Greater Grass Court Player? Murray vs. Nadal

[BGod]

Both at 2 Wimbledons.

Murray with 4 more secondary grass titles (6-2), Nadal making 2 more Wimbledon finals. Murray Olympic Gold on grass as well.

I know how this will come across but Murray has better losses at Wimbledon to me. Outside of the Finals loss to Roger he lost to him in another semifinal. Lost 3 times to Natal but 08 he was too young and in 2010-2011 he played tight before his 2012-2013 peak. Lost to 09 Roddick. Made 10 consecutive quarters or better with worse losses being comeback 2014 to Dimitrov and 2017 injured to Querrey.

I personally take Murray because he obviously had the higher floor not losing to upstarts like Nadal in his prime. The 2 extra finals for Rafa are not much separation with Murray having 4 Semifinal exits.

Peak for peak since Murray wouldn't have the same matchup issues his form 2013 beats any Nadal runs at least to me.

 

[metsman]

Writing off Nadal's 07-08 (and even 06 at times) performances against Federer due to matchup issues is pretty simplistic, especially given that the best opponent levelwise that Murray has beaten at Wimbledon is who exactly?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Lelworthy argumentation tbh, even 2006 Nadal is better than peak mury on grass - I don't see mury take actual peak fedr to two TBs at Wimbledon ever.

Murray has the consistency, but kept fizzling out against top opposition with straight-set and half-competitive four-set losses, and one five-setter where he got injured and had no chance because of it. The only loss that could have really gone either way was Roddick in 09 (surely Murray loses to Federer anyway). Nadal has both 07 and 18 as competitive losses in historical matches.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Writing off Nadal's 07-08 (and even 06 at times) performances against Federer due to matchup issues is pretty simplistic, especially given that the best opponent levelwise that Murray has beaten at Wimbledon is who exactly?

Verdasco, Jerzy, Milos, the list could go on...

 

[BGod]

Writing off Nadal's 07-08 (and even 06 at times) performances against Federer due to matchup issues is pretty simplistic, especially given that the best opponent levelwise that Murray has beaten at Wimbledon is who exactly?

2013 Novak & 2012 Tsonga are quality wins. He loses in 2012 to Federer who in that form is pretty close to 2009 level btw.

The grass in 07-08 was torched to hell. Nadal losing in his prime years to the likes of Darcis and Rosol cannot be ignored for the play on surface.

And this is of course just Wimbledon.

Murray on grass at Olympics and then at Queens, Cilic, Tsonga and yes Raonic.

 

[Prabhanjan]

The clincher is the one who has lost 1 set and won like a thousand against the other

 

[BGod]

The clincher is the one who has lost 1 set and won like a thousand against the other

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.

 

[timnz]

Murray is the all time record holder in the number 2 grass court tennis tournament - tournament over 100 years old along with his 2 wimbledons

 

[-snake-]

Ned. Despite all the lol worthy losses, he beat Fed and pushed him quite a bit before getting his 08 title. Plus, he owned the Muzzete on grass.

 

[JackGates]

Nadal and not even close. He won W a lot younger than Murray and did it versus peak Federer and also was pushing peak Federer. Plus he has more W finals. Also Nadal won FO before his W wins, which means he was tired and also had to transition from clay, Murray skipped the clay season so he was rested and could practice on grass. Plus Nadal also has wins versus Agassi and Roddick on grass. Plus Murray took advantage of the Fedal decline, I don't see him beating peak Federer on grass.

And isn't Rafa 3-0 versus Murray at Wimbledon with Murray only winning one set? People act like things before 2011 didn't happen when Nadal was destroying the field with Federer and Djokovic and Murray didn't do anything even when they are the same age as Nadal.

 

[NatF]

Nadal.

 

[Red Rick]

Murray.

 

[JackGates]

Murray.

He is 0-3 versus Rafa at Wimbledon and barely won one game.

 

[Red Rick]

He is 0-3 versus Rafa at Wimbledon and barely won one game.

H2Hs isn't really where it's at. Cause then we're talking in circles all day long.

Murray has more of everything, except Wimbledon finals. He has more titles, higher winning% on both Wimbledon and grass in general, he has OSG, yadayadayada.

