Who is the better hardcourter? Nadal or Murray?

:confused: ?

If Nadal's new serve is actually his new serve, and not just a flukey trend that will show up every once in a while, then he might be marginally better than Murray on this surface where tactics are concerned.

Others will of course argue that results are results, which I agree with to a certain extent.

Murray

Nadal without a second thought
achievements say it all

2>0

Nadal without a second thought
achievements say it all

2>0

I can see you updated your sig with the quickness :lol:

Murray. He's just unlucky that Federer isn't a dream matchup for him.

Less consistent though.

If Nadal's new serve is actually his new serve, and not just a flukey trend that will show up every once in a while, then he might be marginally better than Murray on this surface where tactics are concerned.

Others will of course argue that results are results, which I agree with to a certain extent.

His serve speed has fluctuated wildly every year. :shrug: No reason to believe the future will be any different.

Obviously Nadal. Murray won't have a claim here until he brings home some hardware.

ao + uso >> whiny, slamless loser.

Clearly Murray. By a considerable margin. But Nadal is mentally and physically stronger and has more power in his game. And that's what counts in majors. So if you asked me who would I take in a GS final, I would pick Rafa every time for those reasons alone. But at their best, Andy is the player whose game naturally translates to the surface and match-up with Nadal much better.

Nadal at the moment!

But Murray has a better all round.

Obviously Nadal.

Clearly Murray. By a considerable margin. But Nadal is mentally and physically stronger and has more power in his game. And that's what counts in majors. So if you asked me who would I take in a GS final, I would pick Rafa every time for those reasons alone. But at their best, Andy is the player whose game naturally translates to the surface and match-up with Nadal much better.

OK, leave out majors. Just what results in 'minor' tournaments has Murray achieved that place him so much above Nadal? Indoors, I would agree, but outdoor hard? He hasn't won more MS.

Murray has better abilities on hard but weak mantality. Nadal has a mass-murderer instinct though which gave him 2 HC slams. :shrug:

Murray by far. Nadal's 2 hard court slams are not an indication of hard court superiority.

USO+AO >> Entire Mugray's career.

Murray by far. Nadal's 2 hard court slams are not an indication of hard court superiority.

yeah they're indication that all slams are currently held on clay.

Nadal is leagues above Murray on hard courts. Murray is the more suited player for this surface but hard court career wise (considering two slam titles now), it is not even worth a discussion

Murray has better abilities on hard but weak mantality. Nadal has a mass-murderer instinct though which gave him 2 HC slams. :shrug:

this

Murray by far. Nadal's 2 hard court slams are not an indication of hard court superiority.

Kindly explain that?

Tennis isn't played just for the heck of it, with a board of judges giving points for the beauty of the shots like in gymnastics. It's played for winning. Best player on a surface is he who takes more trophies on it.

Murray by far. Nadal's 2 hard court slams are not an indication of hard court superiority.

No, they are an indication that he's a better big match player than Murray, and Murray has for the most part come up short when it matters.

Hard to argue a case for Murray at this point. If they're both playing at their top level, possibly you can make a case for Andy. There's more to tennis than that, however. Rafa is certainly a lot more consistent and mentally stronger.

Word Life will have a field day with this.

Nadal's won the bigger titles (olympics, uso, ao), but I think murray is the better hardcourter.

Kindly explain that?

Tennis isn't played just for the heck of it, with a board of judges giving points for the beauty of the shots like in gymnastics. It's played for winning. Best player on a surface is he who takes more trophies on it.

flyboy answered for me.

No, they are an indication that he's a better big match player than Murray, and Murray has for the most part come up short when it matters.

Yep, that sounds about right. Murray is naturally better on the surface, but he often doesn't produce when it matters.

Murray is probably happier than nadal himself at the sight of this result.

Djokovic winning would have probably hurt murray's ego more than nadal, who is murray's idol.

Neat little fact for disappointed Murray fans out there. He has twice stopped Nadal from holding all 4 slams. :D

Clearly Murray. By a considerable margin. But Nadal is mentally and physically stronger and has more power in his game. And that's what counts in majors. So if you asked me who would I take in a GS final, I would pick Rafa every time for those reasons alone. But at their best, Andy is the player whose game naturally translates to the surface and match-up with Nadal much better.

Wow a sensible post from Flyboy :eek: What is the world coming to :confused:

Wow a sensible post from Flyboy :eek: What is the world coming to :confused:

NO NEED FOR YOUR OPINION, LIER!

Even Mugician can't make a promise, make sure every one hears it, and then pretend it never happened. NOT ON MTF which is forum for intelligent adults.

