A better grass court player - Murray or Djokovic

[abmk]

31 UEs is high but by no means the highest number we've ever seen. Djokovic had over 100 UEs in a match with Simon last year and Murray had over 50 recently too.

do you even read?

"Federer had 24 W to 31 UEs in that match. -7. Negative winners to UE ratio. How many *****' times do you see that on grass ?"

read it twice, thrice till you understand.

The djokovic 100 Ues, murray 50+ UEs have absolutely ZERO relevance.

I've already conceded that Fed wasn't necessarily playing his best. It's your contention that he was so exhausted that he could barely walk and had to be ferried around the court on a stretcher that makes me laugh and continues to do so!

he played sh*t tennis and was clearly exhausted. There's no way he could've won vs a player like Murray who was playing that well in that state or even made it close.

 

[Mainad]

I've had this conversation with Mainad so many times man

Federer was 62 winners and 38 UE's in the Wimbledon final, compared to Murray's 46 winners and 25 errors.

Federer was 24 winners and 31 UE's in the Olympics final, comapred to Murrays 27 winners and 17 errors.

Murray's stats were very similar, Federer's were downright awful - especially for his standards and compared to 4 weeks ago. Murray only served at 51% in the Olympics final as well (compared to 56% at Wimbledon), it was basically the same sort of level as his Wimbledon final only this time he faced a below par Federer.

Lol Nat you never change, you really don't. So, in your view, Murray was just as crap in the Olympic final as he had been at Wimbledon a few weeks earlier. The ONLY difference being and I stress ONLY (in your view) was that Fed was just SO exhausted he could barely hit a ball or even move. In other words, in your view, some club player from the local school down the road could have beaten poor old Fed just as handily that day. Keep at it mate, one day you might bring yourself to actually believe it!

 

[abmk]

Lol Nat you never change, you really don't. So, in your view, Murray was just as crap in the Olympic final as he had been at Wimbledon a few weeks earlier.

are you that thick ? seriously ? He's saying Murray played really well, about the same level in both the matches, NOT crap..

The ONLY difference being and I stress ONLY (in your view) was that Fed was just SO exhausted he could barely hit a ball or even move. In other words, in your view, some club player from the local school down the road could have beaten poor old Fed just as handily that day. Keep at it mate, one day you might bring yourself to actually believe it!

not any club player, but any top player ( within top 20 ) playing decent tennis would've beaten fed on that day. But because Murray was playing really well, the scoreline was that lopsided.


come to think of it, you've managed to spectacularly delude yourself into thinking that federer with 24 winners and 31 UEs on grass was playing anywhere near decent tennis. So congratulations, that's quite a feat !!

 

[Mainad]

do you even read?

"Federer had 24 W to 31 UEs in that match. -7. Negative winners to UE ratio. How many *****' times do you see that on grass ?"

read it twice, thrice till you understand.

The djokovic 100 Ues, murray 50+ UEs have absolutely ZERO relevance.



he played sh*t tennis and was clearly exhausted. There's no way he could've won vs a player like Murray who was playing that well in that state or even made it close.

Oh, Murray was playing WELL, was he? Did I hear you right? Can you possibly mean that he MIGHT have won the match anyway or was it all on Fed's racquet (or whatever it was he felt able to hit the ball with that day)???

 

[abmk]

Oh, Murray was playing WELL, was he? Did I hear you right? Can you possibly mean that he MIGHT have won the match anyway or was it all on Fed's racquet (or whatever it was he felt able to hit the ball with that day)???

oh, jeez, maybe if you learnt to read ...I said in my first post in this thread.

Murray was in better form than fed at the Olympics and may have won regardless. But it'd have been a much closer match otherwise.

 

[NatF]

Lol Nat you never change, you really don't. So, in your view, Murray was just as crap in the Olympic final as he had been at Wimbledon a few weeks earlier. The ONLY difference being and I stress ONLY (in your view) was that Fed was just SO exhausted he could barely hit a ball or even move. In other words, in your view, some club player from the local school down the road could have beaten poor old Fed just as handily that day. Keep at it mate, one day you might bring yourself to actually believe it!

Mate the strawman you come up with are just embarrassing at this point. I'm saying that Murray was equally great in both matches you muppet

As far as any club player beating Federer I've never said anything remotely like that.

At this point you're either insane or intentionally lying lol.

 

[Mainad]

are you that thick ? seriously ? He's saying Murray played really well, about the same level in both the matches, NOT crap..

