What makes Djokovic more accomplished Grass player than Murray?

What makes Djokovic more accomplished grass player than Murray?


  • Total voters
    30

upchuck

Hall of Fame
Djokovic is all around more consistent and versatile than Murray.

As for who is the better grass court player, the facts in this instance have to outweigh the anecdotal evidence, which doesn't seem to go beyond gut instincts that say Murray is better on the surface.

Djokovic's career at Wimbledon is superior to Murray's in every way. In addition to having one more Wimbledon title, he has more quarterfinals, semifinals and finals appearances. He's defeated a more impressive cadre of players at Wimbledon over the course of their careers, with victories over Nadal and Federer obviously standing out the most. His WL percentage at Wimbledon is better than Murray's.

It certainly helps Murray's case that he has not lost on grass to Djokovic, has more overall grass court titles, has a better overall WL percentage on the surface and has that olympic gold medal.

But Wimbledon is the holy grail of the surface and the sport and Queens is a 250 level tournament. The fact that Djokovic has shown himself to be better against the field at Wimbledon than Murray unquestionably proves he is the better player.

To suggest anything else is to rely on feelings and questionable anecdotal evidence.
 

Noleberic123

G.O.A.T.
I agree that Djokovic is underrated on grass but just because he has won more Wimbledons than Murray doesn't mean I should automatically think that he is better on the surface than him. Nadal has won more USO than Novak but would you say that he is a better HC player than him?

Djokovic has more HC titles and more HC slams. Its not just about the USO. Wimbledon is different because that the only grass tournament that most players play, and the only grass slam
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Djokovic's career at Wimbledon is superior to Murray's in every way. In addition to having one more Wimbledon title, he has more quarterfinals, semifinals and finals appearances.

Not quite. He has 1 more final appearance (3 v 2) and 1 more title of course but the same number of other semifinals (3 v 3) and 1 less other quarterfinal (1 v 2).

He's defeated a more impressive cadre of players at Wimbledon over the course of their careers, with victories over Nadal and Federer obviously standing out the most.

The victories over Federer and Nadal are the only ones that stand out.

His WL percentage at Wimbledon is better than Murray's.

True, but only slightly. It is currently 45-8 v 41-8 for Murray.

It certainly helps Murray's case that he has not lost on grass to Djokovic, has more overall grass court titles, has a better overall WL percentage on the surface and has that olympic gold medal.

Exactly.

But Wimbledon is the holy grail of the surface and the sport and Queens is a 250 level tournament.

That's a bit disingenuous. In the absence of a grasscourt Masters, Queens (with Halle) remains the foremost warm-up tournament for Wimbledon as evidenced by the fact that many past Wimbledon champions have played and won it beforehand.

The fact that Djokovic has shown himself to be better against the field at Wimbledon than Murray unquestionably proves he is the better player.
To suggest anything else is to rely on feelings and questionable anecdotal evidence.

The only thing that currently gives Djokovic the edge at Wimbledon is the fact that he now has 1 more title than Murray. Prior to that, they were pretty much even in all departments. Djokovic may have beaten Nadal and Federer to win his 2 titles but Murray beat Djokovic to win his and has never lost to him on grass and that kind of even things out between them IMO.
 
Last edited:

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
Enough trolling now, Hewitt has 7 additional masters (grass) crowns then. :lol:

Fact is queens is deserving 250 (500 next year) warmup tournament. Since it's not even even masters (Draw, Depth of field), it's not special achievement. Even Novak doesn't care to participate it since 2011. Additionally it shows how versatile Novak is, since he has won Wimbledon twice without participating warmups.

Fact is grass tournaments are a limited number and Queens is foremost among them in showcasing the play of Wimbledon champions. The discussion is about better grass court player and it doesn't lend itself to the hypothesis that someone winning less matches (including vs the player he's supposedly superior to on the surface) and less tournaments on the surface can be the better player on the surface. It's illogical.
 

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
Fact is grass tournaments are a limited number and Queens is foremost among them in showcasing the play of Wimbledon champions. The discussion is about better grass court player and it doesn't lend itself to the hypothesis that someone winning less matches (including vs the player he's supposedly superior to on the surface) and less tournaments on the surface can be the better player on the surface. It's illogical.

You are making same failed argument again and again. Queens was 250 and not even 500 when Murray won it. Face it.

Depth of competition and draw which separates Queens from Masters. There is no Masters on grass that doesn't mean you need to update 250 to Masters. :lol:

250 titles doesn't have significance in discussion since it is warmup and Novak even didn't care to participate it since 2011. Again Hewitt has 8 grass titles will you call him better grass court player than Djokovic? You're clueless in your post as usual. Ferrer has more clay titles than Federer is he better than Federer on clay? Spin it the way you want, you're losing it.

and please don't come with same h2h argument again, it's plain boring. Don't embarrass yourself making repetitive arguments which you have already lost. It has been consensus Djokovic is better on grass currently, so I think it's time to search new topic for releasing hate and frustration.
 
