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.

So as we are now on Page 2, let's look at this from a completely different viewpoint.
Who would Nadal and Djokovic fear more? Del Potro at his very best or Murray at his very best? Looking at the head2head it would appear that both Nadal and Djokovic would generally prefer playing Murray. However we know that Del P at his best is a different proposition, no? Against Murray I feel, even when Murray is at his best both Nadal and Djokovic have the match more in their control. With Del Potro at his best there's not that much they can do (especially on Del Potro's service game). Of course in long rallies Rafa could slice it and try to move 6'5 Del Potro around, but if Del P strikes first and is hitting big this opportunity (to be able to even start a rally) will not come and the points will be finished quickly.

Am I right in saying this?

It Must Be Love wrote:Looking at the head2head it would appear that both Nadal and Djokovic would generally prefer playing Murray.

Maybe in Nadals case as he had particularly bad run of losses to Del Potro back in 2009 but Djokovic' only loss to Del Potro was when he retired from a match. True he holds an 8-5 H2H advantage over Murray but Murray has had some recent success against him and a very tight AO semi this year. I am pretty sure he would prefer to play a 100% Del Po than a 100% Murray.

It Must Be Love wrote:Of course in long rallies Rafa could slice it and try to move 6'5 Del Potro around, but if Del P strikes first and is hitting big this opportunity (to be able to even start a rally) will not come and the points will be finished quickly.

Djokovic' return skills are pretty impressive - I can't really see this happening. I could be wrong though.

Dear Hawkeye

It's lazy commentary, to imply that I have an issue with anyone who doesn't like Murray as a player. Lydian isn't keen an I have no issue with any of their comments - simply because there is some respect for the player. Likewise BB is indifferent to Murray, but recognises his talent. I don't understand your question about my age. Do you want me to post my birth certificate? If so what will that accomplish?


Josiah

I remember your comment about that you gave Murray a chance in the final. So what? I fail to see how that has anything to do with your constant disrespect for the player and your lack of appreciation of his talents. I've known Murray play some jaw dropping Tennis, which as far as I can remember doesn't get you praising him. I've neither the time of the inclination to massage your ego by trolling through them - but we all know they are there on these boards.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Banbro goes on like every single comment i've made about Murray have been unflattering. A poor delusional man who gets his knickers in a twist all too easily, where were you when I gave Murray a very good chance of beating Federer in the final?

You are taking any criticism of your fav player the way a fangirl would (such as haddie-nuff).

Guys we don't need this to get personal. thumbsup: That applies to everyone.

90% of all members on these boards appreciate the skills of all the players and the figure is improving all the time. Anyone who constantly wum's about Murray or any other player will always get 'called' from me - simply because they don't appear to know they are doing it.

I'm not as easily impressed by Murray as you are. His attitude also grates on me. Long live the player who takes out Murray!

(let's see if he bites again!)

BO5 Delpo no no.

BO3. Now thats a different story.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:I'm not as easily impressed by Murray as you are. His attitude also grates on me. Long live the player who takes out Murray!

(let's see if he bites again!)

I've no issue with that answer. I pretty certain that it's one a few share (Lydian?)

However, they don't let it cloud their judgement about his talent. In the sporting arena, allowing someone's character to skew your opinion of their talent is laughable. Imagine if the judges at the diving decided to do the same thing

But at least I've got some honesty out of you, as to why you don't like Andy. Unfortunately, this means you could write a good constructive piece about him, but we'll tend to take it with a pinch with a salt, simply because you've a bias that appears to be set in stone

But thanks again for the truth. Mission accomplished as far as I'm concerned. I'll have to remember to be like CC and take none of your comments seriously

legendkillarV2 wrote:BO5 Delpo no no.

BO3. Now thats a different story.

Neither has a great 5 set record - Murray despite being ranked 4th for ages is actually only 19th out of current players for 5 set wins - won 12, lost 6.
Delpo is 50th(!) - won 4, lost 5 - but a point here you might argue is that because he has less 5 set matches he hasnt needed to go that far many times (9) whereas Murray has been stretched to 5 sets more often (18).

Murray's strength is well known to be Bo3 format...hence why his Masters record is sooooo much better than his slam record.

Who would the top 3 rather play out of Murray and Delpo if both were at their best?

