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.

To be honest, I didn't watch that semi of the USO but I assume he just did what any good player would have done and in the final I wasn't that impressed by his 'best', infact I would say he was better in the French Open earlier that year.

The victory wasn't a fluke. It was a case that many of the variables in the equation favoured Del Potro and his form. Nadal was coming back from injury, Federer was literally running on fumes. Djokovic and Murray were out of form. Del Potro made the most of his opportunity. He hasn't done much since then, not sure how long you can give him quoting the injury. The myth is just how good is he. If he is that good, he will break into the top 6.

reckoner wrote: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.

We can't take into account that Slam win, without looking at all the facts surrounding it as follows (after all we're not saying whose won the most Slams)

1 Del Potro played no different to what he had when losing to Murray a month earlier at the Rogers Cup
2. Del Potro played no better (as CC aluded to) than he did in the earlier French Open
3. Federer was sublime for a set and a half - he was set to give the same pasting he gave Murray a year earlier and then got all heated up by some line calls and we then had to the jaw dropping 'argument' with the umpire. From that moment on, it was the hot headed Federer of before 2003, not the sublime winner of Majors.

Well done to Del Potro, but it was arguable Fed's most dissapointing loss since he was dumped out in the first round of the French Open in 2003 (to which the equivalents of today's Josiah started asking whether the great man was Switzerland's answer to Tim Henman!!)


We then move on and look at whether Del Potro has improved so much more than Murray since September 2009 to warrant suggesting his best is the best. The answer is obviously no. We've seen the hype (Part 26 of goodness knows how many times ) at Wimbledon. Apparently all he had to do was turn up against the as equally underrated Ferrer. The first two games are close and then Ferrer gets the measure of the court and his opponent and mauls DP to such a degree it should have been stopped like the Khan fight at the weekend

You see therein lies DP's problem, which Josiah doesn't understand. The great Argentinean hasn't got enough quality of all the skills needed to dance to 'toe to toe' with the best when they are at their best. Nor does he have the fitness

Well at the end of the day, whilst I agree with the context you've provided about that USO final (what was Fed thinking?!) JMDP still has a trophy that Murray would give his eye teeth for.

I completely agree, by every other measure Murray walks it, however in slams, regardless of how it happened, JMDP is the one with a trophy.

If I was one of those crazed conspiracy theorists I would wonder if Fed threw the match as a sort of long game to demoralise Murray...

reckoner wrote:Well at the end of the day, whilst I agree with the context you've provided about that USO final (what was Fed thinking?!) JMDP still has a trophy that Murray would give his eye teeth for.

I completely agree, by every other measure Murray walks it, however in slams, regardless of how it happened, JMDP is the one with a trophy.

If I was one of those crazed conspiracy theorists I would wonder if Fed threw the match as a sort of long game to demoralise Murray...

The discussion isn't about whose got a Slam. Some would say that those who can only cite this are one, a selection or all of the following;-

1) WUM's
2) Don't understand the article
3) Have little or no knowledge of the respective records of either player in any great detail
4) Have little or no knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the players in question

I think this H2H of 5-1 is overrated. Come on, the last time they met was in 2009, almost 3 years ago! And all 5 matches Murray won went to distance. Yes, he beat Delpo in the Montreal final before the USO, but Tommy Haas beat Federer a week before Wimbledon - does that mean he is better?

It's true that Del Potro has been somewhat disappointing lately, after a good spring season. But let's see if he bounces back this autumn. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets back to winning ways.

Says who? Why limit the criteria by which one can compare two players?

Pathetic veiled accusations as well... tsk.

prostaff85 wrote:I think this H2H of 5-1 is overrated. Come on, the last time they met was in 2009, almost 3 years ago! And all 5 matches Murray won went to distance. Yes, he beat Delpo in the Montreal final before the USO, but Tommy Haas beat Federer a week before Wimbledon - does that mean he is better?

It's true that Del Potro has been somewhat disappointing lately, after a good spring season. But let's see if he bounces back this autumn. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets back to winning ways.

Wouldn't surprise me either, the wait for form is getting on the long side though. shows how fragile tennis careers can be, I guess. (Haas is a good example of this ofcourse).

prostaff85 wrote:I think this H2H of 5-1 is overrated. Come on, the last time they met was in 2009, almost 3 years ago! And all 5 matches Murray won went to distance. Yes, he beat Delpo in the Montreal final before the USO, but Tommy Haas beat Federer a week before Wimbledon - does that mean he is better?

