Del Potro: should he have done better than Murray?

[brokenshoelace]

I still can't believe Front is getting trolled by someone who very clearly has two user names and he's just playing along.

 

[tented]

I still can't believe Front is getting trolled by someone who very clearly has two user names and he's just playing along.

They’re two different people. (IP addresses confirm this.)

 

[brokenshoelace]

They’re two different people. (IP addresses confirm this.)

So the one smart thing that user could have pulled off turn out to be false. Congrats, @Nadal goat2 and @Nadalfan2013 instead of being one idiot who managed to do one smart thing, you're apparently just two idiots.

 

[Front242]

They’re two different people. (IP addresses confirm this.)

If only it were that simple. They most likely ARE two different people but it'd be absolutely simple to have 2 accounts on different IPs.

 

[El Dude]

Without having read the thread--so forgive if I'm repeating what someone has already said--but I think this topic tends to be prone to distortion in two ways: One, Andy tends to be a bit under-appreciated these days, due to not being as good as Fedalkovic; two, del Potro is a bit romanticized of the combination of his terrific 2009 and his injury history, leading to "what could have been" stories. But while I think del Potro might have won as many or more Slams than Andy, I don't think he would have ever had the total resume and sustained excellence. I just don't think he was, or would have been, as well-rounded as Andy became from 2012-16 (second serve aside). He might have been similar to Stanimal, win as many Slams, but with a much lesser secondary resume to Andy.

A third distortian relates to Greek myth and drama: that the strength of heroes can be flipped to discover their weakness. Maybe we can't separate del Potro's domineering forehand from his wrist injuries, just as we probably can't separate Rafa's ferocious tenacity from his balky knees and tendency to wear down in the second half. To imagine Rafa with perfect knees and endless reserve is to imagine Achilles without the heel, or Odysseus without his tendency out-clever himself. Humans just aren't built that way.

 

[Moxie]

Without having read the thread--so forgive if I'm repeating what someone has already said--but I think this topic tends to be prone to distortion in two ways: One, Andy tends to be a bit under-appreciated these days, due to not being as good as Fedalkovic; two, del Potro is a bit romanticized of the combination of his terrific 2009 and his injury history, leading to "what could have been" stories. But while I think del Potro might have won as many or more Slams than Andy, I don't think he would have ever had the total resume and sustained excellence. I just don't think he was, or would have been, as well-rounded as Andy became from 2012-16 (second serve aside). He might have been similar to Stanimal, win as many Slams, but with a much lesser secondary resume to Andy.

A third distortian relates to Greek myth and drama: that the strength of heroes can be flipped to discover their weakness. Maybe we can't separate del Potro's domineering forehand from his wrist injuries, just as we probably can't separate Rafa's ferocious tenacity from his balky knees and tendency to wear down in the second half. To imagine Rafa with perfect knees and endless reserve is to imagine Achilles without the heel, or Odysseus without his tendency out-clever himself. Humans just aren't built that way.

Not repetitive, and, with the 2nd paragraph you have single-handed raised the IQ of this forum of recent weeks by about 150%.

I agree with basically everything in paragraph one, except perhaps that Murray has always been a bit undervalued by some, not just recently. You're right that it's very similar to the comparisons between Andy and Stan, and I believe we've had a thread for that. The main difference is consistency. There has ever been the argument that Murray is in his own category, and there's something to be said for that. He's below the Big 3, but above the rest. Worth remembering he's still the only other #1 of all active players.

As to the Greek myths, I might add Federer without his Nadal, and Novak without his walkabouts, (or his overheads.)

 

[El Dude]

Moxie, you're buttering me up (I don't mind).

Agreed on Andy. He's interesting in that he's hard to characterize historically. Simply replacing Slam wins with Slam finals, and his resume is as good as Edberg's and Becker's. But in the end, he's 3-8 in Slam finals for a reason - but a reason that no other player in the past really had to face (playing alongside the three greatest players of all time).

