately than most of the guys on tour. This is why he is successful!

Because I don't believe that just because you are successful, that automatically means you are more talented than someone, e.g. Nalbandian.

I agree in principle. But teh way to be successful without having talent is by being physically compensating and being physically superior...I certainly do not think that's the case of Ferrer. Ferrer doesn't come back from brink of defeats...winning 3 and 5 setters. It happens but most of the time his wins are straight forward. Look at the H2H v Kholi for instance. Or even better v Stan. Ferrer wins the first set 10 times of their 13 encounters and Ferrer only leads 7/6 meaning Stan had outlasted him more than the other way around.

Look next time you watch ferrer play, pay attention to how much he runs....and how much the other guy does. Look at the depth, angle and power of his shots. he doesn't pull many winners cause he is not a big guy...but almost all his shots hurt. ..starting with the return.

Tenez wrote:yes I realised that. But Ferrer does something very well and has great results. Let's not underestimate what makes a player successful. Is he particularly fast? no.  is he particularly strong? no. Does he uses his stamina to win? not that much. He can win many matches pretty swiftly. His game is not great to watch but he has an excellent control of the ball, while hitting hard....something no other bar the 3 better ranked than him can do.

Yes, but I'd prefer to call such a player solid instead of talented.

Tenez wrote:Next time you watch him check the depth and angles of his shots. Great control of the ball.

I know how he plays, he is certainly no pushover, and I said he has improved, particularly in the last two years when he became more aggressive and started bothering Nadal.
The problem I have considering him talented is the quality of his FH.
In my mind's eye, he is always either hitting it CC, or more rarely DTL on the run ( quite well, though) or when he is not on the run, he is on the side of the court, again, same consistent CC basic shots.

There is nothing stopping him taking charge of the game from the middle of the base line taking FH early, but he just never seems to do it.

noleisthebest wrote:Yes, but I'd prefer to call such a player solid instead of talented.

But one cannot be that solid, going for deep and angle shots without being talented. Ferrer is no Canas! he places his shots. Had he been 3 inches taller, his shots woudl have been considerably more powerful...and may have won him many of those close matces he lost v top players.

I know how he plays, he is certainly no pushover, and I said he has improved, particularly in the last two years when he became more aggressive and started bothering Nadal.
The problem I have considering him talented is the quality of his FH.
In my mind's eye, he is always either hitting it CC, or more rarely DTL on the run ( quite well, though) or when he is not on the run, he is on the side of the court, again, same consistent CC basic shots.

Not basic..they hurt. He makes Djoko run as much as he runs.....if not more actually. he also was the aggressor v Murray, Stan, Gasquet, etc....he simply chose long ago not to go for broke. but had he learnt to he coudl have been flashy....though it certainly never was his mentality.

There is nothing stopping him taking charge of the game from the middle of the base line taking FH early, but he just never seems to do it.

Ah we are not seeing the same thing obviously, To me he tries to attack asa he can. He doesn;t try to pull winners, but he tries to hurt. More than many other players actually.

Watch that clip. The first seconds agree with you but right from the first min onwards, you see Fog defending much more than Ferrer. Ferrer is the one taking most risks. Clay is not the best surface though to show agression, yet he still tries more than his opponent here.

OK, I just saw the first half.
It's a good clip as it shows Ferrer's game very well.

First, 90% of it is Ferrer's service game, and even there his "attacking" is safe, not shot-making.
His idea of attacking is to hit the ball as hard as he can but with low margin for error. Hence the consistency.
That is the essence of his tennis.

And because his shot variety is so limited, his game is monotonous. What he does, he does well.
Conveyer belt tennis.

noleisthebest wrote:OK, I just saw the first half.
It's a good clip as it shows Ferrer's game very well.

First, 90% of it is Ferrer's service game, and even there his "attacking" is safe, not shot-making.
His idea of attacking is to hit the ball as hard as he can but with low margin for error. Hence the consistency.
That is the essence of his tennis.

Not so low margins for errors actually. It's a very crafty shot going for angles and depths without moonballing. Not that different to Federer. Federercan place the ball better (closer to lines without being too risky) than most and so does Ferrer. Federer does it more graciously of course and more importantly more powerfully even.

And because his shot variety is so limited, his game is monotonous. What he does, he does well.
Conveyer belt tennis.

..but very crafty. One needs lots of feel to send such balls consistently over the net. those who have this kind of game, with similar fitness, without talent are not in the top 100. He is top 5. BTW watch him v Gasquet as well...and see who does the running!

Debating about Ferrer's talent feels almost like playing him, tough to put the argument away

Tenez wrote:Not so low margins for errors actually. It's a very crafty shot going for angles and depths without moonballing. Not that different to Federer. Federercan place the ball better (closer to lines without being too risky) than most and so does Ferrer. Federer does it more graciously of course and more importantly more powerfully even.

and isn't it precisely talent that allows Federer to have those advantages?