It's true that Del Potro has been somewhat disappointing lately, after a good spring season. But let's see if he bounces back this autumn. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets back to winning ways.

For me Del Potro's movement is worse than before. Considering he had a wrist injury and not a leg injury makes his sluggish movement the more bizarre. Last year pundits said he will show his best form at the US Open and here we are 12 months later echoing the same thing they did.

If anything I think he has reached the highest level I would expect him to play at.

prostaff85 wrote:I think this H2H of 5-1 is overrated. Come on, the last time they met was in 2009, almost 3 years ago! And all 5 matches Murray won went to distance. Yes, he beat Delpo in the Montreal final before the USO, but Tommy Haas beat Federer a week before Wimbledon - does that mean he is better?

It's true that Del Potro has been somewhat disappointing lately, after a good spring season. But let's see if he bounces back this autumn. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets back to winning ways.

A fair point and one that I use when people go OTT about the Murray v Tsonga record. Here, it is more marked, because the Frenchman could and should have won about half of his defeats.

Del Potro always gets a final set pasting off Andy once the Scot has finished toying with him and Del Potro's energy levels are zero

I have to laugh though - becasue we are always waiting for DP to 'bounce back' or 'get back to his best'. I've never seen a player given so much grace. I mean the guy has a terrible record against the Top 5 of winning just 9 matches in 42.

Murray, taking the "Top 6' (with DP in it) he has lost just one more match against these players but 19 more victories!!

And please let's not get down to the injury excuses. Whilst never being out for as long, Rafa recovered from a knee injury in the summer of 2009 to come back better than ever a year later

Why oh why, people are so much in awe of a player who has one way of playing is beyond me and I am actually grateful

The only way you can make a rational argument for Del Potro being better is that 1 performance in 100 he plays absolutely overpowering tennis that can beat anyone. Murray doesn't have the same capacity to just blast someone off the court.

The contrasting points are:
1 - It is a long time since Del Potro produced a performance of that level. Indeed, probably not since the USO 09
2 - Since the wrist injury there is a suspicion that Del Potro can't hit through the ball with the same freedon
3 - The top players have adjusted their games and are better equipped to counter his big hitting.

Murray of course is by far the more consistent player. The difference between a typical Murray performance and a very good one is quite narrow ('typical' beats everyone bar the top 3, 'very good' beats everyone unless the top 3 are on their best day as well). By contrast, the difference between Del Potro's typical and very good performance is much wider - typical means he is competing with and frequently losing to the guys in the lower reaches of the top 10, while very good can beat almost anyone.

So if you were to ask the top 3, they'd all rather face Del Potro and accept that very occasionally he will produce a 'blast them off court' performance, rather than Murray who can really push them to the limit.

As a more general comment, it is perhaps worth looking at the rankings - none of the top 5 are real power tennis players, but have very good consistency and timing (plus all being extremely good athletes). Three of the next 5 (Tsonga, Berdych and Del Potro) are really streaky power players - capable of the odd performance that beats the guys above them, but not so good at backing these performances up or stringing together a number of good tournaments in a row.

legendkillarV2 wrote:
For me Del Potro's movement is worse than before. Considering he had a wrist injury and not a leg injury makes his sluggish movement the more bizarre. Last year pundits said he will show his best form at the US Open and here we are 12 months later echoing the same thing they did.

If anything I think he has reached the highest level I would expect him to play at.

It's significant that Del Potro's only victory at a Major or Masters came when he pulled out of the previous tournament, i.e. Cincy in 2009's

People need to understand that it's not jealousy from Murray fans or sour grapes - after all I greatly admire DP for his slam win. It's simply that event after event DP graphically illustrates the gap between the Top 4, 5 or 6 or 7 (!!!) and the rest

It's lazy journalism that gives DP supporters hope, because they never dissect his wins. His record against Tsonga for instance would have you thinking that here's a player who owns Tsonga. But that's simply that the Frenchman's one way of playing (go for everything) plays right into DP's hands

Murray's realised early on and Fed for all but 2 of their 14 meetings, that you take DP on at his own game at your peril. You play your game and provided you are a player that can do every shot well, you beat him

dummy_half wrote:The only way you can make a rational argument for Del Potro being better is that 1 performance in 100 he plays absolutely overpowering tennis that can beat anyone. Murray doesn't have the same capacity to just blast someone off the court.