KEEP YOUR PROMISE TO CHANGE YOUR AVATAR AND PRAISE NADAL IF HE WINS USO 2010 OR GET OUT OF GM! For a year. And I am being generous. And take Mahut off your list, it annoys me a lot! He deserves not to be liked by a dishonest lier like you.

Nadal obviously has the better career, but Murray matches up well against him on hardcourts.

It's just like people said: Murray is a bad match for Nadal, but Nadal is a much better hard courter.

Nadal without a second thought
achievements say it all

2>0



i couldn't agree more.. where it really matters, rafa leads 2:0 + olympic gold to boot.. that says it all.. :worship:

there's a new king of hard courts and his name is not roger, or nole, or andy.. it's rafa!

Yeah, it's obviously Nadal. 2 hard court slams, an olympic gold, and 5 hard court masters. He's getting into awfully special territory here. Murray should win some slams though.

Nadull is just a better player than Murray and this translates to all surfaces.

Nadull is just a better player than Murray and this translates to all surfaces.

Exactly. Djokovic and Federer are also better than Murray.;)

Murray's game is more natural for HC, but Rafa has the edge as a player in general and that's why he has 2 HC Slams and Murray has none ;)

Quick question:

You guys think Murray would've beaten Djokovic?

honestly it doesn't deserve a thread, it's so obvious :cool:

I can see you updated your sig with the quickness :lol:

sure :cool:

2>0

Murray has a game better suited to HCs, but so does almost anyone in the top 30, it matters squat. Rafa wins when it counts, and he wins a lot. He's > Murray on any surface.

honestly it doesn't deserve a thread, it's so obvious :cool:

+1

On achievements alone, Nadal no doubt.

But in ability…I think it’s close. I may tip the edge to Nadal because he’s getting more aggressive on the surface and now has a beefed up serve.

Tennisman82.

Quick question:

You guys think Murray would've beaten Djokovic?

In Djokovic's form in the final, I think so yes. But with Djokovic playing SF form & AO 2008 form, doubt it. His controlled aggression and hitting huge on the key points would defeat Murray I think. Djokovic is far more mentally tough than Murray.

Tennisman82.

Results wise, Nadal.
Murray is a better HC player though, as his game is suited for it and he's generally able to beat Nadal consistently on it. If he had greater consistency, a better forehand and didn't have lapses and brainfart, he'd be almost unstoppable on the surface.

Results wise, Nadal.
Murray is a better HC player though, as his game is suited for it and he's generally able to beat Nadal consistently on it. If he had greater consistency, a better forehand and didn't have lapses and brainfart, he'd be almost unstoppable on the surface.

Unfortunately for Murray, these are all key aspects to tennis. Unless you're called Federer, you can't expect to have game and just turn up and win. Talent alone can only take you so far. If Murray plays consistently on hard as he did in Toronto this year then he could easily dominate the rest of the tour on that surface. The problem is that just the week after he pushed more than Gilles Simon ever has in his whole career.

Unfortunately for Murray, these are all key aspects to tennis. Unless you're called Federer, you can't expect to have game and just turn up and win. Talent alone can only take you so far. If Murray plays consistently on hard as he did in Toronto this year then he could easily dominate the rest of the tour on that surface. The problem is that just the week after he pushed more than Gilles Simon ever has in his whole career.
I wouldn't say he pushed that week, he was knackered and played a bit too safely.

He'll will improve.

I wouldn't say he pushed that week, he was knackered and played a bit too safely.

He'll will improve.

If he was knackered (which he most likely was), wouldn't it have been wiser for him to go all out attack, rather than safely putting the ball back in play, prolonging all the rallies and giving the opponent a better shot of loading up and hitting a winner?

He expended way more energy being dragged all over the back of the court than he would have by going for winners earlier in the rallies, chipping and charging etc.

Although I am not a Murray fan, it is kind of frustrating that he showed what he is capable of producing in Toronto, and then producing the total opposite brand of tennis the very next week. He stood no chance of winning in Cinci by playing the way he was, so why didn't he try and attack? He is certainly capable of it, and he beat the 3 form players back to back to back by doing so.

If he was knackered (which he most likely was), wouldn't it have been wiser for him to go all out attack, rather than safely putting the ball back in play, prolonging all the rallies and giving the opponent a better shot of loading up and hitting a winner?

He expended way more energy being dragged all over the back of the court than he would have by going for winners earlier in the rallies, chipping and charging etc.

