Del Porto might have won the slam but Murray is still the better player

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Murray fans are the most delusional bunch of the lot. One guy wins a major beating Nadal and Roger along the way, the other guy fades like a lily against Cilic. Who is the better player again??
They might be delusional, but what of the people that in desperation to have a dig, have to turn another person's great achievement into fuel for trolling.
 
N

nikdom

Guest
They might be delusional, but what of the people that in desperation to have a dig, have to turn another person's great achievement into fuel for trolling.
If you're talking about yourself, that's a pretty accurate assessment. Great job identifying your problem. Now please enter rehab. :)
 
N

nikdom

Guest
I don't think I've ever said that by Player A winning something, player A sucks because they didn't do what player B did.
What is this, some sort of riddle to be solved? Why don't you simply come out and say what you want to say.

I never said Murray sucks - you're injecting words into my mouth. I'm just commenting on the statement that people feel Murray is the "Better" player even though Del Potro is the one to have come thru on the grand stage- and I think its delusional of his fans.
 
Murray's gig is up. Top 25 players are beginning to figure him out. He will lose more and more frequently. He plays like a puss.

This entire thread is pathetic.

Delpo is far and beyond better than Murray. I look forward to Delpo mopping up the stain that is Murray every time they play from this moment forward.
 

drwood

Hall of Fame
People have been overrating Del Potro a lot since he won the US open, I mean Murray has been the second best player, has been more consistent player in the last one year if we compare him to Del Potro. Del Potro was good for two weeks and congrats on him on winning a slam but he was quite lucky to win this slam lets be honest here.

Murray is still ahead of him in the ranking and in the long run will end up winning more slams than Del Potro.
Laughable. Not only has Delpo has done better than Murray in 3 of the past 4 slams (Australian, French and US Open), he also WON against Fed in a slam final while Murray was blown away.

Also, Murray has a TON of points to defend (plus an automatic 1000 points coming off b/c Madrid is no longer on HC), so it is likely that Delpo will pass him in the rankings by year's end.



Epic fail by OP.
 
Murray has always beaten Del Potro in a slam. Winning a slam will happen in the future and then we can see who was the Hewitt and who was the Federer of this era. :)



I agree it's all about the slams not one particular slam. We'll see how things turn out but Murray will have his share (probably more than Nadal).



He lost this time, loses happen. But talent is still there and that would slowly translate into success.
I highly doubt Murray will have more slams than Nadal
 
Murray's gig is up. Top 25 players are beginning to figure him out. He will lose more and more frequently. He plays like a puss.

This entire thread is pathetic.

Delpo is far and beyond better than Murray. I look forward to Delpo mopping up the stain that is Murray every time they play from this moment forward.
plus djokovic
 
What is this, some sort of riddle to be solved? Why don't you simply come out and say what you want to say.

I never said Murray sucks - you're injecting words into my mouth. I'm just commenting on the statement that people feel Murray is the "Better" player even though Del Potro is the one to have come thru on the grand stage- and I think its delusional of his fans.
I was never targeting you though, I was referring to threads mentioning Murray even though the news shouldn't even be about him, it should be about Del Potro pwning Federer.
 
People have been overrating Del Potro a lot since he won the US open, I mean Murray has been the second best player, has been more consistent player in the last one year if we compare him to Del Potro. Del Potro was good for two weeks and congrats on him on winning a slam but he was quite lucky to win this slam lets be honest here.
Murray is still ahead of him in the ranking and in the long run will end up winning more slams than Del Potro.
Del Potro slam results:

AO: Quarterfinals (360)
FO: Semifinals (720)
W: 2nd round (45)
USO: Won (2000)

Murray slam results:

AO: R16 (180)
FO: Quarterfinals (360)
W: Semifinal (720)
USO: R16 (160)

Del Potro: 3125 pts
Murray: 1420 pts
 
This thread is funny.

Murray will never win a slam in his entire career. He's a pusher and only wins small tournements that no one gives a **** about.

Pushers never become great.
 