 

[Sport]

Nadal dominates Murray 3-0 at Wimbledon. In addition, Nadal has 5 Wimbledon finals and Murray only 3.

Nadal could have won 6 Wimbledon titles if not for Federer and Djokovic. Murray only could have won 4 Wimbledon titles without Federer and Djokovic.

Nadal is simply a better grass player.

 

[Backspin1183]

Murray, barely.

 

[JackGates]

H2Hs isn't really where it's at. Cause then we're talking in circles all day long.

Murray has more of everything, except Wimbledon finals. He has more titles, higher winning% on both Wimbledon and grass in general, he has OSG, yadayadayada.

Yes, but h2h is just the cherry on top, Rafa won earlier versus tougher opposition and has more finals. Plus Nadal didn't have the luxury of skipping the clay season and prepare just for grass.

So, no I'm not using just the h2h, that is just a small part. Also win % is just overall consistency, greatness usually means big matches versus toughest opposition under pressure.

Let me explain why win % is irrelevant. Let's say one guy is 40-4 in one year. But all those 4 losses are early in majors. But the other guy is 28-40, his win % is terrible but he won CYGS he won all 28 GS matches.

 

[Red Rick]

Yes, but h2h is just the cherry on top, Rafa won earlier versus tougher opposition and has more finals. Plus Nadal didn't have the luxury of skipping the clay season and prepare just for grass.

So, no I'm not using just the h2h, that is just a small part. Also win % is just overall consistency, greatness usually means big matches versus toughest opposition under pressure.

Let me explain why win % is irrelevant. Let's say one guy is 40-4 in one year. But all those 4 losses are early in majors. But the other guy is 28-40, his win % is terrible but he won CYGS he won all 28 GS matches.

WIn% is part of the bigger picture, which isn't even necessary in the example you give.

 

[Sport]

Murray is the all time record holder in the number 2 grass court tennis tournament - tournament over 100 years old along with his 2 wimbledons

Grand Slam achievements >>> Masters 500 achievements.

If a player X had 0 Roland Garros titles but more Masters 500 on clay than Federer, would that mean that player X is greater on clay than Federer?

Nadal has greater Grand Slam achievements on grass than Murray, and so is better on grass. Nadal dominates Murray 3-0 at Wimbledon and has 2 extra Wimbledon finals.

 

[Towny]

Murray is probably more accomplished. Nadal has 2 Wimbledons, Queens and a Stuttgart. Murray has 2 Wimbledons, OSG and 5 Queens titles. Nadal does have 2 extra finals at Wimbledon, however.

Murray's level is also underrated. Yes I know Fed was exhausted, but Murray played really well in the Olympics final. High level stuff.

However, Murray has never quite reached the level of Nadal 2008. He was crazy good. And beating the Wimbledon GOAT in a Wimbledon final in his prime is no mean feat.

Murray has been more consistent at Wimbledon than Nadal, with Nadal having a shocking number of early losses. However, he has been blocked far less by Federer and Djokovic than Nadal has.

While his Queens wins are impressive, it's not the same as if he won 5 grass masters. The fields werent full. Had Fed and Djokovic been playing, I doubt Murray would've won so many.

In greatness, maybe around even. In terms of who is actually better, it's got to be Nadal

 

[JackGates]

WIn% is part of the bigger picture, which isn't even necessary in the example you give.

Clearly my example proves that win% is insignificant, when you don't use the same sample size and use onlg big matches. Because late bloomers and people who retire early inflate their win % due to smaller sample size and also players who do well at non GS level but can't bring their best for majors.

 

[MCallanan]

Writing off Nadal's 07-08 (and even 06 at times) performances against Federer due to matchup issues is pretty simplistic, especially given that the best opponent levelwise that Murray has beaten at Wimbledon is who exactly?

Are we including the Olympics? I'm assuming not. Really Murray has beaten close to everyone in the game on grass except Nadal which is why I lead more toward Nadal as the answer.

 

[JackGates]

Murray is probably more accomplished. Nadal has 2 Wimbledons, Queens and a Stuttgart. Murray has 2 Wimbledons, OSG and 5 Queens titles. Nadal does have 2 extra finals at Wimbledon, however.

Murray's level is also underrated. Yes I know Fed was exhausted, but Murray played really well in the Olympics final. High level stuff.

