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

ojo rojo

Legend
All about those decorations, kid.

doc.jpg

PhotoFunia 1715455375
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
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.

Good Points.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
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.

Nadal obviously has a higher level of play than Murray on Grass but the RESUME of Murray is superior ;) thats the point, even Federer played at a higher level than Djokvoic at W but the resume of Novak is very close to Federer and Pete's...... See resume is resume, level of play could be different but stats aren't and sadly the world judges us on stats, not on level....
 

Sputnik Bulgorov

Professional
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.
8-B
I understand. It’s one of the reasons why I call Nadal the ‘better’ player, but not the ‘greater’ one. I simply can’t give points for a hypothetical motivated, physically fresh Nadal who prioritizes Queens. Nadal made the decision to focus on clay, which was the best decision for his career, but it definitely didn’t help him come grass season. That’s on him. Funnily enough, Nadal participated in Queens every year from 2006 till 2011, except 2009. All of those years, he either made the Wimbledon final or won the whole thing. If he was tired from clay, it didn’t show. When he stopped playing Queens, he also happened to start the 6 year losing streak in the first week of Wimbledon. Make of it what you will, but maybe playing Queens did him some good.

I like the special mention of 2008 because that was indeed one of the finest grass campaigns in history. Beating Roddick, Karlovic and Djokovic in a row on grass is no small feat. It was unfortunate the Wimbledon draw ended up falling apart for both Nadal and Federer, but the final made up for everything. This special year is the main reason I call Nadal the ‘better’ grass player with a higher peak.

You mention the addition of Madrid, but I don’t think it changed anything at all. Nadal was participating in Hamburg 2003 when he was just 16. He skipped 2004- 2005 because of injury and 2006 because of exhaustion from the epic Rome final, but came back in 2007 and 2008. By 2009, Hamburg was replaced with Madrid. He was always willing to max out the clay season, regardless of Madrid’s presence.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
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.
2008 QF was beautiful.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Reaching a slam final, IMO, is an outstanding achievement.

It is an achivement for 99.9% of the people who've never won any slams, but if you ask the slam winners then they don't consider the plate as an achievment. Especially the Big 3, those guys would rather not reach finals and lose it because that is sort of a black mark on their resume and sometimes their legacy too.
 

Phenomenal

Hall of Fame
For the record Nadal beat 5 time defending champion with ending his 65 match win streak. Murray beat 1 time Wimbledon champion at the time not 7.
 
Last edited:

fedfan24

Hall of Fame
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.
Queens titles will always have a ? As Federer didn’t play there. Murray didn’t go through Nadal or Djokovic either if I recall correctly. Nice trinkets to have, along with Fed’s Halle titles.
 

Phenomenal

Hall of Fame
In most years Nadal was busy winning RG to do much at shorter time on grass lead ups, Queen or other grass tournaments are not masters and field is not near complete. For these reasons i don't take those titles any seriously here and after winning RG Nadal end up winning Queens once aswell in his career.

It was funny to read the OP, who considers Olympic no more than exhibiton. I consider Olympics very highly in this era especially like Murray's 2012.
 

Phenomenal

Hall of Fame
3-0 h2h is too big to ignore. I only laugh reading some here. People diminish h2h like nothing in this case even more important to consider.

All 3 wins came in the later stages of the tournament. 2008 is the only one where Murray can be inexperienced at the time even then without Nadal he would reach the final with the draw likely.
Just in the next slam Murray won against Nadal in 2008 USO. Especially 2010 and 2011 wins no need description. Murray could have won both events without Nadal, would have reached finals.
Apart from that Nadal has 2 extra finals(more or less offset Olympic?) Has better wins likely better losses in SF aswell.

Nadal was not favourite and didn't underperformed against peak Fed in 06-07 finals took a set in 06 and did very well in 07. 2011 you can argue he did underperformed or whether he was favourite or not.

Had Nadal also beat Fed in 07 final i would have said he reached higher level or his peak is higher. Sure would be in the match-up atleast.
 
