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

Zhilady

Professional
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.
I would, but not when it comes from the really thick guy that keeps repeating that Djokovic was the #1 player in 2012 despite being told 10 times that we’re comparing Federer and Djokovic from post-US Open 2011 to post-US Open 2012.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
I would, but not when it comes from the really thick guy that keeps repeating that Djokovic was the #1 player in 2012 despite being told 10 times that we’re comparing Federer and Djokovic from post-US Open 2011 to post-US Open 2012.
Geez. I have no idea why it's always certain Federer fans on here who can't handle different views than their own and resort to this level of posting. Thanks for derailing the thread and showing how much of an immature poster you are. Also, I never once said anything in this thread about Djokovic being the #1 player in 2012 so that is your imagination just like the level of your mental acumen.
 
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.
The facts suggests British tennis players do better at their home slam than the other slams.

Look at the results of Watson, Konta, Henman, Wade and even Jeremy Bates.

Given the data you have to say the crowd and home soil is an advantage not a disadvantage.
 

Zhilady

Professional
Geez. I have no idea why it's always certain Federer fans on here who can't handle different views than their own and resort to this level of posting. Thanks for derailing the thread and showing how much of an immature poster you are. Also, I never once said anything in this thread about Djokovic being the #1 player in 2012 so that is your imagination just like the level of your mental acumen.
LOL, I love how you deliberately tried to misrepresent what I said over and over again, and then act like the victim when I call you out on it. Like I said, you’re really thick, and it’s all very transparent. And that’s not even getting into your hypocrisy of using numbers when they suit you and disregarding them when they don’t. And we’re talking about literally the same numbers here, which is rankings! :laughing:
 

JackGates

Hall of Fame
Geez. I have no idea why it's always certain Federer fans on here who can't handle different views than their own and resort to this level of posting. Thanks for derailing the thread and showing how much of an immature poster you are. Also, I never once said anything in this thread about Djokovic being the #1 player in 2012 so that is your imagination just like the level of your mental acumen.
Lol guys stop, you are cracking me up. Why both so serious?
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
The facts suggests British tennis players do better at their home slam than the other slams.

Look at the results of Watson, Konta, Henman, Wade and even Jeremy Bates.

Given the data you have to say the crowd and home soil is an advantage not a disadvantage.
I am not making a statement that playing on home soil is a disadvantage, I am making a point that no one had brought up the issue of the national burden that Murray feels every year in his country, when even those that don't watch tennis, just watch him because he is British and then roast him for not winning and it is not pretty...these things do play on his mind 24/7, even when he says he has to avoid looking at newspapers. The crowd is great, no doubt it helps, but the crowd is not cheering him on when he is away from the court, when the media and everyone else are constantly chasing him.

Nadal is a popular player, only second to Federer, these guys almost have a home field advantage wherever they go. You can even argue the crowd is split 50-50 when he plays Federer, which doesn't really help him either.
 

lud

Hall of Fame
Murray's game suits grass much more natural,but for some reason he can't beat Nadal in SW19.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
LOL, I love how you deliberately tried to misrepresent what I said over and over again, and then act like the victim when I call you out on it. Like I said, you’re really thick, and it’s all very transparent. And that’s not even getting into your hypocrisy of using numbers when they suit you and disregarding them when they don’t. And we’re talking about literally the same numbers here, which is rankings! :laughing:
I never misrepresented anything you said. It's all in your imagination obviously, just like me playing a victim is in your imagination. I just told you that you have nothing meaningful to say so you have to resort to insults, as if that will make you look any less dubious that you do now. You've said I am thick like 20 times now but then you don't even know what you are talking about. The conversation which you inserted yourself into never even talked about Murray and Nadal in regards to rankings, so they are not the same numbers.
 

-NN-

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?

What is suggested when you can be easily marginalised by a mere turd which is no older than a few days? I'm now a few weeks old, much drier and even wiser. You have the angst of a teenager so I do agree that NoleFam was a bit out by suggesting a non-teen year.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Lol guys stop, you are cracking me up. Why both so serious?
I have no idea why this is important but it seemingly is to this guy. It shouldn't be that serious (I mean he is actually upset because I won't say Federer was an overall better player than Djokovic after USO 2012) but this is what goes on in the mind of a raving fanatic.
 

Zhilady

Professional
I never misrepresented anything you said. It's all in your imagination obviously, just like me playing a victim is in your imagination. I just told you that you have nothing meaningful to say so you have to resort to insults, as if that will make you look any less dubious that you do now. You've said I am thick like 20 times now but then you don't even know what you are talking about. The conversation which you inserted yourself into never even talked about Murray and Nadal in regards to rankings, so they are not the same numbers.
If you really think you never misrepresented what I said, you’re even thicker than I thought. Thick, thick, thick. Thicker than a blue whale’s epidermis.
 