However, Murray has never quite reached the level of Nadal 2008. He was crazy good. And beating the Wimbledon GOAT in a Wimbledon final in his prime is no mean feat.

Murray has been more consistent at Wimbledon than Nadal, with Nadal having a shocking number of early losses. However, he has been blocked far less by Federer and Djokovic than Nadal has.

While his Queens wins are impressive, it's not the same as if he won 5 grass masters. The fields werent full. Had Fed and Djokovic been playing, I doubt Murray would've won so many.

In greatness, maybe around even. In terms of who is actually better, it's got to be Nadal

It's subjective. We can also use logic that one GS final is worth infinite number of queen titles and O games. Using this logic Nadal is not more accomplished. Also some people count h2h as an achievement too, so you can make good arguments that Murray isn't more accomplished. Nadal has five "consecutive" W finals, I would say that is greater consistency, depends how you define consistency. Also some people also count tougher draws as an achievemnt too. Or winning something at a younger age.

Isn't it a difference if I finish college at age 20 versus age 25? Surely that can be counted as an achievement?

 

[robthai]

Grand Slam achievements >>> Masters 500 achievements.

If a player X had 0 Roland Garros titles but more Masters 500 on clay than Federer, would that mean that player X is greater on clay than Federer?

Nadal has greater Grand Slam achievements on grass than Murray, and so is better on grass. Nadal dominates Murray 3-0 at Wimbledon and has 2 extra Wimbledon finals.

But Murray had done a lot better than Nadal vs Djokovic on grass.

 

[JackGates]

But Murray had done a lot better than Nadal vs Djokovic on grass.

Yes and Federer has done better on clay versus Almagro, Ferrer, Verdasco than Nadal and it means nothing.

 

[Tyskie]

I would say Nadal. Murray won W 2013, which was one of Djokovic's weakest seasons during his prime, Nadal was taken out in first and Roger in second round. His second W title came in 2016, which was one of the weakest seasons during Fedalovic Era.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

Nadal obviously.

If the OP rephrased the question and asked who has the most grass titles, we could then rejoice in the meme MurrayGoat!

 

[Towser83]

Nadal is a better player everywhere, I don't think his game on grass or hardcourt is as natural as Murray's but he gets 100% out of it where as Murray doesn't. Nadal is a better competitor regardless or surface, his will to win in the big moments is better.

Achievement wise though, Murray has done slightly better on grass, mainly because of beating Fed in straight sets at the Olympics. And we know Nadal fans really rate those olympics don't we? His win vs Djokovic was also pretty special (wimbledon 2013)

 

[Sport]

Nadal is a better player everywhere, I don't think his game on grass or hardcourt is as natural as Murray's but he gets 100% out of it where as Murray doesn't. Nadal is a better competitor regardless or surface, his will to win in the big moments is better.

Achievement wise though, Murray has done slightly better on grass, mainly because of beating Fed in straight sets at the Olympics. And we know Nadal fans really rate those olympics don't we? His win vs Djokovic was also pretty special (wimbledon 2013)

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.

 

[Towser83]

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.

They've both won 2 Wimbledons, ranking being a LOSING finalist over being a WINNING Olympic champion is ridiculous. H2H is aso ridiculous as Murray is undefeated to Djokovic who is a better Wimbledon champ than Nadal (Nadal trails 1-2 and his only win was by way of retirement, so he's never won more than 2 sets off Djokovic in a single match) and never managed to beat Federer on grass in straight sets unlike Murray.

Also this thread is about who is better on GRASS, not specifically the grass tournament wimbledon, so all other events such as Olympics 2012 and Queens must be considered

 

[Sport]

They've both won 2 Wimbledons, ranking being a LOSING finalist over being a WINNING Olympic champion is ridiculous. H2H is aso ridiculous as Murray is undefeated to Djokovic who is a better Wimbledon champ than Nadal (Nadal trails 1-2 and his only win was by way of retirement, so he's never won more than 2 sets off Djokovic in a single match) and never managed to beat Federer on grass in straight sets unlike Murray.

Also this thread is about who is better on GRASS, not specifically the grass tournament wimbledon, so all other events such as Olympics 2012 and Queens must be considered

According to your logic, a GS FINALIST is less meritory than a Masters 500 WINNER, only because the former won.