Although I am not a Murray fan, it is kind of frustrating that he showed what he is capable of producing in Toronto, and then producing the total opposite brand of tennis the very next week. He stood no chance of winning in Cinci by playing the way he was, so why didn't he try and attack? He is certainly capable of it, and he beat the 3 form players back to back to back by doing so.
I don't know, maybe he underestimated his opponents, Chardy and Gulbis especially.

He was just too tired to really do anything against Fish, even attacking didn't work. All he could do in that match was keep the ball in the court which he did well. He came close to winning [4 points away I think] which is pretty good, considering how tired he was.

They seem about even to me. While Nadal has more mental strenght and plays best when it counts (which brought him 2 HC Slams) Murray can't deal so well with pressure and also has the drawback (like Nole) to be in the need to beat Nadal and Federer back to back at a HC Slam to grab the title. This is insanly hard, see AO or US for reference. Federer and Nadal don't have that problem ;)
Murray has won quite a lot of titles on HC and has shown that he can deal with Nadal and Federe on that surface. Form what I have see Murray (can sometimes) play better then Nadal on HC.
So it is amatter of what you value, I think.

Nadal's won the bigger titles (olympics, uso, ao), but I think murray is the better hardcourter.

mtf logic at it's essence.

Djokovic. :)

If he was knackered (which he most likely was), wouldn't it have been wiser for him to go all out attack, rather than safely putting the ball back in play, prolonging all the rallies and giving the opponent a better shot of loading up and hitting a winner?

He expended way more energy being dragged all over the back of the court than he would have by going for winners earlier in the rallies, chipping and charging etc.

Although I am not a Murray fan, it is kind of frustrating that he showed what he is capable of producing in Toronto, and then producing the total opposite brand of tennis the very next week. He stood no chance of winning in Cinci by playing the way he was, so why didn't he try and attack? He is certainly capable of it, and he beat the 3 form players back to back to back by doing so.
I think Murray is one of those players that only feels comfortable attacking when he is confident. When he's tired or listless, he becomes passive and just runs down balls without a lot of conviction as to what to do with them - it's a mental thing, I think. A lot of his really bad losses have this pattern: he's tired or nursing a minor injury, and just hands over the initiative to his opponent, limply (eg. when Djokovic thrashed him IW and Miami 07; his recent USO losses).

I don't think that's going to change, but it doesn't mean he can't play aggressively when he's fully fit and confident. After Cinci, he started playing aggressively in the early rounds of the USO, for instance.

Nadal is simply a better player than Murray so that translates to hardcourts as well.

In terms of the level they can play on the surface I would say Murray > Nadal.

But that doesn't matter, results matter and Rafa's are better than Andy's.

mtf logic at it's essence.

Solely based on hc level:

You pit Murray vs Nadal on hard for 10 matches, who do you think will win more?

Murray's game is more suited to hard courts, Nadal's isn't.

stupid thred murray is a talent taht never delivers....soderling has done much better then him on HC

stupid thred murray is a talent taht never delivers....soderling has done much better then him on HC

Players with as many outdoor hard court finals in there career as Soderling in the top 35 :

Almagro
Montanes
Bellucci
Monaco

Not bad for someone considered 5th favourite for the USO...

Can't believe how hyped Murray was and even favorite for AO 2010 :o

He will never amount to anything with his passive game, just like Crapniacki on women's side :o

He'll have a career slightly better than Henman IMO. Will never win a slam, much less several.

Murray??

:D :D :D

Are you kidding me?

Nadal has 2 HC Slams, how about Mugray?

Solely based on hc level:

You pit Murray vs Nadal on hard for 10 matches, who do you think will win more?

Murray's game is more suited to hard courts, Nadal's isn't.

Nadal playing at his peak wont lose a set to Murray even on HCs..
Check out their Toronto SF 2008 when Murray was on fire beating djoker in previous round and went down in straights to nadal. He won the next tourney Cincy and reached the final in Newyork...just a measure of his form in that season.
Nadal in Toronto Sf was neither fatigued(uso 09) nor injured(aus 10) or backhand less( toronto 10)
Post USO..If they meet for a 5 set match..My money would be on Nadal.

Nadal playing at his peak wont lose a set to Murray even on HCs..
Check out their Toronto SF 2008 when Murray was on fire beating djoker in previous round and went down in straights to nadal. He won the next tourney Cincy and reached the final in Newyork...just a measure of his form in that season.
Nadal in Toronto Sf was neither fatigued(uso 09) nor injured(aus 10) or backhand less( toronto 10)
Post USO..If they meet for a 5 set match..My money would be on Nadal.