Last edited:

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic is all around more consistent and versatile than Murray.
Without shadow of doubt, he's better than Murray on hard, clay and on grass he has edge because more Wimbledon titles.
Djokovic's career at Wimbledon is superior to Murray's in every way. In addition to having one more Wimbledon title, he has more quarterfinals, semifinals and finals appearances. He's defeated a more impressive cadre of players at Wimbledon over the course of their careers, with victories over Nadal and Federer obviously standing out the most. His WL percentage at Wimbledon is better than Murray's.
Good summary.
It certainly helps Murray's case that he has not lost on grass to Djokovic, has more overall grass court titles, has a better overall WL percentage on the surface and has that olympic gold medal.
250 has no significance in Tennis when it comes to greatness. Connors has tons of them but still not top tier.
But Wimbledon is the holy grail of the surface and the sport and Queens is a 250 level tournament. The fact that Djokovic has shown himself to be better against the field at Wimbledon than Murray unquestionably proves he is the better player.

To suggest anything else is to rely on feelings and questionable anecdotal evidence.
Objective post, Djokovic is better against field than Murray. He has defeated bunch of great players on grass (more than Murray) and never lost lower player on grass since 2010.
While Murray lost to Stepanek at Queens (Djokovic defeated him at Wimbledon), got humiliated by inexperienced Dimitrov to whom Djokovic defeated in semifinals. This shows Murray could be defeated by anyone in his prime even on grass while Djokovic's wins over players who actually took Murray out easily shows his excellence on grass.
 

upchuck

Hall of Fame
Not quite. He has 1 more final appearance (3 v 2) and 1 more title of course but the same number of other semifinals (3 v 3) and 1 less other quarterfinal (1 v 2).
The victories over Federer and Nadal are the only ones that stand out.
True, but only slightly. It is currently 45-8 v 41-8 for Murray.
That's a bit disingenuous. In the absence of a grasscourt Masters, Queens (with Halle) remains the foremost warm-up tournament for Wimbledon as evidenced by the fact that many past Wimbledon champions have played and won it beforehand. The only thing that currently gives Djokovic the edge at Wimbledon is the fact that he now has 1 more title than Murray. Prior to that, they were pretty much even in all departments. Djokovic may have beaten Nadal and Federer to win his 2 titles but Murray beat Djokovic to win his and has never lost to him on grass and that kind of even things out between them IMO.
You are wrong on most accounts, bud. The two have equal number of quarter-final appearances, but Djokovic has an extra semi-final appearance, an extra final appearance, and of course an extra title--which, by the way, is a pretty big deal in this sport.

As for the Queens issue, the point is there is no grasscourt tournament that attracts a large enough array of top players to warrant being a masters event. My comment about Queens being a 250 tournament is a pointed remark on the fact that the winner there isn't required to face the best to win, therefore the title is not as significant as a masters would be.
 

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
You are wrong on most accounts, bud. The two have equal number of quarter-final appearances, but Djokovic has an extra semi-final appearance, an extra final appearance, and of course an extra title--which, by the way, is a pretty big deal in this sport.

As for the Queens issue, the point is there is no grasscourt tournament that attracts a large enough array of top players to warrant being a masters event. My comment about Queens being a 250 tournament is a pointed remark on the fact that the winner there isn't required to face the best to win, therefore the title is not as significant as a masters would be.

So many of your total posts on this subject and each one strikingly uninformed. The discussion is about grass prowess and you criticize the 2nd most prestigious grass tournament for having nothing but grass specialists in its draw. Queens has a Masters-equivalent draw. In terms of grass credentials, it's second to Wimbledon only. These are the only arguments that matter in this discussion. Nobody cares if some top 20 players are not in the draw when they are average on grass and would lose in the 1st-2nd round. The only thing your comments prove is that you're unlikely to have ever watched a Queens tournament. Murray has proven himself over and over again and commentators always talk about Djokovic's precarious movement on grass. This is not something you would hear about Murray.
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
So many of your total posts on this subject and each one strikingly uninformed. The discussion is about grass prowess and you criticize the 2nd most prestigious grass tournament for having nothing but grass specialists in its draw. Queens has a Masters-equivalent draw. In terms of grass credentials, it's second to Wimbledon only. These are the only arguments that matter in this discussion. Nobody cares if some top 20 players are not in the draw when they are average on grass and would lose in the 1st-2nd round. The only thing your comments prove is that you're unlikely to have ever watched a Queens tournament. Murray has proven himself over and over again and commentators always talk about Djokovic's precarious movement on grass. This is not something you would hear about Murray.

Like I said, i'd be willing to concede Murray is a better player on grass if you concede that Djokovic is the greater player on grass. Regardless of the relative value of Queens: Wimbledon in relation to a Masters: Other Major, its absolute value is markedly diminished not just because of the top 20s lack of appearances but because of the top 10s as well as the scheduling.

What masters tournament is scheduled immediately the week after a major and goes head to head with another masters tournament? There is no argument to say Queen's is definitively better than Halle and this era's greatest grass court player (Federer) always skips Queens in favor of Halle. When does Roger skip a Masters for another tournament the same week? That right there should tell you how erroneous equating Queens to a Masters level draw is.

