Davydenko or Ferrer?

[djarvik]

Who has a better career (so far)?

Let's play!


Davydenko Stats:

Career prize money:$15,150,663
Career record: 429–271
Career titles: 21
Highest ranking: No. 3 (November 06, 2006)

Grand Slam Singles results
Australian Open QF (2005, 2006, 2007, 2010)
French Open SF (2005, 2007)
Wimbledon 4R (2007)
US Open SF (2006, 2007)

Other tournaments
Tour Finals W (2009)
Olympic Games 2R (2008)

Ferrer Stats:

Career prize money:$14,658,460
Career record: 470–242
Career titles: 16
Highest ranking: No. 4 (February 25, 2008)

Grand Slam Singles results
Australian Open SF (2011)
French Open SF (2012)
Wimbledon QF (2012)
US Open SF (2007, 2012)

Other tournaments
Tour Finals F (2007)
Olympic Games 3R (2012)

[Corbon]

Denko

(Has a 447-293 winning record according to ATP site).

More titles overall, 2 Masters titles + 1 Tour FInal and higher top ranking. ALSO POSITIVE W-L RECORD VS NADAL OUT OF 11 MATCHES!!!

Edit: I wonder how good his German is now.

Editedit: Still sounds solid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV8sW7jF3OI

[Tamthewasp]

Why these 2? Because they have relatively equal stats? Depends on how you want to define better. Is it winning more titles, making more money having a better W L record. Could be being higher ranked for longer or just being happy with what you did.

Denko won more titles but are the quality of these better than David s.

David has better grand slam stats and a better overall world ranking. Plus the Davis cup.,

I choose David.


Edit.. Good question Al.

[Corbon]

Denko won more titles but are the quality of these better than David's?

Yes they are.

David has better grand slam stats and a better overall world ranking. Plus the Davis cup.,

What is an "overall world ranking"? BTW Denko won the Davis Cup in 2006 but that competition is irrelevant because no matter how good you are, if your team mates are only average, you're never going to win it (ask Federer).

Though Ferrer is far from done yet, right now Denko has had the better career.

[Tamthewasp]

An overall world ranking. Having a better world ranking overall.

I think it's Ferrer. Want to fight about it?

[Corbon]

No reason to because Denko has had the better career so far.

[emate007]

First instinct irregardless of stats is ferrer. He just doesn't lose to anyone but the top 4 guys.

[Otlichno]

Well, Ferrer only really started playing at his highest level from 2010 on. While Davydenko played consistently well for most of his career, but his huge slump started in 2010 too. So they've both never really been on top of their games at the same time. I do think that Ferrer at his best would be tougher to beat than Davydenko though, Ferrer only needs a couple more good Grand Slam draws to be considered greater IMO.

[JohnCurveo]

What is an "overall world ranking"? BTW Denko won the Davis Cup in 2006 but that competition is irrelevant because no matter how good you are, if your team mates are only average, you're never going to win it (ask Federer).

Roger it's not the best representing his country. I don't think it's because of team mates only. This year on London Olympics was so disapointing on the final. Also Davis cup match vs Isner on early rounds was horrible (I really think Swiss had a chance this year).
The only swiss achieve was with Stanislas.

I prefer hard-working Ferrer. Denko is not the fairest player of ATP. Under investigation once, i've seen some "strange" attitudes on court. Not trusty.
Ferrer 4 times SF of GS. For me one SF GS is more than a title on Masters 1000.Also it's not comparable 2007's ATP wourld tour finals (3 sets, vs the best player of all time making the best season ever), than 2009's one with big players not playing his best.

[Corbon]

For me one SF GS is more than a title on Masters 1000.

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).

This year on London Olympics was so disapointing on the final.

In the end, whether you're carrying your flag around or not, the Olympics are just another big tournament and everyone is mainly playing for himself. And the lack of commitment for Davis Cup matches and Olympics is common among top money whores.

Also it's not comparable 2007's ATP wourld tour finals (3 sets, vs the best player of all time making the best season ever), than 2009's one with big players not playing his best.

The best 8 players are present at this tournament, if some of them are slacking, it won't take away anything from winning there.

[djarvik]

Davy had a "mode", Ferrer doesn't. Ferrer is as solid as they come, but he never has this "god mode". Davy had that in him. So to me, Davy is potentially a more talented player.

[VMoe86]

This year on London Olympics was so disapointing on the final.

He played his heart out in the SF against del Potro. It meant a lot to him to have secured a singles medal, didn't have much mental/physical energy left for the final, where a sublime Murray showed up.

Also it's not comparable 2007's ATP wourld tour finals (3 sets, vs the best player of all time making the best season ever), than 2009's one with big players not playing his best.

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.

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.

[supinesmokey13]

This year on London Olympics was so disapointing on the final.

He played his heart out in the SF against del Potro. It meant a lot to him to have secured a singles medal, didn't have much mental/physical energy left for the final, where a sublime Murray showed up.

Also it's not comparable 2007's ATP wourld tour finals (3 sets, vs the best player of all time making the best season ever), than 2009's one with big players not playing his best.

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.

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.

plus he then beat fed and nadal back to back in doha in the first set against fed in the semis davy DIDNT MISS a first serve and beat nadal in the final from a set down and match points

[Ugadalou]

They are both players who should have won at least one slam but were unlucky to play in this era.Both consistent Top10 players for so many years..

[Corbon]

What Djarvik said, Ferrer comes across as a guy who has been playing at a level that is high enough to be ranked in the Top 10 over years but he will never pose a threat to the Top 4 and it seems like he can never raise his game significantly to make a big breakthrough. He will always keep knocking at the door but never open it.

0-13 against Fed
4-16 against Nadal
5-9 against Djokovic