Davydenko or Ferrer?

[JohnCurveo]

I disagree. By winning a Masters, you'll go home with a big title, by losing in a GS SF you will go home with nothing besides points and prize money (both being less than a Masters win).

Not agree with u . The problem of what i said is Davydenko have 4 SF aswell, so there is no point in there. But personally there are some Masters that are at the same level of ATP 500 or worst. But marketing is marketing. Paris masters... is a joke, the TV production of this masters is the worst i have ever seen in years. Shangai Masters is a masters only because of Asia and give some good chinese money to ATP. And 9 masters is too much.

Ferrer is always there. Davydenko is not. Davydenko can beat everyone when he's playing great, but there are a lot of players like this. He's more talented. But talent is not everything.

The best 8 players are present at this tournament, if some of them are slacking, it won't take away anything from winning there.
2007 was not the best season ever, it cannot be if you lose to Canas twice. Federer in WTF 2009 was playing very well, Davydenko won the SF against him and del Potro was in the form of his life at the end of 2009 -- dismantled in the final.

I exagerate with best season ever. But is the last season FedEX played like GOAT. Losing to cañas twice doesn't matter.

As djarvik put it, Davydenko had a "god mode". He could win tournaments by beating the top 4. Has Ferrer ever done this? For me, Davydenko still has the edge. Ferrer might "outgrind" him by mere stats when their respective careers are done, which would be fitting.

No doubt, but he lost matches against Vassallo Arguello, Florent Serra, Olivier Patience, Amer Delic, Wesley Moodie, Joachim Johansson, Paradorn Srichaphan, Nicolas Lapenti, Pablo Cuevas, Zverev and many more players out of top 50 and top 100. What mode is this?

[supinesmokey13]

I disagree. By winning a Masters, you'll go home with a big title, by losing in a GS SF you will go home with nothing besides points and prize money (both being less than a Masters win).

Not agree with u . The problem of what i said is Davydenko have 4 SF aswell, so there is no point in there. But personally there are some Masters that are at the same level of ATP 500 or worst. But marketing is marketing. Paris masters... is a joke, the TV production of this masters is the worst i have ever seen in years. Shangai Masters is a masters only because of Asia and give some good chinese money to ATP. And 9 masters is too much.

Ferrer is always there. Davydenko is not. Davydenko can beat everyone when he's playing great, but there are a lot of players like this. He's more talented. But talent is not everything.

The best 8 players are present at this tournament, if some of them are slacking, it won't take away anything from winning there.
2007 was not the best season ever, it cannot be if you lose to Canas twice. Federer in WTF 2009 was playing very well, Davydenko won the SF against him and del Potro was in the form of his life at the end of 2009 -- dismantled in the final.

I exagerate with best season ever. But is the last season FedEX played like GOAT. Losing to cañas twice doesn't matter.

As djarvik put it, Davydenko had a "god mode". He could win tournaments by beating the top 4. Has Ferrer ever done this? For me, Davydenko still has the edge. Ferrer might "outgrind" him by mere stats when their respective careers are done, which would be fitting.

No doubt, but he lost matches against Vassallo Arguello, Florent Serra, Olivier Patience, Amer Delic, Wesley Moodie, Joachim Johansson, Paradorn Srichaphan, Nicolas Lapenti, Pablo Cuevas, Zverev and many more players out of top 50 and top 100. What mode is this?

he beat nadal in miami in 08, and shanghai 09 and the paris masters is a big tourney becker, sampras are some of the names who have won it. he has done something ferrer cant BEAT NADAL IN A MASTERS FINAL TWICE and davy has been consistent he had won at least a titlesin the last 11-12 seasons the only player that has a better record is fed 13 straight seasons roddick is retitred so i didnt include him . masters wins, yec win one final, more titles, higher career ranking, a wining record against one of the big four makes davy's career better

[Corbon]

For the record, Federer's best season was 2006.

Yes, some Masters tournaments are more prestigious than others (Indian Wells, Key Biscayne and Madrid are the really big ones) but the Australian Open are less prestigious than Wimbledon as well, but a Slam is a Slam.

[JohnCurveo]

he beat nadal in miami in 08, and shanghai 09 and the paris masters is a big tourney becker, sampras are some of the names who have won it.

and?
ATP 500
Rotterdam (since 1972): JConnors, Borg, Vilas, Becker, Edberg, Federer...
Barcelona (since 1953): Borg, Nastase, Lendl, Wilander, Muster, Ferrero, Nadal etc...
Basilea(since 1976): Lendl, Noah, Borg, Mcenroe, Sampras, Henman, Becker, Federer etc...

Shangai masters (2009)
Madrid "blue clay" masters (2002)

Also Paris-Bercy in my opinion should be ATP 500. The central court is magnific, but the others are pretty bad.

[djarvik]

Ferrer is always there. Davydenko is not. Davydenko can beat everyone when he's playing great, but there are a lot of players like this. He's more talented. But talent is not everything.

"Ferrer is always there" - really? He is in the top 10 for 2 years + 1.5 year stretch, Davy spend there 5 consecutive.
The way I see it, Ferrer is a late bloomer, workaholic type, with no other talents then to work his butt of. Where Davy has proven with his top 10 stay and with his wins and with bigger game.

You listing loses that Davy had this year? hmmm....he is done, his career is likely over. Ferrer is still trying to catch up with him and playing his best now. They peaked at different times. Should I list all the embarrassing losses Ferrer had at the time when Davy spend 5 year at top 10

I like Ferrer more than Davy, but I still thinking Davy is more impressive.

