Del Potro vs Murray: Who *at their best* is a better player?

First topic message reminder :

29 out of the last 30 slams have been won by the Fedalovic tripoly. The only exception being of course, Juan Martin Del Potro's victory in the US Open in 2009.
Despite Del Potro being the only one to break the three's grip in slams, it has mainly been Andy Murray who has consistently threatened the top 3; in Masters, in rankings, and (sometimes) in slams.
But the fact still remains, Del Potro has bagged the big one, Murray (despite getting closer) hasn't and might not ever.
So, who, 'at their best' as I put it would be considered the better player? If they were to compete on a surface they both play well on, let's say US Open, and they were both playing their best tennis, who would you fancy to win? (Currently of course Murray is playing better tennis, while Del Potro has not looked his old self since his injury despite making solid progress.)

Gameplay:
Of course, it is very difficult to compare the ground-strokes of these two as they play with two very different styles.
Style: Andy Murray is a patient counterpuncher, he doesn't instinctively attack but waits for the right moment before pouncing. Meanwhile Del Potro's gameplan is a start contrast. He takes a huge swing and literally blasts the ball with each stroke, eager to take the initiative. Hence it is not easy to compare the two.
Serve: Del Potro has arguably a bigger first and second serve. He is a few inches taller than Murray, and uses his height to hit the ball with great pace. When in the zone returning the Del Potro serve is a huge task. Murray on the other hand has a decent first serve but for a long while his second serve has been a weakness. I am pleased to say that his second delivery has looked slightly more dangerous recently, but I still feel with his height Del P is a bigger server.
Return: If I say Del Potro is a better server, it is fair to say Murray is a better returner (of serve). Murray for me is the best returner of serve in the world joint with Djokovic, using his agility to react quickly and return a tricky serve deep with penetration. Meanwhile Del Potro, although he has a longer reach, cannot create the same angles and depth on the return compared to Murray.
Movement: Murray is a far better mover. He is faster than Del Potro, who does admittedly move well for his size, but Murray's court coverage and pace means he will be able to move much better than the Argentinian.
Groundstrokes: Both Murray and Del Potro have different baseline games, but both know how to use their respective style effectively. On the backhand side I feel Murray has the edge and can generate pace from nowhere, but Del Potro has a fearsome bludgeoning forehand which can rip apart nearly any opponent.
Variety: This is another of Murray's key strengths. While Del Potro blasts the ball with pace, which on its day is a terror no doubt, Murray has much more subtle variety in his game. He uses the dropshot very effectively and is improving at the net. On the other hand Del Potro rarely uses the dropshot and looks very uncomfortable at the net.

Rankings:
Murray is currently number 4 in the world, and has been in this position for a long period of time, stretching back to 2008 when he attained his world number 4 ranking. His highest ranking was number 2, but this was for a brief period in 2009. Meanwhile Del Potro is currently number 9 in the world. Before his wrist injury, he was number 4 in 2010, but then subsequently slipped down the rankings.
Titles:
Unlike Murray, Del Potro has won a Grand Slam Title. This came in the US Open in 2009. Murray has reached 4 finals though, but has only managed to win 1 set in these 4 matches. Nevertheless he has won far more titles overall including 8 Masters 1000 while Del Potro is yet to win a Masters 1000.

So, who is the better player?
Well consistency wise you have to give it to Murray. He has been a feature in the top 4 for around 4 years now, which is a phenomenal effort. Del Potro is yet to achieve this consistency and good results all year round, but we have to keep in mind that just when he was looking to take off he was struck by a wrist injury.
On comeback Potro has been steady, but I feel is slowly coming back to where he was. We should not look to much into Del Potro's recent loss at Wimbledon, he has never moved well on grass. Also we have to remember in the French Open he was on the verge of knocking out Federer, before being halted by a knee injury after winning the first 2 sets (unfortunately he could only win 5 more games in the final 3 sets )
But this does not answer the question posed in the title.

