Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by NamRanger, Sep 14, 2009.
Out of the 3 young top competitors.
1. Del Potro
Well, of course everyone's going to vote for Del Potro when you post this right after the match.
Not sure, it was a tough decider for me between Djokovic and Del Potro. I think Djokovic has the advantage on slower surfaces like clay and slow HCs, where he WILL rack up slams eventually after Federer and Nadal are gone/injured.
Del Potro could be a flash in the pan; not sure about him. Need to see slightly better results after the USO.
I would have voted DelPo before this US Open. In fact, the first time I saw him back in 2007 I knew he'd do something. I'd never seen anyone hit the ball that hard off both sides. He looked a bit gangly but obviously movement isn't a problem.
Just wait until he finds that serve.
good thread Nam.
I personally believe Murray will have the best career of the three. I predict Murray will win at least 4 slams. The other two, will have a maximum 3 each.
Anyway this is just a hunch. DelPo was great to have beaten Fed in a slam final nonetheless , but I'm afraid his height and how he runs the baseline a lot will be too much on his body. Djokovic, again another fantastic player but has been dormant after his slam win in 08.
Djokovic and Del Potro will be bidding for slams at all the same events. Neither is ever going to win Wimbledon so it is the Australian Open, French Open, and U.S Open for them. I disagree with NamRanger that Djokovic is better on clay in the future. The way Del Potro played at the French this year I doubt Djokovic will have the edge on him in the coming years on clay. As for slow hard courts the difference between various types of hard courts are grossly exaggerated.
This is what I'm afraid of. Tall guys tend to get injured alot in this sport. Del Potro so far has avoided it mostly (although there was that minor toe thing, no big deal though).
I hope he doesn't end up like Stich or Krajicek. Delpo's game is more taxing on the body than the other two.
Del Potro has the best offensive game, and Murray the best defensive game.
Djokovic is a good balance between the two. He has the most potential in my opinion. But I'm not sure where his brain is, and whether he can get focused enough again.
I agree; I think Djokovic has the most upside, while Del Potro is the most "dangerous" so to speak.
Yes but best offence > best defence.
Djokovic's offense is nothing to sniff at; I think he actually matches up better with Del Potro than Federer does. He actually moves the ball around better and can change the direction of the ball at will.
Del Potro would have beaten Djokovic easily if they played at any point this summer including this years U.S Open. Djokovic was lucky to even make the semis of the Open this year though he did play very well vs Federer.
Ahhh... thats a tough one.. I still believe Djoker can garner the best career since I think he is the best of the 3 respective surfaces if he would just finally get his head out of his arse and play with a fire and purpose as he used to as Del Potro played TODAY.
Djoker is a very good player on grass, clay and hardcourts. He really is pretty solid everywheres. And to be honest he has the talent to win a career slam in my book.. I just dont think he has the mental fortitude to do so however. Thats something del potro seems to have.. But again his grass game is ehhh..
So IMO.. Djoker SHOULD have the best career out of all of them.. Whether he will or not.. Who knows. I do think he is the best out of all 3 unfortunately he just hasnt proven it.
You overrate Djokovic. He is not that amazing even at his best. Del Potro at this U.S Open was easily better than Djokovic at the 2008 Australian Open. I have never seen Djokovic beat real top players at their best other than maybe Nadal on hard courts (and how many flat hitters arent great matchups for Nadal on hard courts). Djokovic also isnt good enough to win squat on grass, better than Del Potro on it, but certainly not good enough to ever win anything on it. Even if he does win more slams in the future it will never be at Wimbledon.
Weren't you the one that said Djokovic was barely a Top 15 caliber player who got a bunch of lucky draws?
I voted for Juan Martin because he is very mature,great game and IMO will have a great future.He played fantastic today.
Alot of people werent saying that though back when Djoker was beating Fed at the AO, making big runs on overrall hardcourt surfaces and making runs are Nadal in top form on clay.
Ive seen what Djoker is capable of on various and I see no reason why anyone would think hes overrated. I think he is arguably easily one of the most talented guys out there who really could have potential at winning on every surface. Of course Del Potro can as well if he develops a better grass game.. Delpo could win both HC slams and RG as well though..