The contrasting points are:
1 - It is a long time since Del Potro produced a performance of that level. Indeed, probably not since the USO 09
2 - Since the wrist injury there is a suspicion that Del Potro can't hit through the ball with the same freedon
3 - The top players have adjusted their games and are better equipped to counter his big hitting.

Murray of course is by far the more consistent player. The difference between a typical Murray performance and a very good one is quite narrow ('typical' beats everyone bar the top 3, 'very good' beats everyone unless the top 3 are on their best day as well). By contrast, the difference between Del Potro's typical and very good performance is much wider - typical means he is competing with and frequently losing to the guys in the lower reaches of the top 10, while very good can beat almost anyone.

So if you were to ask the top 3, they'd all rather face Del Potro and accept that very occasionally he will produce a 'blast them off court' performance, rather than Murray who can really push them to the limit.

As a more general comment, it is perhaps worth looking at the rankings - none of the top 5 are real power tennis players, but have very good consistency and timing (plus all being extremely good athletes). Three of the next 5 (Tsonga, Berdych and Del Potro) are really streaky power players - capable of the odd performance that beats the guys above them, but not so good at backing these performances up or stringing together a number of good tournaments in a row.

Best post of this article, particularly the opening line - but the remainder makes some excellent points. The myth that you need to be a 'power' player for instance, for success. I don't think that Tsonga, Berdych and Del Potro are particluarly more powerful - it's just that they can surprise you with a sudden injection of power, bringing doubt into the mind of who they are playing, i.e. Berdy seems to get to Murray and of DP has a fairly good record against Nadal

Here endeth the discussion for me!!

The wilful blindness of some of these comments is quite amusing.

Year after year we are told Murray is improving, it's only a matter of time before he breaks through and wins a slam.

Acres of bilge are printed in the British papers about Murray's unique talent and how this year Wimbledon is a real prospect.

All fine but as soon as similar courtesies are extended to JMDP by his fans of course it's delusional nonsense!

reckoner wrote:The wilful blindness of some of these comments is quite amusing.

Year after year we are told Murray is improving, it's only a matter of time before he breaks through and wins a slam.

Acres of bilge are printed in the British papers about Murray's unique talent and how this year Wimbledon is a real prospect.

All fine but as soon as similar courtesies are extended to JMDP by his fans of course it's delusional nonsense!

Slight difference is that Murray has won 8 masters and reached 4 slam finals, which makes him a real prospect

JMDP has got a slam - which is great, but done nothing else - which is why at this time, it is a little far fetched to say he is a real prospect - if he improves, then he will earn that right as well

A one off in any sport is often seen as a fluke or called a fluke and with JMDP that holds true for him. He has not managed to come even close to another slam final since his US Open win having only reached the last eight (at best) in all slams since then. Yes a slam win is golden but until he reproduces that or at least reaches another slam final or even a semi would do then the 'fluke' thing will hover or linger with people.

reckoner wrote:The wilful blindness of some of these comments is quite amusing.

Year after year we are told Murray is improving, it's only a matter of time before he breaks through and wins a slam.

Acres of bilge are printed in the British papers about Murray's unique talent and how this year Wimbledon is a real prospect.

All fine but as soon as similar courtesies are extended to JMDP by his fans of course it's delusional nonsense!

If Murray hadn't beaten any of the Top 5, since he won his first major then we would be "delusional" if we thought he was improving.

It's quite simple. No player can dine out on a Slam win for anything longer than a year really - particularly if they've not done anything of note since

Since September 2009 Murray has reached 3 Slam Finals. Won 4 Masters. Beaten Federer in two Masters finals. Been one of the few players to beat Nole twice during the last 18 months. Given Nadal a bagel set.

I think you'll find that's an improving player - which is why DP is further away from him than he was before

Facts, my dear reckoner, relevant facts.

CaledonianCraig wrote:A one off in any sport is often seen as a fluke or called a fluke and with JMDP that holds true for him. He has not managed to come even close to another slam final since his US Open win having only reached the last eight (at best) in all slams since then. Yes a slam win is golden but until he reproduces that or at least reaches another slam final or even a semi would do then the 'fluke' thing will hover or linger with people.