A Masters level draw would include Nole, Murray, Nadal, and Federer all in fairly peak condition at the very minimal not to mention the rest of the top 10 and top 20. This should be a regular occurrence with injury being an anomaly. Queen's has never managed that type of draw, and its position right after RG, makes for weakened top tier players competing there.

Its position starting next year with a week break after RG, being treated as a cornerstone piece for the grass court circuit, should allow it to draw about half of the top 20 and top 10 and big 4 (still going head to head with Halle) and draw players with adequate rest. This should make it valued regularly at what it likely has been all this time at its best, a 500. It has never been or for the foreseeable future will ever be a "Masters Quality Draw."
 
Last edited:

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
Like I said, i'd be willing to concede Murray is a better player on grass if you concede that Djokovic is the greater player on grass. Regardless of the relative value of Queens: Wimbledon in relation to a Masters: Other Major, its absolute value is markedly diminished not just because of the top 20s lack of appearances but because of the top 10s as well as the scheduling.

What masters tournament is scheduled immediately the week after a major and goes head to head with another masters tournament? There is no argument to say Queen's is definitively better than Halle and this era's greatest grass court player (Federer) always skips Queens in favor of Halle. When does Roger skip a Masters for another tournament the same week? That right there should tell you how erroneous equating Queens to a Masters level draw is.

A Masters level draw would include Nole, Murray, Nadal, and Federer all in fairly peak condition at the very minimal not to mention the rest of the top 10 and top 20. This should be a regular occurrence with injury being an anomaly. Queen's has never managed that type of draw, and its position right after RG, makes for weakened top tier players competing there.

Its position starting next year with a week break after RG, being treated as a cornerstone piece for the grass court circuit, should allow it to draw about half of the top 20 and top 10 and big 4 (still going head to head with Halle) and draw players with adequate rest. This should make it valued regularly at what it likely has been all this time at its best, a 500. It has never been or for the foreseeable future will ever be a "Masters Quality Draw."

Djokovic would struggle to reach the final of Queens if he faces Mahut/Stepanek/Lopez/Murray/Cilic/Dimitrov. Hell, even Ward is dangerous there. Nadal? No disrespect but no, simply no. He does not add prestige to a grass tournament. Playing the valuation game is just a disguised attempt to devalue Murray's wins on grass, which Novak lacks. If you compare Halle champions to Queens champions, you will see a strong correlation with the latter producing Wimbledon champions. This does not diminish Halle in any way, I am only responding to your line of reasoning. Masters-equivalent draw (I feel now I am explaining something to small children) is simply the number of players involved. It's 64, i.e. more than in some Masters tournaments.

Better grass court player could mean only one thing. Who is the better player on the surface. Nadal is the better clay court player than Federer. Federer is the best hard court player of the field. This is not to say Djokovic is not the more accomplished player overall. It's just that Murray has a surface advantage.
 
Last edited:

Chico

Banned
Djokovic would struggle to reach the final of Queens if he faces Mahut/Stepanek/Lopez/Murray/Cilic/Dimitrov. Hell, even Ward is dangerous there. Nadal? No disrespect but no, simply no. He does not add prestige to a grass tournament. Playing the valuation game is just a disguised attempt to devalue Murray's wins on grass, which Novak lacks. If you compare Halle champions to Queens champions, you will see a strong correlation with the latter producing Wimbledon champions. This does not diminish Halle in any way, I am only responding to your line of reasoning. Masters-equivalent draw (I feel now I am explaining something to small children) is simply the number of players involved. It's 64, i.e. more than in some Masters tournaments.

Did I read this correctly? "Ward is dangerous to Djokovic in Queens". :shock: I have heard everything here now.

First Dusting Brown and now Ward are both better grasscourt players than Djokovic according to like this one above. Not to mention Mahut/Stepanek/Lopez/Murray/Cilic/Dimitrov who are obviously all faaaaar superior. :roll:

Unbelievable thrash.
 
Last edited:

Desertman

Hall of Fame
I've seen some extreme opinions about Djokovic's success on grass in recent years. I'm not fan of either but Djokovic is tremendously underappreciated on grass in my view. Below are representative opinions about Djokovic's grass success especially compared to Murray.





Is this true Novak has more grass achievements as he's just physically and mentally stronger? No credits to his excellent shot making skills which gives high reward on grass? I know he's not top mover on grass but movement is only aspect of game which gives success on grass? since Novak has more complete and versatile game than Murray and his lack of excellent movement on grass couldn't stop him winning Wimbledon twice beating two Tier 1 greats in final. If movement is that important factor Murray would be ruling Wimbledon like Federer did.

Will Djokovic ever get enough credits for achievements on grass? or will he get plain criticised for poor movement and always called physical beast despite of having high quality shot making skills and versatility comparable to Federer?
It's plain frustrating how he often gets underappreciated and hated as lucky physical beast but he's proving all them wrong.

In answer to the title of this thread:

Nothing. He isn't. Murray is far more accomplished on grass.
 

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
Djokovic would struggle to reach the final of Queens if he faces Mahut/Stepanek/Lopez/Murray/Cilic/Dimitrov.

