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.
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.
Reaching a slam final, IMO, is an outstanding achievement.Defeat in finals cannot be treated as an achievement. Those plates are useless
3-0 H2H between them, yes this one counts....
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.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.
Disagree.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.
2008 QF was beautiful.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.
Reaching a slam final, IMO, is an outstanding achievement.
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.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.
Well said.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.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.
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.
You indeed don't have any clue, troll.Olympics is indeed an echo.
You indeed don't have any clue, troll.
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.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...
Given the level of competition they faced I value Becker’s four titles higher.Disagree.
WimbledalGrassdal is epic AF
I value all the 4x winners higher in terms of competition.Given the level of competition they faced I value Becker’s four titles higher.
Murray due to the olympic winMurray - 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
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.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.
No, he doesn't.Nadal destroys Roddick.
Nadal did beat Roddick pretty well at 2008 Queen's Club. Nadal won that semi final 7-5, 6-4, but it felt more comfortable than that.No, he doesn't.
That wasn't peak Roddick though and IIRC he was coming off a shoulder injury.Nadal did beat Roddick pretty well at 2008 Queen's Club. Nadal won that semi final 7-5, 6-4, but it felt more comfortable than that.
Nadal destroys Roddick.
A rather misleading title. At the time Murray beat Djokovic, he only had 1 title at Wimbledon.
Nadal has more trouble on grass with Muller's serve.Peak Roddick would not lose that easily vs Peak Nadal....would lose but not as badly as you think, Nadal would have trouble with serve of Roddick..
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?Defeat in finals cannot be treated as an achievement. Those plates are useless
3-0 H2H between them, yes this one counts....
He should not have lost to the player from Luxembourg in 2017.Nadal has more trouble on grass with Muller's serve.
? Tim Henman did play on 90s grass and didn’t win anything.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.
He didnt peak till start of Fed era, much like Ferrer, Monfils, Agut and others. Late bloomer but too late during homogenized era.? Tim Henman did play on 90s grass and didn’t win anything.