Murray vs Nadal ...... Who is the Greater Grass Player? Both have 2Ws and both defeated 7+ time W winners in Final...

Murray vs Nadal ...... Who is the Greater Grass Player? Both have 2Ws and both defeated 7+ time W

  • Total voters
    76
Razer

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Murray - 2 Wimbledon Titles, 5 Queens, won Olympic Gold on grass (beat Federer there :rolleyes: ) ... Beat 7 time champion Djokovic in a wimbledon Final
Nadal - 2 Wimbledon Titles, 1 Queens, 1 Stuttgart .... Beat 8 time champion Federer in a wimbledon Final
 
Last edited:
Honorable mention to Roddick who came close to beating Federer in a wimbledon final... so close yet so far... 0 titles... he too should have been in the conversation with these 2 guys.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
If defeats in finals don’t count so why should titles in minors like Queens?
Click to expand...

Even if we nullify Queens, Stuttgart, Plates etc etc

Murray still can boast of beating Roger at the olympics at Wimbledon.... no matter how tired Federer was, on paper a win is a win, history might look at this in that way, kids from the future might take that seriously if the important of olympics title in tennis increases with time.
 
alexio said:
cute how you dont count it at all when comparin murray and birdman/stanimal, its only about how he had same h2h with em vs big three at slams:giggle:
Click to expand...
My bro you got it all wrong. I am completely aware that Murray is a greater player than Birdman and Stanimal (the latter one closer ofc). However, when I mention that Stan’s and Bird’s slam H2H against big three is better than Murray’s it is to show that Murray underperformed in big slam matches against the biggest competition. Players who are inferior to him like Berd should not have a better H2H than him against big three. So where exactly is now the contradiction?
 
Razer said:
Even if we nullify Queens, Stuttgart, Plates etc etc

Murray still can boast of beating Roger at the olympics at Wimbledon.... no matter how tired Federer was, on paper a win is a win, history might look at this in that way, kids from the future might take that seriously if the important of olympics title in tennis increases with time.
Click to expand...
Don’t you normally say, tennis at Olympics is completely irrelevant? I don’t share that view so I see that as a good achievement by Murray, for me however not enough to outweigh a 0-3 in Wimbledon H2H prime vs prime. Also 2008 Fed >> 2012 Olympics Fed.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Don’t you normally say, tennis at Olympics is completely irrelevant? I don’t share that view so I see that as a good achievement by Murray, for me however not enough to outweigh a 0-3 in Wimbledon H2H prime vs prime.
Click to expand...

Yes, for me tennis as the olympics is totally useless, but I cannot speak for Kids born in 2020s who will judge 20 years from now.
For me Murray's win vs Fed at olympics is also nothing worth taking seriously but who knows how that will be viewed in the future?

The point I am making is, yes Nadal is a better player than Murray but their resumes are so similar that 15-20 years from now kids who never saw them both might consider Murray greater than Nadal :p .... Nadal being stopped by Fed or Novak won't count in their book, they will just look at Ws and Queens along with Olympics.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
My bro you got it all wrong. I am completely aware that Murray is a greater player than Birdman and Stanimal (the latter one closer ofc). However, when I mention that Stan’s and Bird’s slam H2H against big three is better than Murray’s it is to show that Murray underperformed in big slam matches against the biggest competition. Players who are inferior to him like Berd should not have a better H2H than him against big three. So where exactly is now the contradiction?
Click to expand...
ok thanks finally i heard it from you that hes greater than em:giggle:
 
Razer said:
Murray - 2 Wimbledon Titles, 5 Queens, won Olympic Gold on grass (beat Federer there :rolleyes: ) ... Beat 7 time champion Djokovic in a wimbledon Final
Nadal - 2 Wimbledon Titles, 1 Queens, 1 Stuttgart .... Beat 8 time champion Federer in a wimbledon Final
Click to expand...
Murray is a better player on grass but Nadal is a better player than Murray at Wimbledon.
:D
 
dking68 said:
@Razer will Sinner surpass both in wimbledons?
Click to expand...

Sinner hasn't even won his 1st wimbledon, so how can I make any prediction for Sinner ?

Asking about Sinner now in 2024 is like asking about Federer in 2002-03 period before wimbledon, there is no way to know anything.

