The better player on grass. Djokovic or Murray?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 748597
  • Start date

The better player on grass?


  • Total voters
    99

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Certainly not in the final. Not impressed with his spinny short backhand in the final.

In 2010, 2017 and 2008 he was rocketing shots off of both wings. 9+ is reserved for that.

2012 probably an 8.25
Sure, LOL. A Nadal who hasn't lost a set all year on red clay and Djokovic played almost as well as he can and lost in 4, is an 8.25.

17d33d4f-b722-45b4-9324-7616b7808b18_text.gif
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
You should start a tennis podcast lol.

Maybe, atleast interested people would get an idea. At TTW, even some of the just about tolerable ones like MichaelNadal, NoleFam etc. have turned so bad with drunk on power delusions.
 

ForehandDTL

Semi-Pro
Sure, LOL. A Nadal who hasn't lost a set all year on red clay and Djokovic played almost as well as he can and lost in 4, is an 8.25.

17d33d4f-b722-45b4-9324-7616b7808b18_text.gif
I’m talking about that match in particular.
Nadal was disappointing mid-match losing what, 8 games in a row?

2008/10 Nadal straight set that Djokovic because Ned was impenetrable off the bhand wing.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
LMAO. Borg beat prime Mac in Wim 1980. no Djoko win at Wimbledon comes close to that.
Borg also beat a red-hot Tanner in Wim 79 final. Wasn't just Connors in 79 Wim.
Borg's win over Gerulaitis in Wim 77 SF (an all time match) is also better than any Djoko win at Wim.
His 77 draw of Gerulaitis+Connors in SF/F (&Edmondson in early round) significantly tougher than any Djoko draw at Wim.
But keep showing more of your ignorance and Djoko fanaticism.
What happened to putting me on ignore? You should have stuck with your guns. Please. I can dissect Djokovic's draws here to next Sunday and he still comes out on top because 7 > 5, but even when we put all that aside it's clear Djokovic has the greater scalps. Now you're boosting up Roscoe Tanner who beat a bunch of nobodies to get to a Wimbledon final. Let's not boost up Anderson of 2015 though or Djokovic's wins over Federer. You're salty and coming up with excuses to why Djokovic has 7, and 21 Slams overall. When you were someone who laughed at the prospect of him ever reaching 21. You have no credibilty here. It's shot. :laughing:
 

ForehandDTL

Semi-Pro
What happened to putting me on ignore? You should have stuck with your guns. Please. I can dissect Djokovic's draws here to next Sunday and he still comes out on top because 7 > 5, but even when we put all that aside it's clear Djokovic has the greater scalps. Now you're boosting up Roscoe Tanner who beat a bunch of nobodies to get to a Wimbledon final. Let's not boost of Anderson of 2015 though. You're salty and coming up with excuses to why Djokovic has 7, and 21 Slams overall. When you were someone who laughed at the prospect of him ever reqach ing 21. You have no credibilty here. It's shot. :laughing:
Way to address the omission of John McEnroe.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
Sure, LOL. A Nadal who hasn't lost a set all year on red clay and Djokovic played almost as well as he can and lost in 4, is an 8.25.

17d33d4f-b722-45b4-9324-7616b7808b18_text.gif
Djokovic USO 15 F 9/10? I assume you would at least have him par with the Nadal 18.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
Pretty sure I've rated that Nadal before and I put him at 9+.
You hinted at it but it's not on the spreadsheet.

It only goes on the spreadsheet if you give a number. Unless I missed it but you submitted it now :D
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
What happened to putting me on ignore? You should have stuck with your guns. Please. I can dissect Djokovic's draws here to next Sunday and he still comes out on top because 7 > 5, but even when we put all that aside it's clear Djokovic has the greater scalps. Now you're boosting up Roscoe Tanner who beat a bunch of nobodies to get to a Wimbledon final. Let's not boost of Anderson of 2015 though. You're salty and coming up with excuses to why Djokovic has 7, and 21 Slams overall. When you were someone who laughed at the prospect of him ever reqach ing 21. You have no credibilty here. It's shot. :laughing:

you have zero clue about how well Tanner was playing in Wim 79. Guy had beaten prime Connors back in Wim 76 as well.
Anderson was a little better than decent in Wim 15, but not at Tanner level.

