A better grass court player - Murray or Djokovic

Who is he better grass court player - Djokovic or Murray?

  • Djokovic

    Votes: 57 50.9%
  • Murray

    Votes: 55 49.1%

  • Total voters
    112

abmk

Bionic Poster
Nah. Everything you said is complete bollocks.

Just my subjective opinion of course.

actually my opinion is that your opinion is bollocks ....you find what I said so because it goes against your biased opinion.

I thought you were a decent poster, but you are acting like a troll here.

The thread doesn't read "who has accomplished more on grass - djokovic or murray". It reads "better grass court player-murray-or-djokovic". That includes subjective analysis as well. If you want to call everything subjective as bollocks , that's your problem.

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

he played 2 matches IIRC. Plus he was 25 and not ~31. At a similar age, federer played 3 sets vs almagro, nalbandian and then went on to play the classic 5-setter vs rafa in Rome 2006.
Recovery takes longer at the age of ~31.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
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.

wawrinka wasn't even that relevant at that time. The fact that Murray faced him in his first match should give you a hint.

Murray also went 6-4 in the 3rd vs baghdatis at the Olympics, so it wasn't all flawless.

The stats don't agree with your subjective opinion. Its just that federer was simply at a better level in wim 12 ( QF to F) than any version of Murray on grass. This isn't a diss on Murray, just a testament to federer's abilities on grass.

As far as "carrying" over the form to USO is concerned, well Murray gave a walkover in Canada and lost to Chardy at Cincy, so disagree with that.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
Nothing cracks me up more than seeing abmk of all posters calling out others for their biased opinion. :)

says the guy who can't even describe one match before 2011 and pretends to have watched tennis before 2011. :)

I never pretended to be unbiased, but I don't go overboard with ridiculous bias.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
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.

federer's worst wimby final was 15 IMO. But djoko was partly the reason for federer not being able to play as well as he did in the SF.
Before 14 wimby , i.e. pre-Becker, I'd have said Murray was the better grass courter. But with the wimby 14 final perf and the wimby 15 final perf. even more so, I'd put djokovic higher.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
- 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).

I believe I've already answered that. Yes, it is.
 
The answer is very close, but at in the end, let's give it a few more years to determine who the better grass player is.
I think at the end of their respective careers, Murray will be a more accomplished player but I give Djokovic the slight edge currently because of his extra wimbledon title and his performance v Fedal.
In terms of Grass ability Murray is the more naturally suited player to grass, but Djokovic overall level makes him to seem better.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Let's revisit this thread if Murray defends his Wimb title next year. I would put Murray ahead in that scenario if Djokovic again loses early at Wimb.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
What if Djokovic loses in the quarter or semi final, how would you rate them Mike
If Murray defends his title and Novak loses before the final , it's still Murray, because they would have the same number of title, the same number of finals, but Murray would have an OG medal on grass and all his extra grass titles. Novak wouldn't have any extra finals to fall back on, so Murray jumps ahead IMO if all Wimb stats are equal between them.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Fed and Dmitrov did a favor to Novak beating Murray.

Djoko is so clumsy on grass and plays it no different than playing on HC hugging baseline . It is one of the major irony that he has won 3 Wimb. He has been good on the slowed down grass but he is ugly as heck out there
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
I don't think natural ability should be the criteria to say someone is better at that surface. Yes, Murray is more natural on grass than Djokovic, but so is probably Dustin Brown aswell. How natural you are won't make you win more for sure. It has alot to do with adaption aswell. Nadal was solely a clay court specialist back when he was young but he found a way to adapt his game to grass, and made multiple finals at wimbledon and eventually won a title there. Although Murray is more natural on grass than Djokovic, he has accomplished less than Djokovic. Djokovic even defended his Wimbledon title wich is an achievement of its own. Only 7 players have done that in the open era. One more wimbledon pluss an extra final beats any amount of queens titles or whatever. At the end of the day, Wimbledon is the benchmark.
 
Last edited:

Checkmate

Legend
I don't think natural ability should be the criteria to say someone is better at that surface. Yes, Murray is more natural on grass than Djokovic, but so is probably Dustin Brown aswell. How natural you are won't make you win more for sure. It has alot to do with adaption aswell. Nadal was solely a clay court specialist back when he was young but he found a way to adapt his game to grass, and made multiple finals at wimbledon and eventually won a title there. Although Murray is more natural on grass than Djokovic, he has accomplished less than Djokovic. One more wimbledon pluss an extra final beats any amount of queens titles or whatever. At the end of the day, Wimbledon is the benchmark.

Djokovic defeated Fedal,Murray not once.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I don't think natural ability should be the criteria to say someone is better at that surface. Yes, Murray is more natural on grass than Djokovic, but so is probably Dustin Brown aswell. How natural you are won't make you win more for sure. It has alot to do with adaption aswell. Nadal was solely a clay court specialist back when he was young but he found a way to adapt his game to grass, and made multiple finals at wimbledon and eventually won a title there. Although Murray is more natural on grass than Djokovic, he has accomplished less than Djokovic. Djokovic even defended his Wimbledon title wich is an achievement of its own. Only 7 players have done that in the open era. One more wimbledon pluss an extra final beats any amount of queens titles or whatever. At the end of the day, Wimbledon is the benchmark.
I agree with you here. But what if Murray defends Wimb next year and Novak loses before the final? What will you consider then?
 

uliks

Banned
I agree with you here. But what if Murray defends Wimb next year and Novak loses before the final? What will you consider then?
But what if Djokovic wins 2017 Wimbledon! Would you consider then Djokovic as maybe better grass player than Andy Murray?
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
I agree with you here. But what if Murray defends Wimb next year and Novak loses before the final? What will you consider then?