Zhilady

Professional
I have no idea why this is important but it seemingly is to this guy. It shouldn't be that serious (I mean he is actually upset because I won't say Federer was an overall better player than Djokovic after USO 2012) but this is what goes on in the mind of a raving fanatic.
Again, that is not my contention, Mr. Thick. My contention is that Federer was the best player in the world between post-US Open 2011 and post-US Open 2012.

The rankings reflect the past 12 months, not the now. If I said Federer was the best player post-US Open 2012, that obviously means he was the best over the past 12 months. Pretty straightforward.
 

JackGates

Hall of Fame
I have no idea why this is important but it seemingly is to this guy. It shouldn't be that serious (I mean he is actually upset because I won't say Federer was an overall better player than Djokovic after USO 2012) but this is what goes on in the mind of a raving fanatic.
It's still very funny to listen to you both. Maybe you guys even agree and it's just a communication problem?
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
If you really think you never misrepresented what I said, you’re even thicker than I thought. Thick, thick, thick. Thicker than a blue whale’s epidermis.
Hahahaha. Ok this is hilarious now. I think it's past time for your bottle and a nap. :-D
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
Ok, I gotta ask, who the hell is this guy?

jg153040 is a legendary theorist who came up with innovative ideas which the rest of TTW could barely comprehend. He had legendary battles and debates with an aloof eccentric called Nathaniel_Near.

They had some great battles back in the golden age of Cybertron.
 

JackGates

Hall of Fame
No man. Is that what you gathered from that tirade? Lol.
Oh, it was just a rhetorical question, I didn't expect an answer you caught me off guard a bit here. My point was that the validity of expression of Fed's peak cannot just draw parallels in the assumptions that his post prime tendency to attack short balls can evaluate his losses versus Djokovic in 2012. That's why I think your theory is not correct, because Federer strike zones were also behind most of his prime and Djokovic wouldt be able to compensate for this effect. Even his 2012 version. The stats show that with relative comparisons of their primes too, it's not like I'm making this up to troll you. Like I have time. Your own stats show that.
 

JackGates

Hall of Fame
jg153040 is a legendary theorist who came up with innovative ideas which the rest of TTW could barely comprehend. He had legendary battles and debates with an aloof eccentric called Nathaniel_Near.

They had some great battles back in the golden age of Cybertron.
I think they could comprehend them, but that means they would have to give up some of their ideas and they weren't mentally ready for that.

But yeah, that's why I like Jordan Peterson.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Oh, it was just a rhetorical question, I didn't expect an answer you caught me off guard a bit here. My point was that the validity of expression of Fed's peak cannot just draw parallels in the assumptions that his post prime tendency to attack short balls can evaluate his losses versus Djokovic in 2012. That's why I think your theory is not correct, because Federer strike zones were also behind most of his prime and Djokovic wouldt be able to compensate for this effect. Even his 2012 version. The stats show that with relative comparisons of their primes too, it's not like I'm making this up to troll you. Like I have time. Your own stats show that.
But this is not what the discussion was about or why "thick" was so upset. You are talking about two different things. But on your topic, you can't just say Djokovic 2012 couldn't beat peak Federer. From Canada 2007, Djokovic went pretty even with Federer in the head to head so you have to clarify where Federer would be less likely to lose.
 

JackGates

Hall of Fame
But this is not what the discussion was about or why "thick" was so upset. You are talking about two different things. But on your topic, you can't just say Djokovic 2012 couldn't beat peak Federer. From Canada 2007, Djokovic went pretty even with Federer in the head to head.
I mean he wouldn't lead the h2h, this is what we mean by beat, of course he would win matches.

Fed's consistency and longevity is so great that Fed brings his peak level more often than Djokovic. Plus 2007 surfaces suit Fed's game a lot more. But this is just speculation. We don't know how Djokovic would play, maybe he would adapt.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
I mean he wouldn't lead the h2h, this is what we mean by beat, of course he would win matches.

Fed's consistency and longevity is so great that Fed brings his peak level more often than Djokovic. Plus 2007 surfaces suit Fed's game a lot more. But this is just speculation. We don't know how Djokovic would play, maybe he would adapt.
Yea you are talking about two different things. He is talking about Federer being the best player in the world in 2012 after the USO whereas I say it was still Djokovic. That's what his problem is.

As far as head to head. Hard to say really. If you remove the first 4 matches they played from 2006 and 2007, before Djokovic became a top 5 player and start counting at 2007 Canada, you will see this rivalry is very close. It was 1-1 in the remaining matches in 2007, 2-1 Federer in 2008, 3-2 Djokovic in 2009, 4-1 Federer in 2010, 4-1 Djokovic in 2011 and 3-2 Djokovic in 2012. That's close and I think it would have been close peak to peak as well.
 

JackGates

Hall of Fame
Yea you are talking about two different things. He is talking about Federer being the best player in the world in 2012 after the USO whereas I say it was still Djokovic. That's what his problem is.