JustBob

Hall of Fame
Define "better". If you mean skills/natural talent, than yes Murray is "better" than Del Po. But that doesn't necessarily translate into better results on the court.
 
Wow. There are a lot of people here who don't like Murray...and I'm one of them.

As to the question of whether Murray or Del Potro will be the better or is the better of the two...I don't know and I don't particularly care. I like DelPo WAY more than Murray and am very, very glad he won. I wanted either player (Federer or DelPo) to win at the start, so I'm quite pleased.
 
People have been overrating Del Potro a lot since he won the US open, I mean Murray has been the second best player, has been more consistent player in the last one year if we compare him to Del Potro. Del Potro was good for two weeks and congrats on him on winning a slam but he was quite lucky to win this slam lets be honest here.

Murray is still ahead of him in the ranking and in the long run will end up winning more slams than Del Potro.
Murray doesn't have the one big shot that is needed to win a slam like all the others who have won it do (Fed, Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro). So I highly doubt he will even get one, let alone more than one.
 
IMO

Murray has versatility in his game.. but lacks confidence and mental fortitude. To all those who call him a 'pusher' .. I cannot agree.. He has game and can play great.. the problem with Murray is.. he tries to adapt to his opponents instead of concentrating on his strengths.

Del Potro.. is the opposite of Murray.. Confident and Relentless.. He plays his game and does not worry too much about how his opponent will react.. I like this about Del Potro.. he knows his strengths and sticks to them.

On a tangent... Why didn't Federer or Nadal attack the net more against Delpo?.. You cannot hang around the baseline with Delpo.. he is too strong and takes patient risks behind the baseline.

I feel a true S&V game would hinder and confuse Delpo...
 
People have been overrating Del Potro a lot since he won the US open, I mean Murray has been the second best player, has been more consistent player in the last one year if we compare him to Del Potro. Del Potro was good for two weeks and congrats on him on winning a slam but he was quite lucky to win this slam lets be honest here.

Murray is still ahead of him in the ranking and in the long run will end up winning more slams than Del Potro.
The fact that really matters here is that Murray's game is already extremely polished. He can improve maybe 10-15%, if that. Del Potro has already proven that he can beat the world's best on its grandest stage with a very unpolished version of this game. Del Potro stands to improve anywhere from 20-30%. The guy moves well, but he could move much better. Brad Gilbert's said that once Del Potro's done improving, he could serve consistently in the high 130s-low 140s. His backhand is one of the best in the world already; his forehand is one of the biggest, but it's still highly inconsistent. He'll never be a great volleyer, but with that wingspan, he only needs to be decent to be a presence at net.

Murray's already about as good as he's going to be. And sure, he's had looks at slams, but his A game is still inferior to aggressive baseliners that can hit through the court with ease. In tennis, great offense will beat great defense just about every time. Guys like Federer, Del Potro, Nadal, and even Djokovic when he's playing well have the ability to rip a match out of their opponents hands. They have the ability to make their opponent an irrelevant part of whatever match they play if they are on their A game. Murray will always be at the mercy of a good ball striker having a good day. And the tour is FULL of them.

I mean, even a few weeks ago, when Del Potro played Murray, Del Potro was in charge of the match. He was the one that was dictating play. He was the one that was making shots happen. He was well on his way to victory when he ran out of gas.

You can work on your fitness. You can't work on your talent.

Speaking of talent, I've seen a ton of people throw around the fact that Federer was pretty much crap at the slams between the time he beat Sampras and his first Wimbledon.

Federer was an incredible talent, but he was also highly unpolished. He could hit a winner from anywhere on the court and he could hit pretty much every shot in the tennis book, but he needed to take time to harness his gifts. Keep in mind that not many people remember that Federer used to be a much much aggressive player prior to 2003 than he was before. The kid had been raised as a serve and volleyer and had to morph into primarily a baseliner.

Serve and volley players are notorious for taking longer to develop than simple baseliners, so it was expected that he would take longer to find his game. Add to this the fact that he totally changed his game at a late state, and you have a great talent that takes a very long time to develop.

