Del Potro: should he have done better than Murray?

[Nadalfan2013]

Nadal hardly gets tired because he takes his time between points to recuperate. I'd say that Federer physically has even more reserve at 38 years old than Nadal ever had because even after long points (for example vs Nadal and Djokovic) he quickly rushes to the service line or return position, and is ready for the next point after barely 10 seconds. So Federer is the one who has a "stamina and endless reserve" advantage over the others, not Nadal. Nadal would never be able to last 5 sets by only taking 10 seconds between points like Federer because sometimes he even needs 30 seconds (like against Medvedev in the 5th set when he got a point penalty) to recuperate.

 

[El Dude]

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.



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.

You're right, Rafa does have endless reserves - which is why I think the idea of him being 100% injury-free is a bit of a unicorn. The two go hand-in-hand, at least according to the "heroic Greek" logic I'm hypothesizing.

This is one of the problems with super-athletes: they're doing things that human bodily evolution hasn't caught up to. This is why so many pitchers in baseball require Tommy John Surgery: the human arm is simply not meant to throw an object 90-100+ MPH. It may be that Rafa gets hurt because of his incredible (peerless) physical fitness, and that maybe he's healthier these days because he's figured out how to shorten his matches and isn't wearing down as much. I don't know where we'd find that data, though.

As for del Potro, I agree - and it was surprising that it took him so long to win a Masters.

 

[Moxie]

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.

He wasn't dealing well with the heat, the crowd in the stadium and out of it was against him, and he didn't find his A-game. But hot, cranky and feeling un-loved is basically a toddler's excuse for having a bad day. I think his RG 2012 performance wasn't his best, either. I'm just saying that the opponent has something to do with it, too.

 

[Moxie]

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.

Nadal is a very fit athlete, but he doesn't have "endless reserve." And I would say that Djokovic is in that category, since '11, so it's not like he's the only one who can out-last players. Nadal was pretty tired in the '14 RG match, and was glad to see it over in 4. He was visibly lackluster physically in the AO '17 final. I would say he's won more big matches on mental reserve than physical. But I really don't see how you denigrate his "spot serving" when you don't denigrate Roger's. It's not the heft in the serve as much as the placement. Why is Nadal's so offensive to you, and Roger's isn't?

 

[atttomole]

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.

I agree with this. Djokovic came after Federer and Nadal had already established their rivalry, which meant that he became the ‘other one’. I think it is a bit unfair when some people say that he desperately wants the same attention that Nadal and Federer get.

 

[tented]

I agree with this. Djokovic came after Federer and Nadal had already established their rivalry, which meant that he became the ‘other one’. I think it is a bit unfair when some people say that he desperately wants the same attention that Nadal and Federer get.

I agree. It’s clear he wants more attention than Nadal and Federer.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Djokovic is just a boring player to watch. Sure he's a talented excellent player, but his shots are so mechanical and boring to watch, there's nothing exciting about his game. There are tons of baseliners who play like Djokovic but the main difference is that he's more consistent and stronger mentally. His style can be described as "solid".

On the other hand, Nadal and Federer have more unique games and a style, something different that makes the crowd go "wow". Their games are interesting and different from other players. That's why people love them more, they are more unique and their games have a certain "je ne sais quoi". B-)

 

[Moxie]

I agree. It’s clear he wants more attention than Nadal and Federer.

I don't agree with atttomole that it's unfair to say he "desperately" wants it, either. Even Bonaca, our biggest Novak fan, I'd say, says that celebration and hugging up the competitors is too much. It does come off as a bit desperate.

 

[atttomole]

I agree. It’s clear he wants more attention than Nadal and Federer.

At best, he could get the same attention as Federer or Nadal, so I don’t think he dreams of getting more attention than them.

 

[mrzz]

Back to the thread initial question (just read it now, some great posts within it), I have zero doubt del Potro would have done better than Murray. Two things: one is to remember that del Potro did not play the very next major after USO 2009 (AO 2010). He never had any kind of consistency at the top, which is something immensely important to navigate you through all those rounds of 8 of life.

I read somewhere up thread that Murray has more variety in his game than del Potro. A counter puncher's variety is always overrated. Murray has the lob, I'll give you that, but apart from it, not exactly great variety. Of course one match does not tell it all, but Wimbledon 2012 final shows how one player with actual variety deals with a pretty much one-dimensional one.

 

[tented]

At best, he could get the same attention as Federer or Nadal, so I don’t think he dreams of getting more attention than them.

I don't agree with atttomole that it's unfair to say he "desperately" wants it, either. Even Bonaca, our biggest Novak fan, I'd say, says that celebration and hugging up the competitors is too much. It does come off as a bit desperate.

Novak Djokovic’s mother admits she ‘suffers’ over the lack of love for her son

 

[El Dude]

Boo-hoo, no one loves me. I'm going to go be sad in my $8.9 million luxury condo...