Grand Slam achievements >>> Olympics achievements.

The olympics achievements are only a tie-breaker in case two players are tied in Grand Slam achievements.

Nadal has greater Grand Slam achievements on grass than Murray. Nadal dominates Murray 3-0 at Wimbledon and has 2 extra Wimbledon finals.

Murray needs to defeat Nadal 3 times at Wimbledon and reach 2 more Wimbledon finals to tie Nadal in Grand Slam achievements on grass. If, and only if, Murray ties Nadal in Grand Slam achievements on grass, then the Olympics record can be a tie-breaker.

 

[MCallanan]

It's subjective. We can also use logic that one GS final is worth infinite number of queen titles and O games.

One Slam Final appearance is worth infinitely more than an Olympic Gold Medal? I agree that it is subjective but even the most anti-Olympic Tennis fans would have trouble saying that with a straight face.

 

[Sport]

One Slam Final appearance is worth infinitely more than an Olympic Gold Medal? I agree that it is subjective but even the most anti-Olympic Tennis fans would have trouble saying that weigh a straight face.

Nadal has 2 extra Wimbledon finals over Murray, not one. Also, Grand Slam achievements >>> Olympics achievements.

 

[Zetty]

He has two Wimbledons, an Olympic gold medal,and dominated Federer in a big best of 5 set match, which I haven't seen Nadal do on grass. I'd have to give Murray the nod.

 

[JackGates]

Nadal has 2 extra Wimbledon finals over Murray, not one. Even the most pro-Olympics person recognizes 2 extra Wimbledon finals are more relevant.

Yes, one Ferrari is worth infinetly more than 100 regular cars if you can't sell them and are stuck with them.

Your logic would only work if Murray could exchange the title, but he can't, so 1 GS final has unlimited value.

Two guys with 80 IQ aren't worth the same as one guy with 160 IQ, that's why two 500 titles aren't the same as a 1000 title, it doesn't work this way.

 

[JackGates]

He has two Wimbledons, an Olympic gold medal,and dominated Federer in a big best of 5 set match, which I haven't seen Nadal do on grass. I'd have to give Murray the nod.

Except 2008 Federer was in stellar form, he made W final without losing a set and later won USO. In 12 he struggled vs Delpo and did terrible at USO.

 

[Sport]

He has two Wimbledons, an Olympic gold medal,and dominated Federer in a big best of 5 set match, which I haven't seen Nadal do on grass. I'd have to give Murray the nod.

I have read many posts from you in the past where you always show a strong anti-Nadal attitude. So your objectivity is questionable.

26 years old Federer (who hand't lost any single set before the final) was in better form at the Wimbledon 2008 final than 30 years old Federer from 2012 Olympics who was a bit tired after the long 5 sets match against Del Potro in the SF. The same applies to 2006 and 2007 Federer.

Also, you strategically ignore that Nadal leads Murray 3-0 at Wimbledon and has 2 extra Wimbledon finals.

 

[mike danny]

Nadal. It's not even close.

 

[MCallanan]

Nadal has 2 extra Wimbledon finals over Murray, not one. Also, Grand Slam achievements >>> Olympics achievements.

The keyword here is ‘infinitely’. If I’m Andy Murray and I have to give up my 2012 Wimbledon Final or my 2012 Olympic Gold Medal the answer doesn’t take any thought. There’s no doubt winning a Grand Slam is a better accomplishment but simply making a Slam Final, that’s no open and shut case and certainly not infinitely more.

 

[Towser83]

Nadal dominates Murray 3-0 at Wimbledon. In addition, Nadal has 5 Wimbledon finals and Murray only 3.

Nadal could have won 6 Wimbledon titles if not for Federer and Djokovic. Murray only could have won 4 Wimbledon titles without Federer and Djokovic.

This rather hypocritical of you, since whenever I've said Djokovic is as good on clay as Nadal is on grass or HC you've also insisted that only the amount of titles matter and because Djokovic had only 1 RG he wasn't as good as Nadal was on grass/HC. I then said well yes but he only doesn't have 4 or 5 because of Nadal (exactly like your argument here) and you refused to see that point. But you do here when it suits you.