Last edited:

Sputnik Bulgorov

Professional
Queens titles will always have a ? As Federer didn’t play there. Murray didn’t go through Nadal or Djokovic either if I recall correctly. Nice trinkets to have, along with Fed’s Halle titles.
Queens generally has better draws than Halle. Check my other posts on the topic. Nadal participated in Queens 5 times, but won only once. Federer wasn’t needed when Nadal was losing to Tsonga, Mahut, Hewitt, and Lopez. If anything, Queens was a special type of grass challenge that Nadal had extreme difficulty overcoming. Ultra-slick grass courts in bo3 format where upsets abound and grass court specialist shine - a remnant of a bygone era. Nadal had the consistency to outlast this type of player in Wimbledon, plus bo5 made sure the grass gets very worn down, but this wasn’t the case in Queens. Murray deserves credit for winning Queens when Nadal couldn’t.
 

Phenomenal

Hall of Fame
Dustin brown's 2-0 h2h is nowhere near in this context one didn't even came in Wimbledon or he is not a player to compare. You can argue so many examples most are just meaningless.
Tbh Djokovic Murray h2h tells much more than those random losses all big 3 have. You can conclude more things from that.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
In most years Nadal was busy winning RG to do much at shorter time on grass lead ups, Queen or other grass tournaments are not masters and field is not near complete. For these reasons i don't take those titles any seriously here and after winning RG Nadal end up winning Queens once aswell in his career.

It was funny to read the OP, who considers Olympic no more than exhibiton. I consider Olympics very highly in this era especially like Murray's 2012.

Olympics is indeed an exho.
 
Last edited:

Razer

G.O.A.T.
You indeed don't have any clue, troll.

Clue about what ? I consider it an exho, I don't care what you think. If Djokovic or some players wanna take the Olympics seriously then they are free to do it.

By the way, Murray > Nadal on Grass...
 

Phenomenal

Hall of Fame
Clue about what ? I consider it an exho, I don't care what you think. If Djokovic or some players wanna take the Olympics seriously then they are free to do it.

By the way, Murray > Nadal on Grass...
Your idol lost one of his biggest match in that 2012 final. Your hate after all those years ironically made the other great to be your idol aswell. Just pathetic your trolling, behave.

Maybe not in 1v1 comparison to slam finals but as a whole it was one of his biggest match. Everyone knows who is ahead and poll reflects that.

You deserve to be on ignore.
 

messiahrobins

Hall of Fame
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
Murray due to the olympic win
 

messiahrobins

Hall of Fame
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.
But for the Olympic Gold, id agree as the h2h is a huge factor for Nadal. But, the Olympics are so important and big, Murray has to take this one really.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
A rather misleading title. At the time Murray beat Djokovic, he only had 1 title at Wimbledon.

Beating a prime ATG who would go on to win 7+ titles is not at all misleading, it is infinetely better than Alcaraz beating an old Novak or maybe Hurkacz bageling 8 time champ Federer.... number of titles behind you do not make you better, it is whether you are in your prime/peak or not.
 

timnz

Legend
Defeat in finals cannot be treated as an achievement. Those plates are useless

3-0 H2H between them, yes this one counts....
Of course it is an achievement. What is better losing in the first round or making the final. If making the final is the same as losing in the first round, then why does the ATP give 1300 points for a runner up?
 

DariaGT

Professional
pre 2001 when grass was fast as were balls, Nadal would have no W title.
Tim Henman on the other hand playing in 90s speed grass would have won wimby.

Murray could win on slow, high ball bouncing grass swinging a smaller racquet
and an older style of game than the K.O.clay with a re-tweaked rebranded PK Destiny.

All these handicaps yet he still beat healthy Nadal on Clay, peak Fed when he was
very young and done it on slow grass and balls designed to attract clay warriors.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
pre 2001 when grass was fast as were balls, Nadal would have no W title.
Tim Henman on the other hand playing in 90s speed grass would have won wimby.

Murray could win on slow, high ball bouncing grass swinging a smaller racquet
and an older style of game than the K.O.clay with a re-tweaked rebranded PK Destiny.

All these handicaps yet he still beat healthy Nadal on Clay, peak Fed when he was
very young and done it on slow grass and balls designed to attract clay warriors.
? Tim Henman did play on 90s grass and didn’t win anything.
 
Top