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

Sport

Legend
@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



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



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



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?
I have changed my mind and I follow always the same universal criterion. Roddick >> Del Potro. Grand Slam achievements >>>> achievements outside Grand Slams.
 

timnz

Legend
Murray 5 Queens Club - an all time record
Murray 1 Olympic Gold on Grass
Murray 2 Wimbledon Wins/1 Wimbledon Runner-up

Nadal - 1 Stuttgart title/1 Queen title
Nadal - 2 Wimbledon Wins /3 Runner-ups

So is 4 More non-Wimbledon titles at Queens and the Olympics (Murray) better than 2 Wimbledon Runner-ups?
 

Sport

Legend
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.
Jimmy Connors has more ATP titles than Roger Federer, yet no one considers him greater than Federer. Analogously, Murray has more titles on grass than Nadal but it does not mean he is greater on grass.

Quality >> quantity. Murray won all of his Queens titles without facing Federer, Nadal or Djokovic.

Grand Slam achievements >>> achievements outside Grand Slams.

Murray is only greater on grass than Nadal in the Olympics and Masters 500.

In the Grand Slam on grass (Wimbledon), Nadal is clearly greater. Yes, Murray has a higher % percentage but it doesn't mean he has a greater Wimbledon career. Soderling has a lower % percentage than Ferrer at Roland Garros, yet Soderling has a greater Roland Garros career (2 RG finals of Soderling versus only one of Ferrer). Soderling is clearly greater on clay than Ferrer.

Number of Grand Slam finals >> % percentage.

Nadal dominates Murray 3-0 at Wimbledon and has 2 extra Wimbledon finals. So he has a greater Wimbledon career. Since Grand Slam achievements >>> achievements outside Grand Slams, Nadal is undoubtedly greater on grass than Murray.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
People just like crapping on Murray on this site and rarely give him credit for what he has done in his career. I don't know how Murray fans keep their cool while their player is dragged across the coals so often on here. No matter which way you cut it and no matter what adverb you want to use (insanely, extremely, remarkably, exceptionally, etc.), Murray's 2016 was very impressive.
Yeah and I've noticed it's nearly always the Federer groupies like metsman and abmk that do most of the dragging. They just hate the fact that Murray is/was a better player than their beloved Roddick and Hewitt and thus tougher competition for Djokovic(and Fedal as well) than they were for Saint Roger.
 

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
Yeah and I've noticed it's nearly always the Federer groupies like metsman and abmk that do most of the dragging. They just hate the fact that Murray is/was a better player than their beloved Roddick and Hewitt and thus tougher competition for Djokovic(and Fedal as well) than they were for Saint Roger.
damn that bitterness came out fast, lol and ofcourse you of all people would see it that way. also i dont think ive ever seen abmk "drag" murray.
 

Sport

Legend
Murray 5 Queens Club - an all time record
Murray 1 Olympic Gold on Grass
Murray 2 Wimbledon Wins/1 Wimbledon Runner-up

Nadal - 1 Stuttgart title/1 Queen title
Nadal - 2 Wimbledon Wins /3 Runner-ups

So is 4 More non-Wimbledon titles at Queens and the Olympics (Murray) better than 2 Wimbledon Runner-ups?
Yes. Grand Slam achievements >>> achievements outside Grand Slams.

Quality > quantity. Jimmy Connors has more titles than Federer yet not one considers him greater than Roger, since Federer has greater Grand Slam achievements.

You are equating Grand Slam achievements with achievements in Olympics and Masters 500 (Queens is a Masters 500).

Kei Nishikori has 1 GS final and 1 GS SF but 0 Olympic Golds. Nicolás Massut has 0 GS QF but 1 Olympic Gold. Since Grand Slam achievements >>>> achievements outside Grand Slams, Nishikori is greater than Massut.

Kevin Anderson has 2 GS finals, and only 1 Masters 500. Leonardo Mayer has 0 GS SF, but 2 Masters 500. Since Grand Slams achievements >>>>> achievements outside Grand Slams, Anderson is greater than Leonardo Mayer.