Oh please let me hear what Nat himself has to say to thick ol me, thank you. He's big and ugly enough to handle his own correspondence. He doesn't need you or anyone else to interpret his posts for him!

not any club player, but any top player ( within top 20 ) playing decent tennis would've beaten fed on that day. But because Murray was playing really well, the scoreline was that lopsided.

ANYONE in the top 20 eh? What, even poor ol' Ferrer (who's never been able to win a match against him in his life, like ever)?? Gosh, didn't everyone else in the top 20 miss a golden opportunity that day (puns intended)!

come to think of it, you've managed to spectacularly delude yourself into thinking that federer with 24 winners and 31 UEs on grass was playing anywhere near decent tennis. So congratulations, that's quite a feat !!

WOW, but he still managed to hit 24 winners, didn't he? How the heck did poor, exhausted, knackered ol' Fed even MANAGE a number like that when he was obviously too tired to even lift his racquet. Was Murray really playing THAT badly that a player practically on his deathbed from fatigue could STILL hit TWENTY-FOUR winners past him? What a wondrous player Rogi is. I keep forgetting. How remiss of me!

 

[Mainad]

oh, jeez, maybe if you learnt to read ...I said in my first post in this thread.

Well, if you agree that Murray was still playing well enough to win the match irrespective of the status of Fed's energy levels, what the f**k are we talking about anyway and why have we been wasting the last 10 mins or so even having this conversation in the first friggin' place???

 

[Mainad]

Mate the strawman you come up with are just embarrassing at this point. I'm saying that Murray was equally great in both matches you muppet

As far as any club player beating Federer I've never said anything remotely like that.

At this point you're either insane or intentionally lying lol.

But do you agree that Murray was playing well enough to have won that match even if Delpo had never existed?

 

[abmk]

Oh please let me hear what Nat himself has to say to thick ol me, thank you. He's big and ugly enough to handle his own correspondence. He doesn't need you or anyone else to interpret his posts for him!

because its clear as hell from his post and you are hell bent on interpreting terribly ...
He's confirmed it anyways.

ANYONE in the top 20 eh? What, even poor ol' Ferrer (who's never been able to win a match against him in his life, like ever)?? Gosh, didn't everyone else in the top 20 miss a golden opportunity that day (puns intended)!

not sold on ferrer, but maybe even he could have ...

WOW, but he still managed to hit 24 winners, didn't he? How the heck did poor, exhausted, knackered ol' Fed even MANAGE a number like that when he was obviously too tired to even lift his racquet. Was Murray really playing THAT badly that a player practically on his deathbed from fatigue could STILL hit TWENTY-FOUR winners past him? What a wondrous player Rogi is. I keep forgetting. How remiss of me!

oh jeez, you can't deal with the reality can you ?

a -ve W/UE on grass from a top player is a sh*t poor performance ........ deathbed ? yeah, make up more of those delusional words ...something I never used ...

 

[abmk]

Well, if you agree that Murray was still playing well enough to win the match irrespective of the status of Fed's energy levels, what the f**k are we talking about anyway and why have we been wasting the last 10 mins or so even having this conversation in the first friggin' place???

because you are saying federer did not play badly when it was in fact a sh*tty performance from him ....(you are making it look like Murray could dominate federer on friggin' grass when federer wasn't playing badly. which is plain bullsh*t).

that's like saying Murray did not play badly in the YEC 14 RR match vs federer or USO 08 final vs federer or AO 11 final vs djokovic.
federer/djokovic would've won those matches regardless , but it sure as hell would've been closer had Murray actually played well.

Oly 12 final -- without the delpo match, Murray would probably be a slight favorite based on form ( because federer wasn't playing as well as he was at wimby -- QF to F )

 

[NatF]

But do you agree that Murray was playing well enough to have won that match even if Delpo had never existed?

I've said that before. Murray was in better form that week and already showed he had the game to take it to Federer on grass. I don't think he'd be able to inflict a breatdown like that unless Federer was off though.



Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

 

[Mainad]

because you are saying federer did not play badly when it was in fact a sh*tty performance from him ....(you are making it look like Murray could dominate federer on friggin' grass when federer wasn't playing badly. which is plain bullsh*t)

So, was that a 'yes' or 'no' in answer to my question?

that's like saying Murray did not play badly in the YEC 14 RR match vs federer or USO 08 final vs federer or AO 11 final vs djokovic.
federer/djokovic would've won those matches regardless , but it sure as hell would've been closer had Murray actually played well.

