The Official Tennis Thread

[Street Knowledge]

Del Potro was a better player than Murray

And that aside Murray is clearly a tier below. He may be the best of the rest at most

Where is the evidence of this

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Where is the evidence of this

Peak delpo USO 2009 is better than any version of Murray

Del po serve and forehand the best two skills between the two players

Injuries derailed him and Murray had the better career

Point is Murray is in that tier and not the Nadal djokovic fed tier

Putting murray with them makes it seem like hes a top 10-15 player all time and he is not

 

[Mazino]

Del Potro was a better player than Murray

And that aside Murray is clearly a tier below. He may be the best of the rest at most

Delpo was a baller but can't say he was better than Murray, his absolute peak was very short.

Murray being disrespected

 

[Street Knowledge]

Peak delpo USO 2009 is better than any version of Murray

Del po serve and forehand the best two skills between the two players

Injuries derailed him and Murray had the better career

Point is Murray is in that tier and not the Nadal djokovic fed tier

Putting murray with them makes it seem like hes a top 10-15 player all time and he is not

You’re not providing any type of evidence though just your opinions. Career winning percentage, career rankings, H2h win loss, majors won/finals etc nothing.

Murray doesn’t have to be in that tier to be better than the typical person fed beat in a major from 2004-2007 whose name wasn’t teenage Nadal.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

You’re not providing any type of evidence though just your opinions. Career winning percentage, career rankings, H2h win loss, majors won/finals etc nothing.

Murray doesn’t have to be in that tier to be better than the typical person fed beat in a major from 2004-2007 whose name wasn’t teenage Nadal.

Del po won his first major years before murray did and did so after beating Nadal and federer consecutively in 2009. He was then more or less injured

Murray beat him in olympics 16...after del po beat djokovic and Nadal. 2012 delpo loses 19-17 to fed in the third [4 hour match] and without a day of rest beats Djokovic in straights

He was injured too much to have the extensive sample size at full health that Murray does but if he was, it would either be a "big 5" with del po included or a "big 3" with Murray and del po grouped in the tier after, which is what I'm suggesting should be the case based on ability

If you can watch del po at his best and say Murray is better then I'll just say I disagree and theres no point of discussing it further

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Murray is with the wawrinka, del po, monfils etc of the world not Nadal novak and fed..unless we are talking about popularity and media driven attention and narratives. In which case we are talking about two different things.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

You’re not providing any type of evidence though just your opinions. Career winning percentage, career rankings, H2h win loss, majors won/finals etc nothing.

Murray doesn’t have to be in that tier to be better than the typical person fed beat in a major from 2004-2007 whose name wasn’t teenage Nadal.

Also Safin in that time period was better than any version of Murray and I believe he and fed split at the aussie in that timeframe

 

[Mazino]

Murray is with the wawrinka, del po, monfils etc of the world not Nadal novak and fed..unless we are talking about popularity and media driven attention and narratives. In which case we are talking about two different things.

It was called the big 4 for a reason, of course Murray is obviously the bottom of the pile but he could hold his own and his consistency year to year was truly elite.

This is a former world #1 we're talking about here.

 

[Formerly known as...]

Peak delpo USO 2009 is better than any version of Murray

Del po serve and forehand the best two skills between the two players

Injuries derailed him and Murray had the better career

Point is Murray is in that tier and not the Nadal djokovic fed tier

Putting murray with them makes it seem like hes a top 10-15 player all time and he is not

Del Potro seemed to get hot at some tournaments but never had much consistency for me. Murray had a level of consistency and although he lost many finals against the Top 3 greats he was always there. Potro and Murray is a good debate but for me Murray doing it for longer (not arguing injuries played a part for Potro) makes him slightly better but it's a good debate. I think when Novak/Fed/Nadal were at very high levels Novak was the one that neither Fed or Nadal wanted any part of in a final outside of FO. Uncle Toni himself said, 'give us Fed over Novak because we know how to best Fed. Novak you just have to pray'

 

[Piff Huxtable]

It was called the big 4 for a reason, of course Murray is obviously the bottom of the pile but he could hold his own and his consistency year to year was truly elite.

This is a former world #1 we're talking about here.

so was Marcelo Rios so miss me with that shyt

 

[Mazino]

so was Marcelo Rios so miss me with that shyt

What a dumb ass comment, was he #1 in this era? Does he have the slam wins, double Olympic gold and comparable overall singles titles?

Murray's world #1 means more than his especially with the other accolades and that was the point.

 

[UpAndComing]

By what metric is he

Okay now name the players he beat in that time span

Fed is third now what are you talking about

How are you the GOAT when your 2 rivals owned you head to head and have more majors

Let's keep it a buck here

Both Nadal and Djokovic have greatly benefited from the courts slowing down in speed by 2010, seeing that they are slow footed ground stroke players

Federer on the other hand when he was a in his teens and early 20s faced the GOAT era of Servers in Sampras and Ivanišević, and Roddikk and Safin in his prime.... All on faster courts

Nadal and Djokovic have had the benefit of slower courts plus an era where they were less power players. And whenever they came up against them, they usually fell short. Nadal got blown off the court by Del Potro in the 2009 US Open and lost to no name Soldering. Djokovic also lost to Del Petro and faltered to Wawrinka

Us Fed fans let y'all talk because we know y'all hate to hear the truth. We giving y'all a grace period

Don't let this happen again

 

[Mazino]

Oh the slowed down courts argument

Y'all need to get some new material

 

[LiveFromLondon]

Both Nadal and Djokovic have greatly benefited from the courts slowing down in speed by 2010, seeing that they are slow footed ground stroke players

Courts where slowed down before Fed ever won a slam and was a good thing because it improved the sport as a spectacle otherwise it be guys like isner and mahut serving and volleying to titles Do you also forget JDP blew Federer away at the USO aswell and Djokovic is 20-6 against Wawrinka

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

It was called the big 4 for a reason, of course Murray is obviously the bottom of the pile but he could hold his own and his consistency year to year was truly elite.

This is a former world #1 we're talking about here.

Because Murray was a Brit and more marketable, particularly at Wimbledon and London Olympics than Del Potro..in addition to the consistency and longevity.

In terms of evaluating careers, Murray was more successful. But he did not achieve the amount of success needed to be put in that tier with the big 3. Compared to Nadal Fed and Djokovic it would be laughable.

In terms of evaluating peak ability, he did not have the weapons or shot making that Del Po had.

For marketing purposes and convenience, sure he was in the general vicinity of the big 3 more than anyone else but for the majority of his career it was a forced narrative that he was undeserving of. He was a glorified Tim Henman until Lendl got him on track. He earned his wimbledon with a decisive victory over Novak yet both Nadal and fed lost early on his half of the draw.