Sinner is yet to win W while Alcaraz has already won once, this is same as Federer yet to win W but Hewitt already winning once.
 
I mean Murray is 1-2 Vs Fed including a straight sets thrashing on centre court and 2-0 Vs Djokovic including 0 sets lost. Then we have 1-3 and 2-2 for Nadal which is obvs worse :happydevil: Prime Ned vulturing 2 wins against preprime Murray (2011 was prime I think tbh) doesn’t tell me anything
 
Razer said:
Yes, for me tennis as the olympics is totally useless, but I cannot speak for Kids born in 2020s who will judge 20 years from now.
For me Murray's win vs Fed at olympics is also nothing worth taking seriously but who knows how that will be viewed in the future?

The point I am making is, yes Nadal is a better player than Murray but their resumes are so similar that 15-20 years from now kids who never saw them both might consider Murray greater than Nadal :p .... Nadal being stopped by Fed or Novak won't count in their book, they will just look at Ws and Queens along with Olympics.
Click to expand...
Well I don’t think we should give a damn about the judgement of people who can’t even make the scrutiny of looking at the opponents who stopped a certain player. People who ignore that will most likely also not care about Queens or OG. Likely they will see both have the same number of titles and then go straight to the H2H (if at all the put so much effort in it), which means check-mate Nadal.
 
alexio said:
ok thanks finally i heard it from you that hes greater than em:giggle:
Click to expand...
I never said different. It would be more than absurd if I claimed Berd was greater than Murray. I also never denied Murray is greater than Stan. What I objected was the absurd claim made here that Murray was closer to the big three than to Stan.
 
Razer said:
Sinner hasn't even won his 1st wimbledon, so how can I make any prediction for Sinner ?

Asking about Sinner now in 2024 is like asking about Federer in 2002-03 period before wimbledon, there is no way to know anything.

Sinner is yet to win W while Alcaraz has already won once, this is same as Federer yet to win W but Hewitt already winning once.
Click to expand...
Definitely not, he’s on 95% win rate so far this season. He’s playing at Federer 2004 level
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Well I don’t think we should give a damn about the judgement of people who can’t even make the scrutiny of looking at the opponents who stopped a certain player. People who ignore that will most likely also not care about Queens or OG. Likely they will see both have the same number of titles and then go straight to the H2H (if at all the put so much effort in it), which means check-mate Nadal.
Click to expand...

Nadal is stronger than Murray peak for peak, there is no doubt, you wouldn't bet your life on Murray ahead of Nadal if given the choice, but then that might not be how history views them, such is life.
 
Razer said:
Nadal is stronger than Murray peak for peak, there is no doubt, you wouldn't bet your life on Murray ahead of Nadal if given the choice, but then that might not be how history views them, such is life.
Click to expand...
Don’t you think history will look at H2H first before even consider Queens? Olympics might be another topic maybe.
 
dking68 said:
Definitely not, he’s on 95% win rate so far this season. He’s playing at Federer 2004 level
Click to expand...

He is playing similar to Federer 2003 ...... not Federer 2004.... Federer 2004 was higher level..... win% is fine but we cannot compare like that across eras....
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
I never said different. It would be more than absurd if I claimed Berd was greater than Murray. I also never denied Murray is greater than Stan. What I objected was the absurd claim made here that Murray was closer to the big three than to Stan.
Click to expand...
yea ofc hes closer to stanimal than to big three, completely agree here, and btw i hope mike danny also will see that previous post of yours haha
 
Razer said:
He is playing similar to Federer 2003 ...... not Federer 2004.... Federer 2004 was higher level..... win% is fine but we cannot compare like that across eras....
Click to expand...
They are basically neck and neck for achievements in 2024 as in 2004. Only difference is Fed won Hamburg, Sinner pulled out in Madrid. But if Sinner makes a deep run at Roland Garros, their achievements would be equal up to this point

Fed lost 3R in 2004 French Open
 
I think Nadal 1st clay court player to win WB after borg

Nadal also stop fed from winnig 6 conseceutive WB titles

Nadal converted 0 out of 7 BP in today match
 
Last edited:
BorgTheGOAT said:
Nadal. 2 additional finals and 3-0 in H2H.
Click to expand...