Who would win if they both played their 'best' level?
Earlier in the article I used the USO as an example where they both play their best tennis, and let's stick with that. Suppose they met in the the USO final... what do you think?
Murray is more consistent tournament to tournament, but when Del Potro is on fire in one tournament he is very difficult to stop. Remember his sensational obliteration of Nadal in the SF, and then his stunning hitting in the final victory against Federer? But then again Murray can play some brilliant tennis too. In Shanghai 2010 he beat Federer with the loss of only 5 games, and bagelled Nadal in the last set of Tokyo last year.
Overall however I would just give the edge to Del Potro. He might not be as consistent, and has not looked in top form since his injury, but when on fire I feel he would have too much firepower for Murray. Del Potro in 5.

time please wrote:

Murray, on the other hand, proved last Sunday that he does belong on the big stage.

... where he won our hearts and minds... sorry time please. Just teasing. I couldn't resist it when you you fed the line.

The problem for both Murray, Del Potro and all the other players is that 3 players have owned that big stage and are not willing to share. Del Potro will go down in history for breaking up that ownership. He did it with the sort of smash and grap tactics that IMO have a better chance of succeeding against the very top players. These tactics are of course low percentage but can sometimes yield a big win as they take away the ability of the superior players ability to play. Look at Rosol. Murray doesn't play like that. His consistancy should give him a better career overall but it may be more difficult for players like him to score an underdog win.

IMBL - you've hit on an interesting point there with the mental side. Whilst Murray is the far better player, he's not brought his best to all the slam semis and finals he's reached. Delpo did.

Well, up until the start of 2012 I think this had some merit anyway, maybe not so much now as his AO semi and Wimbledon final he actually turned up and put himself in a position where he could have won. But before this year, good point... The mental side is probably advantage DP.

hawkeye wrote:

time please wrote:

Murray, on the other hand, proved last Sunday that he does belong on the big stage.

... where he won our hearts and minds... sorry time please. Just teasing. I couldn't resist it when you you fed the line.

The problem for both Murray, Del Potro and all the other players is that 3 players have owned that big stage and are not willing to share. Del Potro will go down in history for breaking up that ownership. He did it with the sort of smash and grap tactics that IMO have a better chance of succeeding against the very top players. These tactics are of course low percentage but can sometimes yield a big win as they take away the ability of the superior players ability to play. Look at Rosol. Murray doesn't play like that. His consistancy should give him a better career overall but it may be more difficult for players like him to score an underdog win.

True, Del Potro snuck in under the radar and got the win but, now that has happened, I think the top three have learned how he plays and both Federer and Djokovic have the ability to neutralise his weapons, even on his best day. I am happy to include Nadal in this list too but he did have a bit of a dodgy run of matches against DP in 2009, when DP was at his best, indicating he struggles against him (much as Murray currently does with Nadal). My question is, does DP have a plan B? Murray is improving his weaknesses all the time (second serve, mentality, forehand all greatly improved) putting him back in the hunt for the big prizes. No guarantees he will succeed but he is certainly in contention. DPs weaknesses are, in my opinion, harder to improve. Can you turn a bad mover into a good mover? How much can you improve your return? Genuine questions, can he have such a run again?

Carrieg4 - great post.

Agree with all of it, especially in terms if what can DP do about his mobility issues and dislike of anything low... I can't see how he'll ever improve those things as he's just too big.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Really struggling to understand this debate. Murray at his best has a beast of a serve matched with one of the all-time great returns. He can also play more or less every shot possible. Del Potro is a hugely effective metronome with a high power but limited game. They both play well and Murray wins easily. The issue is that DP is far more consistent. If they both play average then it is close because DP will then have the chance to dictate, as Berdy has against Murray. I'd still just give Murray the edge though - he's played some fairly ordinary stuff in some of their matches before and yet still edged them.

I disagree, I think Murray is far more consistent.
Against the big guns in general I think the Top 3 will fear Del Potro at his best more than Murray at his best, as the match is slightly more in your control vs Murray.
But generally as Murray is far more consistent the Top 3 would prefer Murray on a given day.

Does this make sense? Murray fans- would you agree?

If a player hits every ball really hard to the lines taking loads of risks... and they have a good day and everything goes in there is not a lot of learning to do. It doesn't matter how good a player you are because your skills will count for less.

Del Potro can play like that. If he does and everything goes in there is little that Federer, Nadal, Djokovic or any other player can do. The top players have the skill and consistency not to play like that. That's what makes them so good and IMO such fun to watch. Of course they can always suffer a freak loss but they have proved that such high risk tennis is not the way to dominate the sport.