What people? I'm a Fed fan but I don't begrudge JMDP his win. It always takes an element of luck to win a slam and on the night Del Potro had it - good for him.

reckoner wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:A one off in any sport is often seen as a fluke or called a fluke and with JMDP that holds true for him. He has not managed to come even close to another slam final since his US Open win having only reached the last eight (at best) in all slams since then. Yes a slam win is golden but until he reproduces that or at least reaches another slam final or even a semi would do then the 'fluke' thing will hover or linger with people.

What people? I'm a Fed fan but I don't begrudge JMDP his win. It always takes an element of luck to win a slam and on the night Del Potro had it - good for him.

Reckoner, you're in a very argumentative mood - I blame the weather It is indeed very frustrating to see that due to the Azores high pressure sinking further South, Morocco bathing in record temperatures whilst we get a warm version of March (not even this March) but there you have it

Some will say, until he does it again that it was a "fluke" - not us knowledgeable fans of course

Riskysports wrote:Slight difference is that Murray has won 8 masters and reached 4 slam finals, which makes him a real prospect

JMDP has got a slam - which is great, but done nothing else - which is why at this time, it is a little far fetched to say he is a real prospect - if he improves, then he will earn that right as well

Yes - it is far fetched to say he's a prospect because he's already achieved a slam. Therefore he's realised his talent however limited it may be.

I'd agree if you said he shouldn't be considered a contender for every slam he enters until his form has improved, but no one needs to worry about JMDP being a prospective talent - he's already proved his worth.

banbrotam wrote:

reckoner wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:A one off in any sport is often seen as a fluke or called a fluke and with JMDP that holds true for him. He has not managed to come even close to another slam final since his US Open win having only reached the last eight (at best) in all slams since then. Yes a slam win is golden but until he reproduces that or at least reaches another slam final or even a semi would do then the 'fluke' thing will hover or linger with people.

What people? I'm a Fed fan but I don't begrudge JMDP his win. It always takes an element of luck to win a slam and on the night Del Potro had it - good for him.

Reckoner, you're in a very argumentative mood - I blame the weather It is indeed very frustrating to see that due to the Azores high pressure sinking further South, Morocco bathing in record temperatures whilst we get a warm version of March (not even this March) but there you have it

Some will say, until he does it again that it was a "fluke" - not us knowledgeable fans of course

You might have a point, the weather doesn't help!

Perhaps it WAS a fluke, but way too soon to say, wouldn't you agree. How can people say it was a one off if the player is still active and has time on his side to recover his form?

These people are exactly as irritating as those who write Murray off every year saying he will never win a slam.

reckoner wrote:

Perhaps it WAS a fluke, but way too soon to say, wouldn't you agree. How can people say it was a one off if the player is still active and has time on his side to recover his form?

These people are exactly as irritating as those who write Murray off every year saying he will never win a slam.

Well there is a difference. Murray is consistently reaching the last four of slams whilst JMDP is rarely reaching the last eight in slams so one player is consistently hammering at the door whilst the other hasn't even knocked on the door since slam win.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

reckoner wrote:

Perhaps it WAS a fluke, but way too soon to say, wouldn't you agree. How can people say it was a one off if the player is still active and has time on his side to recover his form?

These people are exactly as irritating as those who write Murray off every year saying he will never win a slam.

Well there is a difference. Murray is consistently reaching the last four of slams whilst JMDP is rarely reaching the last eight in slams so one player is consistently hammering at the door whilst the other hasn't even knocked on the door since slam win.

Of course, he may win another one, but would need to improve on where he is now

CaledonianCraig wrote:

reckoner wrote:

Perhaps it WAS a fluke, but way too soon to say, wouldn't you agree. How can people say it was a one off if the player is still active and has time on his side to recover his form?

These people are exactly as irritating as those who write Murray off every year saying he will never win a slam.

Well there is a difference. Murray is consistently reaching the last four of slams whilst JMDP is rarely reaching the last eight in slams so one player is consistently hammering at the door whilst the other hasn't even knocked on the door since slam win.

At the moment Murray is a far far bigger threat than Del Potro in Slams, and it will stay that way unless I see some real improvement from Del Potro (or decline in Murray).
Also I've checked and Del Potro has only had 3 wins over top ten players this year: Tsonga twice and Berdych once.

A question to the general public and Murray fans:
What do you think was the best match Andy Murray has ever played?

USO 2008? Shanghai 2010?

Del Potro's is obvious (USO 2009 SF or F)

banbrotam wrote:

..............................................................................................


It's quite simple. No player can dine out on a Slam win for anything longer than a year really - particularly if they've not done anything of note since

............................................................................................................................

