Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by MurrayMyInspiration, Aug 13, 2012.
Who's career would you rather have? Murray or Delpo?
stebe has it all still ahead of him
Definitely Murray, given the fact that he is almost guaranteed a slam in the near future, and will most likely end up with more than one slam. Murray also has more Masters titles, ATP 1000 tournaments, a gold medal (as opposed to a bronze) and a more impressive resume overall.
If they both retired today then Del Potro! He is US OPen champion time will tell if he wins any more majors or Murray wins any but as it stands definitely Del PO!!
Also a lot more money.
Murray. No contest. Slams are what matter most but this is an extreme case. 8 Masters + Olympic Gold + 4 slam finals all together are for sure worth more than 1 Slam title and no other titles above 500 level.
Murray for sure.
More success (as already stated).
Wont want to spend 2 years in pain with a wrist injury when my prime seemed to begin.
And Murray cried in Wimb. final but the court was filled with Murray chants!!
Murray, consistently in the top four, more money, has won more masters and is more famous.
Del Potro, sorry Andy 1 major is worth more than 0 majors
Even if he's probably going to win either the US Open or the Australian Open?
Murray has a Ferrari and a lot more money and amongst the choices, you're splitting hairs. Del Po is a one trick pony so far, if he wins a another Major and Andy never wins one, that will be another question though.
The money is what really counts, but he's also been way more consistent than Del Potro.
1 GS >>>>> 40 billion consecutive Masters titles, slam finals, years at no. 1...etc...
We can be absolutists in this argument.
Murray can't touch Del-Potro.
If their Careers stopped right now....I would go Delpo.
If it is the entire career...then Murray. Murray eventually will win a slam or more.
none of the above. Spadea is "du bomb"
But Andy has chances to win more, DP was a one off
Nadal, because he defeats Fed so easily
it wasn't necessarily a one off, his abilities went straight down hill a couple months after and hasn't been in good form until late. it's not like he was able to compete at the same high level in the 11 slams after the 09USO and failed to capture a single one, if that was the case, then yeah, call it a one off.
The sad thing is he may never be able to reach that level again.
+1 for the money.
These guys are pros - tennis is their living.
Murray's $21.5 mil > Delpo's $9.25 mil
And that's just prize money; I bet Murray makes more in endorsements also.
He has a 10 million $ deal with Addidas, so I would think so.
Okay maybe I was a bit harsh, fair enough but I don't believe he'll win another slam, I'm not saying Andy Definetly will but I believe he has a bigger chance
Gotta go with the Muzz, as stated on the last page slams are more important but this is a really extreme case.
It's funny people picking Murray for the money. Delpo isn't struggling to make ends meet exactly you know...
If you pick Murray pick him for the M1000, slam finals or whatever, both guys have money to live without worries for a hundred years and are 25 or less.
Anyway....Delpo has a slam, Murray does not. So for the moment, Del Potro. If Murray wins a slam his career will be much better, but I'm not so sure he will one as some people seem to be.
How about comparatively for where they live?
To think 1 slam win and nothing else is worth more than 8 Masters, 4 slam finals, Olympic Gold, consistently higher ranking, many other titles, much better records vs all the top players is to take the meaning slams are everything to a whole new level, too extreme of one. Would you same people say Johansson has had a better career than Murray too. Probably not, the same people would probably laugh, yet Johansson technically might have a better career than Del Potro right now, a slam title plus a Masters title unlike Del Potro, and the same number of slam semis. Also a Davis Cup title. So if Del Potro's career is better than Murray's, that would mean Tomas Johansson's has to be considered too, LOL! While he is overall much less accomplishes than even Johansson or Del Potro at this point, would we even have say Gaston Gaudio has had a better career than Murray too. Mark Edmunston. Does everyone with a slam automaticaly have a better career.
Considering how the dollar has increased it's value here Delpo is probably one of the highest paid sportsmen in the world lol.
Delpo also has a TMC final and 2 Davis Cup finals. It's not like the slam is the only thing he has that Murray does not.
And Del Potro lost 2 years of his career when he was in his prime and is only 23.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
I agree with what others are saying, Murray has a better career than delpo. However, just the fact that delpo is a slam winner and Murray isn't makes me lean towards delpo.
Also..argentinian girls are smoking hot..british girls are fugly with bad teeth
and 1 > 0
and lol @ the olympic tennis hysteria... a tournament that has been played a grand total of 9 times in the last 90 odd years. haha Bucharest has more history FFS
Well until that happens I take the 1 major Del Potro won over anything that Murray has.