Well then his other titles on grass will be the tiebreaker, so he will be more accomplished. But that's a big if.

By this thread we are judging based on the present.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
But what if Djokovic wins 2017 Wimbledon! Would you consider then Djokovic as maybe better grass player than Andy Murray?
4 Wimb titles to 2. That's too big of a difference. Djokovic would undoubtedly be better. I mean who would even try to argue?
 

Soul_Evisceration

Hall of Fame
As of now, accomplishment wise, Djokovic wins.

Grass court ability wise, Murray is definitely more comfortable on Grass than Djokovic.

When all is said and done, if Djokovic is having Nadal like first week nightmares at Wimbledon in the future and Murray continues to go on the second week on a regular basis and possibly win just 1 more Wimbledon, Murray will eventually become the better Grass Player.
 

timnz

Legend
As of now, accomplishment wise, Djokovic wins.

Grass court ability wise, Murray is definitely more comfortable on Grass than Djokovic.

When all is said and done, if Djokovic is having Nadal like first week nightmares at Wimbledon in the future and Murray continues to go on the second week on a regular basis and possibly win just 1 more Wimbledon, Murray will eventually become the better Grass Player.
So you feel that one Wimbledon win is better than the all time record of 5 wins at Queens Club plus a grass court Olympic gold medal. That is fair enough :) . I'd like to understand your reasoning though.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
So you feel that one Wimbledon win is better than the all time record of 5 wins at Queens Club plus a grass court Olympic gold medal. That is fair enough :) . I'd like to understand your reasoning though.
I would've thought the extra Wimbledon title was reasoning enough ;)
 

stringertom

Bionic Poster
federer
sampras
borg
mcenroe
becker
edberg

then others in the open era ...
I was trying to be nice...feelings around here are bruised.:rolleyes:

BTW, Edberg before Becker...2 Wimby (2-1 h2h in finals) and 2 AO titles on grass over 3 Wimby trophies for Boom Boom.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I was trying to be nice...feelings around here are bruised.:rolleyes:

BTW, Edberg before Becker...2 Wimby (2-1 h2h in finals) and 2 AO titles on grass over 3 Wimby trophies for Boom Boom.

yeah, agree. I just typed that list quickly to mention the top 6, not necessarily in order .
 
D

Deleted member 512391

Guest
I would give a slight edge to Djokovic, because he won three times at Wimbledon and successfully defended one of his titles. Plus, his victories are more impressive than Andy's, he beat a prime Nadal and an in-form Federer (twice) in the finals.

Murray has won five titles at Queen's (he hasn't beaten Fedalović there, though) and also won the Olympics on grass.

Overall, they are extremely close when it comes to the achievements on grass.
 
Z

Zara

Guest
Though Murray beat Djokovic in all their meeting on grass so he is clearly the better player against Djokovic; however, 3 Wimbledon is clearly better than winning 2. I do think Andy will surpass Djokovic at some point in the future. Just winning one more would be sufficient - if of course - Djokovic stays with 3.

I wish though Andy had won 2012 Wimbledon. He wasn't very consistent back then but he had some crucial and much needed big wins over Federer and Djokvoic (Olympics, USO, AO, Wimbledon etc.) around the same time frame.
 

Enceladus

Legend
As of now Djokovic. 3 Wimb titles + one successful title defense.

If Murray defends his Wimb title next year, then we'll talk.
And today Novak has 5 Wimbledon titles & two successful title defenses :) :cool:

Murray has more grass titles and leads in H2H on grass, but Djoker's superiority in number of titles in Wimbledon is massive: 5-2 and two successful defenses on Djoker's account. Overall, Djoker is better on the grass.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
And today Novak has 5 Wimbledon titles & two successful title defenses :) :cool:

Murray has more grass titles and leads in H2H on grass, but Djoker's superiority in number of titles in Wimbledon is massive: 5-2 and two successful defenses on Djoker's account. Overall, Djoker is better on the grass.

Djokovic has the overall higher win percentage on grass as well, and the higher win percentage at Wimbledon. It used to be an argument that could be argued either way but not any longer.
 
Djokovic has won 3 Wimbledons to 2 for Murray, but Murray is the all-time (been going since 1884) record holder at Queens Club with 5 titles there* . Djokovic has not won any non-Wimbledon grass titles (though has 3 runner-ups - 1 at Wimbledon, 1 at queens, 1 at Halle )

* note: these players have won 4 Queens Club titles: Major Ritchie, Anthony Wilding, Roy Emerson, John McEnroe, Boris Becker, Lleyton Hewitt and Andy Roddick
He won Eastbourne
 
Djokovic has won 3 Wimbledons to 2 for Murray, but Murray is the all-time (been going since 1884) record holder at Queens Club with 5 titles there* . Djokovic has not won any non-Wimbledon grass titles (though has 3 runner-ups - 1 at Wimbledon, 1 at queens, 1 at Halle )

* note: these players have won 4 Queens Club titles: Major Ritchie, Anthony Wilding, Roy Emerson, John McEnroe, Boris Becker, Lleyton Hewitt and Andy Roddick
I would say Murray is better as better low ball striker due to forehand grip. Arguably better net play and first serve
 
Top