Well, let's be honest here... Murray has struggled to produce his best against the top 3 in slams. Up until this year anyway. His performance against Novak in AO was the first time in bloody ages that Murray had done himself justice in one of these matches, and he played well for the first 2 sets against Fed last Sunday.

But in general, he has mostly produced his best at masters hard court events. I think everyone would agree with that. As for what his record is against the top 3 at these events, I'm not exactly sure... But I would have a guess that he is close to about 40% win percentage overall. If its much lower than that is be very surprised.

So, if Murray at his best wins around 40% of matches against the top 3, I think the top 3 would rather play anyone but Murray at his best. I would guess that they would much rather play Delpo at his best, for the reasons I mentioned earlier (poor movement, can't handle the slice, injury issues).

Of course, if he could handle those things on top of his immense hitting then I suspect he would be 4 in the world as he'd be awesome. But he can't. I really think Murray is a much better player.

lydian wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:BO5 Delpo no no.

BO3. Now thats a different story.

Neither has a great 5 set record - Murray despite being ranked 4th for ages is actually only 19th out of current players for 5 set wins - won 12, lost 6.
Delpo is 50th(!) - won 4, lost 5 - but a point here you might argue is that because he has less 5 set matches he hasnt needed to go that far many times (9) whereas Murray has been stretched to 5 sets more often (18).

Murray's strength is well known to be Bo3 format...hence why his Masters record is sooooo much better than his slam record.

That's the thing though. Sometimes when people try to distinguish between 2 players from a talent perspective, they throw in the 5 set rule as a means to fall either side of the argument. Problem is when you do it with a guy who hasn't played many 5 setters is strange. Stranger given that the player hasn't registered a 5 setter over the player discussed.

I don't think Del Potro could best players like Murray, Nadal, Djokovic in a 5 setter.

He can blast them in 4.

You said that Del Potro at his best could beat Murray in 5 despite a toilet 5 setter record.

banbrotam wrote:

However, they don't let it cloud their judgement about his talent. In the sporting arena, allowing someone's character to skew your opinion of their talent is laughable. Imagine if the judges at the diving decided to do the same thing

This is interesting. But my view is that Murray's "talent" is over hyped by the media for obvious reasons... and any criticism of the media's unrealistic representation of Murray's talent is interpreted as a criticism of Murray's character. The problem now is that Murray himself appears to believe the British media's assessment of his talent and what is expected of him and this IMO puts him on tricky ground. For example in his Wimbledon speech Murray referred to Federer being sort of written off by the commentators because of his age and bad back. Maybe this lead to unrealistic expectations in that final and contributed to his emotional break down.

Also sorry about saying something about your age. It was in response to a comment you made to someone else and on reflection I shouldn't have got involved...

hawkeye wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

However, they don't let it cloud their judgement about his talent. In the sporting arena, allowing someone's character to skew your opinion of their talent is laughable. Imagine if the judges at the diving decided to do the same thing

This is interesting. But my view is that Murray's "talent" is over hyped by the media for obvious reasons... and any criticism of the media's unrealistic representation of Murray's talent is interpreted as a criticism of Murray's character. The problem now is that Murray himself appears to believe the British media's assessment of his talent and what is expected of him and this IMO puts him on tricky ground. For example in his Wimbledon speech Murray referred to Federer being sort of written off by the commentators because of his age and bad back. Maybe this lead to unrealistic expectations in that final and contributed to his emotional break down.

Also sorry about saying something about your age. It was in response to a comment you made to someone else and on reflection I shouldn't have got involved...

Certainly no-one on here buys into the excessive hype of Murrays prospects. He is certainly realistic himself and knows the challenge he faces, namely to beat the three players above him in the rankings, two of whom are frequently discussed in GOAT topics. It is criticism of his character that is interpreted as criticism of his character. Nothing more, nothing less.

invisiblecoolers wrote:As usual Great Article IMBL .

Lemme try to answer the question in a neutral view.

Who the better player is?
Very difficult to say but I guess its Del Potro right now, and y?

Ans: Del P on his best day will beat anybody on any surface [barring grass], he has proved that enough times. FO 2009 was real close, still can't figure out how Federer won that, USO 2009 DP had some luck big time, but he was a bit unlucky in FO 2009 so its kinda compensated.

Del Po has a big attacking game play, he can win points from both side, while his Forehand is devastating his DHBH sets up the winner perfectly, to add to it he got a deadly serve . His running and court coverage is spectacular for a 6ft 6' inch guy.
He doesn't have to rely on the opponent to win a match, he can win the match even if the opponent have a good day at the office.