Tanner took prime Borg to 5 in Wim final, not in a pre-QF round. Also Wim 79 final was a match of pretty good quality.

I see you have no answers with respect to Mac Wim 80, Gerulatis/Connors Wim 77 etc. probably because of combination of ignorance+djoko fanaticism.

Yes, you are on ignore, but I happened to see your posts full of ignorance and Djoko fanaticism. So wrote in order to expose that big time.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
Maybe, atleast interested people would get an idea. At TTW, even some of the just about tolerable ones like MichaelNadal, NoleFam etc. have turned so bad with drunk on power delusions.
Yeah start it lol.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
What ommission? The close McEnroe win in '82 in quite impressive and I will give him that. He then got destoyed by McEnore the next year though.

talk was about you omitting prime Mac win of Borg in Wim 80 ( if you bothered reading properly, you'd get that). a significantly better win than any of Djoko's at Wim.

also Connors didn't face Mac in 83 Wimbledon, it was 84 Wimbledon. so not next year. Connors beat Mac in Queens 1983 again.
Connors is 4-3 vs Mac on grass (Wim 77, Queens 82, Wim 82, Queens 83 vs losing Wim 80, Queens 84, Wim 84)
For Borg to go 4-0 vs Connors on grass is mighty impressive.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
you have zero clue about how well Tanner was playing in Wim 79. Guy had beaten prime Connors back in Wim 76 as well.
Anderson was a little better than decent in Wim 15, but not at Tanner level.

Tanner took prime Borg to 5 in Wim final, not in a pre-QF round in a match of pretty good quality.

I see you have no answers with respect to Mac Wim 80, Gerulatis/Connors Wim 77 etc. probably because of combination of ignroance+djoko fanaticism.

Yes, you are on ignore, but I happened to see your posts full of ignorance and Djoko fanaticism. So wrote in order to expose that big time.
Lots of players beat prime Connors at Wimbledon, which is why I don't rate him on Becker and McEnroe's level. Tanner beat nobody to make that Wimbledon final. Anderson was a little better than decent though, right on queue.

So what? Cilic and Anderson (2 Wimbledon finalists) took Djokovic to 5 at Wimbledon. I don't see you boosting their status, because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Dude, like I said you have zero credibility and are even more of a joke at this point because of your arrogance and dismissive attitude towards Djokovic even reaching 18 Slams. Now that's he's on 21 you have a whole bunch of reasons (bs excuses) to why he has done so which has nothing to do with him being an exceptional player on grass or in general.

Well put me back on ignore and go bye bye.
 
Last edited:

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
I’m talking about that match in particular.
Nadal was disappointing mid-match losing what, 8 games in a row?

2008/10 Nadal straight set that Djokovic because Ned was impenetrable off the bhand wing.
2008 Nadal barely straight setted 2008 Djokovic (was down set point) but you bank on him staight setting 2012 Djokovic, who was far better. I don't see how you arrived to this.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Lots of players beat prime Connors at Wimbledon, which is why I don't rate him on Becker and McEnroe's level. Tanner beat nobody to make that Wimbledon final. Anderson was a little better than decent though, right on queue.

So what? Cilic and Anderson (2 Wimbledon finalists) took Djokovic to 5 at Wimbledon. I don't see you boosting their status, because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Dude, like I said you have zero credibility and are even more of a joke at this point because of your arrogance and dismissive attitude towards Djokovic even reaching 18 Slams. Now that's he's on 21 you have a whole bunch of reasons (bs excuses) to why he has done so which has nothing to do with him beaing an exceptional player on grass or in general.

