Greater Grass Court Player? Murray vs. Nadal

Better on Grass? Murray or Nadal?

  • Andy Murray

    Votes: 38 41.8%
  • Rafael Nadal

    Votes: 48 52.7%
  • DRAW

    Votes: 5 5.5%

  • Total voters
    91

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
All of Murray's grasscourt titles are valuable though. In addition to his 2 Wimbledon titles, he has 5 titles at Queen's, the 2nd most prestigious grasscourt event in the world, and 1 at the Wimbledon Olympics. Nadal really only has 3, his 2 Wimbledons and the 1 at Queen's. Only Federer currently has more prestigious grasscourt titles than Murray.
Nadal also has a title at Stuttgart in 2015.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
I just disagree with you about his playing level and we probably won't agree on that. I think his 2016 is too underrated on here. That may be true if we are only talking about those two Slam finals but I'm talking about his level across 3 surfaces for the entire year.
I don't think it's underrated. I consider it the best one-slam season of the Open Era.
 

Benben245

Professional
Nadal's peak level on grass is miles ahead of anything Murray has ever produced, 2008 wimby . His head2head against Murray at Wimbledon speaks for itself.
 

Zhilady

Professional
What is it with certain Federer fans on here that like to start throwing insults when someone just doesn't agree with them as if that is going to make anyone change their stance or make your point more poignant?
I didn’t insult you. I expressed my opinion that you must be really thick to keep misrepresenting me even after telling you 10 times what exactly my comparison timeline is. And, no, it isn’t January 1st to December 31st. Let’s see if you’re thick enough to mention that timeframe again. Something tells me you are.

Dude, I just don't agree with you and I didn't a month ago. At no time in 2012 did I feel that Federer was an overall better player than Djokovic. Now again, you are derailing the thread.
Which goes back to my point that you don’t actually go by numbers that actually exist.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Not sure it's me that's gone to the dark side man, you could have said excellent or very good but you used the word insane o_O:p

I think he was quite poor in the AO 2016 final, first set was bad from him and then Djokovic let him in from that point in it was bad from both at times - I think his mind was on other things. Probably should have lost to Raonic in the SF but the big guy got injured.

Did he really say that? aha. Might be worth a rewatch :-D

My contention is not that he didn't have good results, he did - he had amazing results in fact. It's that IMO he wasn't playing anything resembling insane tennis. Just like you think I underrate Murray (maybe I do :eek:), IMO you're overrating his level of play quite significantly.
I don't see why it matters what word that I used. The consensus is that Murray was great in 2016.

I don't think he was poor at all. Djokovic gave Federer, Nadal and Murray breadsticks in January 2016. He just went at them and they were not ready for that, and had to adjust. Nadal, being that he wasn't in great form, couldn't make a match of it like the other two were able to. I don't think Djokovic let him in so much as Murray upped his level. He really hit his backhand well in sets 2 and 3, and served well.

Yea he did. I think he yelled it to his box.

I don't think I am overrating him at all especially since I picked Nadal 2008 to beat Murray 2016 at Wimbledon. I think you are just overreacting.
 
Last edited:

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
We used to but you have gone to the darkside it seems. :giggle:

Yes they are but he played 85 other matches that year, and some big matches as well. Also, he didn't play that badly in AO 2016 but Djokovic really was great in those last two rounds. Murray pushed him hard in those last two sets but Djokovic held him off. He ran out of gas and had no legs in RG 2016. He even yelled out.."I have no legs" during the match. Lol. I think you are not taking this into consideration. You also can't fault him for not defeating many top players post USO. He played the field in front of him and he was just in better form than anyone else at the time. He showed that by beating 5 top 10 players in a row to win WTF. So whether you think his play was that great or not, his results were.
His results definitely were. His level of play though? A good one, but he relied a lot on his defensive play, which is why he screwed his body completely.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
djokovic 4 wimbledon trophies plus one mickey mouse title on grass or 2 wimbledon titles, a gold medal and 5 mickey mouse titles from murray on grass
is hard...
Queen's titles are not mickey-mouse. They are the equivalent of the hardcourt and clay Masters that act as warm-ups for hardcourt or clay Slams. Queen's, with Halle, are the chief warm-up events for Wimbledon and many top players have played and won them especially Queen's. Please go and study your history of grasscourt tennis before making such ignorant comments.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
I didn’t insult you. I expressed my opinion that you must be really thick to keep misrepresenting me even after telling you 10 times what exactly my comparison timeline is. And, no, it isn’t January 1st to December 31st. Let’s see if you’re thick enough to mention that timeframe again. Something tells me you are.

Which goes back to my point that you don’t actually go by numbers that actually exist.
No that is considered an insult and what someone reverts to when they have run out of ideas and meaningful viewpoints. I would consider someone thick if they didn't realize that. I'm not misrepresenting you since I know exactly what you meant. I still don't agree with you no matter what timeframe from any point in 2012 that you use.