I was really interested in Federer's reaction to Djokovic when he hit that freak low percentage winner when match point down at the US Open. Many read it as criticism but I saw it more as surprise and acknowledgement of Djokovic as a great player. He expected Djokovic to trust himself to play such a point with the belief that he could win it with his superior play. Not play like an underdog and go for such a low percentage shot as if that was his only chance.

Murray tactically plays the top players even on the big stage with the belief that he doesn't have to do anything special to beat them. This is good in that he shows he has the belief to think that he can get a win. But bad in that so far his actual game isn't good enough to get the win. Should he play more risky? Or more to the point could he play more risky? Does he possess the big shots to have a go even if doing this chances are he still wouldn't get a win? I don't know.

His actual game isn't good enough to get the win? Yes it is.

Look at his masters record, he's beaten all 3 a number of times. And anyone who says 'the top guys don't try as hard at the masters events' I would say if that's the case why has not one single player outside the top 4 won a masters event over the last 18 months - 2 years? They are all won by the top 4.

Murrays best is good enough. It's bringing that best to the table in those slam matches that is the problem. Something which this year he is finally doing a bit better at.

Danny_1982 wrote:IMBL - you've hit on an interesting point there with the mental side. Whilst Murray is the far better player, he's not brought his best to all the slam semis and finals he's reached. Delpo did.

Well, up until the start of 2012 I think this had some merit anyway, maybe not so much now as his AO semi and Wimbledon final he actually turned up and put himself in a position where he could have won. But before this year, good point... The mental side is probably advantage DP.

Yes I do agree, as DP has won a GS before his belief might be slightly higher.
However we have to be careful, as you said, his belief only comes when he is striking to ball superbly and playing his best... but we haven't seen that for a while.

hawkeye wrote:
The problem for both Murray, Del Potro and all the other players is that 3 players have owned that big stage and are not willing to share. Del Potro will go down in history for breaking up that ownership. He did it with the sort of smash and grap tactics that IMO have a better chance of succeeding against the very top players. These tactics are of course low percentage but can sometimes yield a big win as they take away the ability of the superior players ability to play. Look at Rosol. Murray doesn't play like that. His consistancy should give him a better career overall but it may be more difficult for players like him to score an underdog win.

Absolutely spot on, couldn't have put it any better myself

However one thing I do have to add is that Wimbledon was encouraging for Murray... as Carrieg said he will now believe a little bit more that he can go in there and win without going 'all out.'

It Must Be Love wrote:

hawkeye wrote:
The problem for both Murray, Del Potro and all the other players is that 3 players have owned that big stage and are not willing to share. Del Potro will go down in history for breaking up that ownership. He did it with the sort of smash and grap tactics that IMO have a better chance of succeeding against the very top players. These tactics are of course low percentage but can sometimes yield a big win as they take away the ability of the superior players ability to play. Look at Rosol. Murray doesn't play like that. His consistancy should give him a better career overall but it may be more difficult for players like him to score an underdog win.

Absolutely spot on, couldn't have put it any better myself

However one thing I do have to add is that Wimbledon was encouraging for Murray... as Carrieg said he will now believe a little bit more that he can go in there and win without going 'all out.'

I still find the reasons given for the top three preferring to face Murray as a bit nebulous. He has a far, far better record against two of them than Del Potro. Unlike DP, his weaknesses are ones he can and is working on. It's all very well saying that, on his day, DP can smash and grab a match but unless he has never been at his best against Djokovic and rarely against Federer it has clearly not worked.

Del Potro gets very little credit on these boards and it is often scorn thrown at him by Murray fans (Bitter perhaps that he took advantage and won a slam?)

Here's the stats that the Murray fangirls hate:

Del Potro in Slam finals: sets won 3 sets lost 2

Murray in slam finals: sets won 1!?!?? sets lost 12

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Del Potro gets very little credit on these boards and it is often scorn thrown at him by Murray fans (Bitter perhaps that he took advantage and won a slam?)