Well put me back on ignore and go bye bye.

prime Connors is from 74 uptil 82 end, even if he was good in 83/84. that's 9 years, so not a small period.
Won in 74, 82
Ashe in 75, Tanner in 76, Borg 4x (77-79,81). Mac in 80. who are these loads of players? huh?

the only one apart from Tanner who beat prime Connors at Wim and not an ATG is Ashe in 75.

Cilic one was a lopsided 5-setter. He was a little better than decent.
not saying Amaya, Amritraj, Edmondson who took Borg to 5 at Wim in earlier rouds were great either. They were little better than decent just like Anderson of Wim 15, Cilic of Wim 14.

But then your combination of ignorance about 70s/80s and desperation re: Djokovic is telling..
that you are still so shamelessly ignoring Borg's epic win over prime Mac in 1980.
combo of Gerulaitis/Connors b2b in Wim 77.

Let Djoko win through either high enough level or go through a good enough draw. I've given credit to his RG 21 win for example. to do it at 34 on clay was excellent.
But Wim 19/21/22 doesn't qualify.
 
Last edited:

ForehandDTL

Semi-Pro
2008 Nadal barely straight setted 2008 Djokovic (was down set point) but you bank on him staight setting 2012 Djokovic, who was far better. I don't see how you arrived to this.
2008 Djokovic at RG in the later stages was essentially on par with 2012 RG Novak in the final. 2012 was just in the middle of his prime, so you’ve arrived at a false premise
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
prime Connors is from 74 uptil 82 end, even if he was good in 83/84. that's 9 years, so not a small period.
Won in 74, 82
Ashe in 75, Tanner in 76, Borg 4x (77-79,81). Mac in 80. who are these loads of players? huh?

the only one apart from Tanner who beat prime Connors at Wim and not an ATG is Ashe in 75.

Cilic one was a lopsided 5-setter. He was a little better than decent.
not saying Amaya, Amritraj, Edmondson who took Borg to 5 at Wim in earlier rouds were great either. They were little better than decent just like Anderson of Wim 15, Cilic of Wim 14.

But then your combination of ignorance about 70s/80s and desperation re: Djokovic is telling..
that you are still so shamelessly ignoring Borg's epic win over prime Mac in 1980.
combo of Gerulaitis/Connors b2b in Wim 77.
Yea of course you get decide when Connors' prime ended to suit your neverending agenda. He won the USO in '83. Why not end it there? Oh I forgot he lost to Curren at Wimbledon. Funny how Connors's prime ended in '82 when he won a Slam in '83, and made at least the SF of all Slams he played in '84 and '85, and ended those years ranked #2 and #4.

A little better than decent, coming from you, means absolutely nothing. No one in their right frame of mind is accepting your subjective analysis. Point is, you will move goal posts, peddle bs excuses all day, and do this yo-yo back and forth for eternity to never have to admit you were dead wrong. Not just wrong but dead wrong. Everyone saw your old posts and how Djokovic wasn't reaching 18 (even attacked me in 2018 after Wimbledon when I said Djokovic would win at least 4 more Slams and get to at least 17) and laughed at him reaching 21. Oh no, you don't have a clear agenda here.

To end this, Djokovic is a 7 time champion and Borg is not. It doesn't matter what new creative nonsense you create. That isn't changing.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
2008 Djokovic at RG in the later stages was essentially on par with 2012 RG Novak in the final. 2012 was just in the middle of his prime, so you’ve arrived at a false premise
With that loopy clay forehand? No way. I watched both tournaments and the top level of Djokovic in 2012 is clearly higher than his level in 2008.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Yea of course you get decide when Connors' prime ended to suit your neverending agenda. He won the USO in '83. Why not end it there? Oh I forgot he lost to Curren at Wimbledon. Funny how Connors's prime ended in '82 when he won a Slam in '83, and made at least the SF of all Slams he played in '84 and '85, and ending those years ranked #2 and #4.

