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.

Isn't that when Del Potro said "manners" and Murray heard "mother"?

lydian wrote: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

Aye. If I recall correctly Del Potro said "You moan just like your mother"

He had a point

It Must Be Love

USO 2008 - Don't get me started on that one. There were so many freaky things involved in that match I lost count. Also you may not have noticed but that match took place 4 years ago. AO 2010 Nadal was injured. How are either of these matches significant for the future?

I am shocked and very surprised that you have gone way off topic to throw this?

haha...you have to think DP doesnt really give a damn about what he says. I like that sardonic look about him at times, like he'd shoot you for just asking a question. But therein lies the conundrum with DP...he looks and sometimes acts really mentally strong, but at other times he seems so flaky. Weird.

There was no-one in the crowd which made it the more funnier

I remember that match with great fondness. I wanted to be there just to egg them on as the slanging was better than the match quality.

lydian wrote: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

I wrote about this incident recently. It started when Murray asked the umpire if he thought it was funny that Del Potro had hit a ball at him. This article includes a you tube video of the dialogue

https://www.606v2.com/t32453-lendl-s-tricky-tactics

Nice one HE...makes me laugh seeing to two players bickering like that around the back of the umpire...and Delpo..."You're just like your mother" or something...haha...proper playground stuff.

But yes seems alittle funny he complained about having the ball hit at him when he did just the same to Federer this year.

hawkeye wrote:It Must Be Love

USO 2008 - Don't get me started on that one. There were so many freaky things involved in that match I lost count. Also you may not have noticed but that match took place 4 years ago. AO 2010 Nadal was injured. How are either of these matches significant for the future?

I am shocked and very surprised that you have gone way off topic to throw this?

What happened in US 2008 that was so 'freaky'? AO 2010 I don't think Nadal was injured for first two sets.
Anyway I was talking about significant Murray victories, what is more recent and more concerning is that he has lost hours last 7 matches in a row against the top 3.

It Must Be Love

Did you watch any of the US Open Semi? If so I can't believe your asking what was freaky about it. I don't want to get annoyed about it again so without going into any more detail I will give a snippet from Nadal's post match interview that is quite revealing.

Q. You had talked about how you raised your energy level for today’s match versus yesterday. Did Andy Murray do anything differently today than he was doing yesterday?

RAFAEL NADAL: I don’t know, no? I didn’t see ‑‑ probably Andy played well, but I think Andy ‑‑ I played against him in Toronto. The first set of Toronto, in my opinion, he was playing very well, too.

So my feeling was Andy was playing better the first set of Toronto than today’s match. That’s my feeling.

http://tennisplanet.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/nadal-interview-after-losing-to-murray/

The match in Toronto that Nadal is referring to is a match that Nadal won. I watched both matches and I can remember agreeing with Nadal's assessment of Murray's play. Murray won the US semi not because he raised his level but because Nadal played so poorly.

In the AO 2010. Nadal was injured DURING the 2nd set as Nadal points out in this interview. (Not AFTER the second set)

Q. Could you let us know what the condition is, what the latest story is with the knee. It's very unusual for you to stop during a match.

RAFAEL NADAL: Yes, well, is not a lot of history because was during the match. Was in the end of the second set in one drop. And I feeled similar thing to what I had last year.

And, yes, after that I can't go down after that, no? So was impossible to win the match. When I have the chance to play, I never retired. Anyway, like I know I going to lose like I did in Rotterdam like last year. I say sorry to Andy for that.

I felt pain still there without no one minimum chance to do nothing, the same time is hard for me be five more games there without try nothing, no? So I don't know if I still playing can go worst or something. So I said, well, no repeat the same mistake like I had last year. I go to the limit, but not cross the limit, no?

http://www.tennis-x.com/story/2010-01-26/h.php

The second set went to a tie break. If not injured Nadal would have had a good chance of winning that tie break and evening up the match. Even if Nadal had lost the tie break many people would still have had their money on Nadal to come through if not injured.

Of course you or anyone else could choose to see these two matches as significant indicators of how their slam matches would play out in the future. In the circumstances I don't see how they could. So far I am right... Murray can hardly complain as he got to two slam finals because of this.

Don't see how you are right. So Murray beat Nadal in 2008 because he played better than him on the day. Isn't that what your meant to do to win ? It's like saying that Del Potro was lucky to beat Federer in 2009 because Federer didn't pay well. The guy who played best on the day won.

All I see is excuse making.

Is Toni Nadal hawkeye?

Calder106

My comment was directed at It Must Be Love (great name!) as they said that the two matches I referred to were significant for Nadal and Murray's future slam matches. See It Must Be Loves post at 10.21am today on this thread. Of course Murray won these matches... they are down in the record books. As for them being significant. Well I have to say so far not at all...

All you needed to say was that they had not proved significant in regards to what has happened so far in subsequent slam meetings. That would be correct. Nadal has won these reasonably comfortably.

However you had to come up with a reponse which indicated that Murray had been lucky to win these two matches (oh and previously the 3 setter in Tokyo last year).

hawkeye wrote:In the AO 2010. Nadal was injured DURING the 2nd set as Nadal points out in this interview. (Not AFTER the second set)

Q. Could you let us know what the condition is, what the latest story is with the knee. It's very unusual for you to stop during a match.

RAFAEL NADAL: Yes, well, is not a lot of history because was during the match. Was in the end of the second set in one drop. And I feeled similar thing to what I had last year.

And, yes, after that I can't go down after that, no? So was impossible to win the match. When I have the chance to play, I never retired. Anyway, like I know I going to lose like I did in Rotterdam like last year. I say sorry to Andy for that.

The second set went to a tie break. If not injured Nadal would have had a good chance of winning that tie break and evening up the match. Even if Nadal had lost the tie break many people would still have had their money on Nadal to come through if not injured.

If I remember correctly he felt the injury during the 2nd set tie break which ties in with him saying at the end of the second set. Let us not forget he lost the first set and got into the tie break before any injury so what is your assertion based on? Not having a go at Nadal, he has fully deserved his victories against Murray and has earned his H2H advantage, but credit where credit is due. Murray played better that day before the injury as well. As I remember Nadal took time to stress that the injury was during the tie break and had not affected him before in order not to take any credit away from his opponent. Maybe you should follow his lead?

As for the significance of the victory, not sure. He certainly struggles with Nadal in a BO5 format recently.

HaHa, where on earth did this fury come from??

I mention a few great Murray performances and because they happen to be victories over Rafa in rides Hawkeye screaming "they don't count! It's not fair!!"

HE, your refusal to give Murray an ounce of credit for anything is bordering on ridiculous now! Thanks It Must Be Love for actually being impartial and appreciating that those Murray wins over Nadal were genuine and deserved.

I don't even know where the "injury" story for the 6-0 set came from, and I did watch the match by the way. I don't remember any MTO's.

In contrast, I would say Nadal's best performance against Murray was at Wimbledon 2 years ago. He beat him in straight sets but Murray actually played really well, and Rafa to his credit upped his game in response and just played unbelievable on the big points. Really top class performance.

Of course he only won at all because Murray was injured in the first point of the match... and anyone who says otherwise clearly didn't watch it!

Ha ha anyfuleknow that Nadal only loses when he is injured!

legendkillarV2 wrote:All I see is excuse making.

Is Toni Nadal hawkeye?

That would make sense apart from the fact Toni likes Murray as a player.

So he couldn't possibly be Hawkeye.