SpicyCurry1990
Hall of Fame
I agree with this.
Hey Spicy, you get my email?
Hey bro, I actually didn't when did you send it?
I agree with this.
Hey Spicy, you get my email?
Even Stepanek doesn't change girlfriends the rate you're changing your troll idols. Yesterday there was other one!.
There is no shame telling other members your 24*7 job, stay classy! :lol:
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'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.
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.
LMAO, Djok2011 you know you're my bro, but this was too funny.
I'm always classy outside the bedroom sweetheart. :lol:
Without shadow of doubt, he's better than Murray on hard, clay and on grass he has edge because more Wimbledon titles.Djokovic is all around more consistent and versatile than Murray.
Good summary.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.
250 has no significance in Tennis when it comes to greatness. Connors has tons of them but still not top tier.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
...and yet Djokovic has more Wimbledon titles and a superior Wimbledon record.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.
Bizzare and unsubstantiated claims like this is a quick way to ensure you won't be taken seriously.Djokovic would struggle to reach the final of Queens if he faces Mahut/Stepanek/Lopez/Murray/Cilic/Dimitrov.
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?Nadal? No disrespect but no, simply no. He does not add prestige to a grass tournament.
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?Playing the valuation game is just a disguised attempt to devalue Murray's wins on grass, which Novak lacks.
Because he won more Queens titles, right? Gotcha.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.
Wimbledon is slower, the bounce is higher and players have more rest.Unsubstantiated conjecture based on what? Nole beat Stepanek, Cilic, and Dimitrov all in this Wimbledon alone.
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.
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.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.
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: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.
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.An unwarranted personal shot in an otherwise civil debate calling into question your maturity.
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.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 ).
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).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.
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.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.
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.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).
Wimbledon is slower, the bounce is higher and players have more rest.
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.
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![]()
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Russeljones is obviously a troll. I'm just surprised that so many people are still responding to him.
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!
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!
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:
Curry, it seems we can't agree that the uniqueness of the grass calendar makes all wins on the surface count more. Fair enough.
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???Djokovic would struggle to reach the final of Queens if he faces Mahut/Stepanek/Lopez/Murray/Cilic/Dimitrov.
Yeah Masters draw with Fed, Djokovic never participated. Such a bad glory hunting attemptMasters-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.
: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.It's just that Murray has a surface advantage.
I always knew that you won't able to stop yourself from outclassing Russell. but this is true.Djokovic has more Wimbledon titles than Murray, that means he is more accomplished at Wimbledon than Murray.
Obviously Lleton Hewitt of Australia head and shoulders above Murray on grass. by your troll metric. :lol:Murray has 5 grasscourt titles to Djokovic's 2, that means he is more accomplished on grass as a surface than Djokovic.
Similar to Dimitrov is better on grass than Murray, 35 yo stepanek too!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!
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
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.
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.
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
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.