no, because consistency and top level went down for most part after 82. he turned 31 FFS.
9 year prime period isn't enough for you? that's same as Sampras at Wim (92-00). Unlike you, I won't call Sampras prime in Wim 01 to pump up my fav Fed though Sampras did play well in 4R match and would've ramped up form atleast a little if he got through.
what next? prime extends for 15-20 years? in which land?
especially calling Connors prime in 85 and even more so 87 (you mentioned loss to Cash) is just beyond LOLworthy. :-D :-D


A little better than decent, coming from you, means absolutely nothing. No one in their right frame of mind is accepting your subjective analysis. Point is, you will move goal posts, peddle bs exucses all day, and do this yo-yo back and forth for eternity to never have to admit you were dead wrong. Not just wrong but dead wrong. Everyone saw your old posts and how Djokovic wasn't reaching 18 (Even attacked me in 2018 after Wimbledon when I said Djokovic would win at least 4 more Slams and get to at least 17) and laughed at him reaching 21. Oh no, you don't have a clear agenda here.

To end this, Djokovic is a 7 time champion and Borg is not. It doesn't matter what new creative nonsense you create. That isn't changing.

prediction is different from analysis of what actually happened. you don't even know that basic difference?
I had Djokovic as 3rd fav for Wim 18 pre-tournament anyways seeing Queens 18 (after Fed and Cilic). So wasn't under-rating Djoko there.
and no one sane could predict such a big extension of worthlessness of hyper-inflation era. even worse from 2020 onwards. So yeah, I was wrong not to foresee that sort of utter worthlessness extending so much. I don't have a problem admitting when I am actually wrong.

You still don't have the guts to talk about Borg's epic win over Mac in Wim 80 or Gerualitis/Connors b2b in 1977, do you?
of course you don't have much idea about Amritraj, Amaya, Edmondson taking Borg to 5 in earlier rounds at Wim either.
 
Last edited:

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
no, because consistency and top level went down for most part after 82. he turned 31 FFS.
9 year prime period isn't enough for you? that's same as Sampras at Wim (92-00). Unlike you, I won't call Sampras prime in Wim 01 to pump up my fav Fed though Sampras did play well in 4R match and would've ramped up form atleast a little if he got through.
what next? prime extends for 15-20 years? in which land?
especially calling Connors prime in 85 and even more so 87 (you mentioned loss to Cash) is just beyond LOLworthy. :-D :-D




prediction is different from analysis of what actually happened. you don't even know that basic difference?
I had Djokovic as 3rd fav for Wim 18 pre-tournament anyways seeing Queens 18 (after Fed and Cilic). So wasn't under-rating Djoko there.
and no one sane could predict such a big extension of worthlessness of hyper-inflation era. even worse from 2020 onwards. So yeah, I was wrong not to foresee that sort of utter worthlessness extending so much. I don't have a problem admitting when I am actually wrong.

You still don't have the guts to talk about Borg's epic win over Mac in Wim 80 or Gerualitis/Connors b2b in 1977, do you?
of course you don't have much idea about Amritraj, Amaya, Edmondson taking Borg to 5 in earlier rounds at Wim either.

thumb_womp-womp-michael-scott-best-womp-womp-ever-womp-53068126.png
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Loopy forehand?

Djokovic was way more aggressive pre-2011 than post.
Did you actually watch the matches? Djokovic was hitting his forehand pretty short for a lot of those 1st two sets in 2008, and was down 2 sets and 2 breaks in the 3rd. Then he opened up his shoulders and started ripping his forehand when his back was against the wall and he had nothing to lose. Plus Nadal's level dropped. Let me not leave that out. Nadal almost lost that set from that position which says more about him than Djokovic, and he honestly got a little tight. In 2012, it was similar circumstances but Djokovic was far more capable as a player and on clay in general. His top level when he started redlining was higher.
 