Murray, on the other hand, already has his game. He knows how he'll be playing when he's 28. It will be the same way he's playing at 22.

Federer's lateness to the grand slam party does mean that Murray's the same case. They are completely different.
 
Last edited:
The fact that really matters here is that Murray's game is already extremely polished. He can improve maybe 10-15%, if that. Del Potro has already proven that he can beat the world's best on its grandest stage with a very unpolished version of this game. Del Potro stands to improve anywhere from 20-30%. The guy moves well, but he could move much better. Brad Gilbert's said that once Del Potro's done improving, he could serve consistently in the high 130s-low 140s. His backhand is one of the best in the world already; his forehand is one of the biggest, but it's still highly inconsistent. He'll never be a great volleyer, but with that wingspan, he only needs to be decent to be a presence at net.

Murray's already about as good as he's going to be. And sure, he's had looks at slams, but his A game is still inferior to aggressive baseliners that can hit through the court with ease. In tennis, great offense will beat great defense just about every time. Guys like Federer, Del Potro, Nadal, and even Djokovic when he's playing well have the ability to rip a match out of their opponents hands. They have the ability to make their opponent an irrelevant part of whatever match they play if they are on their A game. Murray will always be at the mercy of a good ball striker having a good day. And the tour is FULL of them.

I mean, even a few weeks ago, when Del Potro played Murray, Del Potro was in charge of the match. He was the one that was dictating play. He was the one that was making shots happen. He was well on his way to victory when he ran out of gas.

You can work on your fitness. You can't work on your talent.

Speaking of talent, I've seen a ton of people throw around the fact that Federer was pretty much crap at the slams between the time he beat Sampras and his first Wimbledon.

Federer was an incredible talent, but he was also highly unpolished. He could hit a winner from anywhere on the court and he could hit pretty much every shot in the tennis book, but he needed to take time to harness his gifts. Keep in mind that not many people remember that Federer used to be a much much aggressive player prior to 2003 than he was before. The kid had been raised as a serve and volleyer and had to morph into primarily a baseliner.

Serve and volley players are notorious for taking longer to develop than simple baseliners, so it was expected that he would take longer to find his game. Add to this the fact that he totally changed his game at a late state, and you have a great talent that takes a very long time to develop.

Murray, on the other hand, already has his game. He knows how he'll be playing when he's 28. It will be the same way he's playing at 22.

Federer's lateness to the grand slam party does mean that Murray's the same case. They are completely different.
Excellent post.
 
People have been overrating Del Potro a lot since he won the US open, I mean Murray has been the second best player, has been more consistent player in the last one year if we compare him to Del Potro. Del Potro was good for two weeks and congrats on him on winning a slam but he was quite lucky to win this slam lets be honest here.

Murray is still ahead of him in the ranking and in the long run will end up winning more slams than Del Potro.
I have always wanted you Brit´s to win some slams, especially Wimby and I cheered for Henman. I really liked him as both person and player, but the problem for me is that I simply cant stand either Murray´s play or personality:(
 
H2H:

Andy Murray 4 >>>>>> Del potro 1

Master Series:

Andy Murray 4 >>>>>>> Del Potro 0


Some people here are soo naive and obnoxious...
 
In tennis, great offense will beat great defense just about every time. Guys like Federer, Del Potro, Nadal, and even Djokovic when he's playing well have the ability to rip a match out of their opponents hands. They have the ability to make their opponent an irrelevant part of whatever match they play if they are on their A game. Murray will always be at the mercy of a good ball striker having a good day. And the tour is FULL of them.



+1. If you need more evidence on this point, here it is: Gael Monfils.

Murray is a slower version of Monfils. That ain't good.
 
That's YOUR opinion.

The fact is, Murray has been able to defeat the top four consistantly while Del Potro has only really mananged to get a rhythm with Nadal only.
It's the opinion of pretty much everyone in the game.

Most people have no idea how many MS titles Sampras, Safin or Kuerten won, but everyone knows their number of slams.