It's just excuse after excuse.

It's just excuse after excuse.
What that Murray has never won a grand slam???????

Why is it that Nadal (who according to haters on this form sucks on HC) managed to win 2 HC slams, while Murray, whose best surface is hard failed miserably? I mean Nadal winning USO should be like Murray winning RG, right?

The sad reality for Murray fans is that he isn't nearly as good as they think or as he is hyped up to be. Is he a good player? Yes. But you can't just be good player to win a grand slam. You need to be the best. And Murray is not the best.

Achievements aside, I'm looking at it from a h2h perspective. Murray's beaten Nadal the last couple of times they played on hard courts. You cannot simply explain away those losses using injuries and excuses. I'd give Murray the slight edge there.

But Nadal has improved his serve and overall play on hard courts as of late, so we will see who comes out on top in their next match.

Murray??

:D :D :D

Are you kidding me?

Nadal has 2 HC Slams, how about Mugray?
Murray has beaten Nadal on the surface the last few times (4/5 times, I think) since US Open 2008, and the match he lost was mostly because of the wind.

Murray is better than Nadal on the surface, regardless of the 2 slams.
Nadal just is better mentally.

Murray has a game better suited to HCs, but so does almost anyone in the top 30, it matters squat. Rafa wins when it counts, and he wins a lot. He's > Murray on any surface.

May be psychologically everyone compares Nadal's level on other surfaces to his GOD level on Clay and judge him as ..not good enough :confused:
so why should people care his game isn't suited to HCs when he can beat the so called "HC specialists" to win Major titles. :wavey:

When one says Murray's game is better suited to HCs they can actually add the phrase "because he is shit on other courts".
While Nadal is so good on clay that his game isn't suited to HCs..? :rolleyes:

Murray has beaten Nadal on the surface the last few times (4/5 times, I think) since US Open 2008, and the match he lost was mostly because of the wind.

Murray is better than Nadal on the surface, regardless of the 2 slams.
Nadal just is better mentally.
Slams define greatness. Its pretty clear who is better to me, on any surface. I guess with those glasses you wear though its not quite so clear :rolleyes:

Murray has beaten Nadal on the surface the last few times (4/5 times, I think) since US Open 2008


True, and overall they are 4:4 on HC against each other :lol:
So much for Murray being better than Nadal on HC :o

If Murray wants to prove that he's the better HC player than Nadal then he's got to bag some HC slams.

Simples :)

If Murray wants to prove that he's the better HC player than Nadal then he's got to bag some HC slams.

Simples :)

This seems pretty obvious to me. Can't believe this thread is going for 5 pages when it's that cut and dry.

H2H even on the surface and Nadal has 2 slams while Murray has 0.

It's very clear. Nadal is the better hardcourter. Saying the contrary would be like saying that Davydenko is a better hardcourter than Nadal or that Murray is a better hardcourter than Federer.

I agree that it's hard to make a case for Murray at this point. However, I wish people would stop quoting the H2H. Three of Rafa's wins came before Murray even won his first MS title. The case for Nadal is based on his slam count, not a misleading H2H.

most stupid question ever. Nadal is better than murray on all surfaces. whether its oz open, us open, wimbledon or french open. It doesn't matter. Clay grass hardcourt, nadal is better.

I think when Murray is done, he will be considered a better hardcourt player than Rafa, but as of now its Rafa. They have the same amount of Master Series, but Rafa has the 2 slams.

Murray should be the answer, but it is Murray, so Nadal

Murrsy. Remember that tourney a month or so ago? When Nadal played Murray? Who won that one? Exactly, Murray. I still think Murrray is a better hardcourter than Nadal. But Nadal is getting there. He's progressing, getting better. I can see him challenge Murray on HC in the future.

Murray's game is more suited to hard courts, Nadal's isn't.

the question was "who is the better hardcourter", not "who's game is better suited to hc" or "who does this hc matchup favor".

Solely based on hc level:

You pit Murray vs Nadal on hard for 10 matches, who do you think will win more?

hypotheticals are irrelevant and unknowable. results are what matter.

ao + uso + olympics > o

Slams define greatness. Its pretty clear who is better to me, on any surface. I guess with those glasses you wear though its not quite so clear :rolleyes:
I can see her clearly, it's you that can't see that Murray is better than Nadal, even though Nadal has two slams (which were won due to cakewalk draws)
True, and overall they are 4:4 on HC against each other :lol:
So much for Murray being better than Nadal on HC :o
Maybe you didn't understand.
I'll make it simpler for you :)
Murray has won 4 of their lasty 5 meetings on HC, the loss being because of win.
So 4 out of 4 meetings won.
Yeah...