ForehandDTL

Semi-Pro
Did you actually watch the matches? Djokovic was hitting his forehand pretty short for a lot of those 1st two sets in 2008, and was down 2 sets and 2 breaks in the 3rd. Then he opened up his shoulders and started ripping his forehand when his back was against the wall and he had nothing to lose. Plus Nadal's level dropped. Let me not leave that out. Nadal almost lost that set from that position which says more about him than Djokovic, and he honestly got a little tight. In 2012, it was similar circumstances but Djokovic was far more capable as a player and on clay in general. His top level when he started redlining was higher.
Nadal’s CC backhand was immense the first two sets. The depth and heaviness CC was too much to handle for Djokovic, and that’s OK. From the baseline Claydal was in a different league.

In the last set Djokovic picked up his level and Nadal’s did drop a tad but that’s the nature of tennis. Nadal dropped from a 9-9.5 the first two sets to an 8.25. Djokovic jumped to a 9.5+
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Nadal’s CC backhand was immense the first two sets. The depth and heaviness CC was too much to handle for Djokovic, and that’s OK. From the baseline Claydal was in a different league.

In the last set Djokovic picked up his level and Nadal’s did drop a tad but that’s the nature of tennis. Nadal dropped from a 9-9.5 the first two sets to an 8.25. Djokovic jumped to a 9.5+
You're overrating 2008 Djokovic and underrating his version from 2012. Nobody would been able to do to Nadal what he did for those 8 games in 2012.
 

BauerAlmeida

Hall of Fame
Djokovic is superior overall AND peak vs peak. One defeat when he was in a bad slump mentally and after playing a long five-set match doesn't change that. Eventually things would have changed had they faced more often.

Kyrgios was 2-0 vs Djokovic and we all saw how much it mattered.
 

BauerAlmeida

Hall of Fame
Peak Murray probably takes a few from Fed as well. No weaknesses off the ground whereas Fed’s backhand is one, unfortunately for him.

Peak Fed probably goes 13-7 against peak Murray.

Peak Nadal goes 18-2 against Murray.

Murray goes 14-6 against Djok

Federer's backhand at its best was not worse than Murray's forehand. And his forehand is better than Murray's backhand, as good as the latter is.

Murray 14-6 vs Djokovic is ridiculous.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Djokovic is superior overall AND peak vs peak. One defeat when he was in a bad slump mentally and after playing a long five-set match doesn't change that. Eventually things would have changed had they faced more often.

Make that two defeats. He also lost in straights to Murray in the Olympic semi-final at Wimbledon the year before. Was he in some sort of bad slump then too?

It always amuses me when people like to make excuses for Djokovic when he loses to Murray because he had played a long match in the round before. A year earlier at the AO, he ground out an almost 6 hour match against Murray in the semi-final and then proceeded to ground out an even longer match against Nadal in the final. Similarly In 2011 Rome he beat Murray in a long 3 setter in the semis and then came out the next day fresh as a daisy to beat Nadal in straights in the final.

Somehow he only gets tired when he plays Murray after a long match beforehand but never gets tired after playing Murray in a long match before meeting Nadal. :cool:
 

ForehandDTL

Semi-Pro
Federer's backhand at its best was not worse than Murray's forehand. And his forehand is better than Murray's backhand, as good as the latter is.

Murray 14-6 vs Djokovic is ridiculous.
Match up wise Murray has a sizeable edge.
Flatter strokes, lower pace, slice. Those all play into Murray’s favor, which is why Djok hasn’t won a SET off Murray on grass, ever.
 

BauerAlmeida

Hall of Fame
Make that two defeats. He also lost in straights to Murray in the Olympic semi-final at Wimbledon the year before. Was he in some sort of bad slump then too?