I do go by the numbers that exist but numbers are not the be all, end all and do not always tell the full story. That is one of those times.
 

Zhilady

Professional
I'm not misrepresenting you since I know exactly what you meant.
So why mention the January 1st to December 31st timeframe if you know that’s not what I was ever talking about? Could it be because, I don’t know, you’re really thick?

I still don't agree with you no matter what timeframe from any point in 2012 that you use.

I do go by the numbers that exist but numbers are not be all, end all and do not always tell the full story. That is one of those times.
So, basically, you go by numbers that actually exist when they suit you, and don’t go by numbers that actually exist when they don’t suit you. Which makes you a wee little hypocrite, as I initially observed.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Queen's titles are not mickey-mouse. They are the equivalent of the hardcourt and clay Masters that act as warm-ups for hardcourt or clay Slams. Queen's, with Halle, are the chief warm-up events for Wimbledon and many top players have played and won them especially Queen's. Please go and study your history of grasscourt tennis before making such ignorant comments.
A title won by Hewitt, Roddick, Sampras, Nadal, Lendl, Becker, Connors, McEnroe etc and being around since 1881, since the birth of tennis is a mickey mouse event....
 

BGod

Legend
Murray's 5 Queens Titles:
Ferrero-Blake
Roddick-Tsonga
Tsonga-Cilic
Trocki-Anderson
Cilic-Raonic

At least 3 solid runs there. For reference on Nadal, he lost to Tsonga in 11.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
So why mention the January 1st to December 31st timeframe if you know that’s not what I was ever talking about? Could it be because, I don’t know, you’re really thick?

So, basically, you go by numbers that actually exist when they suit you, and don’t go by numbers that actually exist when they don’t suit you. Which makes you a wee little hypocrite, as I initially observed.
No but the fact that you keep trying to insult me could be because...oh maybe that you're very immature and contemptible. Just maybe? I'm not sure but you can fill me in since I'm kind of thick you know. :unsure:

If you want to think I'm a hypocrite then that is fine but I think you are being childish and throwing a tantrum because I won't concede and agree with you that Federer was a better player than Djokovic after Wimbledon 2012. I feel Djokovic was still the best player in the world at that point and no matter how upset you get, it won't change my mind. I think you need to deal with that and move on, and not derail threads by bringing up old topics that were done and dusted weeks ago.
 

Plamen1234

Hall of Fame
At Wimbledon Nadal is better player than Murray - I dont see why there is even debate about it.Stop hyping up Murray.
 

JackGates

Hall of Fame
No but the fact that you keep trying to insult me could be because...oh maybe that you're very immature and contemptible. Just maybe? I'm not sure but you can fill me in since I'm kind of thick you know. :unsure:

If you want to think I'm a hypocrite then that is fine but I think you are being childish and throwing a tantrum because I won't concede and agree with you that Federer was a better player than Djokovic after Wimbledon 2012. I feel Djokovic was still the best player in the world at that point and no matter how upset you get, it won't change my mind. I think you need to deal with that and move on, and not derail threads by bringing up old topics that were done and dusted weeks ago.
Just curious, why wasn't Federer better after W 2012?
 

JackGates

Hall of Fame
At Wimbledon Nadal is better player than Murray - I dont see why there is even debate about it.Stop hyping up Murray.
And Wimbledon is grass. So if I set up my own grass tournament in my court and win it 3 times, I can be more accomplished than Nadal and Murray?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I don't see why it matters what word that I used. The consensus is that Murray was great in 2016.

I don't think he was poor at all. Djokovic gave Federer, Nadal and Murray breadsticks in January 2016. He just went at them and they were not ready for that, and had to adjust. Nadal, being that he wasn't in great form, couldn't make a match of it like the other two were able to. I don't think Djokovic let him in so much as Murray upped his level. He really hit his backhand well in sets 2 and 3, and served well.

Yea he did. I think he yelled it to his box.

I don't think I am overrating him at all especially since I picked Nadal 2008 to beat Murray 2016 at Wimbledon. I think you are just overreacting.
Djokovic's level definitely dropped in sets 2 & 3 (set 2 especially). TA has Murray at 9 W 17 UE's on the backhand wing for the last two sets, he might have forced quite a few errors but still doesn't seem great.

Meh, maybe I am? I just get triggered by the frequent "Murray is an ATG" talk and calling his level in 2016 insane comes perilously close to that :unsure:
 

Zhilady

Professional
No but the fact that you keep trying to insult me could be because...oh maybe that you're very immature and contemptible. Just maybe? I'm not sure but you can fill me in since I'm kind of thick you know. :unsure:
It’s no insult to say a dead man is dead. Ponder that over, and come to me if you don’t have the mental wherewithal to understand it.