Unsubstantiated conjecture based on what? Nole beat Stepanek, Cilic, and Dimitrov all in this Wimbledon alone.

Hell, even Ward is dangerous there. Nadal? No disrespect but no, simply no. He does not add prestige to a grass tournament.

The #2 ranked player in the world and multiple time Wimbledon time champion certainly adds more value to a tournament than an unwarranted overvaluation of Ward.


Playing the valuation game is just a disguised attempt to devalue Murray's wins on grass, which Novak lacks.

Absolutely not, its a fair representation of what his wins on grass are worth in relation to Novak's wins. Your attempts to play the valuation game are an undisguised attempt to overvalue Murray's wins on grass to match Novak's greater wins that Murray lacks.

If you compare Halle champions to Queens champions, you will see a strong correlation with the latter producing Wimbledon champions. This does not diminish Halle in any way, I am only responding to your line of reasoning.

Historical prestige yes, but in recent times the two have been equal in terms of financial commitment, draw strength, and production of Wimbledon champions. My line of reasoning is consistent with the evaluation of the times. Yours would be consistent in calling Hamburg a greater clay court title than Madrid.

Masters-equivalent draw (I feel now I am explaining something to small children)

An unwarranted personal shot in an otherwise civil debate calling into question your maturity.

is simply the number of players involved. It's 64, i.e. more than in some Masters tournaments.

A misrepresentation. Its draw size is 56 no greater than any Masters tournament. Would you also rate Hamburg, Barcelona, and DC as Masters Quality Draws given they have more than the traditional 28-32 players for 250/500 events? (All clock in at 48 ).

Better grass court player could mean only one thing. Who is the better player on the surface. Nadal is the better clay court player than Federer. Federer is the best hard court player of the field. This is not to say Djokovic is not the more accomplished player overall. It's just that Murray has a surface advantage.

Something we could perhaps agree upon, but am confused about your position. The difference is Nadal is more accomplished on clay than Federer and Federer more accomplished on hard court than the field.

My feeling is Nole is more accomplished than Murray on grass given the better Wimbledon performance to date considering similar age. As I stated prior, I would concede that Murray still has a surface advantage in a head to head and over-all maintains a more consistent level on grass, but has not shown the same clutch peak performance at the biggest stage as Nole has to date on grass.

As I mentioned earlier its similar to my feelings about Nole vs Nadal on fast hard court. I view Nole as the better player, but Nadal is more accomplished until Nole matches his USO wins (and thats with more USO finals and a higher USO win % than Nadal, two categories Nole also beats Murray in at Wimbledon).
 
Last edited:

upchuck

Hall of Fame
So many of your total posts on this subject and each one strikingly uninformed. The discussion is about grass prowess and you criticize the 2nd most prestigious grass tournament for having nothing but grass specialists in its draw. Queens has a Masters-equivalent draw. In terms of grass credentials, it's second to Wimbledon only. These are the only arguments that matter in this discussion. Nobody cares if some top 20 players are not in the draw when they are average on grass and would lose in the 1st-2nd round. The only thing your comments prove is that you're unlikely to have ever watched a Queens tournament.
Queens is not a tournament on par with Indian Wells, Miami, Madrid and all the other masters events. If it were, guess what? It would be a masters event.
Murray has proven himself over and over again and commentators always talk about Djokovic's precarious movement on grass. This is not something you would hear about Murray.
...and yet Djokovic has more Wimbledon titles and a superior Wimbledon record.

What are you suggesting, exactly? Are you suggesting that Djokovic has a superior Wimbledon career because he is more mentally tough than Murray? Well bingo, bud, mental toughness is a part of the game and helps to distinguish players from one another. So I hope that's not the point you are trying to make.
Djokovic would struggle to reach the final of Queens if he faces Mahut/Stepanek/Lopez/Murray/Cilic/Dimitrov.
Bizzare and unsubstantiated claims like this is a quick way to ensure you won't be taken seriously.

Nadal? No disrespect but no, simply no. He does not add prestige to a grass tournament.
On what basis can you make this claim about the second most successful grass court player of the era? One whose credentials far supercede that of Mahut/Stepanek/Lopez/Cilic/Dimitrov and the guys you think would beat Djokovic?

Playing the valuation game is just a disguised attempt to devalue Murray's wins on grass, which Novak lacks.
What Djokovic lacks? What Djokovic lacks?!?! Dude, do you think Murray wouldn't trade all of his Queens titles for one of Djokovic's Wimbledon titles? Better yet, do you think Djokovic would give one of his Wimby titles for all of Murray's Queens titles?
!!!

Better grass court player could mean only one thing. Who is the better player on the surface. Nadal is the better clay court player than Federer. Federer is the best hard court player of the field. This is not to say Djokovic is not the more accomplished player overall. It's just that Murray has a surface advantage.
Because he won more Queens titles, right? Gotcha.

This is starting to remind me of Serena's "she won Rome and Madrid" comment. lmao.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Djokovic has more Wimbledon titles than Murray, that means he is more accomplished at Wimbledon than Murray.

Murray has 5 grasscourt titles to Djokovic's 2, that means he is more accomplished on grass as a surface than Djokovic.