Murray on the other hand is becoming aggressive on court, but his basic game play is very defensive which gives a lot of comfort for attacking players like Fed/Djoko, even Nadal is attacking Murray these days when they play.
Murray needs a bit of luck to topple great opponents like the current Top3 in big matches to win, he is most likely to lose against them if they play their best or have a good day at the office.

But saying all that when they play each other Murray holds the edge coz he knows how to beat Del Po and their gamestyle suits Murray. Its like Fed-Nadal match up.

Fed might be the better player or GOAT, but among the two its Nadal who will come trumps on most surface on most occasions, likewise Del Po might be the better among the two but its Murray who will come top when the play each other most times.

Injury saddened what would have been a great career for Del Po, so I am not sure whether he can hit that heights again, but Murray certainly will, this guy is so unlucky and will get his chances sooner or later, so for the moment its Del Po for me, but it might all change we have to wait n watch.

Dont agree that Fed is a better player than Rafa.

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:As usual Great Article IMBL .

Lemme try to answer the question in a neutral view.

Who the better player is?
Very difficult to say but I guess its Del Potro right now, and y?

Ans: Del P on his best day will beat anybody on any surface [barring grass], he has proved that enough times. FO 2009 was real close, still can't figure out how Federer won that, USO 2009 DP had some luck big time, but he was a bit unlucky in FO 2009 so its kinda compensated.

Del Po has a big attacking game play, he can win points from both side, while his Forehand is devastating his DHBH sets up the winner perfectly, to add to it he got a deadly serve . His running and court coverage is spectacular for a 6ft 6' inch guy.
He doesn't have to rely on the opponent to win a match, he can win the match even if the opponent have a good day at the office.

Murray on the other hand is becoming aggressive on court, but his basic game play is very defensive which gives a lot of comfort for attacking players like Fed/Djoko, even Nadal is attacking Murray these days when they play.
Murray needs a bit of luck to topple great opponents like the current Top3 in big matches to win, he is most likely to lose against them if they play their best or have a good day at the office.

But saying all that when they play each other Murray holds the edge coz he knows how to beat Del Po and their gamestyle suits Murray. Its like Fed-Nadal match up.

Fed might be the better player or GOAT, but among the two its Nadal who will come trumps on most surface on most occasions, likewise Del Po might be the better among the two but its Murray who will come top when the play each other most times.

Injury saddened what would have been a great career for Del Po, so I am not sure whether he can hit that heights again, but Murray certainly will, this guy is so unlucky and will get his chances sooner or later, so for the moment its Del Po for me, but it might all change we have to wait n watch.

Dont agree that Fed is a better player than Rafa.

I agree with you, but let's not go there
That, my friend, is another debate for another day.

legendkillarV2 wrote:You said that Del Potro at his best could beat Murray in 5 despite a toilet 5 setter record.

Yes I did. I said it would be close to call, but I fancy edge it in a close 5 setter. Am I not allowed to have this viewpoint?
Del Potro won the biggest match of his life in 5 sets.

lydian wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:BO5 Delpo no no.

BO3. Now thats a different story.

Neither has a great 5 set record - Murray despite being ranked 4th for ages is actually only 19th out of current players for 5 set wins - won 12, lost 6.
Delpo is 50th(!) - won 4, lost 5 - but a point here you might argue is that because he has less 5 set matches he hasnt needed to go that far many times (9) whereas Murray has been stretched to 5 sets more often (18).

Murray's strength is well known to be Bo3 format...hence why his Masters record is sooooo much better than his slam record.

66% is a hugely impressive 5 set record. I'm intrigued to know which 18 active players have a higher win % than that. Not only that but Murray's 5 set record since he turned 20 is a ridiculously good 9-2. Murray is at least as good over 5 sets as 3.

The point is that going 5 sets is not the ideal. Of course if a player is stretched to 5 it's best to win...

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.