I don't think that Del Potro is a more talented player than Murray, he's too one-dimensional for that.
But Del Potro has beaten Nadal and Federer back-to-back in a slam, this will be remembered in 10 years, but not many will know the number of MS that Murray won between 2008 and 2009.
 
I'm afraid that's just not true. Hey, i'll create a thread with a poll to see who comes out on top? is that ok?
Sure, go ahead.

For historic significance:

Del Potro's 1 slam > Murray's 4 MS
Agassi's career slams * > Agassi's MS record


* The fact that Federer has equalled one feat but not the other has diminished the former's value.
But when both records are broken, which could happen this year, the career slams will be percieved as Agassi's biggest achievement by nearly everyone.
 
People have been overrating Del Potro a lot since he won the US open, I mean Murray has been the second best player, has been more consistent player in the last one year if we compare him to Del Potro. Del Potro was good for two weeks and congrats on him on winning a slam but he was quite lucky to win this slam lets be honest here.

Murray is still ahead of him in the ranking and in the long run will end up winning more slams than Del Potro.
Lets be really honest

Murray has been second best this year, only because the true number 2 has been crippled with injury and his rival for number 3 has been a total headcase for the past 12 months.

Murray's success has come of the back of his hard work, not his 'talent'.

When he was another lazy player not working hard on his fitness he was having pretty mediocre results. There were no flashes of brilliance that made people think this guy is going to dominate. The Murray Hype Machine only started when he pulled his finger out and started trying to match Nadal in the fitness department. Murray has been working his ass off and is probably in as good condition as he can be right now, and any gains from now will only be minor and will have little bearing on actual match results.

Murray has been at his peak both Physically and Technically for a while now. He has no obvious weaknesses in his game or his conditioning. For him to break through this grand slam plateau he is going to have to fundamentally change the way he approaches matches tactically. Its not an easy task to make such a change, and I dont think there has ever been a player to win a slam who has managed it by changing their natural way of playing. Hewitt tried to change his style later on in his career and it was disastrous.

When you look at a player like Nadal or Federer in their early years they were already fundamentally the player that they are today. Federer an amazing shot maker, Nadal a tremendous athlete with Borg like Natural stamina and athleticism. Federer's game rose as he began to work harder, Nadal's game rose as he shored up his technical weaknesses.

Murray's obvious attributes were his court craft and his ability to control rally's with placement, spin, change of pace etc, like a male Hingis.

No player has succeeded with that kind of style since Wilander, and he was so mentally burned out he never won a slam after his career year, and there are no GOAT contenders who played like that besides Rosewall.

Murray might win 1, 2 or maybe 3 slams in his career if he is lucky. If he manages to stay injury free.If he manages to stay in the kind of shape he is now he will have a chance if he can go through a field where he doesn't encounter a more naturally aggressive player on a hot streak.

Players who work so hard on their fitness however rarely stay at their peak for longer than a couple of years though. Lendl is an exception, since he was a power baseliner rather than a grinder, but look at guys like Courier, Muster or Hewitt. Even guys like Borg and Nadal who were naturally very gifted physically even have trouble maintaining their bodies while playing a grinding style. Borg was mentally burned out at 25 (maybe physically too, who knows?), and Nadal's body is certainly starting to show signs of decline.

If Murray is going to go on a Grand Slam rampage then the clock is ticking, because once his body starts to wear down, we're going to find out just how much 'talent' he really has.

All signs point to Murray not being an all time great.
 
Last edited:
H2H:

Andy Murray 4 >>>>>> Del potro 1

Master Series:

Andy Murray 4 >>>>>>> Del Potro 0


Some people here are soo naive and obnoxious...
I never said only the MS wins. The H2H against the top 4, the H2H between those two and the MS all together makes it much more worthy than 1 single slam.
 
How can anyone say Murray's at his physical peak and is therefore playing at his absolute peak at the moment? That is incorrect, Murray was playing spectacular tennis, showing flashes of brilliance before Wimbledon last year (the main thing is flashes of brilliance). Since then he is a different player.