In their personal H2H on grass, Murray is 2-0 v Djokovic so he is the better player on grass against Djokovic than Djokovic is against Murray.

End of argument!
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 21996

Guest
balls-CF.jpg
 

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
Unsubstantiated conjecture based on what? Nole beat Stepanek, Cilic, and Dimitrov all in this Wimbledon alone.
Wimbledon is slower, the bounce is higher and players have more rest.

The #2 ranked player in the world and multiple time Wimbledon time champion certainly adds more value to a tournament than an unwarranted overvaluation of Ward.

The amount of time people use "multiple" in place of "2-time" here is unbelievable. Ward vs Djokovic could be a Kyrgios-esque moment. Just an example of how lower ranked players have been able to upset seeds at the fast grass of Queens.

Absolutely not, its a fair representation of what his wins on grass are worth in relation to Novak's wins. Your attempts to play the valuation game are an undisguised attempt to overvalue Murray's wins on grass to match Novak's greater wins that Murray lacks.
You're basically reiterating your contempt for Queens, as a tournament, that you base solely on the ranking of players and ATP points, regardless of the relevance the specific field plays in the debate at hand.


Historical prestige yes, but in recent times the two have been equal in terms of financial commitment, draw strength, and production of Wimbledon champions. My line of reasoning is consistent with the evaluation of the times. Yours would be consistent in calling Hamburg a greater clay court title than Madrid.
I don't think it's farfetched to call Queens the #2 grass tournament after Wimbledon with it being the preferred choice of contenders. Looking at the stats for Halle, they read as follows:
4 Wimbledon winners or finalists.
For Queens (Open Era):
17 Wimbledon winners or finalists.
I hope these numbers convince you on this point :)


An unwarranted personal shot in an otherwise civil debate calling into question your maturity.
Perhaps I came off harsh but it wasn't intended and I am sorry if it gave offence. I dislike having to repeat that Queens is an anomaly among 250 tournaments in terms of its draw.


A misrepresentation. Its draw size is 56 no greater than any Masters tournament. Would you also rate Hamburg, Barcelona, and DC as Masters Quality Draws given they have more than the traditional 28-32 players for 250/500 events? (All clock in at 48 ).
You are trying to put words into my mouth. I said "Masters-equivalent". This, remember, is all in the context of the unique setting of grass court tennis. Impossible (in my opinion) to draw parallels with other surfaces.


Something we could perhaps agree upon, but am confused about your position. The difference is Nadal is more accomplished on clay than Federer and Federer more accomplished on hard court than the field.
Perhaps my example is not as strong as it should be, considering both have the majors on the respective surfaces to back up their superiority on the respective surface. I just have a hard time conveying the difference in assessing achievements in a 3-tournament grass court season (yes there are den Bosch, Eastbourne and Newport but they are besides the point).

My feeling is Nole is more accomplished than Murray on grass given the better Wimbledon performance to date considering similar age. As I stated prior, I would concede that Murray still has a surface advantage in a head to head and over-all maintains a more consistent level on grass, but has not shown the same clutch peak performance at the biggest stage as Nole has to date on grass.
Defeating Djokovic and Federer back-to-back sure beats Dimitrov and Federer back-to-back. I am not sure if you would contend as you did had the roles been reversed.

As I mentioned earlier its similar to my feelings about Nole vs Nadal on fast hard court. I view Nole as the better player, but Nadal is more accomplished until Nole matches his USO wins (and thats with more USO finals and a higher USO win % than Nadal, two categories Nole also beats Murray in at Wimbledon).
I don't think Nadal is a superior hard court player to Djokovic. I would be a hypocrite to say so. I believe Djokovic put in the much much better performances, especially at the USO, the 'Mecca' of hard court tennis. Thank you for the good debate. I will edit in more thoughts later on the Djokovic vs Nadal on hard courts tangent.


==============
Nole vs Nadal on hard.

Nole
376-82 (82%)
34-12 (74%)

Nadal
339-95 (78%)
17-19 (47%)

No contest. Djokovic is the better hard court player.
 
Last edited:

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
Wimbledon is slower, the bounce is higher and players have more rest.

True, if you contend Nole is more apt for an upset in a faster, lower bouncing court in a Bo3 over a Bo5 I agree. But to say he would have trouble reaching the quarters of an event he has not played in over 4 years and has since won the biggest title on grass twice I feel is unsubstantiated extrapolation.


The amount of time people use "multiple" in place of "2-time" here is unbelievable. Ward vs Djokovic could be a Kyrgios-esque moment. Just an example of how lower ranked players have been able to upset seeds at the fast grass of Queens.

Does it the change the point of the post? You can't liken a Kyrgios-esque POSSIBILITY to one of the top proven players in the world on grass. Additionally I would also contend an upset at Queens would hold absolutely nowhere near the weight of a Wimbledon one and hence I would argue such a moment is impossible.


You're basically reiterating your contempt for Queens, as a tournament, that you base solely on the ranking of players and ATP points, regardless of the relevance the specific field plays in the debate at hand.