I'll take Murray.
I prefer his game to Del P's and while he doesn't have a major yet I think he'll win a couple at least before he's finished.
I think we may have seen the best of Del P - shame about that wrist injury.
True, but in that same light, some of Murrays accomplishments are merely right place at right time, time of year etc...
Haha, so Nadal was playing his best Tennis when DelPo beat him in 2009, right? Please.
Delpo's H2H against the top 4 is 8-29 btw. That's astonishingly bad and makes 2009 sound a bit like a fluke.
Really? So it was just a matter of Murray turning up?
Of Murray's 8 MS wins, he's had to beat one of the top 3 to win six of them, in the other 2 he beat Delpo and Ferrer in the finals.
He also had to beat both Fed and Djokovic to win the OG. A true cakewalk. (It kinda was though. lol)
Even Tsonga has a better record against the top 4. And he hasn't won a slam either.
He only played Andy in 2008 (2) and 2009 (4), when he was at his best ever. Their H2H is 5-1. He beat Andy on Clay. He is only a year and a few months younger than Andy and they turned pro in the same year. He also lost 6 consecutive times against Fed this year.
Of course Nadal wasn't injured. I'm just using other people's arguments against them. To suggest that Nadal played a great match that day is still far from the truth. Just like Fed didn't play well against Andy in the Olympics final. But Andy and JMDP both still deserved to win those matches regardless.
That's not the question though. Fact is that JMDP won one big tournament and nothing else and hasn't even reached the semis of a slam since.
Delpo has made only $9.25 mil in prize money, and probably some more from endorsements. Sounds like more than it is... once you take out expenses, taxes, etc, let's say he has $5 mil saved. If he stops playing today, he has to make that money last many years. He will have enough to live on if he keeps a modest lifestyle, but to live like a star takes a lot more than that.
Murray has made $21.5 mil plus a lot more in endorsements. He probably has $15+ mil in the bank. There is a big difference in the lifestyle you can afford to keep for the rest of your life with $15 mil versus with $5 mil.
(Obviously my numbers are made up I have no idea what they have in the bank, but the point is that the marginal difference is significant.)
He was injured in 2009? The year he won the USO and made the final of the WTF? Wow - just imagine how good he would have been if he wasn't injured that year.
He played the AO in 2010 and Japan 2010 - if that's 'not touching a racket for a whole year' then I'm a Dutchman.
I'm not saying that DC doesn't matter per se; it's a very prestigious event - I'm saying it can't be used to reflect one individual's superiority over another as in order to win a DC or even make a final, a player is 100% dependent on someone else.
Andy's estimated wealth is £24m. That's like $38m.
The Spade und der Stebe!
Greatest doubles team of all time!
Thanks for the info... more than I would have guessed... his endorsements have obviously been really lucrative.
Any idea what Delpo is worth?
I tried to google it but couldn't find anything... I'm guessing like $15m maybe?
Del Potro. No question Murray has have the overall better career, but at this point he's not achieveed the pinnacleof tennis and Del Potro has.
Given Murray's overall success, not winning a slam would leave him seen by many as someone who didn't live up to their potential and maybe even was a bit of a choker in slams. Delpo has maybe done more with his ability than Murray has with his. Given one chance he won a slam final. Murray has had 4 chances and not done it
Of course I meant 2010 and 2011. My mistake. And he played a tournament in January (AO) already injured and then didn't play until October when he tried to come back but played 2 first round matches and realized he wasn't ready yet. It's basically a whole year without playing.
He has a lot from endorsements. He is very popular here in Argentina. And he will not stop playing today, he will win a lot more. Of course Murray has more (and by far). My point is that both have a lot of money. I don't think it's a reason to pick one over the other because of the amount of money unless you're extremely greedy. If someone asks you, I don't know, for example. "Would you prefer Federer's career without all the money he won in prizes, endorsements, etc.. and just having $1.000.000 or Murray's career and all the money he won", well in that case it would be understandable if you pick the later because the difference is huge but considering Del Potro has a nice amount of millions in his bank account, I don't think that the money is a reason to pick a career over the other one.
And a dollar nowdays is worth like 6 pesos (argentine money) so if Del Potro decides to live here when he retires (he always says he will live in Tandil, his hometown) he will have A LOT more.
Separate names with a comma.