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

[Pheasant]

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.

True. He doesn't have all of the numbers on his side. And Nadal had that epic run of 2007-2008 that is in the history books. A show was made about that 2008 Wimbledon final. It's a great show. There's no doubt to me that Nadal has the better peak. So I definitely understand why so many people picked Nadal. However, Murray's overall collection of titles is too much for me to select Nadal. I prefer Murray's career on grass courts.

That said, the OP chose a great topic. My gut instinct was to choose Nadal. At first, I thought this was a no-brainer in favor of Nadal. But Murray's career on grass courts is quite impressive; enough to go against my gut instinct.

 

[Tshooter]

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.

 

[DSH]

True. He doesn't have all of the numbers on his side. And Nadal had that epic run of 2007-2008 that is in the history books. A show was made about that 2008 Wimbledon final. It's a great show. There's no doubt to me that Nadal has the better peak. So I definitely understand why so many people picked Nadal. However, Murray's overall collection of titles is too much for me to select Nadal. I prefer Murray's career on grass courts.

That said, the OP chose a great topic. My gut instinct was to choose Nadal. At first, I thought this was a no-brainer in favor of Nadal. But Murray's career on grass courts is quite impressive; enough to go against my gut instinct.

As I already said, Murray is better than Nadal on grass (at a general level) but Nadal is superior to Murray, where it really matters, at the All England Club in Wimbledon.

 

[Turning Pro]

3-0 vs Murray at Wimby.
Defeated Peak/Prime Fed there.

He also should've probably won another 1 or 2 with a coin toss(Wimby 07 and Wimby 18).

 

[Hitman]

Whole body of work on grass, it is unquestionably Murray.

2 Wimbledon titles, 5 Queens titles which is the all time record, and he has Olympic gold.

Murray is the greater grass court player. Nadal though was better in the direct match up, but that doesn't mean much, Dustin Brown is 2-0 against Nadal on grass, and he is nowhere close to being in Nadal's league on grass.

 

[TheGoldenEra1990’s]

Nadal and it’s not even close. 07-10 is greater than anything Murray has ever done in grass

 

[Jonesy]

The one who has more Wimbledon finals.

 

[Holmes]

Nadal. Beating a very high level Federer is a much greater achievement than any Muzza put up en route to a grass title. Of course Roddick, and in particular first set 2004 Wimbledon final Roddick, is greater than both despite never bagging a title at the All-England.

 

[Rosstour]

Murray - 2 Wimbledon Titles, 5 Queens, won Olympic Gold on grass (beat Federer there ) ... 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

Nadal didn't beat an 8x champion. He beat a 5x champion.

The Nadal bias is showing crazy strong here. Murray beat Fed in the Olympics and the grass/ATG GOAT in a Wimbledon final. This isn't a contest IMO

 

[Rosstour]

Nadal. Beating a very high level Federer is a much greater achievement than any Muzza put up en route to a grass title. Of course Roddick, and in particular first set 2004 Wimbledon final Roddick, is greater than both despite never bagging a title at the All-England.

But in your world, and most of TTW, Djokovic is better than Federer--and so is Nadal. So those guys beating Federer is just the expected result.

Murray also beat the clear GOAT at USO Final. Proving it wasn't a fluke.

So, you'll love this--there is an argument that Murray is actually better than Federer, because he did what Fed couldn't: beat Djokovic in a Wimbledon final

 

[RS]

Nadal. Beating a very high level Federer is a much greater achievement than any Muzza put up en route to a grass title. Of course Roddick, and in particular first set 2004 Wimbledon final Roddick, is greater than both despite never bagging a title at the All-England.

Nadal destroys Roddick.

 

[Razer]

Nadal didn't beat an 8x champion. He beat a 5x champion.

The Nadal bias is showing crazy strong here. Murray beat Fed in the Olympics and the grass/ATG GOAT in a Wimbledon final. This isn't a contest IMO

Ok Nadal beat a 5X champion
Hurkacz bageled a 8X champion

Hail the daddy Hurkacz

 

[BlueB]

It's a hard one... They are about the same. Muzz with more titles, Ned with mote finals and H2H.
The only thing that separates them is that Murray is a more "natural grass player".

 

[tennis_pro]

Nadal is better, Murray is greater.

/thread

 

[Holmes]

But in your world, and most of TTW, Djokovic is better than Federer--and so is Nadal. So those guys beating Federer is just the expected result.

Murray also beat the clear GOAT at USO Final. Proving it wasn't a fluke.

So, you'll love this--there is an argument that Murray is actually better than Federer, because he did what Fed couldn't: beat Djokovic in a Wimbledon final

Roger is still the second best grasscourter of his generation. Besting him while he played at a high level is more impressive than beating the best grasscourter while at a low level.

