Who's career would you rather have if given a choice?

[Hawkeye7]

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.

[OrangePower]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

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.

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.)

[batz]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

Yes. He lost 2 years. The year he was injured in (2009) and the year he was coming back (2010). You don't think you perform the same way after a whole year without touching a racket, right? Not to mention his ranking dropped and he was facing top players in the first rounds.

And DC matters. If you're the number 4 player and you don't play a single match I agree that it's not relevant, but that wasn't Del Potro's case. For example in 2008 he won his both semi-finals matches against Russia to put Argentina in the final.



.

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.

[Hawkeye7]

Originally Posted by OrangePower

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.)

Andy's estimated wealth is £24m. That's like $38m.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Gorecki

none of the above. Spadea is "du bomb"

The Spade und der Stebe!

Greatest doubles team of all time!

[OrangePower]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye7

Andy's estimated wealth is £24m. That's like $38m.

Thanks for the info... more than I would have guessed... his endorsements have obviously been really lucrative.

Any idea what Delpo is worth?

[Hawkeye7]

I tried to google it but couldn't find anything... I'm guessing like $15m maybe?

[Towser83]

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

[Hawkeye7]

*yet

......

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by batz

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.

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.

Originally Posted by OrangePower

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 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.

[Hawkeye7]

But Andy has also achieved a lot more. 1 slam and 1 OB, doesn't trump 4 slam finals, 8 masters, 1 OG and an overall way more consistent career.

It doesn't take 3 years to recover from an injury.

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye7

But Andy has also achieved a lot more. 1 slam and 1 OB, doesn't trump 4 slam finals, 8 masters, 1 OG and an overall way more consistent career.

I didn't say he did not achieve more, I'm saying that I wouldn't pick his career because of the money considering both are multi-millionaire despite Murray having more. If someone thinks his results are better it's understandable although I would pick Del Potro for the slam. If Murray wins a slam it's a no brainer, but for the moment I pick Del Potro.

If Delpotro had 2 slams and Murray 1, or 3 and Murray 2 etc. I would go for Murray despite JMDP having more slams because the rest of his career is stronger but the fact that one is a slam-winner and the other one is not it's too important IMO. A grand slam is the biggest achievement in tennis.

[OrangePower]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

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.

I personally would agree with you that both have a lot of money by my standards, and more than I personally would ever need... but by their standards... well, I guess pro players *are* greedy For example, many of them play exhibition matches, which comes at the expense of other events and their health... that is nothing but a money grab. Same with playing smaller events for the appearance fees. That's what makes me think that for their lifestyles they need more money than you or I can imagine.

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

I didn't say he did not achieve more, I'm saying that I wouldn't pick his career because of the money considering both are multi-millionaire despite Murray having more. If someone thinks his results are better it's understandable although I would pick Del Potro for the slam. If Murray wins a slam it's a no brainer, but for the moment I pick Del Potro.

If Delpotro had 2 slams and Murray 1, or 3 and Murray 2 etc. I would go for Murray despite JMDP having more slams because the rest of his career is stronger but the fact that one is a slam-winner and the other one is not it's too important IMO. A grand slam is the biggest achievement in tennis.

Yeah I agree with you there. Once you're in the slam club, the amount of slams has less importance vs overall achievments, as long as the different between slam numbers is not too great. But at the moment Del Potro has won at a higher level than Murray ever has.

[TTMR]

Originally Posted by Towser83

Yeah I agree with you there. Once you're in the slam club, the amount of slams has less importance vs overall achievments, as long as the different between slam numbers is not too great. But at the moment Del Potro has won at a higher level than Murray ever has.

So Gaudio has won at a higher level than Murray ever has? Just wanted to be clear that you'd choose Gaudio's career over Murray's.

[Seany]

lol at all this "Murray will eventually win a slam" bullcrap, says who? His chances of not winning one are much higher than winning one, and given his past history in slam finals I'm nto exactly filled with optimism for him. Amazing how Olympic Gold has totally shifted Murray opinion on these boards.

[TTMR]

Originally Posted by Seany

lol at all this "Murray will eventually win a slam" bullcrap, says who? His chances of not winning one are much higher than winning one, and given his past history in slam finals I'm nto exactly filled with optimism for him. Amazing how Olympic Gold has totally shifted Murray opinion on these boards.

There are many "one and done" slam winners in the history of tennis. I'd argue that making slam finals on four separate occasions, regardless of one's performance there, is more indicative of talent level than winning a slam once and never reaching even a quarterfinal before or after (Gaudio).

Murray's career winning percentage exceeds that of numerous slam winners. Based on probability, he should end up with one eventually barring a career-altering injury.

Your argument reminds me of the "LeBron isn't a great, he hasn't won a championship" point of view that was promoted throughout the duration of his career prior to 2012. In sports, nothing is a certainty, and circumstances and coincidences can cause certain players to overachieve their talent level (eg. Gaudio), and certain players to underachieve theirs (Murray), especially given the small sample sizes of grand slam tournaments (only eight weeks a year, deciding matches only a few hours and sudden death in nature) and team sport playoffs.

[Zarfot Z]

Originally Posted by TTMR

There are many "one and done" slam winners in the history of tennis. I'd argue that making slam finals on four separate occasions, regardless of one's performance there, is more indicative of talent level than winning a slam once and never reaching even a quarterfinal before or after (Gaudio).

Maybe so, but winning 1 slam goes down better in the history books than reaching 4 slam finals.

I'd be willing to bet that if Murray were to never win a GS, 50 years later Gaston Gaudio would be better remembered than him.

[Seany]

Originally Posted by TTMR

There are many "one and done" slam winners in the history of tennis. I'd argue that making slam finals on four separate occasions, regardless of one's performance there, is more indicative of talent level than winning a slam once and never reaching even a quarterfinal before or after (Gaudio).

Murray's career winning percentage exceeds that of numerous slam winners. Based on probability, he should end up with one eventually barring a career-altering injury.

Your argument reminds me of the "LeBron isn't a great, he hasn't won a championship" point of view that was promoted throughout the duration of his career prior to 2012. In sports, nothing is a certainty, and circumstances and coincidences can cause certain players to overachieve their talent level (eg. Gaudio), and certain players to underachieve theirs (Murray), especially given the small sample sizes of grand slam tournaments (only eight weeks a year, deciding matches only a few hours and sudden death in nature) and team sport playoffs.

I was more referring to some of the previous posters who were voting for Murray based on the assumption he would win a slam. I would actually vote for murray myself, taking into account his numerous achievements and the name he has made for himself, unless Delpo wins more, Murray's legacy will be much stronger. However I can't stand how now everybody is saying he will almost certainly win a slam.

[Seany]

Originally Posted by Sabratha

Even if he's probably going to win either the US Open or the Australian Open?

For example...I mean come on !