Well I'd say you can allow yourself a little more than just a year. But, if after that Slam win you don't continue to challenge seriously & consistently, then the dining out can only last a couple of years - or maybe three at the very most .

Unless, however, your name happens to be Pat Cash ........

In which case you can win Wimbledon once (in some style, it has to be said), win nothing for the remaining ten years of your career - apart from a couple of really low tier 32-draw tournies - and continue to be paid handsomely by the BBC for spouting endless waffle, a quarter of a century after that Slam victory.

And all with the aim of convincing anyone who doesn't know better that you're one of the game's living legends ......

lags72 wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

..............................................................................................


It's quite simple. No player can dine out on a Slam win for anything longer than a year really - particularly if they've not done anything of note since

............................................................................................................................

Well I'd say you can allow yourself a little more than just a year. But, if after that Slam win you don't continue to challenge seriously & consistently, then the dining out can only last a couple of years - or maybe three at the very most .

Unless, however, your name happens to be Pat Cash ........

In which case you can win Wimbledon once (in some style, it has to be said), win nothing for the remaining ten years of your career - apart from a couple of really low tier 32-draw tournies - and continue to be paid handsomely by the BBC for spouting endless waffle, a quarter of a century after that Slam victory.

And all with the aim of convincing anyone who doesn't know better that you're one of the game's living legends ......

You don't even have to win a slam to do that! (coughs)John Lloyd(cough)

Well I take your point carrieg, and I'm not saying Lloyd is an award-winning commentator.

But IMO there's just something about Cash that gives the impression he actually believes he's in the same league as 'yer' Nadals, Federers, and Djokers .....

Reality check please Mr Cash

lags72 wrote:Well I take your point carrieg, and I'm not saying Lloyd is an award-winning commentator.

But IMO there's just something about Cash that gives the impression he actually believes he's in the same league as 'yer' Nadals, Federers, and Djokers .....

Reality check please Mr Cash

Did he win Wimbledon?? He never mentions it

dummy_half wrote:So if you were to ask the top 3, they'd all rather face Del Potro and accept that very occasionally he will produce a 'blast them off court' performance, rather than Murray who can really push them to the limit.

That's what I was trying to say earlier - though far less eloquently

I disagree. Of course a player can "dine out" on a slam win for more than a year. It's something that you can "dine out" on for the rest of your life and die happy. Especially if you do it in style. If you don't believe me just ask anyone who has won one of these very precious trophies.

I am not a huge fan of either Del Potro or Murray so I don't tend to watch them a lot. But in addition to Del Potro's matches in the 2009 US Open he has been involved in quite a few exciting matches. At the top of the list I would put his match with Nadal in the Davis Cup final last (December ?). He lost 1-6 6-4 6-1 7-6. It was an amazing match played in front of a crazy crowd. Also RG 2009 and this year against Federer.

Also enjoyed the WTF 2009 where Del Potro beat Federer but Federer was accused of losing games deliberately in order to put out Murray out at the RR stage. And of course the infamous Del Potro Murray match in Rome. Murray complained to the umpire that it wasn't funny that Del Potro had hit a ball at him whilst at the net. Both players then exchanged verbal blows with Murray accusing Del Potro of dissing his mum. I suppose these matches don't count though as they weren't in slams and it wasn't the tennis that made them stand out but the gossip and controversy...

hawkeye wrote:Also enjoyed the WTF 2009 where Del Potro beat Federer but Federer was accused of losing games deliberately in order to put out Murray out at the RR stage. And of course the infamous Del Potro Murray match in Rome. Murray complained to the umpire that it wasn't funny that Del Potro had hit a ball at him whilst at the net. Both players then exchanged verbal blows with Murray accusing Del Potro of dissing his mum. I suppose these matches don't count though as they weren't in slams and it wasn't the tennis that made them stand out but the gossip and controversy...

You do make me laugh HE - you have taken the whole 'passive aggressive' style to an art form!

It Must Be Love wrote:A question to the general public and Murray fans:
What do you think was the best match Andy Murray has ever played?

USO 2008? Shanghai 2010?

Del Potro's is obvious (USO 2009 SF or F)

Neither Miami Final 2009 was better. And actually his beating of Tsonga here has to be up there, simply because in the 3rd and 4th sets Tsonga was superb. I actually think it could be the Rafa win last year

It Must Be Love wrote:A question to the general public and Murray fans:
What do you think was the best match Andy Murray has ever played?