Federer incidentally was tripe in that us open final. Both fed and djokovic would def prefer to play DP over Murray - they know they will beat DP if they play adequately well. Not sure about nadal whose game really doesn't match up well against him.

hawkeye wrote:But my view is that Murray's "talent" is over hyped by the media for obvious reasons... and any criticism of the media's unrealistic representation of Murray's talent is interpreted as a criticism of Murray's character

The media would be 'over hypeing' Murray's talent if had the winning record of Tsonga. 20-odd tournament wins. In the Top 10 since the open era, on numerous lists, with the media stating that Murray can win a major isn't "over hypeing" him. It's reflecting how good he is.

hawkeye wrote:The problem now is that Murray himself appears to believe the British media's assessment of his talent and what is expected of him and this IMO puts him on tricky ground

You see this is where your own personal opinion of Murray becomes what apparantly Murray believes!!

hawkeye wrote:For example in his Wimbledon speech Murray referred to Federer being sort of written off by the commentators because of his age and bad back

And this means...........???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Murray was pouring scorn on those who wrote off Fed. Doesn't sound like someone like someone who has a belief in the media - but don't let that contradiction fool you

hawkeye wrote:Maybe this lead to unrealistic expectations in that final and contributed to his emotional break down

The expectations of Murray were those of someone who's beaten the GOAT 8 times, nothing more. The 'emotional break down' (what a lovely phrase ) was becasue Andy was touched by the support he got

hawkeye wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

However, they don't let it cloud their judgement about his talent. In the sporting arena, allowing someone's character to skew your opinion of their talent is laughable. Imagine if the judges at the diving decided to do the same thing

This is interesting. But my view is that Murray's "talent" is over hyped by the media for obvious reasons... and any criticism of the media's unrealistic representation of Murray's talent is interpreted as a criticism of Murray's character. The problem now is that Murray himself appears to believe the British media's assessment of his talent and what is expected of him and this IMO puts him on tricky ground. For example in his Wimbledon speech Murray referred to Federer being sort of written off by the commentators because of his age and bad back. Maybe this lead to unrealistic expectations in that final and contributed to his emotional break down.

Also sorry about saying something about your age. It was in response to a comment you made to someone else and on reflection I shouldn't have got involved...

So Hawkeye your real beef with Murray is the over hype in the media. I've no issue with that and posted before that I hated the fact that during Wimbledon they brought him into nearly every interview even when there was no relevant reason. As carrieG4 says the Murray supporters on this forum very rarely overhype him. I certainly don't

As for Murray himself and his speech after the final don't you think he was just having a subtle dig at the doubters and the media. He knew very well how Federer is still capable of playing after losing to him in Dubai. On the bad back thing from what we read Federer had a back spasm against Malisse very similar to that Murray had against Neiminen. Both players had treatment and painkillers and both got better as the match went on. However we had articles and comments about Murray was faking it. Maybe he was just pointing out that you can have these problems, play through them with treatment and go deep into tournaments.

hawkeye wrote:The point is that going 5 sets is not the ideal. Of course if a player is stretched to 5 it's best to win...

I'm not sure whose point that was, given I think it would be universally accepted. Does Murray get taken to 5 sets more than the rest of the top 4? Thats certainly not my impression.

Hawkeye's a bit all over the palce, with this discussion, bless her!!

Methinks she should go away and write one of her deep and meaningful articles about the player she loves so much

Born Slippy wrote:

hawkeye wrote:The point is that going 5 sets is not the ideal. Of course if a player is stretched to 5 it's best to win...

I'm not sure whose point that was, given I think it would be universally accepted. Does Murray get taken to 5 sets more than the rest of the top 4? Thats certainly not my impression.

He has only gone to one this year. AO semi with Djokovic.

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?

Calder106. Yes of course I have a thing about the media and Murray. I'm surprised it hasn't been noticed... But I also think Murray pays far too much attention to it and often adds to it himself by talking himself up. I have to confess some of the quotes that Murray gives to the media I find very amusing... Some may have noticed. And I have to disagree with your take on Murray's fan's not buying the media hype. Of course not all but a very loud minority do.

About Murray's bad back. Along with many I have no idea what was going on. It was dramatic though. You say it was genuine and other Murray fans disagree. No wonder there is so much speculation about it.

banbrotam wrote:


Murray's hilarious back troubles (or is it his thigh, leg, head or big toe? ) rarely prevent him from winning as it's a nervous tick - not really an actual occurrence

My point about going 5 sets not being a good thing was a general one if you see where it was posted. Why take it out of context?

hawkeye wrote:Calder106. Yes of course I have a thing about the media and Murray. I'm surprised it hasn't been noticed... But I also think Murray pays far too much attention to it and often adds to it himself by talking himself up. I have to confess some of the quotes that Murray gives to the media I find very amusing... Some may have noticed. And I have to disagree with your take on Murray's fan's not buying the media hype. Of course not all but a very loud minority do.