I don't think it's farfetched to call Queens the #2 grass tournament after Wimbledon with it being the preferred choice of contenders. Looking at the stats for Halle, they read as follows:
4 Wimbledon winners or finalists.
For Queens (Open Era):
17 Wimbledon winners or finalists.
I hope these numbers convince you on this point :)

I hold no "contempt" for the tournament as you say and I also don't think its farfetched to call Queen's #2, but I believe there is a certain argument Halle can make to claim the #2 spot as well and to dismiss it as you have done is unfair. Also, as I stated Queen's has historical dominance over Halle as Hamburg has historical dominance over Madrid, but tell me those numbers for recent years. These numbers only reiterated my point:)


Perhaps I came off harsh but it wasn't intended and I am sorry if it gave offence. I dislike having to repeat that Queens is an anomaly among 250 tournaments in terms of its draw.

Apologies accepted. Your contention about Queen's standing vs other 250s is a valid one and one I agree with. Your equation of it to a Masters is where we diverge. As I stated prior I think its appropriate valuation is at the pinnacle of the 500 tier, where it will be going forward and where I believe it should be valued as in prior years. The grass circuit has not produced a tournament worthy of Masters level valuation besides the 2012 Olympics.


You are trying to put words into my mouth. I said "Masters-equivalent". This, remember, is all in the context of the unique setting of grass court tennis. Impossible (in my opinion) to draw parallels with other surfaces.

It was a question, not an attempt to force dialogue from you. I agree it is impossible to draw parallels with other surface when discussing grass tournaments, which is precisely WHY Wimbledon must be weighed in greater regards when comparing grass accomplishments vs any other major on any other surface.

Perhaps my example is not as strong as it should be, considering both have the majors on the respective surfaces to back up their superiority on the respective surface. I just have a hard time conveying the difference in assessing achievements in a 3-tournament grass court season (yes there are den Bosch, Eastbourne and Newport but they are besides the point).

As stated before, I think you should value the 2012 Olympics as a Masters, Queens and Halle titles as 500s, all other tournaments as 250s and then decide your rankings based on how you would for other surfaces with those weightings.

Defeating Djokovic and Federer back-to-back sure beats Dimitrov and Federer back-to-back. I am not sure if you would contend as you did had the roles been reversed.

Two points of contention.
1) This assumes a valuation of an OG title to a Wimbledon title, which I staunchly disagree with and rate OG as a Masters level grass title, hence the accomplishments are not comparable in terms of magnitude.
2) Beating Federer coming off no rest of a 19-17 set in the SF is certainly not a point you can overlook when viewing his finals vs Federer. Also to dismiss a Dimitrov coming off BEATING the very same Murray you are propping up (who was riding a long unbeaten grass streak and 0 sets loss at Wimby coming into the Murray match) is an additional point you overlook.

Also I would think my valuation of Nadal on fast hards should lend credence to my objectivity despite my preference for Nole and should illuminate how I would feel if the results were switched.

I don't think Nadal is a superior hard court player to Djokovic. I would be a hypocrite to say so. I believe Djokovic put in the much much better performances, especially at the USO, the 'Mecca' of hard court tennis. Thank you for the good debate. I will edit in more thoughts later on the Djokovic vs Nadal on hard courts tangent.

Nadal is without question not a superior hard court player and no one could debate that. But there is an argument about who is the superior FAST outdoor hard court player (USO/Canada/Cincy/Shanghai). In that subset, Nadal's extra USO title holds a lot of weight over Nole's other superior accomplishments, and this is as we said despite Nole holding a higher win % and finals reached metric at USO than Nadal, while the reverse is not true for Murray at Wimbledon.

However, if you would still view Nole as the greater accomplished player on fast hard courts alone, it appears we just have a difference in philosophy on how much a major win counts in deciding who is greater on a surface. But again I would point out, even if you hold that position (Nole>Nadal on FH), I would point out Wimbledon to grass > USO to fast hardcourt because of the lack of regular Masters level titles on grass.
 
Last edited:

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
Russeljones is obviously a troll. I'm just surprised that so many people are still responding to him.

Russelljones has demonstrated a very strong understanding of the history of tennis, a deep respect for the game, and usually has some good points in regards to his valuations (he is the only poster who has ranked Nole a tier below McEnroe/Agassi and presented a reasonable defense when pressed why instead).

He has also chastised me on situations where I have not shown the appropriate level of respect for the game that I should have, making me re-evaluate my how I express my views sometimes.

He is a member of this forum who's opinions I highly respect even if they differ from my own, which is why I am baffled by the way he has conducted himself to a degree in this topic, but also why I have not written him off as a troll.
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
Djokovic has more Wimbledon titles than Murray, that means he is more accomplished at Wimbledon than Murray.

Murray has 5 grasscourt titles to Djokovic's 2, that means he is more accomplished on grass as a surface than Djokovic.

In their personal H2H on grass, Murray is 2-0 v Djokovic so he is the better player on grass against Djokovic than Djokovic is against Murray.

End of argument!