[supinesmokey13]

Ferrer is always there. Davydenko is not. Davydenko can beat everyone when he's playing great, but there are a lot of players like this. He's more talented. But talent is not everything.

"Ferrer is always there" - really? He is in the top 10 for 2 years + 1.5 year stretch, Davy spend there 5 consecutive.
The way I see it, Ferrer is a late bloomer, workaholic type, with no other talents then to work his butt of. Where Davy has proven with his top 10 stay and with his wins and with bigger game.

You listing loses that Davy had this year? hmmm....he is done, his career is likely over. Ferrer is still trying to catch up with him and playing his best now. They peaked at different times. Should I list all the embarrassing losses Ferrer had at the time when Davy spend 5 year at top 10

I like Ferrer more than Davy, but I still thinking Davy is more impressive.

davy just needs to find confidence he could benefit from pounding rafa on a hard-court right that usually gives him confidence he took jo to three sets in metz so he can still hang with the elite

[JohnCurveo]

"Ferrer is always there" - really? He is in the top 10 for 2 years + 1.5 year stretch, Davy spend there 5 consecutive.
The way I see it, Ferrer is a late bloomer, workaholic type, with no other talents then to work his butt of. Where Davy has proven with his top 10 stay and with his wins and with bigger game.

Ferrer is always there, i was talking more about fight spirit than ranking, but i didn't remember davy spend 5 consecutive years on top 10 really. But i repeat myself, there are some loses that stained his achievements. "You listing loses that Davy had this year?" No, that's the matter. The loses i listed where in years he was on top 10.
Ferrer is a late bloomer workaholic, but he's talented too (different way of course). I predict Ferrer will be at least 2 more years on top ten (so he will not).
I like the feeling i receive from players, and i don't receive anything from Davy or if i receive, are not good things. Paris Masters 2007, Davydenko Baghdatis, is the first time i've seen an umpire reproach a player about how he's playing. And what about warning he received on Sant petesburg because of "lack of effort".
A career is not only about stadistics.

[Corbon]

The only sensible way to compare careers between players is to use facts and logic. In other words, by empirical means and this is exactly how you win arguments. Whether you "think" or "feel" that player x has had a better career than player y is irrelevant. Probably no one will remember the accusations against Denko in 20 years, just like (almost) no one remembers Ivanisevic saying this.

"They showed me how to shoot, just for fun. They let me shoot a machine gun. It was tough to control, but, oh, it was a nice feeling -- all the bullets coming out. I was thinking it would be nice to have some Serbs standing in front of me."

This doesn't make him a worse player or a worse server in retrospect but maybe an awful human being. Yes, emotions were high but you better keep these things to yourself (I think he received several death threats in his career).

So the facts have been hammered down multiple times in this topic and, by almost all accounts which are usually looked at to determine a player's career (see my other topic), as of September 2012, Denko wins this.

Ferrer is often described as a "Nadal without weapons" and they have a point. Being a mainstay in the top 5 means that you have to be awfully talented but he lacks any standout specialty which would make him more special compared to his peers. He's very much like Wozniacki or Radwanska in this regard.

[JohnCurveo]

I don't think a career is only about empirical or logical things. U say it's irrelevant, but for me it isn't. The facts are not logical. This is tennis, not maths. Also, both doesn't win ever a slam. So it's important other aspects than just stadistics.

Who have better career, Kaflenikov or Thomas Muster? I propose to you think your answer without looking at any stadistic, and then after, look at them.

About Ivanisevic words... i propose to you to try to investigate why/when he said that. But it's not tennis. What i said is tennis related.

U should know ATP anti-fraud system is a joke. Is the worst of all sports. If u investigate u will see it. But that's not my work, its yours. I pretty liked to see your "empirical" responses to such "strange" events. And my opinion, Davydenko shouldn't have been allowed to play tennis again after 2008. U say no one will remember accusations. I say this is a ballon going bigger and bigger. Someday have to explote.

"He's very much like Wozniacki or Radwanska in this regard." WTF?

Ferrer FTW

[Corbon]

Denko is better, suck it!

[supinesmokey13]

I don't think a career is only about empirical or logical things. U say it's irrelevant, but for me it isn't. The facts are not logical. This is tennis, not maths. Also, both doesn't win ever a slam. So it's important other aspects than just stadistics.

Who have better career, Kaflenikov or Thomas Muster? I propose to you think your answer without looking at any stadistic, and then after, look at them.

About Ivanisevic words... i propose to you to try to investigate why/when he said that. But it's not tennis. What i said is tennis related.

U should know ATP anti-fraud system is a joke. Is the worst of all sports. If u investigate u will see it. But that's not my work, its yours. I pretty liked to see your "empirical" responses to such "strange" events. And my opinion, Davydenko shouldn't have been allowed to play tennis again after 2008. U say no one will remember accusations. I say this is a ballon going bigger and bigger. Someday have to explote.

"He's very much like Wozniacki or Radwanska in this regard." WTF?

Ferrer FTW

kafelnikov won slams in singles and doubles and olympic gold medal in sydney 2000 the only knock on him is no masters 1000 titles and no yec. davy has had the better career haven't you heard the saying 'women lie, men lie numbers dont'

[Corbon]

Denko beat Ferrer in Doha semis