Nadal dominates Murray 3-0 at Wimbledon and has 5 Wimbledon finals. Murray has 3 Wimbledon finals, but the Olympics on grass and more Queens titles. Since Grand Slams achievements >>>> achievements outside Grand Slams, Nadal is undoubtedly greater on grass than Murray.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
I have changed my mind and I follow always the same universal criterion. Roddick >> Del Potro. Grand Slam achievements >>>> achievements outside Grand Slams.
wow you change your mind a lot in the space of a few months, maybe you'll change it back when it suits you. That's a very good way of always being right :-D

Appreciate you replying though.

So.... answer me this. If Nadal had lost in the olympics in 2008 and gone one further round in the USO and lost, would that have been better than winning the olympic gold and making the USO semis? Is never winning the olympics worth going to an extra USO final.

Genuinely interested at your opinion
 
Jimmy Connors has more ATP titles than Roger Federer, yet no one considers him greater than Federer. Analogously, Murray has more titles on grass than Nadal but it does not mean he is greater on grass.

Quality >> quantity. Murray won all of his Queens titles without facing Federer, Nadal or Djokovic.

Grand Slam achievements >>> achievements outside Grand Slams.

Murray is only greater on grass than Nadal in the Olympics and Masters 500.

In the Grand Slam on grass (Wimbledon), Nadal is clearly greater. Yes, Murray has a higher % percentage but it doesn't mean he has a greater Wimbledon career. Soderling has a lower % percentage than Ferrer at Roland Garros, yet Soderling has a greater Roland Garros career (2 RG finals of Soderling versus only one of Ferrer). Soderling is clearly greater on clay than Ferrer.

Number of Grand Slam finals >> % percentage.

Nadal dominates Murray 3-0 at Wimbledon and has 2 extra Wimbledon finals. So he has a greater Wimbledon career. Since Grand Slam achievements >>> achievements outside Grand Slams, Nadal is undoubtedly greater on grass than Murray.
The number of logical fallacies here is impressive.

Grand Slam achievements being greater than those outside slams does not mean achievements outside of grand slams have no bearing. I would contend that any slam achievement supersedes non-slam achievements anyway. The ATP already places a value on the events, so it is not hard to follow that.

Reaching a final is all well and good - but if a guy reaches one final and gets bashed out in the first round the next two times, he does not have a greater CV than a guy who made the semi final, at least, every time.

As demonstrated (which you ignored, I see), the ATP points totals across their Wimbledon careers is pretty conclusive - Murray has more total points and even more points on average per tournament (Murray averages better than a semi-final each Wimbledon and Nadal averages less than a semi-final each Wimbledon). That makes him a better player, by any objective metric, at Wimbledon across their careers. That, alongside the non-Wimbledon achievements you seem to think are irrelevant make him a greater grass court player.

Did Nadal, at times, reach a higher level? Perhaps when the conditions suited him, yes, but that does not make him a greater grass court player. Is he a greater player? By far, just not on grass IMO
 
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.
I guess it depends how one spins the National burden argument. My personal view is that Murray’s game is not particularly well suited to grass yet he has done disproportionately well on that surface. I think the pressure may sharpen him up and give him that raison d’etre which he has lacked at times in his career.

You are right about Federer in the 2012 final, but that was not the case in the Olympics nor against Djokovic in 13 and Raonic in 16. His Wimbledon losses to Nadal were with the home crowd rooting for him as well.
 
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.



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.
It does matter when you try and elevate Queens to the level of a Masters 1,000.

If Federer was indeed in the Queens draws it is doubtful that this thread would ever have been created!
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
Remind me who Nadal lost to in his prime years at Slams? Prime years.