If you want to think I'm a hypocrite then that is fine but I think you are being childish and throwing a tantrum because I won't concede and agree with you that Federer was a better player than Djokovic after Wimbledon 2012. I feel Djokovic was still the best player in the world at that point and no matter how upset you get, it won't change my mind. I think you need to deal with that and move on, and not derail threads by bringing up old topics that were done and dusted weeks ago.
I don’t want to think you are a hypocrite. You are a hypocrite.
 

Zhilady

Professional
It's based on the ATP valuing GS finals more plus most people agreeing with the value. Their value is arbitrary too, it doesn't have to be exact, it just represent that this title has more value because it's harder to win.
Hey, still waiting on the answers:

1. Who do you think is the greater Australian Open player? Andy Murray or Thomas Johansson?

2. Who do you think is the greater player? David Ferrer or Kevin Anderson?

3. Who do you think is the greater player? David Nalbandian or Thomas Johansson?
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic's level definitely dropped in sets 2 & 3 (set 2 especially). TA has Murray at 9 W 17 UE's on the backhand wing for the last two sets, he might have forced quite a few errors but still doesn't seem great.

Meh, maybe I am? I just get triggered by the frequent "Murray is an ATG" talk and calling his level in 2016 insane comes perilously close to that :unsure:
His level dropped in the second set but Murray upped his level as well. I thought Djokovic played well in set 3 and Murray stayed with him.

I never said anything about Murray being an all time great in this thread or in general so maybe just a bit of an overreaction. :giggle:
 
If you ever get a chance, try to go to Wimbledon at least once. It is a must and I highly recommend it.

Federer has spoken a few times the pressure he felt to win his home tournament of Basel....so imagine just how it is when your home tournament is none other than Wimbledon itself and no one from your country had won it in over 80 years....

When we talk about mindset, how many times have we heard, Nadal was in Federer's head, Djokovic was in Nadal's head etc...in the case of Murray, the British Media and their constant relentless pressure is annually inside Murray's head. I hate to say it, but the British media is like a pack of rabid dogs, they are ruthless, and when he loses they tear him a new one...anything less than the title is unforgivable. I have seen this first hand.
All duly noted but he also has the advantage of the home crowd.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
His level dropped in the second set but Murray upped his level as well. I thought Djokovic played well in set 3 and Murray stayed with him.

I never said anything about Murray being an all time great in this thread or in general so maybe just a bit of an overreaction. :giggle:
Insane is word reserved for ATG's and certain posters ;)

I agree that both were good in set 3, but one good set doesn't make a good performance.
 

JackGates

Hall of Fame
Hey, still waiting on the answers:

1. Who do you think is the greater Australian Open player? Andy Murray or Thomas Johansson?

2. Who do you think is the greater player? David Ferrer or Kevin Anderson?

3. Who do you think is the greater player? David Nalbandian or Thomas Johansson?
Tough to compare those, they are from different generations. But Nadal and Murray are peers.

But yeah on paper of course Johansson is the best, he has a major, nothing 2nd rate comes close. Anderson is better than Ferrer because of 2 GS finals.

It's like asking how many average college degrees are worth the same as a Harvard degree? None, because those guys can't even get accepted to Harvard, that's the point, so who cares if they spend a little more time to get more degrees at some 2nd rate college.

I'm sure that a Harvard student could also get a degree in lesser colleges if he wasted his time lol and he would have probably done it faster like Nadal won his slams a lot faster than Murray.
 

Zhilady

Professional
Tough to compare those, they are from different generations. But Nadal and Murray are peers.

But yeah on paper of course Johansson is the best, he has a major, nothing 2nd rate comes close. Anderson is better than Ferrer because of 2 GS finals.
I like the way you think.

But by the same reasoning, Federer from 2004-2009 was way, way better than Federer from 2010-2018. Case closed, thanks for playing.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
It’s no insult to say a dead man is dead. Ponder that over, and come to me if you don’t have the mental wherewithal to understand it.

I don’t want to think you are a hypocrite. You are a hypocrite.
LOL. Dude, I don't need to pass some imaginary test on my "mental capacity" from some random Joe over the internet who I will never meet in life. I passed the tests on my "mental capacity" from organizations who actually can measure it a long time ago. I think it's an insult to actually think you are clever or significant.

You must overrate your level of importance if you actually think I give a damn what you think.
 

Zhilady

Professional
LOL. Dude, I don't need to pass some imaginary test on my "mental capacity" from some random Joe over the internet who I will never meet in life. I passed the tests on my "mental capacity" from organizations who actually can measure it a long time ago.
Kind of like how Federer doesn’t have to pass imaginary tests from some random Joe over the Internet when he passed the test from the ATP and became the #1 player in the world in 2012?