 

[Rosstour]

Murray made Wimbledon QF or better for ten straight seasons, 2008-17, with two trophies, one runner-up, and 4 SF appearances.

I don't think Nadal's Wimbledon resume is as good.

 

[DSH]

Murray made Wimbledon QF or better for ten straight seasons, 2008-17, with two trophies, one runner-up, and 4 SF appearances.

I don't think Nadal's Wimbledon resume is as good.

5 finals from Nadal against 3 finals from Murray; the Spanish player is a bit better there.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

5 finals from Nadal against 3 finals from Murray; the Spanish player is a bit better there.

let alone 18 case, which even more stronk hintin to us that nadal is higher

 

[Turning Pro]

Nadal didn't beat an 8x champion. He beat a 5x champion.

The Nadal bias is showing crazy strong here. Murray beat Fed in the Olympics and the grass/ATG GOAT in a Wimbledon final. This isn't a contest IMO

Wait a minute. Murray was destroyed by Fed a few months earlier in an ACTUAL 2012 GS final at Wimbledon (who by the way wasn't anywhere near 03-08 Fed) yet:

Nadal beat Fed at or near his peak/pre in 08.

If competition wasn't a thing then Emersons 12 GS would of meant he was GOAT before Sampras.

Plus they're both equal in Wimbledon titles and the 3-0 is easily one of the tie breakers.

You're right, this isn't close.

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

It’s Murray. Nadal has more Wimbledon finals, but this is offset by 6 consecutive years of early losses to journeymen during his prime. Meanwhile, Murray made the QF or better for 10 consecutive years before undergoing hip surgery. They both have 2 Wimbledon titles. The head to head is already built into their title counts.

That leaves everything else, where it isn’t even close. I won’t discount Queens just because it’s a 500. It always attracts the best grass players, unlike Halle, and Murray is GOAT there. The Olympic gold is the cherry on top. You can make the case for Nadal being the better grass player, but Murray is the greater one.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Nadal smokes Murray's proverbial behind. It is what it is, as they say.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

They both have 2 Wimbledon titles. The head to head is already built into their title counts.

H2h is important if two players are equal in achievements and all meetings were more or less prime vs prime. Nadal beat the better version of Fed on top and has two additional finals.

I won’t discount Queens just because it’s a 500. It always attracts the best grass players, unlike Halle, and Murray is GOAT there.

Sure it always attracted the best grass players in the years Murray won like Federer and Djokovic for example. Sorry but Murray’s Queens titles are as relevant as doubles in GOAT discussions (after 2000). Success at something the big guns don’t care to play.

 

[Mustard]

Murray made Wimbledon QF or better for ten straight seasons, 2008-17, with two trophies, one runner-up, and 4 SF appearances.

I don't think Nadal's Wimbledon resume is as good.

Nadal was in the Wimbledon final for 5 years in a row that he played (winning 2 of those), and his recent Wimbledon appearances have been consistent semi finals.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

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.

2 titles less? No chance. Sure he came close within beating Fed so what? Nadal actually did beat Fed and came close as well in 2007.

 

[RS]

This Roddick stuff should stop.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

This Roddick stuff should stop.

Roddick is for the Fed fan base what Murray is for the Djoker fans. Both only have few fans themselves but get criminally overrated by other fanbases to push their own heros.

 

[GoatNo1]

don't rafa's fans usually insist that OG is as big as slam?

anyway, we have:

muzza vs rafa
Ws: 2 - 2
OG: 1 - 0
Big titles: 3 - 2
all titles: 8 - 4
W%: 80.82% - 79.17%
h2h: 0 - 3

so, among big4 rafa is no1 on clay, no3 on HC and no4 on GC!

 

[RS]

Whole body of work on grass, it is unquestionably Murray.

2 Wimbledon titles, 5 Queens titles which is the all time record, and he has Olympic gold.

Murray is the greater grass court player. Nadal though was better in the direct match up, but that doesn't mean much, Dustin Brown is 2-0 against Nadal on grass, and he is nowhere close to being in Nadal's league on grass.

If Dustin Brown had won Wimbledon it would mean a lot more lol. The 2-0 H2H would definitely be mentioned a lot more.

Were as Nadal and Murray are actually a lot closer to each other in achievements so it's quite a bit different.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Murray has more titles and that is what counts.

Nah. Same as with the Djoker vs Vilas on clay debate, the big ones is what counts, nobody cares about how many smaller tournaments you win which the big guys don’t even care to play. By that logic, Murray could as well have vultured some Nottingham or ‘s-Hertogenbosch titles and be greater than Nadal.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Whole body of work on grass, it is unquestionably Murray.