About Murray's bad back. Along with many I have no idea what was going on. It was dramatic though. You say it was genuine and other Murray fans disagree. No wonder there is so much speculation about it.

banbrotam wrote:


Murray's hilarious back troubles (or is it his thigh, leg, head or big toe? ) rarely prevent him from winning as it's a nervous tick - not really an actual occurrence

My point about going 5 sets not being a good thing was a general one if you see where it was posted. Why take it out of context?

Do they ? Prior to Wimbledon Murray offered to let his detractors see his medical records regarding the injections that he had at the FO. We never heard any more about that. He also said after the Nieminen mach that the back spasm was something different to the back injury he had been experiencing. A back spasm is what Federer was reported to have experienced at Wimbledon.

As for talking himself up. Is he meant to say I'm going into this next game and I am playing Djokovic, Federer, Nadal. I 've actually got no chance of winning but hey-ho I'll hope I have a Rosol day.

Born Slippy.

Murray has a "beast" of a serve and can play more or less every shot possible?

I have to disagree. Murray does have a great (or a beast if you want to put it like that) first serve when it goes in but it is compared with other players a low percentage shot. It is inconsistent. Murray has to hit more 2nd serves than a lot of other players and his second serve can be a liability. When under pressure this combination can cause him big problems often resulting in a 1st serve percentage well below 50%.

What Murray really lacks is a forehand he can dictate with. Much of the modern game is based on getting the ball on the forehand and taking control of the rally. Murray does have a good backhand but I don't think I've seen any player take control of a rally with a backhand in the same way as a player can with a forehand. Even Djokovic who IMO has one of the best backhands will use it to hit the most amazing down the line winners but doesn't use it to take control. IMO Murray's lack of a controlling forehand is a huge and obvious weakness.

The premise of this article is that they both play at their best, so saying that Murray's serve is inconsistent is a redundant argument.

In relation to the forehand, I respectfully disagree. As we saw in the second set against Fed, Murray's forehand is plenty big enough to dictate against the very best. You perhaps didn't see the third set of the Tokyo final last year when he sent forehand winner after forehand winner sailing past Nadal? I'd agree he sometimes lacks confidence in it but when on top of his game he hits it with great effect.

Calder106. Of course I don't mean that... And I only brought up Murray's back because of banbrotam saying it was a "nervous tick and not really an actual occurence". So you say one thing, he says another and I have no idea what was going on.

Highest percentage of points won on second serve at Winbledon? Guess who? Yep, Mr Murray.

And a year or 18 months ago I understood the "Murray hasn't got a forehand" argument... But those people who still say it today must be watching a different sport to me. He hits more winners off the forehand than the backhand nowadays, and even runs round the ball to ensure he hits a forehand.

Everything in Delpo's and Murray's entire career points to Murray being the better player, with the exception of a slam semi against an injured Nadal and a final that when I watch it back nowadays I still can't believe Federer threw away.

I can't believe it's even a debate to be honest, though of course I respect everyone's opinion.... Well, not everyone's. A certain someone on this discussion would back Hitler over Murray!

Danny_1982 wrote:
I can't believe it's even a debate to be honest, though of course I respect everyone's opinion.... Well, not everyone's. A certain someone on this discussion would back Hitler over Murray!

http://www.teetshirts.com/images/uploads/why-always-me.jpg

It Must Be Love wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:
I can't believe it's even a debate to be honest, though of course I respect everyone's opinion.... Well, not everyone's. A certain someone on this discussion would back Hitler over Murray!

http://www.teetshirts.com/images/uploads/why-always-me.jpg

I'm not talking about you IMBL. I disagree with your opinion completely, but believe that your opinion is based on what you actually think would happen rather than irrational dislike of one if the 2 players being discussed.

Born Slippy

I presume by "play at their best" It Must Be Love meant best for them. So that would mean serving a best for them percentage not hitting aces off every serve.

As for Murray's forehand. Of course he can hit winners off it but that's not what I'm talking about. It's about taking control of a point with it. If you don't know what I mean watch Nadal as he is probably the best at it (but most players do it). Lot's of rally's are a battle to get the ball on the forehand and keep it away from an opponents. Even players with great backhands don't use their backhand in this way. Can anyone give an example of a player that can dictate with a backhand? Because I can't think of anyone.