You must overrate your level of importance if you actually think I give a damn what you think.
You don’t need to give a damn about what I think for me to express what I think. And I think you’re a really thick hypocrite, and I’ve already given strong reasons for why you’re a really thick hypocrite.
 
Queen's titles are not mickey-mouse. They are the equivalent of the hardcourt and clay Masters that act as warm-ups for hardcourt or clay Slams. Queen's, with Halle, are the chief warm-up events for Wimbledon and many top players have played and won them especially Queen's. Please go and study your history of grasscourt tennis before making such ignorant comments.
Queens is not the same as a Masters warm up for clay or hard court because the field is split with Halle.

Queens was also only a 250 for two or three of Murray’s victories there. (Maybe more!)
 
Last edited:

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
You don’t need to give a damn about what I think for me to express what I think. And I think you’re a really thick hypocrite, and I’ve already given strong reasons for why you’re a really thick hypocrite.
That is great. :D Say what you feel. Now let me say what I feel. I think you are a childish imbecile who needs to grow up, get over it and get over yourself. What are you 12? Maybe TTW needs to develop a daycare room for posters like you to go into and vent your frustrations when you can't handle someone not agreeing with your limited point of view.
 

tudwell

Legend
At Wimbledon Nadal is better player than Murray - I dont see why there is even debate about it.Stop hyping up Murray.
Is he? Murray's never lost to an unseeded player at Wimbledon. His worst loss (numerically) was Querrey in 2017. Nadal lost four years in a row to guys outside the top 100.
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
Rafa clearly
2 Wimby titles and 3 finals v 2 Wimby titles and 1 final
Grass H2H: Rafa 3 - 0 (9 sets to 1)

Titles below Wimbledon level are in Murray's favour 7 - 2 (including the Olympic title) but Rafa barely plays Wimbledon warmups whereas Murray plays them every year so not a real comparison and not really a deciding factor considering the above Wimbledon data anyway.
 
And the pressure of their expectations.
Yes, you’ve already made that point several times.

Playing on home soil is normally seem as an advantage in many other sports. Olympic hosts do better than normal for example and consider the away goal rule in the Champions League as a further example.
 

Zhilady

Professional
That is great. :D Say what you feel. Now let me say what I feel. I think you are a childish imbecile who needs to grow up, get over it and get over yourself. What are you 12? Maybe TTW needs to develop a daycare room for posters like you to go into and vent your frustrations when you can't handle someone not agreeing with your limited point of view.
If I’m 12 and an imbecile and outwitting you, that doesn’t say much for your mental acumen, now, does it?
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
If I’m 12 and an imbecile and outwitting you, that doesn’t say much for your mental acumen, now, does it?
But the sad part is that you're a 28 year imbecile who couldn't outwit Donald Trump. Now how is that for mental acumen?
 

JackGates

Hall of Fame
I like the way you think.

But by the same reasoning, Federer from 2004-2009 was way, way better than Federer from 2010-2018. Case closed, thanks for playing.
Not all the time, just some parts of it. The point is if he declined he should't be better even part time after 2013. Also, there isn't one thing or the other. Djokovic and Nadal also improved along with Federer you know. Rafa is also better in 2010 than in 2007.
 

Zhilady

Professional
Not all the time, just some parts of it. The point is if he declined he should't be better even part time after 2013.
Why not?

Also, there isn't one thing or the other. Djokovic and Nadal also improved along with Federer you know. Rafa is also better in 2010 than in 2007.
Yeah, Nadal was better in 2010 than in 2007. But he wasn’t better in 2017 than he was in 2008.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
What am I, 12 or 28? I know you’re a really thick hypocrite but, jeez, make up your mind!
Your avatar says 28 or did you not realize that was visible? While you are flailing in trying to insult me you may want to work a little harder on trying to be clever and not being able to pull it off. And yes, you act like a 12 year old. Not a good look. 28 going on 12? That's a new one.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Yes, you’ve already made that point several times.

Playing on home soil is normally seem as an advantage in many other sports. Olympic hosts do better than normal for example and consider the away goal rule in the Champions League as a further example.
Key word is normally. Being a Brit is both a blessing and curse for British tennis player, playing at Wimbledon. The big difference in comparing something like Wimbledon to Olympics or Champions League is they are more of a team thing, the pressure is split among them. Murray stands alone, he takes all the pressure, it is him and only him who is being scrutinzed for a full month, he has no team mate to help take that spot light.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
If my avatar says I’m 28 and you believe it, why would you ask if I’m 12? Oh, right, because you’re really thick.
LOL. It's a rhetorical question obviously which doesn't expect an answer. Being that you are supposed to be so much less thick you would think you would know the difference.
 
Top