Maybe you didn't understand.
I'll make it simpler for you :)
Murray has won 4 of their lasty 5 meetings on HC, the loss being because of win.
So 4 out of 4 meetings won.
Yeah...


Oh, so when it's windy it doesn't count? I guess only when Murray loses...
Their match in Rotterdam was indoors. For me, that doesn't count, either, since Nadal lost :lol: And he was injured anyway :wavey:

:retard:

And he was injured anyway


Matthew...

Guys, the H2H doesn't matter. If Murray can beat Nadal but can't beat Wawrinka, whereas Nadal can beat Verdasco & Youzhny & Djokovic, winning the tournament, Nadal is doing better. Murray quite possibly has greater potential on the surface, but as of now Nadal is better.

Guys, the H2H doesn't matter. If Murray can beat Nadal but can't beat Wawrinka, whereas Nadal can beat Verdasco & Youzhny & Djokovic, winning the tournament, Nadal is doing better. Murray quite possibly has greater potential on the surface, but as of now Nadal is better.

a fair post:cool:

Murray wouldn't be winning USO even if he got into final. Nole would destroy the pusher in 3 sets.

rafa has 2 hc slams, muzza has none. the results speak for themselves.

Results wise, Nadal.
Murray is a better HC player though, as his game is suited for it and he's generally able to beat Nadal consistently on it. If he had greater consistency, a better forehand and didn't have lapses and brainfart, he'd be almost unstoppable on the surface.

WRONG ANSWER.

Rafa won more than 1 billion of times the amount of HC slams Murray won in his career. It says A LOT. Just have a seat and shut the fuck up. That is all.

Results wise, Nadal.
Murray is a better HC player though, as his game is suited for it and he's generally able to beat Nadal consistently on it. If he had greater consistency, a better forehand and didn't have lapses and brainfart, he'd be almost unstoppable on the surface.

Eliminate all a top player's weaknesses and then they'd be almost unstoppable. Genius post.

This thread is a waste of time. There are countless players who are better hardcourters than Nadull on paper, its not just Murray. Too bad none of them can come close in terms of actual results.

I agree that it's hard to make a case for Murray at this point. However, I wish people would stop quoting the H2H. Three of Rafa's wins came before Murray even won his first MS title. The case for Nadal is based on his slam count, not a misleading H2H.

It's not like Murray became that much better after he won his first MS title.

It's not like Murray became that much better after he won his first MS title.
What?

He improved immensely after that.
He was an average top 10 player before then, now he's a solid top 4 player.
Biggest improvement out of top players since 2007.

Maybe you didn't understand.
I'll make it simpler for you :)
Murray has won 4 of their lasty 5 meetings on HC, the loss being because of win.
So 4 out of 4 meetings won.
Yeah...

Murray fans are hilarious. Notice how clowns like Wordlife brings up Murray's HC record against Nadal when people start talking about achievements? :rolleyes:

Fact is, I lost track and don't even care about all the elite players Nadal crushed time and time again on his way to his titles. It was expected. It was routine. Murray fans, however, record every top 10 win Murray manages to score and treasure it like it's a career slam because it happens so rarely and mostly in masters events. In fact Nadal's losses at 2008 USO and 2010 AO have been brought up again and again ad nauseum by his desperate fans. They even need to cling to meaningless masters wins in order to attempt to elevate Mugray and to make him seem better than he is :o

Clearly Murray. By a considerable margin. But Nadal is mentally and physically stronger and has more power in his game. And that's what counts in majors. So if you asked me who would I take in a GS final, I would pick Rafa every time for those reasons alone. But at their best, Andy is the player whose game naturally translates to the surface and match-up with Nadal much better.

:yeah:

Murray fans are hilarious. Notice how clowns like Wordlife brings up Murray's HC record against Nadal when people start talking about achievements? :rolleyes:
Of course, Nadal fans never use the 'H2H', as a replacement for real achievements when comparing players.