Here's the stats that the Murray fangirls hate:

Del Potro in Slam finals: sets won 3 sets lost 2

Murray in slam finals: sets won 1!?!?? sets lost 12

Is anyone disputing that Del Potro has won a slam?? Anyone?? Thought not. Moving on.

The problem I see with Del Potro is that he has no finesse in his game. It is all based on pure power and brute strength. Whereas with Murray he has the ability to produce both power and finesse in his game.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Del Potro gets very little credit on these boards and it is often scorn thrown at him by Murray fans (Bitter perhaps that he took advantage and won a slam?)

Here's the stats that the Murray fangirls hate:

Del Potro in Slam finals: sets won 3 sets lost 2

Murray in slam finals: sets won 1!?!?? sets lost 12

Is it that simple? Ok then.

Thomas Johansson in slam finals: sets won 3 sets lost 1.

So he was a better than Del Potro is then.

Is Thomas Johansson the GOAT?

The only top 10 player Thomas played in that tournament was Safin in the final 2002 was not exactly a great year for the mens game. Del Po beat Ferrero the former USO finalist, then Nadal and Federer. That's how you properly win tournaments.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:The only top 10 player Thomas played in that tournament was Safin in the final 2002 was not exactly a great year for the mens game. Del Po beat Ferrero the former USO finalist, then Nadal and Federer. That's how you properly win tournaments.

Impressive but there is much more too it in deciding whether the top three would prefer to face Murray or Del Potro, at their best, now. It shows that DP has the mentality to get over the line which Murray has so far lacked (but is improving all the time). It doesn't however answer whether Del Potro is capable of improving his weaknesses now the big guns are wise to his game and clearly have the weapons to counteract his strengths. What do you think? Can he learn to move better or cope with the low balls better?

It Must Be Love

Thank you so much for the applause and champagne. I was beginning to get a little sensitive about giving my views...

hawkeye wrote:It Must Be Love

Thank you so much for the applause and champagne. I was beginning to get a little sensitive about giving my views...

No need for sensitivity Hawkeye (won't get you far on here anyway ). If you have a point and are willing to debate it then you will be fine.

hawkeye wrote:It Must Be Love

Thank you so much for the applause and champagne. I was beginning to get a little sensitive about giving my views...

Don't be
Of course you can post your views If people have different views then that is good for the forum (apart from personal abuse or racism lol).

Well I know for a fact you would have posts deleted if you could IMBL, like you were doing in JA606.

Some interesting views specially from JM regarding DP.

The problem with DP is that injury roadblocked his success, Murray struggled with his injury too, look at Soderling for the moment.

DP's 2009 year was better than any of Murray's year in my view. Our question is would DP ever get back to that level? if so nobody I mean nobody on planet would like to play him.

Come USO,nobody would like to have DP in their quarter, Fed/Djoko would be relieved to have Murray in their Semi's compared to Nadal.

But saying all that yes Murray's level is improving and he does deserve a big run and big win in some slams, on the other hand nobody deserves unless they win it and hence DP deserved his title and Murray will have to do more hardwork and achive it in the future.

Murray might be the better player among the two, but Top3 would rather face him in a GS compared to DP. The one surface Murray comfortably scores over DP is grass and DP will win Murray comfortably in clay, in HC its 50-50 may be I would give 51-49 to Murray.

Not like Murray hasn't had injuries too. Ankle and wrist put paid to a fair bit.

This is all utter conjecture I am afraid. Ask Federer who he'd sooner play out of DP or Murray and he'd say DP. Never mind the guff about at their best either as Fed is sensible enough to realise that you take what opponent turns up on the day. The likelihood is that it is a DP that rolls over pretty tamely whereas he knows he will face stiff competition from Murray more often than not. The whole argument based on opting for DP is based on one random win in the US Open Final. A Final which I'd bet is Federer's biggest regret in slam finals as he knows that is one he should have won.

I prefer to base my stance on if both DP and Murray retired now who has achieved more and where do they stand in the game. True DP has that elusive slam but virtually nothing else of note. Murray has multiple slam finals, consistently higher ranking, more Masters Cup wins and far far better slam record as in semis reached plus more titles to his name. All DP can hold up is one slam win. Very impressive on his CV but nothing else to back up his standing as a player. I'd suppose it is akin to arguing that Nottingham Forest (two league titles) are a better club than Manchester City who have won one league title.

