Nadal v Murray on Grass Who is better?

Which Majors did he "lose" due to injuries?

:cool:
If Rafa didn't start developing problems in 2014, I think it's very unlikely he'd have to wait until 2017 to win another French Open.

As for Andy, I have no idea. Can't confidently say any specifically, considering his history. But I think he had another one in him between Wim 13 & 16.
 
Pretty good question. You could make a case for either.

Nadal on grass:
  • Wimbledon: 2 titles, 3 runners-up, 2 semis, 0 QFs
  • Olympics: N/A
  • Other: 2 titles, 1 runner-up
  • Wins over Murray: 3
Murray on grass:
  • Wimbledon: 2 titles, 1 runner-up, 4 semis, 3 QFs
  • Olympics: 1 Gold
  • Other: 5 titles
  • Wins over Nadal: 0
If we are talking better grass player - personally I pick Murray. Going QFs or better for 10 years straight at Wimbledon is pretty remarkable, and is half the reason for the H2H - when Nadal wasn't playing well on grass, he never made it deep enough into the tournament to meet Murray.

Peak vs peak, I find it hard to go past Nadal. Although a lot depends on the speed of the grass.
 
If Rafa didn't start developing problems in 2014, I think it's very unlikely he'd have to wait until 2017 to win another French Open.

As for Andy, I have no idea. Can't confidently say any specifically, considering his history. But I think he had another one in him between Wim 13 & 16.

So, having a drop of form equals "injuries" these days and Majors can be directly "assigned" to the respective player?

I told you that what I think about you, but your true essence comes to the fore when you actually try to argue a serious point and not think only how to bite the Federer fans. A Nadal appologet is an interesting and very revealing concept.

:cool:
 
So, having a drop of form equals "injuries" these days and Majors can be directly "assigned" to the respective player?

I told you that what I think about you, but your true essence comes to the fore when you actually try to argue a serious point and not think only how to bite the Federer fans. A Nadal appologet is an interesting and very revealing concept.

:cool:
And to think you once told me I take myself too seriously. Take a good look in the mirror and stop trying to read between every line looking for hidden agendas like a boogie man behind every corner. The "Healthy Bull undefeated" is obviously taken too far by some, but if there's anyone in history who deserves the benefit of the doubt, it's Nadal being able to win RG if he's 100%. That should be obvious, it doesn't make me a Nadal "appologet." That's not a "revealing concept" of my personality, it's a pretty logical opinion (which you're free to disagree with, feel free to explain why you think Stan and Novak win RG 15/16 anyway if you want, I'm happy to have that conversation).

If you really believe Rafa just had a random drop in form, then fine. Believe whatever you want to believe. Not like he had broken legs for 2 years, but it's pretty well established that he started having physical problems in 2014 that he couldn't shake and that's what lead to the drop in form in 2015. It looked like he was starting to get past them but then his wrist issues worsened in 2016.

Do you think Federer's 2013 was simply a drop in form? Novak's 2017? Their drops in form stemmed from physical issues that they tried to play through but just couldn't gain any traction.
 
1358670_Wallpaper2.jpg
 
He didn't plan to retire, he thought he would have no choice because he didn't think he could recover from his back injury. Big difference.



None of Nadal's injuries prevented him from staying a top player and being in contention to win Slams. That may not be the case for Del Potro and, presently, Murray.

Nadal was not a contender at all in 2015 and 2016. Of course that was largely due to his 2014 and 2015 injuries, just as Murray not being a contender in 2014 was largely due to his 2013 injuries.

Nadal has had injuries his whole career. Murray has basically only had 2 major injuries, the back injury in late 2013, and his recent hip injury when he was already into his 30s.
 
Nadal was not a contender at all in 2015 and 2016. Of course that was largely due to his 2014 and 2015 injuries, just as Murray not being a contender in 2014 was largely due to his 2013 injuries.

Nadal has had injuries his whole career. Murray has basically only had 2 major injuries, the back injury in late 2013, and his recent hip injury when he was already into his 30s.

Nadal is still competing and still in the running for Slams and big titles. Even at his worst he never dropped out of the top #10. Murray hasn't been a top 10 player now for almost 2 years and his ranking has plummetted to #326 in the world. Big difference!
 
Nadal is still competing and still in the running for Slams and big titles. Even at his worst he never dropped out of the top #10. Murray hasn't been a top 10 player now for almost 2 years and his ranking has plummetted to #326 in the world. Big difference!

You are only looking at their CURRENT situation. I am not, I am looking at their whole careers. Yes Nadal's current injury situation is better than Murray's, duh. Factoring in their entire careers though and not just the last 2 years, Nadal has had more injures than Murray. And Del Potro beats both by a country mile.
 
You are only looking at their CURRENT situation. I am not, I am looking at their whole careers. Yes Nadal's current injury situation is better than Murray's, duh. Factoring in their entire careers though and not just the last 2 years, Nadal has had more injures than Murray. And Del Potro beats both by a country mile.

Nadal's injuries never threatened his career like Murray's current hip injury has. Nadal has never had to undergo surgery like Murray has had to do on 2 occasions now. As I said, big difference!
 
You are only looking at their CURRENT situation. I am not, I am looking at their whole careers. Yes Nadal's current injury situation is better than Murray's, duh. Factoring in their entire careers though and not just the last 2 years, Nadal has had more injures than Murray. And Del Potro beats both by a country mile.
Rafa is a fighter, and he can fight through most of his nagging injuries, and he has. Murray on the other hand, literally had to stop playing for over a year and will never be close to the same.
 
I love how you dont even mention Nadal having 5 Wimbledon finals to only 3 for Murray. That is certainly more important than some extra Queens titles, an event nobody will even know the names of the winners of years from now.



