Delpotro v murray

[punterlad]

I like both. Nadal my fav player Del potro my second fav and murray my third so Id live the podium to have all three on it.

Ive always felt del potro is better than murray. After the war with Nadal and Djokovic I can't see fel potro winning but I hope he does as I feel it's misleading that murray leads ther slam count 3-1.

What do u all think? Who is better out of the two?

 

[Fedeonic]

Murray is more consistent, but Delpo has higher peaks. Murray's game can easily hurt an off Del Potro.
I'd give the edge for Andy mainly because his achievements and consistency all over the years.

 

[Bjorn99]

I think its ******** to play next day after a match like that. Murray will slice and dice the poor guy to death.

 

[Mr.Lob]

^^^ What's the "dice" part mean, in slice and dice?

 

[TheMaestro1990]

Murray will win 3-1

 

[Fedex]

I like both. Nadal my fav player Del potro my second fav and murray my third so Id live the podium to have all three on it.

Ive always felt del potro is better than murray. After the war with Nadal and Djokovic I can't see fel potro winning but I hope he does as I feel it's misleading that murray leads ther slam count 3-1.

What do u all think? Who is better out of the two?

Maybe this guy is more qualified to judge from 2011 before Murray had any slams so quite prophetic. I guess he didn't take into account Murray's head though but talent wise you could argue he has a point.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/13243702

 

[Fedex]

Murray is more consistent, but Delpo has higher peaks. Murray's game can easily hurt an off Del Potro.
I'd give the edge for Andy mainly because his achievements and consistency all over the years.

According to experts when Murray peaks he is absolutely unbeatable:

again: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/13243702

 

[punterlad]

Maybe this guy is more qualified to judge from 2011 before Murray had any slams so quite prophetic. I guess he didn't take into account Murray's head though but talent wise you could argue he has a point.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/13243702

I would have to disagree . Murray has second best double handed backhand after djokovic and second best return after djokovic. His FH though is not even top 10 standard and the second serve is awful. He is very talented but those two weaknesses really hold him back against the best guys if they play their best.

 

[BeatlesFan]

According to experts when Murray peaks he is absolutely unbeatable:

I guess these experts missed both the Wimbledon 2012 final, as well as the Wimbledon 2015 semis against Fed. That was peak Murray (as he himself admitted) and lost both times to Grandpa Fed.

 

[Sreeram]

Is Murray is unstoppable. Even Delporto at this best is nothing before him. Awesome game.

 

[Manhattan]

Andy fully deserved it, congrats to his fans.

http://goo.gl/yMzZVf

 

[tennis_pro]

Is Murray is unstoppable. Even Delporto at this best is nothing before him. Awesome game.

Del Potro at his best LOL. You know whats at its best? The ret***ation of your statement.

 

[Fedex]

I guess these experts missed both the Wimbledon 2012 final, as well as the Wimbledon 2015 semis against Fed. That was peak Murray (as he himself admitted) and lost both times to Grandpa Fed.

Wimbledon 2012 was not peak Murray and he just won an Olympic Gold with a horrendous first serve percentage against zoning Del Potro which is also definitely not peak Murray

 

[Sreeram]

anyone who beats Djoker and Nadal should be at his best of tennis. Do not come up with the theory that he is tired. It is stupid these days to consider tirdness as criteria. It is delpos fault if he takes Nadal to 3 sets who is not even in his prime. But Andy was smart to finish of Nishikori in 2 sets. Even if Nishikori won Nadal so it is clear that Andy faced a better opponent in Semis. Andy is superior player, live with it. Else stop watching tennis till he retires.

 

[beast of mallorca]

I like both. Nadal my fav player Del potro my second fav and murray my third so Id live the podium to have all three on it.

Ive always felt del potro is better than murray. After the war with Nadal and Djokovic I can't see fel potro winning but I hope he does as I feel it's misleading that murray leads ther slam count 3-1.

What do u all think? Who is better out of the two?

If Delpo wasn't spent, he could have won this. But that's how it is. All props to The Great Muzziah

 

[cc0509]

If Delpo wasn't spent, he could have won this. But that's how it is. All props to The Great Muzziah

But physical fitness is a big part of the game and Murray is insanely fit.