2 Wimbledon titles, 5 Queens titles which is the all time record, and he has Olympic gold.

Murray is the greater grass court player. Nadal though was better in the direct match up, but that doesn't mean much, Dustin Brown is 2-0 against Nadal on grass, and he is nowhere close to being in Nadal's league on grass.

H2H comes into play if two players are equal in achievements so Brown is a bad example.

 

[Hitman]

If Dustin Brown had won Wimbledon it would mean a lot more lol. The 2-0 H2H would definitely be mentioned a lot more.

Were as Nadal and Murray are actually a lot closer to each other in achievements so it's quite a bit different.

I don't know to be honest. I mean, what was so special about the 2008 win? Murray finally making his first quarter final in a slam ever, and that by barely getting past Gasquet. Nadal didn't face the Murray of 2012-2013 who was a much better player on grass, while Nadal faced the absolute best versions of Nadal.

Lets not also forget, Murray beat Djokovic at Wimbledon, Nadal never won a match against a healthy Djokovic in a complete match. Murray also beat Djokovic and Federer back to back for SOG....and the fact he has 5 Queens titles to Nadal's 1 is very telling and cannot be swept under the rug, considering how presitigous that title is.

 

[Tshooter]

Roger is still the second best grasscourter of his generation…

 

[Hitman]

H2H comes into play if two players are equal in achievements so Brown is a bad example.

Then how does 2 Wimbledon titles, Olympics and 5 Queens titles equal 2 Wimbledon titles, 1 Queens title and 1 Stuttgart?

It doesn't.

Grass is more than just Wimbledon.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Of course Roddick, and in particular first set 2004 Wimbledon final Roddick, is greater than both despite never bagging a title at the All-England.

lol I know that is trolling but very funny indeed.
Well I hope it is…

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Then how does 2 Wimbledon titles, Olympics and 5 Queens titles equal 2 Wimbledon titles, 1 Queens title and 1 Stuttgart?

It doesn't.

Grass is more than just Wimbledon.

Queens is not relevant, had Fed decided to play Queens every year instead of Halle, Murray would have zero titles. Djoko didn’t play it either and Nadal only twice in the years Murray won. I give you OG, but does this really outweigh Ned’s two additional finals, win against Fed in 2008 and 3-0 in H2H?

 

[Hitman]

Queens is not relevant, had Fed decided to play Queens every year instead of Halle, Murray would have zero titles. Djoko didn’t play it either and Nadal only twice in the years Murray won. I give you OG, but does this really outweigh Ned’s two additional finals, win against Fed in 2008 and 3-0 in H2H?

Sorry, if that is how you feel, I am not interested in any further discussion. Nadal's most impressive grass win is actually at Queens, where he beat Karlovic, Roddick and Djokovic.

We'll leave it there.

 

[Holmes]

Sorry, if that is how you feel, I am not interested in any further discussion. Nadal's most impressive grass win is actually at Queens, where he beat Karlovic, Roddick and Djokovic.

We'll leave it there.

Beating 2008 near prime Federer in a Wimbledon final to get the title is much, much, much more impressive than taking out Karlovic, Roddick and 2008 Djokovic at Queens.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Sorry, if that is how you feel, I am not interested in any further discussion. Nadal's most impressive grass win is actually at Queens, where he beat Karlovic, Roddick and Djokovic.

We'll leave it there.

With all due respect my friend but if you think a win at a tournament which is by many taken as a warm-up and where no other than one of the Wimbledon GOATs even tanked several matches with wins against mighty Karlovic (who reached one Wimbledon quarter in his whole career), Roddick (who had a very weak year in 2008 and lost in the 2nd round at Wimbledon few weeks later) and young Djokovic who lost to Safin at Wimbledon, if you really think such a title is more impressive than what Ned did weeks later at Wimbledon that year, then we should really leave it here.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Beating 2008 near prime Federer in a Wimbledon final to get the title is much, much, much more impressive than taking out Karlovic, Roddick and 2008 Djokovic at Queens.

You beat me to the punch. Really absurd claim, none of the three were grass court giants in 2008.

 

[Hitman]

With all due respect my friend but if you think a win at a tournament which is by many taken as a warm-up and where no other than one of the Wimbledon GOATs even tanked several matches with wins against mighty Karlovic (who reached one Wimbledon quarter in his whole career), Roddick (who had a very weak year in 2008 and lost in the 2nd round at Wimbledon few weeks later) and young Djokovic who lost to Safin at Wimbledon, if you really think such a title is more impressive than what Ned did weeks later at Wimbledon that year, then we should really leave it here.