Murray fans are hilarious. Notice how clowns like Wordlife brings up Murray's HC record against Nadal when people start talking about achievements? :rolleyes:

Fact is, I lost track and don't even care about all the elite players Nadal crushed time and time again on his way to his titles. It was expected. It was routine. Murray fans, however, record every top 10 win Murray manages to score and treasure it like it's a career slam because it happens so rarely and mostly in masters events. In fact Nadal's losses at 2008 USO and 2010 AO have been brought up again and again ad nauseum by his desperate fans. They even need to cling to meaningless masters wins in order to attempt to elevate Mugray and to make him seem better than he is :o
Murray is a better HC player.
End of.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_9B-zva0IuhI/TJLBGFCzE4I/AAAAAAAABx8/KI7JZPsqUDM/53512d24bcc9445089d299207f1d6730-getty-topshots-ten-us_open-nadal-djokovic%5B6%5D.jpg >>> http://www.thenextpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Murray-USO-2012-19.jpg

http://www.chartherct.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/spaniard-rafael-nadal-wins-2009-australian-open-men-singles-finals.jpg >>> Oh wait....

http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article198410.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/andy-murray-pic-getty-images-852821445.jpg

^ :haha:

Nadal is a million miles above Murray in everything

Owned.

Owned.

:haha:

Nobody owned anyone, just a silly thread bump.

Technically I think Murrays hardcourt game is a bit better.

But a lot of players fear Nadal and his endurance more than Murray(which weighs more in slams), also Nadal has a better match mentality especially in slams.

So I think in HC slams 2-1 for Nadal is normal?

In MM tourneys, I'd rather avoid Murray. In an important tournament, you'd never want to face Nadal no matter the surface.

Murray is better cause Rafa have knees made out of biscuit no? This is problem no?

Technically I think Murrays hardcourt game is a bit better.

But a lot of players fear Nadal and his endurance more than Murray(which weighs more in slams), also Nadal has a better match mentality especially in slams.

So I think in HC slams 2-1 for Nadal is normal?

Murray has beaten Nadal at two HC majors.

Murray has beaten Nadal at two HC majors.

It's about slams, not H2H... it's not always about H2H when it involves Rafa

:haha:

Nobody owned anyone, just a silly thread bump.

It's the truth, no?

Yes, it's bashing (whether you like it or not). But it's the truth at the end of the day.

It's about slams, not H2H... it's not always about H2H when it involves Rafa

Irrelevant to my point. I was simply correcting someone who said that Nadal is leading 2-1 in HC meetings at majors.

In MM tourneys, I'd rather avoid Murray. In an important tournament, you'd never want to face Nadal no matter the surface.

Except if your name is Rosol

Nadal and its not even close.

Irrelevant to my point. I was simply correcting someone who said that Nadal is leading 2-1 in HC meetings at majors.

Yeah, apart from that he didn't say that

Muezza is clearly better.

(will Sapoed give me a badrep again? ;))

(will Sapoed give me a badrep again? ;))

I don't think you can be repped so fast after the last one.:)

Federer easily

Murray's talent is better suited to hardcourts and he's generally a better hardcourt player.

However, the slow courts of today means Nadal can win on them too unfortunately.

Fast hardcourts = Murray, medium hardcourts = Murray, slow hardcourts = Nadal.

Murray is the better hardcourt player but unfortuntaely he is a headcase so he probably won't end up with as much success on the surface as Nadal by the end of their careers.

Nadal is obviously a much better all around surface player though, far superior to Murray on grass and clay

Nadal, by a small margin.

Murray's talent is better suited to hardcourts and he's generally a better hardcourt player.

However, the slow courts of today means Nadal can win on them too unfortunately.

Fast hardcourts = Murray, medium hardcourts = Murray, slow hardcourts = Nadal.

Pretty much this. Dull got lucky playing in a slow era or he would have won no HC slams.

Murray is 1 HC GS from being better.

Nadal.

Irrelevant to my point. I was simply correcting someone who said that Nadal is leading 2-1 in HC meetings at majors.
I didn't say that. I meant Nadal has won two slams and Murray 1 on HC. Which is the logical way to measure top players HC succes. not H2H ofcourse....

Murray and he'll be better achievement-wise if he wins another slam, as he'll have more finals and has better record at HC Masters. Right now I can still make a case for him but I believe I won't have to by the end of next year.

Those pics of Andy crying :awww:


Pretty much this. Dull got lucky playing in a slow era or he would have won no HC slams.


:bs:

:bs:

Well he was a lot more beatable on Rebound Ace than Plexicushion so :shrug:

Meh Murray is a better hardcourter, Nadal is just a better match player in general. Murray has more HC masters 1000. Nadal has just 1 more HC slam than him so Murray can definitely get more than that by the time his career is over.

Well he was a lot more beatable on Rebound Ace than Plexicushion so :shrug:


And Rebound Ace is slower than Plexicushion and the bounce is higher so :shrug:

Rafael Pics Murray:confused: :sad:

Matt in delusional mode once again. Find me clips where it's obvious the current courts are faster than the ones in 2007. Of course, you won't find such evidence because it doesn't exist.