If one is arguing who was the best of both players at their best then for three hours on an Autumn day in New York in 2009 it was Del Potro. Otherwise it is Murray.

CaledonianCraig wrote:This is all utter conjecture I am afraid. Ask Federer who he'd sooner play out of DP or Murray and he'd say DP.

CaledonianCraig. But your theory about who Federer would prefer to play is utter conjecture too! To add my conjecture... Federer's memories of playing Del Potro in a slam final are probably quite sad. His memories will contain images of Del Potro holding a nice shiny trophy and himself holding a plate. But he will have much happier memories of playing Murray. Himself holding a trophy whilst Murray weeps...

CaledonianCraig wrote: Ask Federer who he'd sooner play out of DP or Murray and he'd say DP

I'm not so sure...DP came back at him at USO09, and has twice nearly beat him at FO...and this year but for a bad knee.

CaledonianCraig wrote: whereas he knows he will face stiff competition from Murray

You mean like sets 3 and 4 at Wimbledon?

lydian wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote: Ask Federer who he'd sooner play out of DP or Murray and he'd say DP

I'm not so sure...DP came back at him at USO09, and has twice nearly beat him at FO...and this year but for a bad knee.

Agree that DP has the advantage on clay. Pretty sure Fed would have come back at FO this year but who knows?

CaledonianCraig wrote: whereas he knows he will face stiff competition from Murray

You mean like sets 3 and 4 at Wimbledon?[/quote]

More like in sets 1 and 2

As IC says DP has advantage on clay, Murray on grass and HC depends on day.

Would add again about the 12 - 2 H2H advantage of Fed over DP and 4-1 record Djokovic holds with the only loss being a retirement from him.

Everyone has their own views on this which is fair enough but from my own personal view I can only tell you that should Murray be able to reach a slam final and have Del Potro facing him in the final I'd be very happy with that. Not sure that Del Potro would be so confident going by head-to-head record but hey-ho that comes under conjecture as well I suppose.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Everyone has their own views on this which is fair enough but from my own personal view I can only tell you that should Murray be able to reach a slam final and have Del Potro facing him in the final I'd be very happy with that. Not sure that Del Potro would be so confident going by head-to-head record but hey-ho that comes under conjecture as well I suppose.

Very true Craig, this is a debate that can never really be resolved because everything is conjecture.

It can't be resolved because the question keeps being ignored.

Murray v Del Potro on a given day? Murray.

Murray at his best v Del Potro at his best? Probably Del Potro; those crazy forehands are unreachable, and his serve is incredible for speed and bounce. That said, Murray has a wonderful serve at best (not a wonderful 2nd though, even at best).

Del Potro rarely hits that best standard though. As I say, on any given day Murray wins this routinely as the match up is perfect for him unless JMDP is hitting bombs.

bogbrush wrote:It can't be resolved because the question keeps being ignored.

Murray v Del Potro on a given day? Murray.

Murray at his best v Del Potro at his best? Probably Del Potro; those crazy forehands are unreachable, and his serve is incredible for speed and bounce. That said, Murray has a wonderful serve at best (not a wonderful 2nd though, even at best).

Del Potro rarely hits that best standard though. As I say, on any given day Murray wins this routinely as the match up is perfect for him unless JMDP is hitting bombs.

Gotta say that pretty much sums up what I think perfectly.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:It can't be resolved because the question keeps being ignored.

Murray v Del Potro on a given day? Murray.

Murray at his best v Del Potro at his best? Probably Del Potro; those crazy forehands are unreachable, and his serve is incredible for speed and bounce. That said, Murray has a wonderful serve at best (not a wonderful 2nd though, even at best).

Del Potro rarely hits that best standard though. As I say, on any given day Murray wins this routinely as the match up is perfect for him unless JMDP is hitting bombs.

Gotta say that pretty much sums up what I think perfectly.

Seems reasonable to me.

I would agree bogbrush but would ask when do you think Del Potro was at his best? If you are using his US Open win 2009 as 'his best' then surely we can presume in 2009 he was at his peak. Head-to-head in 2009 Murray 3 Del Potro 1

We know Federer dominates the H2h over him, whats the point of repeating what we know?