USO 2008? Shanghai 2010?

Del Potro's is obvious (USO 2009 SF or F)

If I am blunt, the best match he has played was against Stepanek 2005 Wimbledon. So much of it rested on his shot making and his decision to become fitter has since robbed him of some of the shots he played in that match.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:A question to the general public and Murray fans:
What do you think was the best match Andy Murray has ever played?

USO 2008? Shanghai 2010?

Del Potro's is obvious (USO 2009 SF or F)

If I am blunt, the best match he has played was against Stepanek 2005 Wimbledon. So much of it rested on his shot making and his decision to become fitter has since robbed him of some of the shots he played in that match.

I dunno LK. I think we get a bit misty eyed about the young Murray. For me some of his stuff at this years Wimbledon was his best and of course quite ordinary too.

banbrotam wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:A question to the general public and Murray fans:
What do you think was the best match Andy Murray has ever played?

USO 2008? Shanghai 2010?

Del Potro's is obvious (USO 2009 SF or F)

If I am blunt, the best match he has played was against Stepanek 2005 Wimbledon. So much of it rested on his shot making and his decision to become fitter has since robbed him of some of the shots he played in that match.

I dunno LK. I think we get a bit misty eyed about the young Murray. For me some of his stuff at this years Wimbledon was his best and of course quite ordinary too.

Not really. I think if we are to point to some of his best performances, they have resulted in a defeat.

It Must Be Love wrote:A question to the general public and Murray fans:
What do you think was the best match Andy Murray has ever played?

USO 2008? Shanghai 2010?

Del Potro's is obvious (USO 2009 SF or F)

Masters Cup 2008 against Federer was pretty awesome.

IMBL - I would agree with those 2 matches as his (Murray's) best performance, closely followed by his 2010 AO QF defeat of Rafa (yes Rafa retired at 0-3 in the third, but Murray was great for 2 sets).

Also in Toronto when he beat Rafa and Fed back to back, he played awesome.

But the best I've ever seen him play was winter 2011, beating Rafa in the final set of a final (can't recall which one) 6-0 for the loss of just 4 points. Rafa didn't do a fat lot wrong, Murray was just totally in the zone. That is the highest level I've ever seen him at. It was sensational.

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).

Tats way too harsh to say his slam was a fluke, a Slam where he beat Ferrero [Former world no.1] , Nadal [ No.1 at the start of the year] and Federer [the current no.1] if this is considered as fluke then every slam in my view won from 2003 would go down as a fluke. .

DP was having a great 2nd part of the year, he won Federer again in WTF only to go down to inspired Davy in the finals, if not we would have seen a player to have won a slam and WTF without winning a masters.

Del Potro just haven't recoverd his match fitness since his injury, no idea whether he will ever recover his level, but whether he recovers or not history will say him as a slam champ i.e beating both Rafa and Fed.

Del Potro at his best will beat Murray at his best, but the problem is Murray's best last longer in comparison to DP and hence Murray the better player over all but DP the better player when just the best alone is considered. But the actual question is who will win when they both play their best? which again is tricky and I would say Murray would still beat DP's best if he plays best coz DP's game suits Murray's game.

Danny_1982 wrote:

But the best I've ever seen him play was winter 2011, beating Rafa in the final set of a final (can't recall which one) 6-0 for the loss of just 4 points. Rafa didn't do a fat lot wrong, Murray was just totally in the zone. That is the highest level I've ever seen him at. It was sensational.

This shows you clearly haven't seen the match, Rafa was injured and all Murray had to do was put the ball back on the court, yes Murray deserved the win, but to say he was playing magic is kiddish.

Danny_1982 wrote:... But the best I've ever seen him play was winter 2011, beating Rafa in the final set of a final (can't recall which one) 6-0 for the loss of just 4 points. Rafa didn't do a fat lot wrong, Murray was just totally in the zone. That is the highest level I've ever seen him at. It was sensational.

Tokyo 3-6, 6-2, 6-0

"The final set simply belongs on his career showreel — a brilliant demolition of someone who is already an all-time great.

The line-scorching winners came in a flurry against a bewildered Nadal, who will be concerned that he has now lost six out of nine tour finals in 2011.

‘He played unbelievable,’ said the Spaniard. ‘When you are playing someone at that level the only way is to try to get free points on serve but it was impossible.’"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/15231444

Nore Staat Murray made the most of that sensational win over Rafa. He envisioned overtaking Federer in the rankings.