08 is a joke to use against Murray. Fact he beat Nadal at USO shows how bad Rafa was on fast hard. 2010-2011 Murray loses mentally. Too bad we didn't get the 2012-2013 with Rosol and Darcis spoiling the party.
Why is 2008 win vs 21 yr old Murray a joke? If that's the case we could also say then that Borg's win over McEnroe in 1980 is a joke too, the guy was only 21! The USO 1990 was a total joke as the final contestants were 19 and 20. Agassi's 1992 Wimby win over Goran is a joke too.....shall i carry on?
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah and I've noticed it's nearly always the Federer groupies like metsman and abmk that do most of the dragging. They just hate the fact that Murray is/was a better player than their beloved Roddick and Hewitt and thus tougher competition for Djokovic(and Fedal as well) than they were for Saint Roger.
Yes, exactly, tough competition for Djokovic only.

Murray is being dragged through the mud because you guys are over-hyping him constantly just because Djokovic couldn't stop him. Meanwhile, Fed was good enough to stop Hewitt/Roddick, so of course they are weak era players.
 
Yes, exactly, tough competition for Djokovic only.

Murray is being dragged through the mud because you guys are over-hyping him constantly just because Djokovic couldn't stop him. Meanwhile, Fed was good enough to stop Hewitt/Roddick, so of course they are weak era players.
Hewitt/Roddick (Especially Roddick) gave Federer more trouble than Murray at GS.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Yes, exactly, tough competition for Djokovic only.

Murray is being dragged through the mud because you guys are over-hyping him constantly just because Djokovic couldn't stop him. Meanwhile, Fed was good enough to stop Hewitt/Roddick, so of course they are weak era players.
Hewitt/Roddick (Especially Roddick) gave Federer more trouble than Murray at GS.
I feel like it's not the time for this discussion anymore.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Yes, exactly, tough competition for Djokovic only.

Murray is being dragged through the mud because you guys are over-hyping him constantly just because Djokovic couldn't stop him. Meanwhile, Fed was good enough to stop Hewitt/Roddick, so of course they are weak era players.
Has nothing to do with over-hyping mike. Murray was just a better player than them irrespective of different matchups and I have a feeling they'd agree with me.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
Has nothing to do with over-hyping mike. Murray was just a better player than them irrespective of different matchups and I have a feeling they'd agree with me.
Murray is being dragged through the mud mainly because he is over-hyped as some GOAT competition for Djokovic at the expense of undermining Federer's. He is better than Hewitt/Roddick, but that doesn't translate to him being tougher competition than what Fed had.

But this is not the time for such discussions anyway.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Murray is being dragged through the mud mainly because he is over-hyped as some GOAT competition for Djokovic at the expense of undermining Federer's. He is better than Hewitt/Roddick, but that doesn't translate to him being tougher competition than what Fed had.

But this is not the time for such discussions anyway.
I disagree but yeah, probably not the most appropriate time to be talking about such things.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Yes. Grand Slam achievements >>> achievements outside Grand Slams.

Quality > quantity. Jimmy Connors has more titles than Federer yet not one considers him greater than Roger, since Federer has greater Grand Slam achievements.

You are equating Grand Slam achievements with achievements in Olympics and Masters 500 (Queens is a Masters 500).

Kei Nishikori has 1 GS final and 1 GS SF but 0 Olympic Golds. Nicolás Massut has 0 GS QF but 1 Olympic Gold. Since Grand Slam achievements >>>> achievements outside Grand Slams, Nishikori is greater than Massut.

Kevin Anderson has 2 GS finals, and only 1 Masters 500. Leonardo Mayer has 0 GS SF, but 2 Masters 500. Since Grand Slams achievements >>>>> achievements outside Grand Slams, Anderson is greater than Leonardo Mayer.

Nadal dominates Murray 3-0 at Wimbledon and has 5 Wimbledon finals. Murray has 3 Wimbledon finals, but the Olympics on grass and more Queens titles. Since Grand Slams achievements >>>> achievements outside Grand Slams, Nadal is undoubtedly greater on grass than Murray.
Nope. That's just your opinion based on whatever criteria you've made up this week to support Nadal. Next week you'll probably change it when the same criteria is used against Nadal.