This pretty much.

The H2H also is won very comfortably by Nadal dropping only set IIRC and all matches happened when both players were at a good level so it's not deceiving in any way. Maybe we can exclude 2008 as Murray was still breaking through, but Nadal still wins the other 2 and quite comfortably.


The Olympics for Murray are a big achievement and winning Queen's many times, but ultimately grass is pretty much defined by Wimbledon and Nadal reached higher peaks there and was very consistent outside the 2012-2015 period.

Razer said:
Defeat in finals cannot be treated as an achievement. Those plates are useless

3-0 H2H between them, yes this one counts....
Click to expand...


The defeat in the final is not an achievement. REACHING the final is the achievement, and it's more of an achievement than losing in the QF or earlier.

Not to mention Nadal was stopped by peak Federer and peak Djokovic and that his 2007 version likely wins the title many other years, including 2016.
 
BauerAlmeida said:
This pretty much.

The H2H also is won very comfortably by Nadal dropping only set IIRC and all matches happened when both players were at a good level so it's not deceiving in any way. Maybe we can exclude 2008 as Murray was still breaking through, but Nadal still wins the other 2 and quite comfortably.


The Olympics for Murray are a big achievement and winning Queen's many times, but ultimately grass is pretty much defined by Wimbledon and Nadal reached higher peaks there and was very consistent outside the 2012-2015 period.




The defeat in the final is not an achievement. REACHING the final is the achievement, and it's more of an achievement than losing in the QF or earlier.

Not to mention Nadal was stopped by peak Federer and peak Djokovic and that his 2007 version likely wins the title many other years, including 2016.
Click to expand...
We can even throw in 2018, if Nadal gets through the string version of Djo he wins the title.
 
Nadal narrowly due to additional finals at Wimbledon. Slam finals matter to me. It's why I'm not sure if Alcaraz should be ahead of Roddick on grass.
 
StefanV said:
Nadal narrowly due to additional finals at Wimbledon. Slam finals matter to me. It's why I'm not sure if Alcaraz should be ahead of Roddick on grass.
Click to expand...
Alcaraz and Roddick are probably even. If it gets to 2-0 definitely Alcaraz though.
 
would be more difficult perhaps for nadal if we were talking about real fast grass
 
Still think It's Murray. I accept the final and H2H arguements but most of you are ignoring the Queens finals. Queens is basically a grass masters even though it's point do not reflect that but it's still a consistently strong grass field every year and Murray has won it 5 times, the most of anyone in history. That should be a factor in my view. As should Nadal losing 5 times at Wimbledon before QF level in his prime (2012-2017) meanwhile Murray made at least QF his prime from 2008-2017. Significant.
 
BauerAlmeida said:
This pretty much.

The H2H also is won very comfortably by Nadal dropping only set IIRC and all matches happened when both players were at a good level so it's not deceiving in any way. Maybe we can exclude 2008 as Murray was still breaking through, but Nadal still wins the other 2 and quite comfortably.


The Olympics for Murray are a big achievement and winning Queen's many times, but ultimately grass is pretty much defined by Wimbledon and Nadal reached higher peaks there and was very consistent outside the 2012-2015 period.




The defeat in the final is not an achievement. REACHING the final is the achievement, and it's more of an achievement than losing in the QF or earlier.

Not to mention Nadal was stopped by peak Federer and peak Djokovic and that his 2007 version likely wins the title many other years, including 2016.
Click to expand...

Reaching the final and losing is worse than losing early or at least same as losing earlier. This has been discussed many times, great players are always judged by their wins and criticized for their losses on the big stage. They are judged by how many finals they reached, that count of finals reached us for players who never won a title.

The players play for trophy, not for plates, so it doesn't matter at what round they lost. A failed attempt at climbing Mount Everest is still a failed attempt, nobody knows or cares whether you failed half way or climbed 90%.
 
Razer said:
The players play for trophy, not for plates, so it doesn't matter at what round they lost. A failed attempt at climbing Mount Everest is still a failed attempt, nobody knows or cares whether you failed half way or climbed 90%.
Click to expand...
disagree, razer, yes they both failed in reaching everest for example but it still doesnt mean they on same level, more precisely more likely it shows they on abs different levels, a guy who scored nine out of ten in darts bullseye attempts and a guy who scored zero out of ten, the goal was to score ten, both failed but the difference/gap in level between two is huge, see, devil is in the details
 
Nadal could win a Wimbledon on outplaying his opponent. Murray, at his best, always looked to his opponent to drop down to his level.
 