 

[Moxie]

Well, here's something, anyway...the thread was derailed to talk about Djokovic, not the Fedal Wars, so he's not completely dismissed.

 

[Moxie]

Back to the thread initial question (just read it now, some great posts within it), I have zero doubt del Potro would have done better than Murray. Two things: one is to remember that del Potro did not play the very next major after USO 2009 (AO 2010). He never had any kind of consistency at the top, which is something immensely important to navigate you through all those rounds of 8 of life.

I read somewhere up thread that Murray has more variety in his game than del Potro. A counter puncher's variety is always overrated. Murray has the lob, I'll give you that, but apart from it, not exactly great variety. Of course one match does not tell it all, but Wimbledon 2012 final shows how one player with actual variety deals with a pretty much one-dimensional one.

I'm watching Andy play a final with Stan right now and I don't know how you are so dismissive of Murray's variety, particularly in comparison with Juan Martín's.

 

[mrzz]

I'm watching Andy play a final with Stan right now and I don't know how you are so dismissive of Murray's variety, particularly in comparison with Juan Martín's.

I watched good bits of that match. Wawrinka unfortunately is still making a lots of idiotic mistakes. When he kept those down, Murray could not see the color of the balls flying past him. Whatever variety you see in Murray you will find in any other defensive oriented player. Watch de Minaur and you get the same feeling.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Back to the thread initial question (just read it now, some great posts within it), I have zero doubt del Potro would have done better than Murray. Two things: one is to remember that del Potro did not play the very next major after USO 2009 (AO 2010). He never had any kind of consistency at the top, which is something immensely important to navigate you through all those rounds of 8 of life.

I read somewhere up thread that Murray has more variety in his game than del Potro. A counter puncher's variety is always overrated. Murray has the lob, I'll give you that, but apart from it, not exactly great variety. Of course one match does not tell it all, but Wimbledon 2012 final shows how one player with actual variety deals with a pretty much one-dimensional one.

He definitely played at the 2010 AO. I don’t remember who he lost to (Cilic?) but I remember he won a great match vs Blake.

 

[mrzz]

He definitely played at the 2010 AO. I don’t remember who he lost to (Cilic?) but I remember he won a great match vs Blake.

I looked it up and he did play the 2010 AO, you remember correctly the loss to Cilic -- it would be his final match in months, finally having wrist surgery on May 2010. He only came back late September, his final record for 2010 was 3 wins and 3 losses, so actually it is worst than I thought.

 

[Moxie]

I watched good bits of that match. Wawrinka unfortunately is still making a lots of idiotic mistakes. When he kept those down, Murray could not see the color of the balls flying past him. Whatever variety you see in Murray you will find in any other defensive oriented player. Watch de Minaur and you get the same feeling.

Respectfully, I think that you have a prejudice against what you call "counter-punchers." You haven't explained why they tend to be "over-valued" as having variety. Also, you act as if Wawrinka hitting the cover off the ball is some kind of compensation for "variety." Yes, he hits the ball really hard. So does del Potro. Is this really a "variety?"

 

[brokenshoelace]

Respectfully, I think that you have a prejudice against what you call "counter-punchers." You haven't explained why they tend to be "over-valued" as having variety. Also, you act as if Wawrinka hitting the cover off the ball is some kind of compensation for "variety." Yes, he hits the ball really hard. So does del Potro. Is this really a "variety?"

I'm 100% with him on this one. I'll explain later. Hard to post when we have a full blown revolution taking place here.

 

[mrzz]

Respectfully, I think that you have a prejudice against what you call "counter-punchers." You haven't explained why they tend to be "over-valued" as having variety. Also, you act as if Wawrinka hitting the cover off the ball is some kind of compensation for "variety." Yes, he hits the ball really hard. So does del Potro. Is this really a "variety?"

I have prejudice against Murray.

Off course that a counter puncher can have a lot of variety, but all of them will always seem to have it more than the others, because they are constantly being forced to use shots that would not use if they were in control of the point. Ok, if they are good counter punchers, they need to be at least ok in most shots. But a lot of players are, it is just that being more in control of points (even if they end up making an UFE), you have the choice of using the shot you are more comfortable with. In the end the shot selection is dictated by (the power of) choice.

I am not saying that Wawrinka or del Potro have "great" variety, just that the difference to a guy like Murray is not that big. Hard hitters can have some variety, as they can hit big from both wings, from different directions and with different angles -- even with different spins. Of course a lot of them will mostly close their eyes and hit a monster cross court. But this is not the case with both guy mentioned here. Wawrinka can do a lot of different things with his back hand, while del Po's forehand when is on is not only about power. He sometimes hit it with some odd outside spin which is pretty interesting.

About Murray, ok, he has variety to some degree. He has an extremely good lob as I already mentioned. His drop shot just got better (so that's a new dimension). A good slice (but he uses mostly as a defensive weapon). That's an OK variety. Really not in another league in comparison to del Potro.