Yes that and not even mentioning Nadal having 2 more Wimbledon finals than Murray, and beating a prime Federer at Wimbledon. OP logic sucks ass all around. And yes Djokovic would have wrecked Nadal at the U.S Open and tied their "head to head" if had not lost to Del Potro, and Djokovic has a ton more finals there now. To put Nadal over Djokovic at the Open is laughable at this point. Although apparently to Pantera making slam finals are less important than the overrated head to head (although Murray being 0-3 vs Nadal at Wimbledon is empathic enough to mean something I guess, but even that shouldnt be exagerrated) and tiny tournaments like queens and Washington.
Runners up spots mean nothing. Nadal takes no pleasure from being a runner-up, read his book. It is about titles.
 
It is Nadal clearly. More finals and 3-0 record. Queens titles are not worth a lot, OG I value quite high, though but this was an once in a lifetime tournament. At least in the course of their careers there will not be any more Olympic editions played on grass so it is not that there were many chances.
More finals means nothing. While I don't rate less than 1000 events that highly, Queens is more prestigious than any other 500 event.
 
I get where you're coming from. I also hate Djokovic's US Open record because I know he's good enough to have converted a few more of those finals. I also understand the "win or bust" rhetoric. But that isn't the question. It's "win 6 times then bust or win 2 times then bust". Which would you rather? As a competitive guy myself, I would choose the former.

I am curious, though, so please sate my curiosity. Would you rather Nadal lost in the US Open Round 1 every year except 2010, 2013, and 2017 - beating Djokovic every time, or would you rather Nadal lose in the final of the US Open every year except for 2010, 2013, and 2017 (still wins those) - where he encounters Djokovic 3 times and loses all 3?

I know what I would pick if the roles are reversed.
Honestly, if nadal is to lose, I would rather him lose before the final than in the final to one of his rivals. By contrast when he wins, if he beats Djokovic or Federer along the way it makes it all the sweeter.

I do think the pros may think like this. Didn't Agassi say he threw a SF match in Australia v Chang because he wasn't ready to face Becker and losing to Becker he couldn't handle and wanted to hold on to his USO win a few months prior?

It is a very subjective issue. I think for players like perhaps Ferrer then runners up spots are highly valued as it is an achievement beyond their talent base at a Major, but for Nadal, Djokovic, Federer, Sampras, Becker, Edberg etc, I always had feeling they felt they could beat anyone on anything so a defeat would really annoy them and drive them on.
 
Stop trying to read between every line looking for hidden agendas like a boogie man behind every corner. The "Healthy Bull undefeated" is obviously taken too far by some, but if there's anyone in history who deserves the benefit of the doubt, it's Nadal being able to win RG if he's 100%.

It is funny, as I just said that that post of yours is actually an exception to the rule with you, so what you are protesting is the last thing that you need to do in that case.

The problem with that is that no one is 100% all the time, so a drop of form is a natural occurrence even without injuries. Talking about potential results when a player is "100%" is as good an apologetic approach as "undefeated when healthy". The very suggestion that that is even possible is enough.


That should be obvious, it doesn't make me a Nadal "appologet." That's not a "revealing concept" of my personality, it's a pretty logical opinion (which you're free to disagree with, feel free to explain why you think Stan and Novak win RG 15/16 anyway if you want, I'm happy to have that conversation).

It is, unless you can point me at the grave condition that prevented Nadal from winning for two whole years.

If you really believe Rafa just had a random drop in form, then fine. Believe whatever you want to believe. Not like he had broken legs for 2 years, but it's pretty well established that he started having physical problems in 2014 that he couldn't shake and that's what lead to the drop in form in 2015. It looked like he was starting to get past them but then his wrist issues worsened in 2016.

So, his "condition" magically disappeared in 2017 right in time to take advantage of Djokovic's drop of form?

Do you think Federer's 2013 was simply a drop in form? Novak's 2017? Their drops in form stemmed from physical issues that they tried to play through but just couldn't gain any traction.

I would like you to quote yourself posting about Federer missing to win Majors due to his woes just like you did with Nadal in that case. I am sure you won't, as that goes against the reason you post the one and not the other. That is the gist of it, your explanation could have made sense at least in theory, if you were consistent. I don't make claims about players "winning" Majors (although I could if I really wanted to) when they have a period of bad form.

That is excluding the fact that there are also other explanations about why a player can have a drop of form. For example in 2015 he didn't have any really bad losses, but it is very easy to chalk all up with the "injury" explanation. Almost all (if not all) of his losses were in the hands of quality opponents or opponents whose game was very suitable for the conditions.

He had 4 losses to Djokovic
3 losses to Fognini
1 loss to Federer
1 loss to Murray
1 loss to Brown on grass
1 loss to Nishi on slow HC
1 loss to Feli Lopez in the fast conditions in Cincy
1 loss to Verdasco
1 loss to Tsonga
1 loss to Berdych
2 losses to Wawa

The only really questionable losses were to Dolgopolov in Queen's in his first match there, and to Berrer at the very first match of the year in an insignificant tournament. Not out of the question that he both played those tournaments only to collect an appearance fee.

All other losses were to pretty solid players which were in form or simply bad matchup in particular conditions (Brown would be one such extreme example and Lopez would be another)

8-)
 
Nadal obviously. Both have two bulldones, but RAFA was also the second best player four times (2018 SF was obviously the virtual final), while murywoat twice at most (2010 SF may have been the virtual final though it's not as clear). OG is gut but not enough to cover this. Lesser titles not considered at all, make a grass masters first.
 
Rafa>Andy Murray, and I don't care about h2h.
Rafa performance in 2007, 11 and 18 was legendary ( may be not 11)
 
Back
Top