Murray did not play well in that RR at 2014 WTF but Federer, on the other hand, was zoning. He would have beaten him anyway I believe.Ditto at their 2015 Wimby semi. Murray played much better but Fed was just serving out of his mind. He just does not like to lose to Murray these days, does he? Murray did not actually play all that badly at 2011 AO either but, unfortunately for him, Djokovic had just transformed into his 2011 version. It IS possible for a player to get dominated unexpectedly by a player who is in the zone.

 

[abmk]

So, was that a 'yes' or 'no' in answer to my question?

answer was already there ... if you had bothered to read/quote the whole post ..

'''Oly 12 final -- without the delpo match, Murray would probably be a slight favorite based on form ( because federer wasn't playing as well as he was at wimby -- QF to F )'''

Murray did not play well in that RR at 2014 WTF but Federer, on the other hand, was zoning. He would have beaten him anyway I believe.Ditto at their 2015 Wimby semi. Murray played much better but Fed was just serving out of his mind. He just does not like to lose to Murray these days, does he? Murray did not actually play all that badly at 2011 AO either but, unfortunately for him, Djokovic had just transformed into his 2011 version. It IS possible for a player to get dominated unexpectedly by a player who is in the zone.

I wasn't talking about wimby 15 SF at all. Murray played well, but federer was too good.

Murray played cr*p in WTF 14 RR match. No 2 ways about it.

As far as AO 11 final is concerned, after 4 all in the 1st, Murray was playing badly. He should've been bagelled in the 2nd , but Novak let it go for a bit. Murray only recovered somewhat after being down a break in the 3rd IIRC - i.e. when the match was almost over.

Its not possible for arguable grass court GOAT to play decent tennis and still get dominated to that extent on grass.

Its not arguable that 24 W to 31 UEs on grass isn't a downright sh*tty performance from a top player.

 

[Tennis2016]

yeah, I agree ...

Here @Mainad , something else that you might understand through your Murray tinted glasses :

24 W to 37 UE vs dimitrov in wimbledon 14 QF ...Murray might not have been at his best , but played well enough, right ?

It doesn't matter if Federer was in top form or not. he didn't play well enough and got beat. no excuses. what about the times Federer won matches and his opponents weren't on top form, do those wins not count. crazy logic.

 

[abmk]

It doesn't matter if Federer was in top form or not. he didn't play well enough and got beat. no excuses. what about the times Federer won matches and his opponents weren't on top form, do those wins not count. crazy logic.

didn't say it doesn't count.
It does.

Just said that federer played cr*p in that match.

 

[Tennis2016]

didn't say it doesn't count.
It does.

Just said that federer played cr*p in that match.

Yeah but you make out that Murray's win shouldn't count. he beat djokovic and Federer to win those Olympics. they both wanted to win as much as he did. it's a well deserved title whatever way you look at it.

 

[batz]

For Novak:

3 Wimbledons > 2 Wmbledons

For Andy:

2 wins > 0 wins

5 sets > 0 sets

8 titles > 3 titles

102 grass wins > 69 grass wins

85.7% matches won > 81.2% matches won

If you think that an extra Wimbledon is worth more than 5 titles, a losing head to head, a hugely inferior number of wins and win percentage on that surface then yes, Novak is the better grasscourter.

PS Murray missed the 2007 grasscourt season due to injury....

 

[metsman]

Don't even have to show the ignored content to figure out who is stirring $.hit up.

 

[mike danny]

So, was that a 'yes' or 'no' in answer to my question?



Murray did not play well in that RR at 2014 WTF but Federer, on the other hand, was zoning. He would have beaten him anyway I believe.Ditto at their 2015 Wimby semi. Murray played much better but Fed was just serving out of his mind. He just does not like to lose to Murray these days, does he? Murray did not actually play all that badly at 2011 AO either but, unfortunately for him, Djokovic had just transformed into his 2011 version. It IS possible for a player to get dominated unexpectedly by a player who is in the zone.

Zoning? His serve percentage was below par. He got exposed by Stan immediately afterwards.

 

[Mainad]

Zoning? His serve percentage was below par. He got exposed by Stan immediately afterwards.

Well, Stan can sometimes bring it on when he's in the mood. Fed did make it to the final though (although he pulled out ostensibly with injury but probably because he wanted to focus on training for the upcoming DC final with France).