Danny_1982 wrote:Highest percentage of points won on second serve at Winbledon? Guess who? Yep, Mr Murray.

Del Potro's first serve is still more devastating than Murray's IMHO. Second serve is quite similar though, but I still feel Del Potro can attack it with his huge forehand.

Forehand wise... well I have included by groundstrokes analysis in the article. For me Del Potro's FH is more devastating when at its best, but Murray's BH is better.

Danny_1982 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:
I can't believe it's even a debate to be honest, though of course I respect everyone's opinion.... Well, not everyone's. A certain someone on this discussion would back Hitler over Murray!

http://www.teetshirts.com/images/uploads/why-always-me.jpg

I'm not talking about you IMBL. I disagree with your opinion completely, but believe that your opinion is based on what you actually think would happen rather than irrational dislike of one if the 2 players being discussed.

Sigh...

Danny_1982 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:
I can't believe it's even a debate to be honest, though of course I respect everyone's opinion.... Well, not everyone's. A certain someone on this discussion would back Hitler over Murray!

http://www.teetshirts.com/images/uploads/why-always-me.jpg

I'm not talking about you IMBL. I disagree with your opinion completely, but believe that your opinion is based on what you actually think would happen rather than irrational dislike of one if the 2 players being discussed.

I know, I was only kidding

It is fine to disagree with me, in-fact although we have different views on this matter we can discuss and debate it sensibly which in my eyes is good for the forum

Funny HE, that's what people do whenever you post a new negative Murray article.

That and: zzzzzzzz....

It Must Be Love wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:Highest percentage of points won on second serve at Winbledon? Guess who? Yep, Mr Murray.

Del Potro's first serve is still more devastating than Murray's IMHO. Second serve is quite similar though, but I still feel Del Potro can attack it with his huge forehand.

Forehand wise... well I have included by groundstrokes analysis in the article. For me Del Potro's FH is more devastating when at its best, but Murray's BH is better.

But DP can't do anything with low balls IMBL. That's what Murray keeps feeding him, and that's why he keeps beating him.

As well as he hits a ball, a penetrating slice kills him. Murray has the second best slice in the game. Take away Murray's slice it becomes interesting... But include it and you get a 5-1 h2h.

Danny_1982 wrote:Funny HE, that's what people do whenever you post a new negative Murray article.

That and: zzzzzzzz....

HE is allowed her opinion, and to be fair I have never seen her try to bully or abuse anyone, OK she might dislike Murray and hence some may feel that her reasoning is 'irrational' (as you put it) but we can't all like everything.

And in this article I actually said that if they both played at their best I would say Del Potro has the slight edge... surely this is 'anti-Murray' then too and what you are saying to HE might also apply to me.

Danny_1982 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:Highest percentage of points won on second serve at Winbledon? Guess who? Yep, Mr Murray.

Del Potro's first serve is still more devastating than Murray's IMHO. Second serve is quite similar though, but I still feel Del Potro can attack it with his huge forehand.

Forehand wise... well I have included by groundstrokes analysis in the article. For me Del Potro's FH is more devastating when at its best, but Murray's BH is better.

But DP can't do anything with low balls IMBL. That's what Murray keeps feeding him, and that's why he keeps beating him.

As well as he hits a ball, a penetrating slice kills him. Murray has the second best slice in the game. Take away Murray's slice it becomes interesting... But include it and you get a 5-1 h2h.

Murray's slice is an important weapon
Indeed I believe I have mentioned this in the article, under 'variety.'

This is what for me makes it so close. Del Potro is a huge, massive hitter and on his day is totally devastating. But then again Murray has tricks up his sleeve to bother him. The H2H is some indication, but they haven't played for a few years and I don't feel Del Potro has played his best in those matches. But this begs the question: Does Murray allow Del Potro to play his best? We'll have to see.
Inspite of this I still have a feeling that the big guns may prefer Murray at his best compared to Del Potro at his best... as against Del Potro at his best it is not in your hands as much.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:Funny HE, that's what people do whenever you post a new negative Murray article.

That and: zzzzzzzz....

