[Caesar1844]

Ignoring Masters is just cherrypicking to make him look like he had a less inconsistent year than he actually did.

[Mark Lenders]

Originally Posted by Caesar1844

Ignoring Masters is just cherrypicking to make him look like he had a less inconsistent year than he actually did.

Ok, I'll bite . He played 8 Masters in 2009, reached QF 3 times, SF twice and F once. That's 6/8 Masters where he either lived up or surpassed his seeding. He was definitely not as good as at Slams relative to his closest competitors, but he was consistent, he was definitely not stinking it up at the Masters level.

Face it, you have no case. He was the second best player in the biggest events by a distance, and consistent at Masters level too (#5). You should maybe focus on attacking his performance on 250s/500s, he was actually quite inconsistent in those in 2009

[Hewitt =Legend]

Originally Posted by Mark Lenders

Why do people insist on this myth? He played one truly great match the whole fortnight, against Nadal in the semis. Apart from that, he lost a set to Kohlerer and needed quite a bit help from Cilic to make it to the semis. As for the final, both Federer and Del Potro served very poorly. Yes, he made a lot of incredible forehand winners but that's hardly something exclusive to that match/tournament; he actually played better in some of the tight matches he lost vs Federer over the years, like RG 2009 and Olympics last year.

JMDP was the second best player in the five big events of 2009 (Slams + WTF) even if we ignore USO 2009, his title did not come out of the blue, he was consistently performing better than everyone apart from Federer at the big events.

That match against Koellerer was actually high quality stuff and one of the most entertaining matches of the tournament. And he ended up dismantling Cilic quite convincingly in the end, I think the last three sets were like 3,2,1 or something and he played at a high standard even though Cilic folded pretty meekly. Destroys Nadal in the semis and then beats Federer in the final.

I'm sorry, but I call beating Nadal and Federer back2back catching fire even if he didn't play at his peak all the way through (your words).

And to answer the thread question again, I think it is extremely unlikely he can win one in the forseeable future unless he can improve the points I made in my aforementioned post. To many flaws in his game... (yes, they were there before the wrist surgery as well)

[Caesar1844]

Originally Posted by Mark Lenders

Ok, I'll bite . He played 8 Masters in 2009, reached QF 3 times, SF twice and F once. That's 6/8 Masters where he either lived up or surpassed his seeding. He was definitely not as good as at Slams relative to his closest competitors, but he was consistent, he was definitely not stinking it up at the Masters level.

Face it, you have no case. He was the second best player in the biggest events by a distance, and consistent at Masters level too (#5). You should maybe focus on attacking his performance on 250s/500s, he was actually quite inconsistent in those in 2009

Thanks for proving my point. His overall results in big events show him as a regular top 10 player having a good year. Not a serious slam contender until he got red hot at the USO.

Have always said Del Spudtro is a legit top 10 player when at his best. That doesn't really mean he has what it takes to run with the big boys. His USO run was an aberration.

[Sombrerero loco]

this board is hilarious. compare just murray´s achievements to delpo´s. no words
more slam finals, many more MS titles, 2 olimpic medals over 0, best high career ranking....well just there is no comparison between those 2

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by Sombrerero loco

this board is hilarious. compare just murray´s achievements to delpo´s. no words
more slam finals, many more MS titles, 2 olimpic medals over 0, best high career ranking....well just there is no comparison between those 2

Did someone said DP's achievements were better?? No. The comparison was who had/has a better peak game.

[Hewitt =Legend]

Comparing peak games is pretty meaningless in the end when one player reaches it far more consistently than the other.

[Burrow]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

Murray is a bad match up for Del Potro, but if we are comparing peak vs peak, that is irrelevant. And still, despite being a bad match up there matches haven't been very one-sided.

In Rome 2008 JMDP was outside the top 50 and was a shadow of the player he would become and still the match was close untill he retired.

USO 2008 was after Delpo's breakthrough that was in the autumn of 2008 when he won 4 titles in a row (altgough he still wasn't at his peak). The match was very close 7-6, 7-6, 4-6, 7-5. JMDP served for the 1st set and was a break up in the 2nd set or the 4th one, can't remember which one.

Miami the same year was a pretty comfortable much for Murray.

In Madrid Del Potro won.

In Montreal it was very close untill DP fell apart in the 3rd. He almost wins that match though.

The WTF match wasn't easy but not so hard either.

It Murray's peak is really that superior, their matches should have been won much more comfortably by Murray considering he is a bad match up for JMDP. I think peak vs peak it's close, if they face each other at the USO Murray would be the favorite, but not by a big margin given how close the match they played there was.

I don't believe it is irrelevant. Del Potro's optimum performance level would vary from opponent to opponent. It's just lazy analysis to conclude that "it doesn't matter, it's peak vs. peak". I've already stated why. Tennis simply doesn't work like that.

You can run through all of the matches, but all that is supports is my argument.

Despite however much Del Potro is the type of player to dictate matches and their outcome, I can't help but think that it's the other way around when he faces Murray, because Murray possesses all of the necessary attributes to counter as well as neutralise Del Potro's strengths.

[Mark Lenders]

Originally Posted by Hewitt =Legend

That match against Koellerer was actually high quality stuff and one of the most entertaining matches of the tournament. And he ended up dismantling Cilic quite convincingly in the end, I think the last three sets were like 3,2,1 or something and he played at a high standard even though Cilic folded pretty meekly. Destroys Nadal in the semis and then beats Federer in the final.

I'm sorry, but I call beating Nadal and Federer back2back catching fire even if he didn't play at his peak all the way through (your words).

And to answer the thread question again, I think it is extremely unlikely he can win one in the forseeable future unless he can improve the points I made in my aforementioned post. To many flaws in his game... (yes, they were there before the wrist surgery as well)

I agree that the match vs Koelerer was very entertaining He did end up routining Marin in the end, but things would have been quite tough if Cilic was mentally tougher and hadn't imploded, he was a set and a break up and frankly dominating most exchanges. Cilic most definitely let Del Potro back into the match like he did Murray last year at the same stage.

I don't call it catching fire because his overall record against those two in 2009 was 5-4 (3-1 vs Rafa, 2-3 vs Federer) and he had won his two previous matches vs Rafa before USO. It's not like he only beat them in that tournament and it came totally out of the blue. I remember a lot of people at the time expected him to beat Murray and Nadal to reach the final - very few though (myself not included) expected him to actually beat Federer in his first Slam final. If he won, say, RG this year in June I'd agree that he'd have to catch fire and perform way above his level since at the moment he's not at the level of the top guys (or close) and hasn't been since coming back from surgery; in 2009 though, he was.

And I agree that he always had flaws in his game, namely concerning his movement and fitness (and dealing with slices). Lack of plan B isn't really one though imo. I mean, it's not like the players at the top of the game bar Federer are known for employing a variety of strategies to throw their opponents off, they are just better at the key attributes rewarded in this era of tennis: movement, fitness, defense... I do agree that JMDP needs to improve on a few aspects to be a stronger contender. And yes, the weaknesses were there before the injury, but he could keep even the top players at bay with his power and avoid getting those weaknesses fully exposed; surgery forced him to pretty much start from scratch. I'm sure you know how tough it is to return from a major surgery being a Hewitt fan (not that I'm comparing the two, Hewitt definitely had it much tougher with injuries overall).