Incidentally, wasn't that the match where Stan got heckled by Mirka which caused a blow up between him and Roger in the locker room afterwards?

 

[NatF]

Zoning? His serve percentage was below par. He got exposed by Stan immediately afterwards.

Yeah Murray had no weapons that day, on a slow court normally he would make Federer pay for a service percentage of around 50%. Federer was very clean off the ground but I think Murrays lack of intensity and power off the ground that day made him look better than he was - like how Goffin sometimes makes top guys look like Gods.

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

 

[metsman]

Yeah Murray had no weapons that day, on a slow court normally he would make Federer pay for a service percentage of around 50%. Federer was very clean off the ground but I think Murrays lack of intensity and power off the ground that day made him look better than he was - like how Goffin sometimes makes top guys look like Gods.

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

Federer served <40% in that match IIRC.

 

[duaneeo]

Murray. He has a 85.7% record on grass, has won more Queens titles than any other player, has Olympic gold on grass, and has beaten Federer, Djokovic, and Roddick in Bo5 matches. Grass is Murray's best surface, while (even with 3 Wimbledon titles) it's clearly Djokovic's worst. I think the reason Nole no longer plays grass warmups is because he knows how vulnerable he is at them, and doesn't want to enter Wimbledon with a grass court loss.

I think Murray will end up with more Wimbledon titles.

 

[Fedex]

Possibly the greatest moment ever in British sporting history.
Murray must have been under unimaginably immense pressure and proves he has amazing talent to hold his technique together for this match.

 

[Fedex]

He's saying Murray played really well, about the same level in both the matches, NOT crap..

Murray played well in the Wimbledon 2012 final but played considerably better at the Olympics.

 

[Mainad]

Don't think I'll ever get tired of watching this!

 

[6august]

Murray of course. Let's not forget more people here backed peak Haas against peak Djokovic on grass so comparing Djokovic to some players who actually achieved something on grass is really a waste of time.

I'm thinking of my next thread: Who's the better Plexi player: Djokovic or Kerber?

Do you think he'll receive more than 30% votes?

 

[killerboi2]

Around equal I guess. Djokovic 1 more Wimbledon, Murray with h2h advantage, yeah only 2 matches but both pretty big matches. Normally Olympics isn't that big a deal but considering it was at Wimbledon and had a decent amount of points that year then it was a big match. Murray also has a handful of mickey mouse grass titles which have to count for something I guess.

Competition garbage at times for both (Djokovic facing past it Federer in finals, Murray facing Raonic). A couple of dodgy losses for Murray, losing to Mugmitrov and past it Federer 2015 (it really became clear that he was WTA coached after that beat down). Djokovic losing to Querrey as well raises questions about his grass performance. Might as well throw Nadal in the mix as well. It's all pretty close between the 3 imo.

 

[abmk]

Murray played well in the Wimbledon 2012 final but played considerably better at the Olympics.

nope, his stats are similar in both the matches.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?goto/post&id=10808722#post-10808722

His level was about the same. Federer was just way way worse in the Olympics final

 

[abmk]

Yeah but you make out that Murray's win shouldn't count.

that's your fault/problem for interpreting it that way.

he beat djokovic and Federer to win those Olympics. they both wanted to win as much as he did. it's a well deserved title whatever way you look at it.

never said it wasn't a well deserved title, it definitely was. Just that he had it easy in the final because delpo had exhausted federer. That's the reality. Deal with it.

 

[abmk]

For Novak:

3 Wimbledons > 2 Wmbledons

For Andy:

2 wins > 0 wins

5 sets > 0 sets

8 titles > 3 titles

102 grass wins > 69 grass wins

85.7% matches won > 81.2% matches won

If you think that an extra Wimbledon is worth more than 5 titles, a losing head to head, a hugely inferior number of wins and win percentage on that surface then yes, Novak is the better grasscourter.

PS Murray missed the 2007 grasscourt season due to injury....

1. or maybe, just maybe , people are more impressed by Novak's level of play vs superior opponents, his higher level ?

prime nadal in 11 ? federer in wim 14 and fed in wim 15 as opposed to a tired Djokovic in wim 13 and Raonic in wim 16 ?

federer dismantled Murray in wim 15 SF and though he was not playing at a similar level in the final, it still took an amazing level from djoko to take him down in 4 sets and not let him run away with it like in the SF.

for the Murray Tsonga wins in 12 and 16, djoko has those in 11 and 14.
Murray beat jerzy janowicz in wim 13 SF, whereas djoko had to deal with an in-form del potro.