Agreed with points 1 and 3. Point 2 is debatable based on how much you weigh titles on grass outside of Wimbledon. I would say Murray's Wimbledon title deficit coupled with his fewer Wimbledon finals reached and lower Wimbledon win % all while being the same age as Nole is too high of a gap to resolve with what I would consider as the equivalent of three 500 level and one Masters level title wins to be more accomplished on grass as a surface over-all.

Also I did not realize it, but at this point Nole has actually surpassed Murray in over-all grass court win % as well, not just Wimbledon!
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Agreed with points 1 and 3. Point 2 is debatable based on how much you weigh titles on grass outside of Wimbledon. I would say Murray's Wimbledon title deficit coupled with his fewer Wimbledon finals reached and lower Wimbledon win % all while being the same age as Nole is too high of a gap to resolve with what I would consider as the equivalent of three 500 level and one Masters level title wins to be more accomplished on grass as a surface over-all.

Also I did not realize it, but at this point Nole has actually surpassed Murray in over-all grass court win % as well, not just Wimbledon!

That last part isn't correct mate. Nole's W/L record on grass is 60-15(80% exactly) whereas Murray's is 78-16(82.98%). :wink:
 

President

Legend
Djokovic has more Wimbledon titles than Murray, that means he is more accomplished at Wimbledon than Murray.

Murray has 5 grasscourt titles to Djokovic's 2, that means he is more accomplished on grass as a surface than Djokovic.

In their personal H2H on grass, Murray is 2-0 v Djokovic so he is the better player on grass against Djokovic than Djokovic is against Murray.

End of argument!

LOL, I do think that Murray is a more natural grass court player than Djokovic, but to say that he is more accomplished on grass is laughable. Sorry, one Wimbledon title is worth more than 10 Queens titles.
 

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
Curry, it seems we can't agree that the uniqueness of the grass calendar makes all wins on the surface count more. Fair enough.
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
That last part isn't correct mate. Nole's W/L record on grass is 60-15(80% exactly) whereas Murray's is 78-16(82.98%). :wink:

My mistake it didn't seem to make sense to me and thats why I never used that stat until now after seeing many others throw it around.

I didn't realize:

http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-bin/player.cgi?p=AndyMurray&f=ACareerqqB2o1

included Murray's challengers and Wimbledon Juniors results, LMAO at that website.

In any case, that wasn't part of my contention at any point. Having a grass % over-all edge would pretty much destroy any debate at all about who even the better player is. As it stands now its very similar to Nole/Nadal on fast hards about greater vs better.
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
Curry, it seems we can't agree that the uniqueness of the grass calendar makes all wins on the surface count more. Fair enough.

I would say it does but by an equally increasing scale.

For example say normally this is the valuation I use:
USO - 4
Masters - 1
500 - 0.25
250 - negligible unless all else tied

For Grass all gets bumped up 1 tier:
Wimbledon - 16
Masters (OG) - 4
500 (all Halle/Queens) - 1
250 - 0.25
nothing negligible

So yes I'll value Halle/Queen's to the degree I value a Masters on another surface in terms of absolute value, but relative to Wimbledon the same as I'd view any 500 on another surface vs its slam.
 
Last edited:

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic would struggle to reach the final of Queens if he faces Mahut/Stepanek/Lopez/Murray/Cilic/Dimitrov.
Good list but Djokovic defeated 3 of then in route to title. While Murray lost to Stepanek, Dimitrov (total humiliation in front of home crowd). Do you even follow Tennis? 2 time Wimbledon Champion, tier 2 great great, second most consistent player of era could lose bunch of lesser players? Murray could lose since he's not that good but Djokovic???

4472_trollwarning_1.jpg

Masters-equivalent draw (I feel now I am explaining something to small children) is simply the number of players involved. It's 64, i.e. more than in some Masters tournaments.
Yeah Masters draw with Fed, Djokovic never participated. Such a bad glory hunting attempt

[/QUOTE]

It's just that Murray has a surface advantage.
:lol: advantage for 100m race did you mean? If you have watched the way badly Murray got outclassed by newbie Dimitrov you wouldn't have dared to post this.







Djokovic has more Wimbledon titles than Murray, that means he is more accomplished at Wimbledon than Murray.
I always knew that you won't able to stop yourself from outclassing Russell. but this is true.
Murray has 5 grasscourt titles to Djokovic's 2, that means he is more accomplished on grass as a surface than Djokovic.
Obviously Lleton Hewitt of Australia head and shoulders above Murray on grass. by your troll metric. :lol:
In their personal H2H on grass, Murray is 2-0 v Djokovic so he is the better player on grass against Djokovic than Djokovic is against Murray.
Similar to Dimitrov is better on grass than Murray, 35 yo stepanek too!

End of argument!

Recommended all message board members to use this against above two glory hunters, never feed them.

258Troll_spray.jpg
 
Last edited:

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
I would say it does but by an equally increasing scale.

For example say normally this is the valuation I use:
USO - 4
Masters - 1
500 - 0.25
250 - negligible unless all else tied

For Grass all gets bumped up 1 tier:
Wimbledon - 16
Masters (OG) - 4
500 - 1
250 - 0.25
nothing negligible

I think they are really Masters-like in the context of the grass season. I am sorry, I can't budge from that. I hope one day you can say to me "Russel man, shove off, Queens/Halle is a Masters 1000 now, rate the others as per the ATP calendar". I really do.
 