Here's some quotes when someone suggested that Djokovic is a better player on clay than grass and would have 5 RG titles without Nadal

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...nly-won-one-french-open.632183/#post-12922203

untestable, we don't know Nadal would have anymore titles. Also Nadal might have an extra 2 titles if he didn't face Djokovic according to you but Murray, beat Djokovic in straight sets in 2013 and beat him in the olympics as well in straight sets, so Murray is dominant against the 4 time Wimbledon champ, where as Nadal is not. Point in Murray's favour

is simply a better grass player.

He isn't a better grass player. He spent 4 or 5 years not getting past the first week and even in most of his final runs, was taken to 5 sets multiple times by journeymen. He's a better competitor, but Murray's game is more suited to grass.

According to your logic, a GS FINALIST is less meritory than a Masters 500 WINNER, only because the former won.

Grand Slam achievements >>> Olympics achievements.

The olympics achievements are only a tie-breaker in case two players are tied in Grand Slam achievements.

Nadal has greater Grand Slam achievements on grass than Murray. Nadal dominates Murray 3-0 at Wimbledon and has 2 extra Wimbledon finals.

Murray needs to defeat Nadal 3 times at Wimbledon and reach 2 more Wimbledon finals to tie Nadal in Grand Slam achievements on grass. If, and only if, Murray ties Nadal in Grand Slam achievements on grass, then the Olympics record can be a tie-breaker.

So you're telling me that Nadal would rather have lost in the olympics in 2008 if he could have made let's say the USO final and lost in that as well? Well I guess Djokovic's extra HC final makes up for his lack of Olympic medal on HC then? Fed's overall more HC finals also makes up for that. Funny cos I seem to remember that being a hole in their resume?

You just keep on repeating yourself about the H2H. So what? Murray has a better record vs Djokovic who's twice the Wimbledon champ Nadal is anyway. Murray has won more matches at Wimbledon, he's got a higher winning percentage, because despite those final losses Nadal has a lot of early ones too.

And again... this is about who plays better on GRASS, not Wimbledon

 

[mike danny]

2013 Novak & 2012 Tsonga are quality wins. He loses in 2012 to Federer who in that form is pretty close to 2009 level btw.

The grass in 07-08 was torched to hell. Nadal losing in his prime years to the likes of Darcis and Rosol cannot be ignored for the play on surface.

And this is of course just Wimbledon.

Murray on grass at Olympics and then at Queens, Cilic, Tsonga and yes Raonic.

2013 Novak was really a zombie. If only 2014-2015 Fed faced that Novak, he would be sitting on 10 Wimb titles.

 

[JackGates]

I have read many posts from you in the past where you always show a strong anti-Nadal attitude. So your objectivity is questionable.

26 years old Federer (who hand't lost any single set before the final) was in better form at the Wimbledon 2008 final than 30 years old Federer from 2012 Olympics who was a bit tired after the long 5 sets match against Del Potro in the SF. The same applies to 2006 and 2007 Federer.

Also, you strategically ignore that Nadal leads Murray 3-0 at Wimbledon and has 2 extra Wimbledon finals.

I wouldn't say the bias it directed towards Nadal, I think a lot of people have some bias towards achievements rather than a player. Some people put a log more weight into Queens, Olympics and consistency and less weight on h2h and prime/peak theory.

I can understand them, it's just different point of view, I disagree, but I wouldn't call that bias towards a player.

 

[mike danny]

Nadal and not even close. He won W a lot younger than Murray and did it versus peak Federer and also was pushing peak Federer. Plus he has more W finals. Also Nadal won FO before his W wins, which means he was tired and also had to transition from clay, Murray skipped the clay season so he was rested and could practice on grass. Plus Nadal also has wins versus Agassi and Roddick on grass. Plus Murray took advantage of the Fedal decline, I don't see him beating peak Federer on grass.

And isn't Rafa 3-0 versus Murray at Wimbledon with Murray only winning one set? People act like things before 2011 didn't happen when Nadal was destroying the field with Federer and Djokovic and Murray didn't do anything even when they are the same age as Nadal.

3 corrections:

1. 2008 Fed wasn't peak, although certainly much much better than the Fed that Murray faced on grass.