2. Djokovic has an extra Wimbledon final.

3. If you're talking about h2h, djokovic is 0-1 at wimbledon vs Murray, but
djokovic is 1-1 vs nadal at wimbledon, 2-1 vs federer
Murray is 0-3 vs nadal, 0-2 vs federer

even on grass, overall ...djokovic is 3 all vs nadal& federer combined
murray is 1-5 vs nadal &federer combined

4. Murray's Olympics win in 12 is a definite plus point for him, no doubt. But nowhere near enough to overcome the above.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Djokovic is more accomplished. "Better" is subjective

 

[batz]

1. or maybe, just maybe , people are more impressed by Novak's level of play vs superior opponents, his higher level ?

prime nadal in 11 ? federer in wim 14 and fed in wim 15 as opposed to a tired Djokovic in wim 13 and Raonic in wim 16 ?

federer dismantled Murray in wim 15 SF and though he was not playing at a similar level in the final, it still took an amazing level from djoko to take him down in 4 sets and not let him run away with it like in the SF.

for the Murray Tsonga wins in 12 and 16, djoko has those in 11 and 14.
Murray beat jerzy janowicz in wim 13 SF, whereas djoko had to deal with an in-form del potro.

2. Djokovic has an extra Wimbledon final.

3. If you're talking about h2h, djokovic is 0-1 at wimbledon vs Murray, but
djokovic is 1-1 vs nadal at wimbledon, 2-1 vs federer
Murray is 0-3 vs nadal, 0-2 vs federer

even on grass, overall ...djokovic is 3 all vs nadal& federer combined
murray is 1-5 vs nadal &federer combined

4. Murray's Olympics win in 12 is a definite plus point for him, no doubt. But nowhere near enough to overcome the above.

Yes - bring subjectivity into it - then you can load up your arguments with unverifiable opinions about 'prime' and 'tired' and be able to use playground proxies (yeah, he might've beaten x but x beat y).

It may have escaped you - but Murray was playing in exactly the same era as Novak - you know Novak, that guy who is better than Murray on grass but hasn't taken a set off him in 5 attempts?

The metrics are there for all to see - to repeat, if you think all the things in Andy's favour don't make him a better grasscourter than Novak then fair enough - but spare me the frankly infantile pysh about 'prime' and 'tired' and 'but he never beat x'.

PS and for the record (because it doesn't actually matter) Murray is 1-1 versus Roger in Bo5 Finals at the AELTC.

 

[abmk]

Yes - bring subjectivity into it - then you can load up your arguments with unverifiable opinions about 'prime' and 'tired' and be able to use playground proxies (yeah, he might've beaten x but x beat y).

It may have escaped you - but Murray was playing in exactly the same era as Novak - you know Novak, that guy who is better than Murray on grass but hasn't taken a set off him in 5 attempts?

The metrics are there for all to see - to repeat, if you think all the things in Andy's favour don't make him a better grasscourter than Novak then fair enough - but spare me the frankly infantile pysh about 'prime' and 'tired' and 'but he never beat x'.

PS and for the record (because it doesn't actually matter) Murray is 1-1 versus Roger in Bo5 Finals at the AELTC.

not taken 1 set in 2 matches.

But since you bring that in, why isn't their respective h2h vs federer & nadal on grass relevant ?

djoko is 1-2 vs nadal and 2-1 vs federer ..3 all
murray is 0-3 vs nadal and 1-2 vs federer, 1-5 ...

that's a fact ..

you also missed the fact that djkovic has one extra Wimbledon final

so it isn't just one extra Wimbledon for Djokovic that is in his favour.

Also this double counting :

"2 wins > 0 wins

5 sets > 0 sets"

Stop with that.

"If you think that an extra Wimbledon is worth more than 5 titles, a losing head to head, a hugely inferior number of wins and win percentage on that surface then yes, Novak is the better grasscourter."

one more Wimbledon, total of 4 finals compared to 3 finals, a clearly better h2h vs fedal overcomes a losing h2h, win %, lesser # of wins ....

oh and finally, yes, subjectivity matters, whether you like it or not. If you think people celebrate nadal's win over berdych in wimbledon 2010 final anywhere as much as his win over federer in wimbledon 08 final ......

 

[batz]

not taken 1 set in 2 matches.