What exactly is stopping Ferrer from going closer for the lines and hitting the ball more powerfully?

Tenez wrote:Not so low margins for errors actually. It's a very crafty shot going for angles and depths without moonballing.  

Maybe not so low, but still low.
I really don't think one needs any extra talent for that type of play.
Ferrer is making the most of what he has: excellent stamina and fitness, low percentage game, and I even think his height is on his side there as it helps him to keep the balance on ball-striking crucial for the consistency of his game and patrol the baseline so well.

noleisthebest wrote:What exactly is stopping Ferrer from going closer for the lines and hitting the ball more powerfully?

Tell me who hits closer to the lines more consistently than him?....besides Federer. It's harder for him cause he hasn't got the extra 3inches and power (swing). I also think he takes the ball comparatively early.

In that above clip, it's Fognini, the "talented" player who is more often than not on the back foot retrieving.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:Not so low margins for errors actually. It's a very crafty shot going for angles and depths without moonballing.  

Maybe not so low, but still low.
I really don't think one needs any extra talent for that type of play.
Ferrer is making the most of what he has: excellent stamina and fitness, low percentage game, and I even think his height is on his side there as it helps him to keep the balance on ball-striking crucial for the consistency of his game and patrol the baseline so well.

Well here I meant "big" margins, not low btw.

If most pro had the same power and stamina as Nadal they would play like him. It's simply about power and stamina. We agree it does not require much talent. The proof is that when he is not 120% he gets beaten by most players on tour. He even prefers not to play.

Ferrer, doesn't have nearly that power, nor does he have the stamina....often being steamrolled by Nadal in the last sets be it over 3 or 5 sets. So what does he do right? Very simple. He sends the ball away from his opponent.....with a purpose. It's extremely crafty....like being one the very best returner....without standing 5m behind the baseline.

Very few can do that....in fact no-one of 5'10. Certainly not consistently.....though Nishi is getting there too..but he certainly had to double the size of his legs and arms. Ferrer has always remained the same.

Although Ferrer is not counter-punching and pushing the ball back, I don't see him as an attacking player either.
What he does is aggressively keep the ball in play as safely as he can, or as you like to see it as close to the line according to the measure of his talent/ability.
I'd say his game is 80% waiting for an UE, and what makes him difficult is that his balls are struck hard not just pushed back. Again, I don't think that's super difficult, more physically and mentally draining as it's so repetitive.

I would not call  his ball-striking going for the lines. He rarely paints the lines, and in my opinion that is where talent of a player actually snows: trusting that talent to go for the lines esp under pressure.

There is a world of difference in line-painting and hitting within 10-20cm inside the lines as Ferrer does.

Tenez wrote:
Ferrer, doesn't have nearly that power, nor does he have the stamina....often being steamrolled by Nadal in the last sets be it over 3 or 5 sets. So what does he do right? Very simple. He sends the ball away from his opponent.....with a purpose. It's extremely crafty....like being one the very best returner....without standing 5m behind the baseline.

Very few can do that....in fact no-one of 5'10. Certainly not consistently.....though Nishi is getting there too..but he certainly had to double the size of his legs and arms. Ferrer has always remained the same.

Yes, that's him in a nutshell.
But that's what all counterpunchers do. The difference is in the "purpose" bit: Murray is physically too big and heavy for it so he either pushes the ball back or "attacks" for short spells as the energy levels allow him, Simon plays it beautifully as he actually does go for the lines and hits the ball properly cleanly, Nole is the ultimate case as he can paint the lines as well as keep the ball in play "with purpose", plus has more of variety than Ferrer, and being light can last much longer than Murray.

let's be clear....I am not a fan of Ferrer's game at all. Extremely stubborn and spanish but imo that;s a character thing. He coudl have played a more flashy tennis...had he had another mentality...cause his striking of the ball is amongst the very best.

Tenez- do you see Ferrer has more talented than Nadal ?

Tenez wrote:let's be clear.... I am not a fan of Ferrer's game at all. Extremely stubborn and spanish but imo that;s a character thing. He coudl have played a more flashy tennis...had he had another mentality...cause his striking of the ball is amongst the very best.

That's a relief

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Tenez- do you see Ferrer has more talented than Nadal ?

Of course he is. Nadal's talent is impossible to gauge cause as you know he doesn't want to rely on it at all. Nadal's game is about destroying every ounce of talent in his opponent by taking the game away from art and skills to bring it into a boxing ring.

As we know he doesn't himself jump into the ring unless he is 120%....so by definition he is the last player that will make the game look easy....therefore to me the least talented player....or more precisely he doesn;t know use talent. full stop.