2. Roddick was just coming back from injury when Nadal beat him on grass. So an inconclusive win.

3. Agassi had pretty much one foot in retirement and was much much worse than in 2004-2005.

 

[Sport]

This rather hypocritical of you, since whenever I've said Djokovic is as good on clay as Nadal is on grass or HC you've also insisted that only the amount of titles matter

Towser, if you are going to attack me with adjectives like "hypocrite" I will find it difficult to continue this conversation. I din't call you anything offensive. You need to calm down when someone exposes a different view than you.

In fact, it is a continuum with my thought. Nadal is slightly better on grass than Djokovic on clay because he has greater Grand Slam achievements. 2 WB titles and 5 WB finals >> 1 RG title and 4 RG finals.

The same applies to the Nadal-Murray comparison. Nadal has greater Grand Slam achievements than Murray on grass, and that's why he is greater.

 

[mike danny]

They've both won 2 Wimbledons, ranking being a LOSING finalist over being a WINNING Olympic champion is ridiculous. H2H is aso ridiculous as Murray is undefeated to Djokovic who is a better Wimbledon champ than Nadal (Nadal trails 1-2 and his only win was by way of retirement, so he's never won more than 2 sets off Djokovic in a single match) and never managed to beat Federer on grass in straight sets unlike Murray.

Also this thread is about who is better on GRASS, not specifically the grass tournament wimbledon, so all other events such as Olympics 2012 and Queens must be considered

If Nadal had got Olympics 2012 final Fed on 2008 Wimb, he would have also won in straights

Now if 2012 Olympics final Murray had got 2008 Wimb final Fed, Murray would have lost in straight sets

 

[mike danny]

He has two Wimbledons, an Olympic gold medal,and dominated Federer in a big best of 5 set match, which I haven't seen Nadal do on grass. I'd have to give Murray the nod.

Surely you do know that this argument is worthless

Compare the Federer that Nadal faced vs the Federer that Murray faced. Murray would be lucky to win a set against the former.

 

[JackGates]

The keyword here is ‘infinitely’. If I’m Andy Murray and I have to give up my 2012 Wimbledon Final or my 2012 Olympic Gold Medal the answer doesn’t take any thought. There’s no doubt winning a Grand Slam is a better accomplishment but simply making a Slam Final, that’s no open and shut case and certainly not infinitely more.

The point is that you can't trade, that's why. If you have 100 regular cars you can sell them and buy a few Ferraris, so yes 100 cars are worth more. But Murray can't trade, so that's why it's infinetly.

You can have million people with an IQ of 110 and yet one guy with an IQ of 200 will be infinetly worth more because those people can never solve certain problems.

 

[JackGates]

Surely you do know that this argument is worthless

Compare the Federer that Nadal faced vs the Federer that Murray faced. Murray would be lucky to win a set against the former.

No, I think this argument has some value. Because Murray was able to dominate peak Djokovic on grass, Nadal wasn't able to do that. Neither Federer for that matter.

 

[Terenigma]

People saying stuff like "It's Nadal, no contest" are insane. If you want to pick Nadal then that's fine but don't act like its not close, it IS close. There is many different points of view with this, Murray has more titles and has much better consistency on grass. Nadal has the H2H and the Federer factor but like OP rightly stated, Murray has a better record of people he's lost to on the surface and yes, the Olympics counts towards this.

I'm trying to be as unbiased as possible with this because i'm a Murray fan but i really do think he is a better grass court player than Nadal. he's maintained a good level his entire career, Nadal has fluttered all over the place and let's not forget that the majority of the time either of them makes it deep into Wimbledon, the actual surface is less grass and more dirt so i think other grass titles is a bigger indication on who's better overall.

 

[Towny]

It's subjective. We can also use logic that one GS final is worth infinite number of queen titles and O games. Using this logic Nadal is not more accomplished. Also some people count h2h as an achievement too, so you can make good arguments that Murray isn't more accomplished. Nadal has five "consecutive" W finals, I would say that is greater consistency, depends how you define consistency. Also some people also count tougher draws as an achievemnt too. Or winning something at a younger age.

Isn't it a difference if I finish college at age 20 versus age 25? Surely that can be counted as an achievement?

Yeah I agree it's subjective. No doubt Nadal is the better grass player as evidenced by their very one-sided H2H and his 2008 Wimbledon win