Murray just doesnt have the game or weapons IMO to succeed slam wise on every surface. But they are all young so who knows. They can still develop.
Del Potro at this point in time looks the most promising.. But again.. time will tell. I still question if that big dude can keep up the all out grind of the tour. Hes not the smallest guy in the world.
So some people were overrating Djokovic at one point in time. I dont care, I for one never overrated his abilities and knew he was being overrated by many people back then. Of course he has only gone on to prove me so right. What did Djokovic beat in early 2008 during this brief glory run you refer to? Sick or not Federer completely out of sorts and playing his worst tennis since 2001, Nadal sucking on hard courts around then, Murray a non factor back then. OK so to win the Australian Open and Indian Wells he beat a nervous Tsonga in his first slam final who played nowhere near his pre-finals level and the legendary Mardy Fish in the Indian Wells final. Somehow I wasnt convinced by that we had our next World beater for life.
What is your basis for saying he can win on grass? What has he ever achieved on grass. No titles, and 1 Wimbledon semi which he arrived at going 5 sets with a way past his prime Hewitt and Baghdatis before quitting against Nadal. In his best year ever being whooped by a nearly retired Safin. There is zero basis for saying Djokovic is capable of ever winning Wimbledon.
Djokovic is better than Del Potro on grass but neither has a prayer of ever winning a big title on grass. So the titles they will be vyeing for are on the same surfaces- hard courts and clay. Del Potro has surpassed Djokovic on hard courts it seems, and based on his FO semifinal performance this year could easily show he has surpassed him on clay during next years clay court season. Djokovic is better on grass but neither are ever going to be winning there so who cares.
Now why do u believe this exactly? Nadal and Fed have pretty much hogged up the spotlight at Wimbeldon for the passed few years. What happens when Fed totally declines/retires etc and whatever happens to Nadal injury wise where he may not reach that top level again? Roddick is no spring chicken anymore either. This will leave Wimbeldon open for the pickings. There is going to be big gap there for players to grab that wimbeldon.
Djokovic's last 3 tournaments on grass he has lost to washed up Safin on his worst surface and 31 year old Tommy Haas TWICE. His biggest win to date on grass is a way past his prime Hewitt in 5 tough sets. So feel free to remind me why you think there wont be anyone left once Federer and Nadal are gone from the top level (which I agree will be 3 years from now max if not sooner) to beat him there. He hasnt proven much of anything on grass. Murray I already believe is a better grass courter than Djokovic.
He won his USO by beating Rafa and Fed. Nole and Muray have never done that.
Of course people are going to say Del Potro.I'm going for Djokovic.
he beat rafa that could barely move.
I have to add to my previous post and say that of all three of them, I believe JMDP has the best attitude. This is in two ways:
1. He believes in himself, that he has the ability to hang with, and beat the very best. He has come a long way since that 6-3 6-0 6-0 beating at the AO. I was there in person and was appalled at the absolute lack of heart, and I was sure that JMDP wasn't slam material. But he has come back and shown in the French and USO that he has truly matured.
2. He has shown the most improvement. In terms of natural stroke production and mechanics, JMDP isn't the naturally talented; in fact I think (and still do, actually) that his strokes look rather awkward, but that is probably due to his height and wingspan. However, he has learnt how to maximize the effectiveness of his strokes, and how to impose his game on other players. Murray has continually refused to improve on his attacking game, and Djokovic...while he has the best strokes of the three, his game has remained stagnant at best since the 2008 AO.
I completely agree. I also thought of this, Djokovic being somewhere in the middle between those two.
Delpo looks very composed, consistent. His mental game at USO final was very impressive. His attacking game is brilliant.
Djokovic also has great attacking game, he's not as powerful as Delpo but certainly is capable of using the court to his full advantage. Better mover than Delpo.
Murray, eh... I don't see a bright future for him if he doesn't play more aggressive. True, his defence is amazing, but sole defence can get you only so far. I'm kind of annoyed with him because he CAN play more high-risk game, but doesn't want to.
So... It's a tossup between Djokovic and Delpo for me. Still have to see how Delpo does after winning his first slam. I'm going to vote for Djokovic just for the sake of it, because many posters will vote for Delpo right after winning his first slam...
Separate names with a comma.