But since you bring that in, why isn't their respective h2h vs federer & nadal on grass relevant ?

djoko is 1-2 vs nadal and 2-1 vs federer ..3 all
murray is 0-3 vs nadal and 1-2 vs federer, 1-5 ...

that's a fact ..

you also missed the fact that djkovic has one extra Wimbledon final

so it isn't just one extra Wimbledon for Djokovic that is in his favour.

Also this double counting :

"2 wins > 0 wins

5 sets > 0 sets"

Stop with that.

"If you think that an extra Wimbledon is worth more than 5 titles, a losing head to head, a hugely inferior number of wins and win percentage on that surface then yes, Novak is the better grasscourter."

one more Wimbledon, total of 4 finals compared to 3 finals, a clearly better h2h vs fedal overcomes a losing h2h, win %, lesser # of wins ....

oh and finally, yes, subjectivity matters, whether you like it or not. If you think people celebrate nadal's win over berdych in wimbledon 2010 final anywhere as much as his win over federer in wimbledon 08 final ......

If you say so mate. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion - but that's what it is, an opinion. They're like @resholes - everybody has one.

So humour me - if Andy wins Wimbledon next year, will Novak still be the better grasscourter?

 

[abmk]

If you say so mate. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion - but that's what it is, an opinion. They're like @resholes - everybody has one.

there is a difference b/w opinion based on facts and b/w those that are not. What was material was that you missed the extra wimbledon final for djokovic in his plus points as well as his better h2h vs fedal while only mentioning murray's h2h vs djokovic.

So humour me - if Andy wins Wimbledon next year, will Novak still be the better grasscourter?

he will be the more accomplished grass courter given his Olympics+Queens titles. But he won't be the better grass courter IMO unless he notches up impressive performances like djoko has ( at 3 Wimbledons only ). To me , "better" is a mix of actual record+subjective level of play.

As of now, Djokovic is the more accomplished grass courter as well as the better grass courter.

 

[KINGROGER]

if you removed those Murray tinted glasses and actually watched the match, federer was tired, moving slowly and played like sh*t.
Murray was in better form than fed at the Olympics and may have won regardless. But it'd have been a much closer match otherwise.

Yep.

If Fed was at his W2012 level, he wins that final in 4 at most.

 

[Tenisfan3]

1. or maybe, just maybe , people are more impressed by Novak's level of play vs superior opponents, his higher level ?

prime nadal in 11 ? federer in wim 14 and fed in wim 15 as opposed to a tired Djokovic in wim 13 and Raonic in wim 16 ?

federer dismantled Murray in wim 15 SF and though he was not playing at a similar level in the final, it still took an amazing level from djoko to take him down in 4 sets and not let him run away with it like in the SF.

for the Murray Tsonga wins in 12 and 16, djoko has those in 11 and 14.
Murray beat jerzy janowicz in wim 13 SF, whereas djoko had to deal with an in-form del potro.

2. Djokovic has an extra Wimbledon final.

3. If you're talking about h2h, djokovic is 0-1 at wimbledon vs Murray, but
djokovic is 1-1 vs nadal at wimbledon, 2-1 vs federer
Murray is 0-3 vs nadal, 0-2 vs federer

even on grass, overall ...djokovic is 3 all vs nadal& federer combined
murray is 1-5 vs nadal &federer combined

4. Murray's Olympics win in 12 is a definite plus point for him, no doubt. But nowhere near enough to overcome the above.

To be fair, neither Murray nor Djokovic have played a prime Federer on grass. The closest they came to playing a decent Federer on grass was at Wimbledon 2012 vs near 31 year old backerer....IIRC Federer played a similar level in both SF and F and both Murray and Djokovic took 1 set each. The 2014 WImbledon F Federer was probably the worst in a Wimbledon final(worst Federer in a Wim F I mean). Absolutely no baseline game. In 2015 the age factor plus the mental edge Djokovic had at that point was too much to overcome. Federer was much better in the SF than in the F of 2015 IMO.

 

[Dope Reign]

Yes everytime Djokovic or federer lost to Murray it was because the wind, or an injury, or old age, or a difficult previous match, or the injured old wind had a difficult previous match.

I love it when I see people call federer broken backerer, when Murray had back surgery.

When Murray loses, not a peep about his performance, his opponent was just a class above, too good for him. When Murray wins, well take your pick from the list of excuses.