I was trying to figure out how to fit Roger into that Greek myth idea, but couldn't quite find a way to say it. I think it is something like a combination of his beautiful artistry and mellow demeanor with a lack of that laser-focused competitiveness in the crucial moments. I'm not saying Roger isn't competitive, but that he's not as good in crucial moments as Novak and Rafa are. If I had to choose one of the big three to win a single moment to knowingly save the world, it wouldn't be Roger.

Novak's walkaboutness might be a function of his meditative practice and nature. I think it is hard to be "zen" and really care about winning.

 

[Moxie]

Well, I was buttering you up. But your greek mythologies fall down on Roger and Novak. As I told you, Roger has an easy Achilles heel: Rafa. You just don't like that one. As for Novak, there is the Narcissus myth. He's rather in love with the idea of his own nice guy myth. Or his need to be loved. When it doesn't work out, he can get pretty crabby and be the author of his own distraction/destruction. See, I fixed it for you.

 

[El Dude]

Well, I was buttering you up. But your greek mythologies fall down on Roger and Novak. As I told you, Roger has an easy Achilles heel: Rafa. You just don't like that one. As for Novak, there is the Narcissus myth. He's rather in love with the idea of his own nice guy myth. Or his need to be loved. When it doesn't work out, he can get pretty crabby and be the author of his own distraction/destruction. See, I fixed it for you.

I don't deny that Roger has had a Rafa problem, but that doesn't fit my initial Greek idea, which is that a "hero's" greatest strength can be flipped over to reveal their weakness--and the two can't be separated. That's why I cited Rafa, because it is more clear than Roger and Novak.

Anyhow, the reason I even mentioned it is that while I like to play what if, it usually has limitations. To imagine a healthy del Potro is to imagine a player he couldn't have been. To imagine a Rafa who never missed a big tournament is to imagine a lesser version of Rafa that doesn't play as hard as he does, at least if we want to be realistic.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Anyhow, the reason I even mentioned it is that while I like to play what if, it usually has limitations. To imagine a healthy del Potro is to imagine a player he couldn't have been. To imagine a Rafa who never missed a big tournament is to imagine a lesser version of Rafa that doesn't play as hard as he does, at least if we want to be realistic.

There's merit to that argument and I can't really refute it. but I would caution against an absolute statement like that. I typically am hesitant to definitively assume the cause of injuries.

There's certainly logic in Nadal's tendinitis being at least in part due to his physical style, explosive movements, etc... However, at one point we have to accept that sometimes injuries just happen. Professional athletes playing as much and as hard as they do will get hurt. It doesn't always have to be related to the style of play. Nadal's back and wrist issue (which forced him out of a major) don't necessarily have to be related to a playing style.

For Del Potro, it's interesting to ponder whether the wrist issue is a result of the fact that he hits so hard but it's really hard to say. I think this requires a technical breakdown of how exactly he hits his forehand in terms of grip, the amount of wrist he uses, racket head speed etc... which honestly is beyond most of our capabilities.

That said, I agree Murray gets pretty underrated these days. I think a very valid question is should Murray have done more? He was so consistent and reached so many finals, but I don't think he ended up doing as well against the big 3 at majors as he could have. At times even the nature of the way they beat him was too straightforward, although 2 of his final wins came over Djokovic.

 

[Andy22]

If only it were that simple. They most likely ARE two different people but it'd be absolutely simple to have 2 accounts on different IPs.

so you and cali can be the some poster with 2 accounts on different IPS, no one cares about your opinon to make more than one account you need help have having a low IQ keep living in dreamland there every nadal fan is one person lol. don't think you so saitly too try have someone trouble really low by you must have really upset you bro its clear your a big cry baby too bad mods are smart+ do good job here.

 

[El Dude]

There's merit to that argument and I can't really refute it. but I would caution against an absolute statement like that. I typically am hesitant to definitively assume the cause of injuries.

There's certainly logic in Nadal's tendinitis being at least in part due to his physical style, explosive movements, etc... However, at one point we have to accept that sometimes injuries just happen. Professional athletes playing as much and as hard as they do will get hurt. It doesn't always have to be related to the style of play. Nadal's back and wrist issue (which forced him out of a major) don't necessarily have to be related to a playing style.