Thanks.

Catch up next time.

 

[TheGoldenEra1990’s]

Nadal took end of peak 07 Fed to 5 sets (Murray gets bageled probably LOL) and beat prime Fed the year after and owns Murray own grass. So yea…..

 

[Holmes]

You beat me to the punch. Really absurd claim, none of the three were grass court giants in 2008.

Hitman is a good poster but can't agree with him here, which is fine. We are all fans of Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and most importantly, the game.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Hitman is a good poster but can't agree with him here, which is fine. We are all fans of Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and most importantly, the game.

He is, not that I take issue with anyone having different opinions but here I cannot follow.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

One of those better and greater situations. I find it hard to put Murray ahead because of the 0-3 but he is the more decorated champion. All about those decorations, kid.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Nadal did some nasty things to our Muzziah at Wimbledon.

 

[Mustard]

Nadal did some nasty things to our Muzziah at Wimbledon.

2008: A beatdown, a Nadal clinic
2010: A tense match throughout, where Nadal pounced at key moments of the sets
2011: The opposite to 2010, as this time Murray came out firing and won the first set and started the second set strong. Murray then missed an easy forehand, and Nadal turned the momentum around and beat Murray comfortably in 4 sets, like Murray had punched himself out.

 

[GoatNo1]

Nah. Same as with the Djoker vs Vilas on clay debate, the big ones is what counts, nobody cares about how many smaller tournaments you win which the big guys don’t even care to play. By that logic, Murray could as well have vultured some Nottingham or ‘s-Hertogenbosch titles and be greater than Nadal.

muzza 3 big titles (2 Ws and OG) vs rafa 2 (2 Ws).

duble so many all titles, 8 vs 4

better W% on GC

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

H2h is important if two players are equal in achievements and all meetings were more or less prime vs prime. Nadal beat the better version of Fed on top and has two additional finals.

Like I said, the h2h is already accounted for in Nadal’s 2 titles and 3 finals. If Nadal didn’t beat Murray, he wouldn’t have the titles, and he’d have one less final. 2 of his titles and one of his finals are a direct result of the h2h. We should avoid double counting. Nadal beat a better version of Fed, but Murray beat a better version of Djokovic. In the end, they’re pretty much even in terms of grass scalps taken.

Sure it always attracted the best grass players in the years Murray won like Federer and Djokovic for example. Sorry but Murray’s Queens titles are as relevant as doubles in GOAT discussions (after 2000). Success at something the big guns don’t care to play.

You have a good point, but these are still titles Nadal doesn’t have. Murray has beaten Cilic, Raonic and Tsonga in Queens finals, and these guys are no pushovers on grass. All have beaten big 3 on grass. I don’t think Nadal is guaranteed to beat these guys on grass. He’s entered Queens 6 times, but only won once. If it were so easy, why doesn’t he have more titles?

 

[DSH]

Like I said, the h2h is already accounted for in Nadal’s 2 titles and 3 finals. If Nadal didn’t beat Murray, he wouldn’t have the titles, and he’d have one less final. 2 of his titles and one of his finals are a direct result of the h2h. We should avoid double counting. Nadal beat a better version of Fed, but Murray beat a better version of Djokovic. In the end, they’re pretty much even in terms of grass scalps taken.

You have a good point, but these are still titles Nadal doesn’t have. Murray has beaten Cilic, Raonic and Tsonga in Queens finals, and these guys are no pushovers on grass. All have beaten big 3 on grass. I don’t think Nadal is guaranteed to beat these guys on grass. He’s entered Queens 6 times, but only won once. If it were so easy, why doesn’t he have more titles?

Context, please.
After each successful tour on clay, do you think Nadal would be interested in giving it his all in Queens when his goal was to reach Wimbledon well?
What Nadal did in 2008 was extraterrestrial, winning RG the way he did, going to play that tournament a few days later and beating good rivals to win his first title on grass, and resting to end the longest streak of victories on that surface in the Open Era, no less in the Wimbledon final against prime Federer, it was something unique and unrepeatable that Murray or any other player would not have done in their wildest dreams.
I add that the inclusion of Madrid as Masters 1000 on clay starting in 2009 harmed him by "forcing" him to have to play everything on his favorite surface, leaving him without much energy on the mini grass tour, remembering, above all, that until 2014 there were no three weeks of rest between RG and Wimbledon, season that would mark the end of Nadal's physical prime.
The Spanish player had a great last chance to win at Wimbledon in 2018 but failed in the decisive moments against his nemesis, a match that, despite being the semifinal, decided who was going to be the winner of that edition of the tournament.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Grassdal is epic AF