And Rebound Ace is slower than Plexicushion and the bounce is higher so :shrug:

No it's not. :lol:

Murray.

When Mandy has more slams and positive H2H against Nadal on hard, then we can talk. I doubt that will happen for the pusher though.

2>1.

I can't believe I just went for Nadal. :sobbing:

2>1.

I can't believe I just went for Nadal. :sobbing:

As a woman you can't control your feelings obviously so you went with the better looking guy inspite of hating him :rolleyes:

Is this even debatable? Sure it's Murray's best surface, but the difference of level between players is so big, that Nadal worst surface is still better than Mugray's best one...

When Mandy has more slams and positive H2H against Nadal on hard, then we can talk. I doubt that will happen for the pusher though.

Um, so another HC win against Nadull on his way to a second HC slam would be enough then.

Um, so another HC win against Nadull on his way to a second HC slam would be enough then.

Mugray will need another Zerovic in a slam final, to avoid his "1 slam wonder" status... In any surface!

Mugray will need another Zerovic in a slam final, to avoid his "1 slam wonder" status... In any surface!

Or he can just win Wimbledon if he doesn't face Fed. People here never learn.

And Rebound Ace is slower than Plexicushion and the bounce is higher so :shrug:

Is this even debatable? Sure it's Murray's best surface, but the difference of level between players is so big, that Nadal worst surface is still better than Mugray's best one...

Is the level that different on hard? I don't think so. On natural surfaces yeah (clay in particular) but on the hard they're pretty closely matched, with Murray's best tennis on it usually able to defeat him.

Or he can just win Wimbledon if he doesn't face Fed. People here never learn.

Or Nadal, or Nole. Or a "on-fire" Tsonga or Birdshit...

Is the level that different on hard? I don't think so. On natural surfaces yeah (clay in particular) but on the hard they're pretty closely matched, with Murray's best tennis on it usually able to defeat him.

Actually it's not that different now, but Nadal still has the edge. Maybe in the future that will change, as Nadal knees starting to decline. But when both on their prime, I still keep my opinion. No Murray in this life would beat Rafa of USO'10.

Um, so another HC win against Nadull on his way to a second HC slam would be enough then.

It would make him equal. To be better HC player than Nadal he needs 3 HC slams and better H2H on hard.

Or Nadal, or Nole. Or a "on-fire" Tsonga or Birdshit...

Wimbledon is Murray's most consistent slam. The only top players he might lose to there are Federer and Nadal.

Wimbledon is Murray's most consistent slam. The only top players he most definitely will lose to there are Federer and Nadal.

fixed that. Nadal vs. Murray on grass is one of the most tragic match ups in tennis, pure demolition job

Murray's game is more suited to hard courts. However, Nadal seems to work harder on the surface. So, who's better – the guy who plays on the surface naturally or the guy who works harder to be better on it?

'dull is better than anyone on any surface. End of discussion.

'dull when healthy is better than anyone on any surface. End of discussion.

:o :angel:

:o :angel:

Naw dawg, an injured Nadal > anyone else on any surface.

I dunno about all surfaces, but injured Nadal gives Olderer a bloody nose on clay, every time :angel:

Nadal's peak level on the surface is clearly better, but Murray has got more consistent results on it. However, Nadal has 2 Slams on the surface to Murray's one, so clearly him all the way.

I dunno about all surfaces, but injured Nadal gives Olderer a bloody nose on clay, every time :angel:

...unless he's already been destroyed by Soderling in an earlier round.

I dunno about all surfaces, but injured Nadal gives Olderer a bloody nose on clay, every time :angel:

Clay is the only real surface, so I'd count any surface ;)

Nadal's peak level on the surface is clearly better, but Murray has got more consistent results on it. However, Nadal has 2 Slams on the surface to Murray's one, so clearly him all the way.

Mark is right that at their best on the surface Nadal is probably better, but the problem is that Nadal's best one the surface has only shown up like a handful of tournaments of his career

Murray's game is clearly more suited for hard court and also he infinitely more consistant.

Murray > Nadal hardcourt and that is being fair about the issue

Nadal > Murray obviously for overall spread of surfaces but anyway

results, nadal. match up wise, depends on the hard court, and the tournament

murray has regressed slightly on hard court. he is more consistent, but less exceptional

genuinely think he is more naturally suited to grass these days. needs to volley more, mind

Nadal has 2 slams Murray 1 so he is... this logic is stupid, similar to Delpo had slam vs Murray had 0 before USo so Delpo was god and Murray was mug right...