 

[Sreeram]

When Andy spends more time in court all his way to final and then gets transhed in final by Fed or Djoker in the past, no one considers him being tired. It is Andy's fault that he played his initial rounds as 4 or 5 setters. But when Andy wins someone in final who has played longer semifinal than him, then it is because his opponent was tired. Lets keep it plain, there are many Murray haters here who will hate him even if he defeats Fed or Djoker and come with stupid things like Wind was a factor etc.
Whether Delpo was tired or not, Andy matched him toe to toe, shot to shot, he was not even afraid of Going to Delpo's FH unlike Nadal or Djoker who kept avoiding his FH. This again has been their strategy all the year, nothing wrong in it. Andy won the match purely as he deserves. As an Andy fan who has observed his determination and skills, he would have beaten Delpo irrespective of whether he was tired or not.
Also if Delpo had played Nishikori, then also it would be either 3 sets or even a win to Nishikori. Nishikori was in a better form than Nadal who was coming of an injury. It was clearly delpo's mistake to take Nadal for 3 hours. But all login and means Andy was the superior player in the mens draw and he won it period. Lean to accept facts.

 

[tennis_pro]

anyone who beats Djoker and Nadal should be at his best of tennis. Do not come up with the theory that he is tired. It is stupid these days to consider tirdness as criteria. It is delpos fault if he takes Nadal to 3 sets who is not even in his prime. But Andy was smart to finish of Nishikori in 2 sets. Even if Nishikori won Nadal so it is clear that Andy faced a better opponent in Semis. Andy is superior player, live with it. Else stop watching tennis till he retires.

wtf so much BIAS in this post it's unbelievable.

If you think the final result would be the same if Del Potro faced an exhausted Nishikori in the SF while Murray faced a still strong Nadal in the same round then you can think again.

 

[TheMuzziah]

I guess these experts missed both the Wimbledon 2012 final, as well as the Wimbledon 2015 semis against Fed. That was peak Murray (as he himself admitted) and lost both times to Grandpa Fed.

Source? Wimbledon 2015 definitely wasn't peak Murray btw.

 

[TupeloDanger]

wtf so much BIAS in this post it's unbelievable.

If you think the final result would be the same if Del Potro faced an exhausted Nishikori in the SF while Murray faced a still strong Nadal in the same round then you can think again.

For one thing, Murray wouldn't have been in the final.

 

[Sreeram]

wtf so much BIAS in this post it's unbelievable.

If you think the final result would be the same if Del Potro faced an exhausted Nishikori in the SF while Murray faced a still strong Nadal in the same round then you can think again.

It is actually your bias that is preventing you from accepting the shear success of Murray. The term exhausted never really exists in Tennis. If Murray beating Delp is of no credit then how is losing to Delp who actually played Nadal in 2009 US open semis will give any credit to Federer? Delpo is a big match player who has a history of not getting exhausted. He is known to be strong.

Nihikori was in far better form than Nadal, again do not go with your exhaustive theory. Bascially what you are doing is, whenever something never fits your understanding you put the term exhausted.

Murray spends more hours on court than anyone else in Slams. So he was literally exhausted in all the Slam finals he lost so far. So based on your theory of exhaustion Murray should have close to 10 slams. Do you at least now see how stupid this theory of Exhaustion is?
Start giving credit to players who win stead of going behind such stupid theories. Even Murray played a long match against Steve who played really well. I hate American tennis players but I still admit that Steve was awesome on that day and came closer to deafting Murray. Murray is at his prime now learn to accept it, do not weigh an improved players with past performance and also poor performance when he was returning from Back surgery. Murray took whole 2 years to come back to his prime after the back surgery. Back surgery is a big deal, that is why Pros try to avoid it.
Now that Murray has hit back to his pre surgery prime, what he achieves now will matter more.

 

[Paul Harman]

If JMDP was fully fit then Murray would have played a lot better than be did. That much is obvious. I can say this with total certainty because living in "what if" land is pointless and irrelevant.