Between this period (Wimbledon last year and AO this year) he performed so well in most events he entered that most people had him as a favorite over even both Federer and Nadal for winning the AO this year. If a person can improve so drastically in such a short period of time, there is no reason to believe that he can't get better again this time when the new season starts in January. He has all the shorts that anyone can be proud of. The two glaring weaknesses in his game is his loopy forehand and horrible second serve. If he can work and develop on these two aspects during the offseason, he will be unplayable next year.
 
Both faced Federer in the US Open finals. Murray got destroyed, and Delpo won. If Delpo was British, he would be hyped much more than Murray. But when your best player in a long time is Tim Henman, and someone like Murray comes along, of course they're going to hype him and believe he's something which he is not.

If Del Potro keeps this play up, he will be the next #1 after Federer leaves (or gets old), while Murray, Djokovic and Nadal vie for the other top spots.
 
How can anyone say Murray's at his physical peak and is therefore playing at his absolute peak at the moment? That is incorrect, Murray was playing spectacular tennis, showing flashes of brilliance before Wimbledon last year (the main thing is flashes of brilliance). Since then he is a different player.

Between this period (Wimbledon last year and AO this year) he performed so well in most events he entered that most people had him as a favorite over even both Federer and Nadal for winning the AO this year. If a person can improve so drastically in such a short period of time, there is no reason to believe that he can't get better again this time when the new season starts in January. He has all the shorts that anyone can be proud of. The two glaring weaknesses in his game is his loopy forehand and horrible second serve. If he can work and develop on these two aspects during the offseason, he will be unplayable next year.
I don't know about being unplayable but he definitley has scope for improvement.
 
I don't know about being unplayable but he definitley has scope for improvement.
Well if a player like Federer has some scope of improvement (his backhand) then everyone else does as well.

I am pretty confident Murray will beat Del Potro the next time these two play each other.
 
Well if a player like Federer has some scope of improvement (his backhand) then everyone else does as well.

I am pretty confident Murray will beat Del Potro the next time these two play each other.
But Murray has beaten Del Potro the last two times they play on HC. Del Potro is no match for Murray. On clay DP the favorite obviously.
 
But Murray has beaten Del Potro the last two times they play on HC. Del Potro is no match for Murray. On clay DP the favorite obviously.
It's the last 3 times, but I think 'no match for Murray' is a bit silly to be honest - the guy has just won a hardcourt slam by beating Roger and Rafa!
 
How can anyone say Murray's at his physical peak and is therefore playing at his absolute peak at the moment? That is incorrect, Murray was playing spectacular tennis, showing flashes of brilliance before Wimbledon last year (the main thing is flashes of brilliance). Since then he is a different player.

Between this period (Wimbledon last year and AO this year) he performed so well in most events he entered that most people had him as a favorite over even both Federer and Nadal for winning the AO this year. If a person can improve so drastically in such a short period of time, there is no reason to believe that he can't get better again this time when the new season starts in January. He has all the shorts that anyone can be proud of. The two glaring weaknesses in his game is his loopy forehand and horrible second serve. If he can work and develop on these two aspects during the offseason, he will be unplayable next year.
Murray started working seriously on his fitness after his loss to Nadal at the AO 2007. He had been steadily climbing the rankings then had a big jump mid 2008 coinciding with the huge gains he had made in conditioning (hence the whole bicep showing thing).

He's been playing at roughly the same level since 2008 USopen with no noticeable level of improvement since then. This leads me to believe he has entered his peak. The point where any improvements he has been making are not obvious nor have any direct bearing on his results.

Those two weaknesses are not technical weaknesses. His forehand is loopy because he likes to hit it that way because of his defensive mindset. His second serve is spiny and 'horrible' because he doesn't like to double fault and doesn't go after that serve as much as he could.
 
But Murray has beaten Del Potro the last two times they play on HC. Del Potro is no match for Murray. On clay DP the favorite obviously.
Murray barely scraped through in their last match in Montreal. Del Potro was very fatigued and was only a couple of points away from a straight sets win.
 
Top