Murray is better hard-courter than Rafa, howewer is is close but he is, if we want to talk about results o.k. we can compare tham at biggest events

slams - Rafa - 2x, Murray - 1x, slam F Rafa 2x more, Andy- 3x more - so both played 4 slam finals in their carreers, Rafa won 2/4, Andy 1/4 - Rafa has little edge here

WTF - Rafa 1x F, Andy 0, SF - 2x both -Rafa had little edge here

Masters 1000 - Andy 8/11 - his every title and final at MAsters 1000 was played on HC, Rafa 5/11
Hc titles in career - Rafa-11/25, Andy 20/32

Also Rafa is 1year older and played much more matches at ATP tour- their statistics are pretty even but if you look more closely Andy is clearly superior HC player and definitely aftet their careers will be over Andy will be much better HC player results wise.

Nadal. The question wasn't regarding consistency, it was stating which player is the better on HC. That is Rafa. Rafa's best is better than Murray's best on HC.

Nadal. The question wasn't regarding consistency, it was stating which player is the better on HC. That is Rafa. Rafa's best is better than Murray's best on HC.

Than the question should be who has higher peak level at HC? still doesn´t matter how is the question Murray is better HC-player, this is really stupid how people here are thinking, Nadal has 2 slams so he is logically better, that´s misleading. The same can be said who is better on grass, Andy or Nole - so Nole who won Wimbledon should be better right? everyone knows here Andy is superior grass-courter than Nole

About peak level - Nadal is arguably better on slow HC, howewer, at faster HC and indoors is clearly Andy better player at their best - not talking here about their match-up but generally vs field, peak Murrray is clearly better returner, is bigger server- his 1st serve is major weapon, in rallies he is as good than Rafa so he is better at 2/3 HC´s - faster outdoor HC and indoor and Rafa at his best is probably better at slow HC like Miami,IW,AO... which is more like clay and nobody can hit trhough him and can win his matches in super long rallies-well he won´t play so much on slow HC in future most likely- we all know how it is damaging his knees.

ixKj_3JhulA

...unless he's already been destroyed by Soderling in an earlier round.

I think you should consult a dictionary about the definition of the word "destroyed". I believe there is a picture of Federina's face after the 2008 French Open Final humiliation :wavey: Warm regards...

For now, Rafa is the better hardcourter of the two, but Murray is not that far away.

Nadal has 2 slams Murray 1 so he is... this logic is stupid, similar to Delpo had slam vs Murray had 0 before USo so Delpo was god and Murray was mug right...

Murray is better hard-courter than Rafa, howewer is is close but he is, if we want to talk about results o.k. we can compare tham at biggest events

slams - Rafa - 2x, Murray - 1x, slam F Rafa 2x more, Andy- 3x more - so both played 4 slam finals in their carreers, Rafa won 2/4, Andy 1/4 - Rafa has little edge here

WTF - Rafa 1x F, Andy 0, SF - 2x both -Rafa had little edge here

Masters 1000 - Andy 8/11 - his every title and final at MAsters 1000 was played on HC, Rafa 5/11
Hc titles in career - Rafa-11/25, Andy 20/32

Also Rafa is 1year older and played much more matches at ATP tour- their statistics are pretty even but if you look more closely Andy is clearly superior HC player and definitely aftet their careers will be over Andy will be much better HC player results wise.


:bs:
The question is not who the better player will be in the future but who is the better player. And as you posted, the results are in Rafa's favor for now. And the results are the best indicator to determine who the better player is, no?



For now, Rafa is the better hardcourter of the two, but Murray is not that far away.

I agree.

Murray and the next 2-3 years will show it.

Muzza and it's not even close.

Nadal is only a much better claycourter.

Nadal has 2 slams Murray 1 so he is... this logic is stupid, similar to Delpo had slam vs Murray had 0 before USo so Delpo was god and Murray was mug right...


Exactly. Let's wait for 5 more years then we'll judge.
But still, Murray has a better HC game, just not the results yet.

Dull is a shitty HC player. Only made 4 HC slam finals in his entire 'great' career and lost half of them.

Well, things are diffrerent from them this thread was started. For career stats, Nadal is still ahead. For current form...well, Nadal has no current form. So Murray without competition. What happens when Nadal gets back? Murray strong favourite for sure, Nadal's last win being two years ago. An injury break of many months have never helped any player play better than before the injury, at least not in the ATP.

Nadal has had the better career on HC's, although even there it's pretty close, and Murray will definitely appear as the better hardcourter once he comes back.