"I played some great tennis, especially in the third set," Murray told reporters after inflicting the dreaded 'bagel' on Nadal in the decider to win his 20th career title.

"It was the best tennis I've played against Rafa," added the Scot, who had lost 13 of his previous 17 matches against the world number two.

"To only lose four points - and against Rafa - will never happen again," he said. "I've hit the ball like that before but for such a long period, that's definitely the first time.

"I've given myself the target of ending the year at number three (in the world) so hopefully I can carry on that form."

Murray, who can close the gap on Roger Federer further in Shanghai next week...

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/09102011/58/murray-stuns-nadal-wins-doubles-tokyo.html

From the same source. Nadal sounds a little less sure of its significance.

"I've lost a few sets 6-0 of course. You prefer it doesn't happen, but he played fantastic and in the third set he started to play at a really high level. Accept. That's it."

This match was played during a period of the year when both Nadal and Djokovic could hardly summon up the energy to string two match wins together and lost to many players who were lucky enough to find themseves on the opposite side of the net. Anyone who had been watching them earlier in the year might understand why.

Poor Murray. If only he could learn to treat triumph and disaster a little more equally.

This match was played during a period of the year when both Nadal and Djokovic could hardly summon up the energy to string two match wins together and lost to many players who were lucky enough to find themseves on the opposite side of the net. Anyone who had been watching them earlier in the year might understand why.

Are you suggesting then that Nadal tanks matches?

Doesn't help his image now does it with all the cheating as well.

legendkillarV2. Try not to get too upset about Nadal. Courier has a dastardly plan that will sort him out...

hawkeye wrote:
This match was played during a period of the year when both Nadal and Djokovic could hardly summon up the energy to string two match wins together and lost to many players who were lucky enough to find themseves on the opposite side of the net. Anyone who had been watching them earlier in the year might understand why.

Poor Murray. If only he could learn to treat triumph and disaster a little more equally.

Very disappointing post Hawkeye, as a fellow Nadal fan you are not giving Murray any credit. Firstly Murray took the win with a good attitude, he was humble in his interviews, and certainly did NOT get too OTT about it like you suggest.
Secondly you aren't giving him enough credit for the win, Murray played some sublime tennis especially in set 3.
Nadal tired? He was OK during the whole tournament up-till the final, and won the 1st set

invisiblecoolers wrote:

This shows you clearly haven't seen the match, Rafa was injured and all Murray had to do was put the ball back on the court, yes Murray deserved the win, but to say he was playing magic is kiddish.

Really? He didn't call a trainer, didn't mention an injury post-match in any interview or conference. I follow Nadal news quite a bit too, haven't seen mention of an injury in the Tokyo final...

legendkillarV2 wrote:
Are you suggesting then that Nadal tanks matches?

Doesn't help his image now does it with all the cheating as well.

What's up with you LK
Over the past week you have developed a intense dislike and hatred of Nadal which is weird, what has he done in the past week do irk you? All he has done is gone fishing... what did he do, steal your fish? Strange that you suddenly don't like him, strange.

hawkeye wrote:legendkillarV2. Try not to get too upset about Nadal. Courier has a dastardly plan that will sort him out...

Who says I am upset? Silly assumption.

I find it amusing how you were trying to defend Nadal and his image the other week and here we have you trying to discredit a Murray victory over Nadal by claiming he tanked the match.

If only Nadal had more shoot in the foot supporters like yourself

What's up with you LK
Over the past week you have developed a intense dislike and hatred of Nadal which is weird, what has he done in the past week do irk you? All he has done is gone fishing... what did he do, steal your fish? Strange that you suddenly don't like him, strange.

Intense dislike or hatred?

Where have I said that?

I find it funny that a particular poster is discrediting her favourite player in a desperate bid to taint another players victory.

It Must Be Love

I don't think Murray needs me to give him credit. I was just putting that match in context. Do you not think the context in which the match was played was of significance? I did give Murray a little advice though.

Was it significant for future BO3 matches against Nadal? Yes, why not.

For Slams? No, probably not. USO 2008 and AO 2010 are more significant in that respect.

lol...cant believe this thread is still going strong!

Lets see what happens if they meet in a slam again.

BTW...anyone remember this little bit of bad blood between them?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/atptour/2299696/Andy-Murray-angry-with-Juan-Martin-Del-Potro.html