As far as head to head. Hard to say really. If you remove the first 4 matches they played from 2006 and 2007, before Djokovic became a top 5 player and start counting at 2007 Canada, you will see this rivalry is very close. It was 1-1 in the remaining matches in 2007, 2-1 Federer in 2008, 3-2 Djokovic in 2009, 4-1 Federer in 2010, 4-1 Djokovic in 2011 and 3-2 Djokovic in 2012. That's close and I think it would have been close peak to peak as well.
Why does it even matter who was better after USO? I bet they were pretty close anyway, but then Djokovic also became nr.1. Nole ended up with the biggest prizes WTF and year end nr.1 so who cares who was better?
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Why does it even matter who was better after USO? I bet they were pretty close anyway, but then Djokovic also became nr.1. Nole ended up with the biggest prizes WTF and year end nr.1 so who cares who was better?
I don't know why he cares so much about it or about my opinion. Good question.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Queens is not the same as a Masters warm up for clay or hard court because the field is split with Halle.
Doesn't matter, both tournaments regularly attract top players. From 1881 until 1993, Queen's was the sole warm-up event for Wimbledon. and almost every top player played there (notable exceptions being Borg who never played warm-ups and Federer who is contractually obliged to play Halle). Even now it usually has a superior draw to Halle but for the absence of Federer.

Queens was also only a 250 for two or three of Murray’s victories there. (Maybe more!)
Again it doesn't matter. Its draw far surpassed that of any other 250 event and there was no grasscourt event bigger than it except for Wimbledon.
 
Murray has more grass titles.

Murray - 8 tournaments out of 30
Nadal - 4 tournaments out of 23

Nadal has a worse win percentage. (Murray's win percentage on grass is the same as Nadal's win percentage on all surfaces)

At Wimbledon alone, Murray has totalled more ATP Ranking Points across his career than Nadal, having appeared in less tournaments. Factor in the Olympic medal and his record at other tournaments on the surface and I think it's fairly obvious Murray is a better player on grass than Nadal.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Grand Slam achievements >>> Olympics achievements, even for Nadal fans.

And Nadal has greater Grand Slam achievements on grass than Murray. Nadal dominates Murray 3-0 at Wimbledon and has 2 extra Wimbledon finals.
@Sport This is what I'm talking about with your double standards. According to you now, slam finals matter more than winning the olympics. Yet on another thread a while back, someone asked who was better, Cilic or Del Potro? Noting that Cilic had more slam finals in his favour. Your response was this -

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/cilic-or-del-potro.633245/#post-12963141

Del Potro's fantastic resume at the Olympics solves this dispute.

He defeated Djokovic at the 2012 Olympics on grass to win the Bronze Medal. He defeated both Djokovic and Nadal at the 2016 Olympics to win the Silver Medal.

Cilic has no Olympic Medals.
Note - Del Potro didn't even win gold !Apparently a while back you thought a runner up and a losing semi finalist place was better than a slam final, now winning the whole thing isn't as good. Seriously man, you change opinions like the wind to suit the players that you like. Apparently Runner up at Olympics >>> runner up at slam lol

No doubt you won't answer this or just try and come up with some other reason why the two opposing views can coexist - I get that we all probably get a bit biased at times but admitting it would be classy.

Aside from that there's also this

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/who-will-be-the-ao-goat-should-fed-win-the-2018-edition.605044/page-2#post-11821392

Federer is 1-3 against Nadal in the AO

Federer is also 1-3 against Djokovic in the AO

With Djokovic having won 1 more AO title there is no way in hell Federer is the AO GOAT. With those horrible H2H stats against his two main career rivals, Roger needs 2 more AO titles to surpass Djokovic as the AO GOAT.
Maintaining that Fed wouldn't be AO GOAT if he just tied Djokovic - even though he'd have more finals, which you say is important . You also bring in his H2H with Nadal where in arguing with me you've said only H2H between the 2 players in question matter (because i brought up the grass H2H with Djokovic) so which is it? Is head to head with other rivals important or not? If olympic semifinalist and finalist is better than slam finals, why isn't an olympic win and an extra few queens titles?

Here's an even bigger example

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/the-main-reason-nadal-and-djokovic-still-win-slams-is-lack-of-competition.623381/#post-12576860

No. Del Potro >>>> Roddick. Stop with the propaganda. Roddick has 0 Olympic Medals, 0 victories in a final against Federer, 0 victories against Nadal or Djokovic in the Olympics. He is nothing compared to Del Potro.

Del Potro is also more complete than Roddick. Roddick was nothing on clay, while Del Potro is a GS semifinalist on clay, hard courts and grass.
So Roddick is inferior to Delpo because Delpo has some losers medals (I can quote you calling them that too) even though Roddick has 4 extra slam finals, but an olympic WIN doesn't overcome 2 extra finals... hmm that doesn't add up. So were you right before or were you just trying to tear down Federer's competition?
 
Last edited:
Top