For Del Potro, it's interesting to ponder whether the wrist issue is a result of the fact that he hits so hard but it's really hard to say. I think this requires a technical breakdown of how exactly he hits his forehand in terms of grip, the amount of wrist he uses, racket head speed etc... which honestly is beyond most of our capabilities.

That said, I agree Murray gets pretty underrated these days. I think a very valid question is should Murray have done more? He was so consistent and reached so many finals, but I don't think he ended up doing as well against the big 3 at majors as he could have. At times even the nature of the way they beat him was too straightforward, although 2 of his final wins came over Djokovic.

Well, I don't mean it in an absolute sense, just as a hypothesis. There are other factors and, as you say, sometimes shit just happens. And yeah, not at all sure about Del Potro. Certainly he's not the only guy who hits it that hard, and some guys do just fine. So there are other components: genetics, training, form, etc.

I think part of Andy's problem is that he didn't stand out over the Big Three in any way. He beat them on occasion, but mostly because the other played below his best level (with the possible exception of some GS wins over Novak where he won the war of attrition). Where Roger, Rafa, and Novak were--at least at various points in their careers--capable of beating each other's A games, Andy's A game was always a step below.

 

[Jelenafan]

Mythologies and identities:

Novak has always had a tough row to hoe, he followed in the footsteps ( at least at the upper tennis echelon) where Rafa and Federer previously had forged a path. Federer was perceived as the silky player and Rafa as the passionate one, who already had a storied rivalry by the time Novak emerged as a genuine #1 player.

Novak wasn’t as “sportsmanlike” as Federer nor was he perceived as “humble” as Rafa; mind you, I’m not saying it’s accurate, just that those are the sports personas that those two hard carved out. (Personally I think all top players including my faves are raging selfish egoists buts that nether here nor there...)

Novak seemed at first to be the jokester, the funny one who sometimes tried too hard to be liked. It didn’t help his image that Federites perceived that Methuselah didn’t cotton to Novak from the getgo, there was a palpable personality friction in their matches absent I feel from Rafa/Federer matches.

With time Novak figured out he was never going to be beloved like those two, and he’s almost made his peace with it. “Screw you, ill just beat the crap out of your faves” became his mantra. Almost being the operative word with Novak because the cracks show where Novak reveals it still bugs him that he’s not as respected and admired as he should be.

Call it insecurity, petulance, etc . I call it human and to me it makes Novak more personally appealing because the thing is I think he’ll never get over the slights he feels with the tennis public. It’s always bubbling below the surface. So you have one of the greatest fighters in tennis history who feels ( rightly or wrongly) unloved. Mix his own personal idiosyncrasies and you have maybe not Greek Tragedy but Shakespearean drama, our tennis Othello.

Though I wouldn’t necessarily call Fedal Desdemona.....

 

[El Dude]

Nice sketch, Jelenafan. I would only add--as more specultation--that it might be that Novak's insecurity around not being as loved as Fedal might be what has counter-balanced his "zen-ness" and kept him competing. If he didn't have that insecurity he might be too satisfied with his accomplishments and just being in the moment, but instead he's trying to surpass the two more beloved ones (and might just do that).

I've never even thought of it this way, but in a way Roger, Rafa, and Novak are like three brothers growing up in the same household. In that sense, Novak is the youngest, maybe even the brightest who will surpass his older brothers, but he's also the most neglected because he came third.

 

[Moxie]

Well, I don't mean it in an absolute sense, just as a hypothesis. There are other factors and, as you say, sometimes shit just happens. And yeah, not at all sure about Del Potro. Certainly he's not the only guy who hits it that hard, and some guys do just fine. So there are other components: genetics, training, form, etc.

I think part of Andy's problem is that he didn't stand out over the Big Three in any way. He beat them on occasion, but mostly because the other played below his best level (with the possible exception of some GS wins over Novak where he won the war of attrition). Where Roger, Rafa, and Novak were--at least at various points in their careers--capable of beating each other's A games, Andy's A game was always a step below.