The olympics is played on grass and that's what the topic is about, not who is better at Wimbledon - in which case I'd probably pick Nadal due to the extra finals, though not making it to the second week of Wimbledon for 5 straight years of his prime doesn't do him any favours at all.

Still haven't addressed this either

So.... answer me this. If Nadal had lost in the olympics in 2008 and gone one further round in the USO and lost, would that have been better than winning the olympic gold and making the USO semis? Is never winning the olympics worth going to an extra USO final?

Genuinely interested at your opinion
 

BGod

Legend
Why is 2008 win vs 21 yr old Murray a joke? If that's the case we could also say then that Borg's win over McEnroe in 1980 is a joke too, the guy was only 21! The USO 1990 was a total joke as the final contestants were 19 and 20. Agassi's 1992 Wimby win over Goran is a joke too.....shall i carry on?
Murray's breakthrough was at USO 08 on fast hard. McEnroe won USO 79.
 

DSH

Hall of Fame
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.
i am half joking but my point stands: queens is indeed the second most prestigious event on grass but is not a master 1000, especially when federer is not there.
The ATP World Tour Masters 1000 is the third highest tier of annual men's tennis tournament after the four grand slam tournaments and the atp.
queens and halle are atp 500, dont forget about it.
pd: you have be less sensitive when talking about murray.
 

DSH

Hall of Fame
If that 08 match is called at 7-7 Nadal might have 0 Wimbledons, how bout those hypotheticals? Point being Murray was making deep runs while Nadal lost to guys like Darcis, Brown and Rosol. You don't get to coast off that unless you're well ahead. Nadal has same number of Wimbledons as Murray so after that Murray's consistent and secondary titles win out.
Rafael Nadal: “If” doesn’t exist in sport. That’s the real thing. If, if, if – never comes. The thing is, you have to do it.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah and I've noticed it's nearly always the Federer groupies like metsman and abmk that do most of the dragging. They just hate the fact that Murray is/was a better player than their beloved Roddick and Hewitt and thus tougher competition for Djokovic(and Fedal as well) than they were for Saint Roger.
Has nothing to do with over-hyping mike. Murray was just a better player than them irrespective of different matchups and I have a feeling they'd agree with me.
Of course you say this because you're a Nole fan. Just because you say so doesn't mean it's a fact or true.

I can agree that Murray is better than them on clay, but on hard court and grass, that's another story. Nole lost to Murray at Wimbledon and USO while Federer dominated Hewitt/Roddick at same venues doesn't equate to them being an inferior to Murray.
 

DSH

Hall of Fame
Why is 2008 win vs 21 yr old Murray a joke? If that's the case we could also say then that Borg's win over McEnroe in 1980 is a joke too, the guy was only 21! The USO 1990 was a total joke as the final contestants were 19 and 20. Agassi's 1992 Wimby win over Goran is a joke too.....shall i carry on?
murray was a "baby" in wimbledon 2008 but a couple of months later le garçon est devenu un jeune.
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
Murray's breakthrough was at USO 08 on fast hard. McEnroe won USO 79.
Murray won Madrid and Cincinnati in 2008 and was No4 that year, behind the Big3. It doesn’t make sense to say he was a ‘baby’ for Wimbledon, to then be ‘fully matured’ 1 or 2 months later. The guy lost to Nadal, who went on to beat Fed. Geez, if the same Murray had his 2016 draw, he’d have been Wimby Champion back in 2008.
 

timnz

Legend
Yes. Grand Slam achievements >>> achievements outside Grand Slams.

Quality > quantity. Jimmy Connors has more titles than Federer yet not one considers him greater than Roger, since Federer has greater Grand Slam achievements.

You are equating Grand Slam achievements with achievements in Olympics and Masters 500 (Queens is a Masters 500).