Fact is Murray has played Fed in 3 slam finals and slaughtered every time, Del Po was able to win a slam final and lose 2 narrow French Open clashes. Murray would kill to be that competitive.

carrieg4 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:It can't be resolved because the question keeps being ignored.

Murray v Del Potro on a given day? Murray.

Murray at his best v Del Potro at his best? Probably Del Potro; those crazy forehands are unreachable, and his serve is incredible for speed and bounce. That said, Murray has a wonderful serve at best (not a wonderful 2nd though, even at best).

Del Potro rarely hits that best standard though. As I say, on any given day Murray wins this routinely as the match up is perfect for him unless JMDP is hitting bombs.

Gotta say that pretty much sums up what I think perfectly.

Seems reasonable to me.

That is what I've been trying to say all this time, read the last two paragraphs of the article. Murray is consistently the better player, no doubt.

To be honest I didn't have a problem with the OP which is why I didn't respond to it initially. My issue was the assertion by another poster that Murrays best was on a par with Ferrer and DP was far better which I obviously strongly disagree with. I quite liked the OP and it led to an interesting debate

I think Del Potro's supposed best has become a bit mythical.

He had an oustanding run for a few weeks in 2009 and won a slam. However he hasn't shown anything like that since. Yes he ran Federer very close at this year's FO but Fed struggled throughout the whole tourney and was carrying a hip injury.

If we go by both players' current best (and not some short-lived peak three years ago) then Murray wins. On an average day Murray wins comfortably.



emancipator

emancipator wrote:I think Del Potro's supposed best has become a bit mythical.

He had an oustanding run for a few weeks in 2009 and won a slam. However he hasn't shown anything like that since. Yes he ran Federer very close at this year's FO but Fed struggled throughout the whole tourney and was carrying a hip injury.

If we go by both players' current best (and not some short-lived peak three years ago) then Murray wins. On an average day Murray wins comfortably.



emancipator

Wise words emancipator

DPs best was only for that short time in 2009.

All Del Po needs to beat players like Murray and Ferrer is a bit of patience. Those 2 love returning flat hitters, take some pace off and they don't look so good, Juan needs to take a leaf from Safin's book.

carrieg4 wrote:To be honest I didn't have a problem with the OP which is why I didn't respond to it initially. My issue was the assertion by another poster that Murrays best was on a par with Ferrer and DP was far better which I obviously strongly disagree with. I quite liked the OP and it led to an interesting debate

Thanks

carrieg4 wrote:

emancipator wrote:I think Del Potro's supposed best has become a bit mythical.

He had an oustanding run for a few weeks in 2009 and won a slam. However he hasn't shown anything like that since. Yes he ran Federer very close at this year's FO but Fed struggled throughout the whole tourney and was carrying a hip injury.

If we go by both players' current best (and not some short-lived peak three years ago) then Murray wins. On an average day Murray wins comfortably.



emancipator

Wise words emancipator

DPs best was only for that short time in 2009.

Yes I agree, tbh I expected more from Del P in his comeback but he hasn't yet delivered

It Must Be Love wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

emancipator wrote:I think Del Potro's supposed best has become a bit mythical.

He had an oustanding run for a few weeks in 2009 and won a slam. However he hasn't shown anything like that since. Yes he ran Federer very close at this year's FO but Fed struggled throughout the whole tourney and was carrying a hip injury.

If we go by both players' current best (and not some short-lived peak three years ago) then Murray wins. On an average day Murray wins comfortably.



emancipator

Wise words emancipator

DPs best was only for that short time in 2009.

Yes I agree, tbh I expected more from Del P in his comeback but he hasn't yet delivered

He has time yet, I hope he does find his form again. As I said earlier the ATP tour is more interesting with him in it.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:All Del Po needs to beat players like Murray and Ferrer is a bit of patience. Those 2 love returning flat hitters, take some pace off and they don't look so good, Juan needs to take a leaf from Safin's book.

Firstly putting Murray and Ferrer in the same category is a gross misjudgement, the very attribute that Murray harms Del Potro with (variety i.e. the slice) is what Ferrer lacks.