At Wimby alone they are really close. Rafa has 2 more F, Murray has 1 more SF and 3 more QF. Murray reaches 10 straight QF at the middle of his career, while Rafa has no QF for 6 straight years near the middle of his career.

Top 10 Ranking at Wimbledon

Open Era until 2023, ranking is solely based on career ATP points, and only calculate R128-F matches. 1 Roger Federer 23,395 2 Novak Djokovic 19,685 3 Pete Sampras 15,370 4...
tt.tennis-warehouse.com tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Then when you add OG and Queens, it is clear cut for Murray. Even without considering other factors favoring Murray like win%, the number top5 and top10 matches.

Would like to see input from @Mainad .
 
Last edited:
alexio said:
disagree, razer, yes they both failed in reaching everest for example but it still doesnt mean they on same level, more precisely more likely it shows they on abs different levels, a guy who scored nine out of ten in darts bullseye attempts and a guy who scored zero out of ten, the goal was to score ten, both failed but the difference/gap in level between two is huge, see, devil is in the details
Click to expand...

No it is not like that....people who completed the set are the only people known to the world....nobody cares about losers collecting plates....

Titles are what matters, not plates.
 
Nadal has the higher peak. However, Murray has the numbers on his side. Murray has massive 8-4 edge in titles. He's also the Queens GOAT. And he has an Olympic gold medal to boot. This one has to go to MuryGOAT.
 
StefanV said:
Nadal narrowly due to additional finals at Wimbledon. Slam finals matter to me. It's why I'm not sure if Alcaraz should be ahead of Roddick on grass.
Click to expand...
Slam finals can be used as a "tie-break" metric if two players are tied in Slam titles. But not when one has more Slams than the other. 1 Wimbledon title > X amount of Wimbledon finals. Now, if Roddick had won a Wimbledon title, I'd see the logic behind your argument.
Pheasant said:
Nadal has the higher peak. However, Murray has the numbers on his side. Murray has massive 8-4 edge in titles. He's also the Queens GOAT. And he has an Olympic gold medal to boot. This one has to go to MuryGOAT.
Click to expand...
3 extra Wimbledon titles aren't part of the numbers? Also, Nadal has an 83% winning percentage at Wimbledon, Murray an 82%.

Slam achievements > achievements outside Slams. Murray winning extra Queens isn't more meritory than Nadal having 3 more Wimbledon finals. Not even 1 Olympic in Gold is equal to 3 extra Wimbledon finals I believe.
 
Pheasant said:
Nadal has the higher peak. However, Murray has the numbers on his side. Murray has massive 8-4 edge in titles. He's also the Queens GOAT. And he has an Olympic gold medal to boot. This one has to go to MuryGOAT.
Click to expand...
Murray doesn't have all the numbers on his side, such as Nadal winning all 3 of their Wimbledon matches. The 2008 Wimbledon quarter final is one of the most clinical Nadal performances of all time.
 
Mustard said:
Murray doesn't have all the numbers on his side, such as Nadal winning all 3 of their Wimbledon matches. The 2008 Wimbledon quarter final is one of the most clinical Nadal performances of all time.
Click to expand...

Murray has more titles and that is what counts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Centre Court
Greater grass court player, Murray or Roddick ?
2 3
Replies
144
Views
5K
Dedans Penthouse
Dedans Penthouse
F
  • Poll Poll
Who is the better grass court player, Roddick or Djokovic?
13 14 15
Replies
713
Views
28K
RS
RS
spirit95
  • Poll Poll
Greater Grass Courter of Nadal and Djokovic
4 5 6
Replies
269
Views
10K
Charlie
C
D
  • Poll Poll
Nadal vs Murray. The greater player at Wimbledon?
Replies
42
Views
1K
stringertom
stringertom
D
  • Poll Poll
How good will Alcaraz be on grass compared to Nadal/Federer?
2
Replies
93
Views
2K
BeatlesFan
BeatlesFan
Back
Top