HE is allowed her opinion, and to be fair I have never seen her try to bully or abuse anyone, OK she might dislike Murray and hence some may feel that her reasoning is 'irrational' (as you put it) but we can't all like everything.

And in this article I actually said that if they both played at their best I would say Del Potro has the slight edge... surely this is 'anti-Murray' then too and what you are saying to HE might also apply to me.

That comment referred to all HE articles, rather than her contribution on this one.

But there is a key difference, I don't think you are a wind up merchant IMBL so I do treat your opinion differently.

However I apologise to you for taking the discussion away from the two players.

DP's first serve isn't more devastating than Murray's. Their points won on first serve and aces counts tend to be about the same (although Murray is slightly down on his usual level this year).

Forehand DP has a clear edge. I don't think there is much argument there.

Personally, I don't like the way Andy plays DP or any of the other big guys. Whilst Banbro is right to point out he has generally been successful, he has got himself in unnecessarily close matches against DP in the past. The first set they played in Miami 09 was the only time I can recall Murray getting the game plan right.

IMBL - when they played with some regularity was when DP was top 5 or 6... Sure they've not played in ages, but then DP has not been top 5 or 6 for ages. So you could say that H2H featured a number of matches when DP was at or very near his best.

And I agree with your point of "does Murray allow DP to play well?"... That's the key. Murray negates all of his strengths.

I think the top guys recognise that DP is top 5 potential still (though I'm questioning if he'll ever get back there, how long does a comeback take?!) but I think they'd rather play DP. Because he's an inferior player.

Good post Danny
I still believe that Top 3 would not like to play Del P at his best, as the match is less in their control (as opposed to someone like Murray who is not as aggressive).

Also who do you think in the big moments in slams mentally believes in himself more? Against the big guns in GS matches who would be mentally stronger?
Del Potro managed to show great mental resolves 2 sets to 1 down against Fed in the USO final and comeback, while Murray has only won 1 set in 4 slam finals.
So if they did play on the top 3 in a slam final... would Del Potro believe in himself more as he has won one before? (I don't think there is a clear cut answer to this- it can be argued that Murray's latest Wimby performance is a big improvement while Del P was lucky Fed was not at his best in the USO 2009).

I'm a bit disappointed... where are the Del Potro fans? There have been many Murray fans showing their opinion (which has generally been well constructed and well thought out ) so to try and keep the balance I've had to defend Del P quite a lot here There were a few Del Potro fans on the original 606, but not too many on here, perhaps if he makes some more progress more admirers will emerge

"at their best" Obviously Del Potro.

As Murray's never scaled the same heights.

Murray is by far the better and more consistent player.

However........when that ridiculous forehand of Delpo's fires throughout a match, he is unbelievably dangerous. His dismissal of Nadal at USO 2009 in the semis (albeit that Rafa was not 100%) and vanquishing of Fed were entirely due to awesome serving and an unreturnable forehand to corner after corner. I just wonder if the fact that the wrist was operated on means that some of the potency has been lost, or that he has, understandably, lost a little confidence in whipping it forehand after forehand with the same velocity? Without that weapon at it's full strength, I don't much fancy Delpo's chance of making a slam semi again.

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

time please wrote:Murray is by far the better and more consistent player.

However........when that ridiculous forehand of Delpo's fires throughout a match, he is unbelievably dangerous. His dismissal of Nadal at USO 2009 in the semis (albeit that Rafa was not 100%) and vanquishing of Fed were entirely due to awesome serving and an unreturnable forehand to corner after corner. I just wonder if the fact that the wrist was operated on means that some of the potency has been lost, or that he has, understandably, lost a little confidence in whipping it forehand after forehand with the same velocity? Without that weapon at it's full strength, I don't much fancy Delpo's chance of making a slam semi again.

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

Interesting analysis TP
Perhaps you are right about the wrist- unfortunately it may never allow him to play the level it did pre-injury.

But what do you think on the 'mental' side of things. If one of them were to play a Top 3 player now in a final of a GS who would be mentally stronger in the key moments and believe in himself more?

I think if you have a forehand like Delpo's and that it is firing on that day, and you have found your rhythm and range then a weapon like that will arm you with confidence, so if that was the scenario then I might have to give the nod to Delpo but would equally expect him to be very average next major tournament.

I have to say though I think the USO was a bit of a freak performance - not the final so much, but the run through the draw and the tournament took it all out of him physically so don't expect to see it repeated.