Secondly I think your plan would be disastrous for Del Potro. In longer rallies Murray will outmanoeuvre him and expose Del Potro's poor movement. Del Potro can't afford to be 'patient' (as you say) and engage in rallies but needs to blast Murray with pace and take the initiative.

Not sure that Delpo at his best could beat Murray. I mean if we were to go to his US Open success the only real dominant destructive match he played was the 3 set defeat of Nadal. He caught Federer cold in the final. If that was the case, then are we to say Rosol, Soderling, Tsonga players who have had the one standout performance. Might as well bring them into the argument amongst other players. So much is read into his US Open success. Take the fact Nadal came back from injury. Federer had a exhaustive Clay and Grass campaign and Djokovic and Murray were in no form what so ever. Delpo is a one Slam wonder. Like your Johansson. Has Del Potro been near a Grand Slam semi or a final since? No. 2 years since his injury and everyone expected so much from him at the US Open last year and it hasn't happened. So for me I doubt he will ever make another Slam final.

Murray at his best duffs up Delpo. The variation. He would literally de-stabilise Delpo. Delpo at his best is one pace. Murray has several. It hinges on Delpo being consistent with a FH. Could the US Open 2009 Del Potro beat a Wimbledon 2012 Murray? No. Del Potro is too much of a slouch to have a best day that could defeat a Federer, Nadal, Djokovic or Murray for that matter.

All I know is Del Po will have a longer career cause he goes for winners and doesn't live on errors for points.

Murray at his best before he took his game down the wrong path could do way more things than Del Potro's best, hitting forehand winners amongst many other things. So I would say Murray's best is the better of the two.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:All I know is Del Po will have a longer career cause he goes for winners and doesn't live on errors for points.

Winners, which take an impossible toll on the body, given the way they have to be hit. Also, yet again. Murray doesn't live on errors. Other players playing him make errors because they can't cope with his variety, because they are not good enough. You make the ability to do this sound like a crime - rather than a great site of Tennis and certainly better than the smash and grab merchants you love so much

I'd look around and see which players last the longest - the ones that play a fairly even paced game or the ones who play an intense fast game

DP's already had numerous injury problems that make Murray look as fit as Arnie at his peak. He is unfortunately too ungainly in build not to have more fitness issues than more natural movers like Murray. His body has to drop a long way to pick up low shots, putting great strain on legs that aren't the best in proportion to his height

We were told 4 years ago, that Andy would be burnt out by the time he was 25. Instead he's actually better and the gap between him and the young pretenders are even wider

I keep asking, that you try and refrain from your dislike of Andy from clouding your judgement. Out of all the things you can say DP has an advantage - this is the most ludicrous

Also JM perpetuates a myth. The recent Wimbledon Final between Murray and Federer saw which player going into the match hitting the most winners in their run to the final?

Yes you've guessed it - Andy Murray

I've refrained from posting on this article asit's such a vague question but here goes...

At his best, Del Pot won the USO. He hasn't managed to recapture anywhere close to that level after his comeback from injury.

Murray was arguably at his best in this year's Wimby final, managing to win a set but going down in 4.

It follows then that Del Potro's best edges it when considering slams.

However virtually all the other key indicators point in Murray's favour - Masters titles, ranking history, head to head. So when looking at that, Murray is ahead.

It really depends how much weight one chooses to give success at slams so there can be no definite answer. Put it this way, if Murray had gone one better at any of the 4 slam finals he's been in, there'd be no contest, Murray would be miles ahead.

So - going by slams - Del Potro. By anything else, Murray.

While an interesting article, too flawed to be of any real use.

Just looking at who is best on their best day is pointless, as if we were, we would have a new number one in Lukas Rosol - who with that performance, would have beaten anyone

The fact that Del Potro won a slam is great, but I never really rated him, even before the injury - he has not even won a masters event - so imo the slam was a fluke (yes, people will shoot me down, but have always said that).

Riskysports wrote:While an interesting article, too flawed to be of any real use.

Just looking at who is best on their best day is pointless, as if we were, we would have a new number one in Lukas Rosol - who with that performance, would have beaten anyone

The fact that Del Potro won a slam is great, but I never really rated him, even before the injury - he has not even won a masters event - so imo the slam was a fluke (yes, people will shoot me down, but have always said that).

Spot on