I agree that we can't know why del Potro has had such bad wrist issues, though it "seems" to me that it's more in his genetic make-up than in his game, because I really can't think of anyone else who has his career so altered to the point of almost ended, and certainly lessened, by wrist issues. Can you?

I disagree that Andy didn't outplay Novak in the Wimbledon final. I don't think Djokovic was impressive that day, but Murray played excellent grass tennis that day...I think he'd have beaten any version of Novak that day. Also, at the USO, I think they were pretty even, but not especially great at the same time. Sure, the wind was a factor, but Andy has made himself into a very good wind player, and that's part of the deal in outdoor tennis.

 

[El Dude]

Moxie, I didn't say that Andy didn't outplay Novak - in fact, I even said "with the possible of exception of some GS wins over Novak"). His game is closest to Novak's, and some of those wins were him simply out-lasting Novak (thus "attrition"). So we're not disagreeing on that, unless you're taking my use of "possibly" and "mostly" as being more definitive than they are.

 

[Moxie]

Moxie, I didn't say that Andy didn't outplay Novak - in fact, I even said "with the possible of exception of some GS wins over Novak"). His game is closest to Novak's, and some of those wins were him simply out-lasting Novak (thus "attrition"). So we're not disagreeing on that, unless you're taking my use of "possibly" and "mostly" as being more definitive than they are.

I don't want to quibble over this, but my reaction was to this: "He beat them on occasion, but mostly because the other played below his best level (with the possible exception of some GS wins over Novak where he won the war of attrition)." You forgot the last part that you appended to "with the possible exception of some GS wins." I don't think he won the war of attrition at W. And I've made my case about the USO final. It's a small matter, and maybe you didn't really mean that. But Murray gets such short shrift around here, I wanted to make the point that it wasn't just wearing Novak down that won him those two finals.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Novak was honestly pretty crap in the 2013 Wimbledon final. Probably his worst ever final performance. Still, that means Murray outplayed him, which I don't think El Dude was disputing.

 

[Jelenafan]

Andy to me was always “Novak-light” , in that he did everything Novak did just not as well.

I could admire some aspects of his game in isolation but when he played Novak , God, it was like water torture to me; two players with similar style and since Andy couldn’t genuinely impose his game Novak was content to just wait him out in rallies.

Soil erosion was more entertaining.

 

[calitennis127]

Without having read the thread--so forgive if I'm repeating what someone has already said--but I think this topic tends to be prone to distortion in two ways: One, Andy tends to be a bit under-appreciated these days, due to not being as good as Fedalkovic; two, del Potro is a bit romanticized of the combination of his terrific 2009 and his injury history, leading to "what could have been" stories. But while I think del Potro might have won as many or more Slams than Andy, I don't think he would have ever had the total resume and sustained excellence. I just don't think he was, or would have been, as well-rounded as Andy became from 2012-16 (second serve aside). He might have been similar to Stanimal, win as many Slams, but with a much lesser secondary resume to Andy.

Fair points but I still think Del Potro could have done better in MS events too. An event like Cincinnati or Bercy is one he should have cleaned up at a few times.

A third distortian relates to Greek myth and drama: that the strength of heroes can be flipped to discover their weakness. Maybe we can't separate del Potro's domineering forehand from his wrist injuries, just as we probably can't separate Rafa's ferocious tenacity from his balky knees and tendency to wear down in the second half. To imagine Rafa with perfect knees and endless reserve is to imagine Achilles without the heel, or Odysseus without his tendency out-clever himself. Humans just aren't built that way.

For all intents and purposes, Nadal does have endless reserve. That's one of the reasons he has won the big events that he has. Compared to everyone else he hardly ever gets tired (definitely not in-match). The problem for him indoors is that the courts typically have a low bounce and he can't rely on outdoor elements (wind) and/or a gigantic goofy stadium set-up (i.e. Ashe) to muscle his way through matches with defense and gadget serving.