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
D.Nalby, I can see you're having a hard time following the argument. I can't be bothered to hold your hand and explain everything repeatedly. Ask someone to dumb it down for you.
 

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
D.Nalby, I can see you're having a hard time following the argument. I can't be bothered to hold your hand and explain everything repeatedly. Ask someone to dumb it down for you.

Argument???
Queens = Masters equivalent draw. :lol: or Djokovic would have troubled by Ward or Murray is unquestionably better because of 2-0 h2h. Your post not even read worthy let alone reply worthy. I've refuted all of those troll attempt patiently, please read my earlier posts. No longer this is tolerable now.

My observation is you're repeatedly making failed arguments again and again. I've attempted objective discussions with you also given very counterargument too but you went on troll mode since you're losing it. No wonder other posters figuring out you as "Obvious Troll", and nothing surprising since you've agenda of hating, shooting Djokovic down since you couldn't digest his success.Murray could be better but the way you bashing Djokovic calling him lucky physical beast makes you very sad person. but still there are few morons in World who believes Earth is flat and Sun revolves around it… what can we do now? You and above troll certainly belongs to that territory.
 

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
LOL, I do think that Murray is a more natural grass court player than Djokovic, but to say that he is more accomplished on grass is laughable. Sorry, one Wimbledon title is worth more than 10 Queens titles.

This, it's fairly good consensus even 10 Queens couldn't' make it to 1 Wimbledon. Murray is natural grass courter with lesser ability like Ferrer is natural clay courter with more clay titles but Federer is still more accomplished on clay since he has RG title.
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
I think they are really Masters-like in the context of the grass season. I am sorry, I can't budge from that. I hope one day you can say to me "Russel man, shove off, Queens/Halle is a Masters 1000 now, rate the others as per the ATP calendar". I really do.

I really can't see it. No Masters innately splits the field with half the top players playing in one event and the other half another, they all draw full fields unless people are injured.

The scheduling to allow for recovery after RG going forward from next year, plus the position they have in the tight grass schedule as the top 2 non-slam events will have me rating Halle/Queens as among the top 500s going forward (on par with Beijing/Dubai). But there is no way you can reasonably say 2 Masters Level tournaments are played simultaneously.

What I would like to see (and think is possible) is for Hamburg to convert to grass and re-establish itself as a 1000 series event. If Halle's 500 status and Stuggart's 250 creates a wave of grass success in Germany its possible for Hamburg to convert and given Hamburg's prior lineage it would have a claim.

One more week from the clay season could be cut to go with:
W1- Top Shelf/Stuggart
W2 - Halle/Queens
W3 - Hamburg
W4 - Nottingham/some other 250 grass euro tournament (maybe Munich/Dusseldorf)
W5/6 - Wimb
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
I really can't see it. No Masters innately splits the field with half the top players playing in one event and the other half another, they all draw full fields unless people are injured.

The scheduling to allow for recovery after RG going forward from next year, plus the position they have in the tight grass schedule as the top 2 non-slam events will have me rating Halle/Queens as among the top 500s going forward (on par with Beijing/Dubai). But there is no way you can reasonably say 2 Masters Level tournaments are played simultaneously.

What I would like to see (and think is possible) is for Hamburg to convert to grass and re-establish itself as a 1000 series event. If Halle's 500 status and Stuggart's 250 creates a wave of grass success in Germany its possible for Hamburg to convert and given Hamburg's prior lineage it would have a claim.

One more week from the clay season could be cut to go with:
W1- Top Shelf/Stuggart
W2 - Halle/Queens
W3 - Hamburg
W4 - Nottingham/some other 250 grass euro tournament (maybe Munich/Dusseldorf)
W5/6 - Wimb

Spicy, A minor correction: Please write Stuttgart. ;-)
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic isn't more accomplished on grass IMO, Murray has won more titles on the surface and has a better W/L%. And Chico's gonna hate me for saying it but I do think Murray is the more natural grass court player, his movement is certainly more fluid and his serve can be more of a weapon. Djokovic is now more accomplished at Wimbledon but overall I would have to give it to Murray.

It's strange how tennis works. Murray was able to school Djokovic in a W final.
But Murray was schooled by Rafa and Federer. But Djokovic defeated Rafa and Federer in a W final.

But I still say Djokovic is more accomplished on grass. 1 more W win plus 1 extra final. Plus if we go a bit subjective, Nole defeated two big names in W finals. And Rafa was still in his grass prime in 2011. I mean it's not just skills, but mentally beating Fed/Rafa in a W final is very impressive. It's a huge mental task.

Yeah, Murray seems more natural player on grass, I agree. But in the end results count, no matter what. At the big stage Nole isn't as natural, but his mentality got him there. And in the end this is what matters. Nole maybe seems more awkward than Murray on grass, but in the end he gets the job done more. Djokovic is mentally and physically stronger than Murray, so this prevails in the end.
 
Top