It always amuses me when people like to make excuses for Djokovic when he loses to Murray because he had played a long match in the round before. A year earlier at the AO, he ground out an almost 6 hour match against Murray in the semi-final and then proceeded to ground out an even longer match against Nadal in the final. Similarly In 2011 Rome he beat Murray in a long 3 setter in the semis and then came out the next day fresh as a daisy to beat Nadal in straights in the final.

Somehow he only gets tired when he plays Murray after a long match beforehand but never gets tired after playing Murray in a long match before meeting Nadal. :cool:


I was talking about Wimbledon specifically, but yeah, even if it's two defeats it's a really low sample. And at the Olympics, both sets were close anyway.

Murray won fair and square in 2013, but that simply wasn't the Djokovic we saw under Becker on grass. In 2015 would Murray beat Djokovic? After we saw the huge difference in how they both did against Federer.
 

ForehandDTL

Semi-Pro
I was talking about Wimbledon specifically, but yeah, even if it's two defeats it's a really low sample. And at the Olympics, both sets were close anyway.

Murray won fair and square in 2013, but that simply wasn't the Djokovic we saw under Becker on grass. In 2015 would Murray beat Djokovic? After we saw the huge difference in how they both did against Federer.
2013 Murray edges out Djok in 5. Murray’s grass tennis IQ is so high, and his shots suit the surface perfectly.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I was talking about Wimbledon specifically, but yeah, even if it's two defeats it's a really low sample. And at the Olympics, both sets were close anyway.

Murray won fair and square in 2013, but that simply wasn't the Djokovic we saw under Becker on grass. In 2015 would Murray beat Djokovic? After we saw the huge difference in how they both did against Federer.

Don't forget Djokovic was already a Wimbledon champion when he played the 2013 final against Murray and had played a final at Queen's (2008). He was no slouch on grass even then.

In 2015 Federer played far better against Murray at Wimbledon (his serving was out of this world) than he did against Djokovic in the final. He wanted revenge against Murray for the 2012 Olympic final where he lost to Murray in straights and mentioned it prior to their match. I suspect Djokovic was already in his head at that point because he made some astonishingly nervous errors when playing him which he didn't against Murray.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
And yet he beat Prime Djokovic twice with that same serve.
He served a little better in the USO final but he's not beating 2015 Djokovic with that 2nd serve. Did you not see what he did with a far better serve in the final? You're dreaming. This is not 2013 Djokovic we are talking about.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
He served a little better in the USO final but he's not beating 2015 Djokovic with that 2nd serve. Did you not see what he did with a far better serve in the final? You're dreaming. This is not 2013 Djokovic we are talking about.

Don't forget he did beat Djokovic that year in the Montreal final.
 

ForehandDTL

Semi-Pro
He served a little better in the USO final but he's not beating 2015 Djokovic with that 2nd serve. Did you not see what he did with a far better serve in the final? You're dreaming. This is not 2013 Djokovic we are talking about.

He beat 2015 Djokovic ON HC with that same 80 mph second serve.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Don't forget he did beat Djokovic that year in the Montreal final.
I don't want to take away from Murray's win but Djokovic looked to be on the way out to Gulbis in that tournament. He wasn't at his top level in Canada or Cincy, but Murray actually played very well that day and was hitting his backhand about as well as I have ever seen him hit it.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
He beat 2015 Djokovic ON HC with that same 80 mph second serve.
So because he beat Djokovic once out of 7 matches in 2015, you think he is going to beat Djokovic in the best match he ever played in his career at Wimbledon and on grass? Murray also started hitting his 2nd serve bigger later in his prime, and in 2015 and 2016.
 

ForehandDTL

Semi-Pro
You're overrating 2008 Djokovic and underrating his version from 2012. Nobody would been able to do to Nadal what he did for those 8 games in 2012.

You’re underrating 2008 Djokovic. That’s for sure.

He was hitting lightning fast backhands that tourney and would have easily won RG 08 if it weren’t for the Clay GOAT.
 
Top