Kei Nishikori has 1 GS final and 1 GS SF but 0 Olympic Golds. Nicolás Massut has 0 GS QF but 1 Olympic Gold. Since Grand Slam achievements >>>> achievements outside Grand Slams, Nishikori is greater than Massut.

Kevin Anderson has 2 GS finals, and only 1 Masters 500. Leonardo Mayer has 0 GS SF, but 2 Masters 500. Since Grand Slams achievements >>>>> achievements outside Grand Slams, Anderson is greater than Leonardo Mayer.

Nadal dominates Murray 3-0 at Wimbledon and has 5 Wimbledon finals. Murray has 3 Wimbledon finals, but the Olympics on grass and more Queens titles. Since Grand Slams achievements >>>> achievements outside Grand Slams, Nadal is undoubtedly greater on grass than Murray.
You are working off a tie break rule ie only count non-slam results if slam achievements match. Some here adhere to that. Many here adhere to a mixed approach - include everything in the count weighting events appropriately. I adhere to the latter. So if someone was on 13 slams and 30 masters 1000 wins, they would be ahead of someone on 14 slam wins and 2 masters 1000
 

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
The real grass might have enabled Murray to achieve more success, but the homogenized grass gave more chances to Nadal (no disrespect, he is so good a player that he could've been a contender on grass in any era). Federer once mentioned that Murray is the most natural grass court player of the other big 3. there's only a very thin gap between Murray and Nadal on grass, but I would give Murray the nod. In terms of achievements, Murray still has won more on grass and that, to me, is the difference.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Murray won Madrid and Cincinnati in 2008 and was No4 that year, behind the Big3. It doesn’t make sense to say he was a ‘baby’ for Wimbledon, to then be ‘fully matured’ 1 or 2 months later. The guy lost to Nadal, who went on to beat Fed. Geez, if the same Murray had his 2016 draw, he’d have been Wimby Champion back in 2008.
nah, Murray barely survived being straight-setted by Gasquet at Wim 08 (had to save atleast 1 MP in the 3rd set).
He only hit his stride in summer HC season.

If Murray of Wim 2008 had the same draw as he did in Wim 2016, he'd be beaten by Tsonga Wim 2016 in 4 sets tops.
And if Raonic didn't face him in a final, he'd have a good shot at beating Murray of Wim 08 as well.
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
nah, Murray barely survived being straight-setted by Gasquet at Wim 08 (had to save atleast 1 MP in the 3rd set).
He only hit his stride in summer HC season.

If Murray of Wim 2008 had the same draw as he did in Wim 2016, he'd be beaten by Tsonga Wim 2016 in 4 sets tops.
And if Raonic didn't face him in a final, he'd have a good shot at beating Murray of Wim 08 as well.
Hmmm didn’t Gasquet make the SF the previous year, beating Roddick in the process? Gasquet was very good on grass back in those days IIRC, so credit to Murray for beating him. Tsonga OTOH last year was far from his glory days. I would actually fancy 2007/08 Gasquet with a shot over 2016 Tsonga.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Hmmm didn’t Gasquet make the SF the previous year, beating Roddick in the process? Gasquet was very good on grass back in those days IIRC, so credit to Murray for beating him. Tsonga OTOH last year was far from his glory days. I would actually fancy 2007/08 Gasquet with a shot over 2016 Tsonga.
yeah, Gasquet was good on grass that time, but Murray was a point away from losing to him in straight sets.

Tsonga actually played some damn good tennis vs Murray in sets 1, 3 and 4 in Wim 16. Murray barely snuck out set1. Tsonga took sets 3 and 4. Tsonga played below par in sets 2 and 5 and hence lost those sets badly.
 

aman92

Hall of Fame
Overall for consistency in their career Murray...but Peak Grassdal blows away any version of Murray on grass
 

D.Nalby12

Legend
Not even close. Even at age of 32 Nadal produced such Tennis on grass that Murray can only dream. Nadal was unfortunate to face peak Fed twice in Wimbledon Final and peak Djokvic once. Murray got Raonic, Lol.
 
Top