Better clay courter: Thiem or Murray?

Better clay court player: Murray or Thiem?


  • Total voters
    109
  • Poll closed .
To be fair, he’s been pretty crap at slams ever since with the exception of that marathon loss against Stan.

He was at Wimbledon and USO. Raonic beat him and Cilic without dropping a set at AO and played well. Tsitispas wasn't crap in that match.
 
85-10-4 in favour of Thiem....you know I definitely expected Thiem to win the poll as he is the better clay courter imo but damn I never expected it to be such a blow-out
 
85-10-4 in favour of Thiem....you know I definitely expected Thiem to win the poll as he is the better clay courter imo but damn I never expected it to be such a blow-out

It shouldn't be anything like a blow-out. Whilst he is obviously the more natural claycourter, Thiem fans are just refusing to face the fact that Murray has produced better results on clay than their boy.
 
Another argument for Murray is that he probably didn't try too hard on clay early on in his career. After winning Wimbledon in 2013, he then really committed to clay more.
 
It shouldn't be anything like a blow-out. Whilst he is obviously the more natural claycourter, Thiem fans are just refusing to face the fact that Murray has produced better results on clay than their boy.

Thiem main's advantage is his consistency at the FO but even then Murray is quite close with 5 SFs and one less final. Maybe his wins over Djokodal? But then again, it's hard for me not to see Murray scoring a few over Djokodal on clay if he was 6-7 years younger than them like Thiem is.

Yeah, not seeing this clear gap in their ability on clay either. It seems to be either the case of underrating Murray or propping up Thiem as Nadal's (and Novak's to a lesser extent) rival, maybe a combination of both.
 
Another argument for Murray is that he probably didn't try too hard on clay early on in his career. After winning Wimbledon in 2013, he then really committed to clay more.

Yep, Thiem schedules his whole season around CC (and still no big title, unlike Muzza). Different situation for Murray whose best slam is Wimbledon.
 
It shouldn't be anything like a blow-out. Whilst he is obviously the more natural claycourter, Thiem fans are just refusing to face the fact that Murray has produced better results on clay than their boy.
Also Murray didn't get completely annihilated by Nadal at RG every damn time.
 
Also Murray didn't get completely annihilated by Nadal at RG every damn time.
Murray was at his best form in 2011 (let's face it, he never played better than that in RG) and still lost in straights. And he was destroyed by a declined Nadal in 2014. Actually, young Thiem gave Nadal a better fight in RG 2014.

Of course Murray would have probably won against 2015 Nadal, but so would Thiem.
 
Murray was at his best form in 2011 (let's face it, he never played better than that in RG) and still lost in straights. And he was destroyed by a declined Nadal in 2014. Actually, young Thiem gave Nadal a better fight in RG 2014.

Of course Murray would have probably won against 2015 Nadal, but so would Thiem.
The 2011 match wasn't an annihilation. Every one of Thiem's matches was.

In 2014 Murray sucked.
 
Murray was at his best form in 2011 (let's face it, he never played better than that in RG) and still lost in straights. And he was destroyed by a declined Nadal in 2014. Actually, young Thiem gave Nadal a better fight in RG 2014.

Of course Murray would have probably won against 2015 Nadal, but so would Thiem.

Murray barely beat Troicki lol. 2015 must have been his best RG, at least he didn't struggle to beat mugs as in 2011, 2014, 2016 etc.
 
Murray barely beat Troicki lol. 2015 must have been his best RG, at least he didn't struggle to beat mugs as in 2011, 2014, 2016 etc.
Murray also dropped 3 sets on his way to the 2015 semifinal. Anyway, I believe in 2011 his level was higher. 2015 Murray would have lost to 2011 Nadal in straights as well. (and that was far from the best ever Nadal in RG)
 
Last edited:
Thiem. He's an aggressive baseliner who uses a lot of top spin and has a lot of back swing which allows him the time to move the ball around and find the open court or get the short ball. That is his principal game in a nutshell and one plenty of clay courters have built their games around. Think Costa, Muster, Ferrero, Kuerten, Moya.
Murray is not a Clay courter. His success on Clay is impressive, but not a result of him being a good clay courter. More because he is an excellent tennis player and their games do well on any surface. Thiem is going in that direction, too.
As for who is the more decorated clay courter, it is Murray. But we can't answer that question until both their careers are done.
 
Thiem. He's an aggressive baseliner who uses a lot of top spin and has a lot of back swing which allows him the time to move the ball around and find the open court or get the short ball. That is his principal game in a nutshell and one plenty of clay courters have built their games around. Think Costa, Muster, Ferrero, Kuerten, Moya.
Murray is not a Clay courter. His success on Clay is impressive, but not a result of him being a good clay courter. More because he is an excellent tennis player and their games do well on any surface. Thiem is going in that direction, too.
As for who is the more decorated clay courter, it is Murray. But we can't answer that question until both their careers are done.

Think that's a bit of a contradiction. If you can play well on clay then you're a good claycourter even if it's not your best or chosen surface. Ditto the other surfaces.
 
Back
Top