 

[degrease]

Surfaces are all so homogenised now the question is almost mute....

 

[Zetty]

Murray is more natural on the grass but, achievement wise I gotta give it to Djokovic, 3 Wimbledons trumps 2 Wimbledons and the Olympics, even with the Queens Club's I'm not buying him having greater career success on grass.

 

[mike danny]

To be fair, neither Murray nor Djokovic have played a prime Federer on grass. The closest they came to playing a decent Federer on grass was at Wimbledon 2012 vs near 31 year old backerer....IIRC Federer played a similar level in both SF and F and both Murray and Djokovic took 1 set each. The 2014 WImbledon F Federer was probably the worst in a Wimbledon final(worst Federer in a Wim F I mean). Absolutely no baseline game. In 2015 the age factor plus the mental edge Djokovic had at that point was too much to overcome. Federer was much better in the SF than in the F of 2015 IMO.

The 2015 final was the worst Wimb final Federer has ever played actually. 2014 was still winnable, despite having a relatively sub par ground game.

 

[Mainad]

Yes everytime Djokovic or federer lost to Murray it was because the wind, or an injury, or old age, or a difficult previous match, or the injured old wind had a difficult previous match.

I love it when I see people call federer broken backerer, when Murray had back surgery.

When Murray loses, not a peep about his performance, his opponent was just a class above, too good for him. When Murray wins, well take your pick from the list of excuses.

Summed it up beautifully there!

 

[batz]

there is a difference b/w opinion based on facts and b/w those that are not. What was material was that you missed the extra wimbledon final for djokovic in his plus points as well as his better h2h vs fedal while only mentioning murray's h2h vs djokovic.



he will be the more accomplished grass courter given his Olympics+Queens titles. But he won't be the better grass courter IMO unless he notches up impressive performances like djoko has ( at 3 Wimbledons only ). To me , "better" is a mix of actual record+subjective level of play.

As of now, Djokovic is the more accomplished grass courter as well as the better grass courter.

.

Nah. Everything you said is complete bollocks.

Just my subjective opinion of course.

As for ickle exhausted Woger - Murray LITERALLY played 3 tennis matches in the period that Roger was recovering from his match with Delpo.

 

[metsman]

Jeez some Murray fans are the most sensitive people on the planet lmao...grow a pair and stop being so defensive.

 

[timnz]

there is a difference b/w opinion based on facts and b/w those that are not. What was material was that you missed the extra wimbledon final for djokovic in his plus points as well as his better h2h vs fedal while only mentioning murray's h2h vs djokovic.



he will be the more accomplished grass courter given his Olympics+Queens titles. But he won't be the better grass courter IMO unless he notches up impressive performances like djoko has ( at 3 Wimbledons only ). To me , "better" is a mix of actual record+subjective level of play.

As of now, Djokovic is the more accomplished grass courter as well as the better grass courter.

- Djokovic 3 Wimbledon wins + 1 Wimbledon runner-up

- Murray 2 Wimbledon wins + 1 Wimbledon runner-up + 1 Olympics on grass at Wimbledon + 5 Queens Club titles (which is an all-time record over more than 130 years of what has generally been regarded as the number 2 Grass Court tournament in the world over a long stretch - possibly Halle the equal of it now).

So it comes down to - is one Wimbledon win greater than or less than 1 Grass Olympic Gold medal and 5 Queens Club? (They both have 1 runner-up at Wimbledon which cancels that out).

 

[Fedex]

nope, his stats are similar in both the matches.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?goto/post&id=10808722#post-10808722

His level was about the same. Federer was just way way worse in the Olympics final

I'm not convinced about this. I didn't know the stats were similar but I watched both finals and felt Murray's game had cranked up a notch at the Olympics.
He straight setted Wawrinka, Djokovic and Federer on route to gold then took that form to the USO to win his first slam.

 

[Mainad]

Jeez some Murray fans are the most sensitive people on the planet lmao...grow a pair and stop being so defensive.

Well, jeez if certain other fans would stop claiming that he only wins big matches because his opponents are always conveniently tired or injured, then there would be no need, would there? If they can grow a pair and just admit that their heroes can sometimes get legitimately outplayed by Murray then we'll grow a pair and not have any need to be so defensive. We're up for a deal, are they?

 

[TMF]

Jeez some Murray fans are the most sensitive people on the planet lmao...grow a pair and stop being so defensive.

True if these sensitive Murray fans are all men, but that's not the case.