Djokovic or Murray - who's the superior grass court player?

Until recently, I've always viewed Murray as a better grass court player than Djokovic.

It's the surface where the technical skills at which Murray is superior are best magnified.  Also, they've met twice on grass, and it is 5-0 in sets to Murray.

But in the last 5 years, Djokovic has won Wimbledon 3 times and has been a runner up once. Murray is at 1 win and 1 runner up.

Have we reached the point where Novak's record is now far enough ahead that we have to say he is the better player on grass?

Or is he technically inferior but just better at winning slams?

Well the records show Andy has a higher win percentage and won more matches on the surface.

As you say though what measures will you use. Most Wimbledon wins? Most titles? Most matches won?

I don't think one is more superior than the other, I think it's closer. I can't divide their games up to a point where one has a more resounding weapon/attribute that outweighs the other. Achievements though say another. At the moment I'd say Djokovic's serve is streets ahead and it shows when Djokovic can protect his better than Andy. That I feel is the major difference from a technical point of view.

The other? Well Djokovic has more between the ears and between the legs which is why one is on 9 Slams and counting and multiple years at number 1 and the other seems to be a petrified bridesmaid.

Agree largely with LK

They often beat each other because one was more mentally tougher than the other - which then comes down to confidence at that given time

I would say that fully fit Murray has more variety than Novak for grass and it''s the one surface where the difference between a good slice and a thumping forehand is most pronounced

I'd stick my neck out and say that if Murray had played Djoko in the semi in those conditions he's have won - but would have slight favoured Nole in the cooler ones we had on the Sunday

Fundamentally, I think Andy is the better grass court player - but only because he plays a more classical grass court game (even then it's nothing like the older players) as he uses the surface to his advantage usually

Novak, and this is his real strength - just plays the same game on all surfaces and usually wins

legendkillarV2 wrote:Well the records show Andy has a higher win percentage and won more matches on the surface.

Yes, this is another difficulty in the comparison.

Andy's record on grass is excellent. Although Queen's isn't a high ranking event, its field tends to be much stronger than the average 250 (now a 500) and Andy's record of 4 wins there puts him alongside some big names.

Djokovic, in contrast, hardly ever plays on grass. He hasn't played a non-Wimbledon grass event in years. His record rests on quality over quantity. He only has 3 grass court titles - but they are all at Wimbledon!

'Novak...just plays the same game on all surfaces and usually wins.'

I agree with that. He and Fed, imo, are two guys who can play the same game everywhere on any surface and still are able to win. They dont even need to make any adjustment to their game to win anywhere, and that says a lot about how good they are.

banbrotam wrote:Novak, and this is his real strength - just plays the same game on all surfaces and usually wins

This is an important factor too.

When Rafa had his great spell at Wimbledon from 06-10, I never thought he was a great grass court player. He was just transposing his normal game onto grass.

I'd say Novak is doing much the same.

I'm torn on this one. My eyes tell me that Andy (at his best) is the better grass court player. The record books tell me that it is Novak.

HM Murdoch wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Well the records show Andy has a higher win percentage and won more matches on the surface.

Yes, this is another difficulty in the comparison.

Andy's record on grass is excellent. Although Queen's isn't a high ranking event, its field tends to be much stronger than the average 250 (now a 500) and Andy's record of 4 wins there puts him alongside some big names.

Djokovic, in contrast, hardly ever plays on grass. He hasn't played a non-Wimbledon grass event in years. His record rests on quality over quantity. He only has 3 grass court titles - but they are all at Wimbledon!

I do wonder though if we saw Djokovic play Queens or Halle on quicker grass courts that we would get a better indication of his grass prowess. How he would cope with serves with more pop and lower bouncing skidding balls.

Either way it's ridiculous that he shows up at Wimbledon and wins it given the other preparations the rest of the field put in.

HM Murdoch wrote:

banbrotam wrote:Novak, and this is his real strength - just plays the same game on all surfaces and usually wins

This is an important factor too.

When Rafa had his great spell at Wimbledon from 06-10, I never thought he was a great grass court player. He was just transposing his normal game onto grass.

I'd say Novak is doing much the same.

I'm torn on this one. My eyes tell me that Andy (at his best) is the better grass court player. The record books tell me that it is Novak.

I see it like that. I look at Nadal, Murray and Djokovic and think their game shouldn't succeed on Grass that I grew up watching for the better part of 2 decades.

I know people get caught up saying on 90's grass they would struggle, but I look at the 70's/80's when power wasn't such a factor and wonder how they would fair in a game of cat and mouse with the likes of Borg, McEnroe and Connors.

I actually think out of Djokovic, Nadal and Murray that on 90's grass Djokovic would adapt better purely because of his return of serve. No slices. He would BH the fluff off it. Nadal and Murray I think would need to be more aggressive without a doubt.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I do wonder though if we saw Djokovic play Queens or Halle on quicker grass courts that we would get a better indication of his grass prowess. How he would cope with serves with more pop and lower bouncing skidding balls.

Either way it's ridiculous that he shows up at Wimbledon and wins it given the other preparations the rest of the field put in.

I suspect he would be less effective at Queen's and Halle, mainly due to the lower bounce.

It's very impressive that he can win Wimbledon from a standing start but also a bit ridiculous that Wimbledon's surface plays in such a way that it's possible to do this.

That said, the last two years he has looked below his best for most of the tournament and only snapped into top form for the final, so maybe he is timing it well. Both Murray and Federer looked like they peaked too soon.

Lots of things come into play here.

Novak is now riding on that wave of superiority (for want of a better term) when he walks onto court. Roger had it a few years ago as did Rafa. That is when he walks onto court the talk is how is he going to be beaten or opponent is fretting about how can I beat him? That goes a heck of a long way to giving you an edge before the match starts. Murray has strived hard for that but his inconsistencies at the business end of slams has denied him ever really getting that.

Novak's mental strength is peerless whereas Murray's mind can often become clouded by self-doubt or questioning himself which can prove costly when facing the very best players.

Anyway in answer to the original question I do think Murray is the better grass court player of the two as their head-to-head record on the surface shows. However, Novak's clearer mental thought, air of invincibility and consistency has won him more Wimbledons.

IMO Novak is much better player than Murray generally and I think that he is a superior player also on standard grass courts. He has done a big improvement on the grass since having BB on the bench on technical side, but the huge difference is in their mentality. Nole is much tougher player in this area. Sometimes just one bad ball from Murray and he collapses (Lendl helped enourmously in that area, but it got into the the same groove as before after they separated).
Murray uses much less swing on his FH side and hits it flatter against Nole. But due to the fact that he plays mostly from an absolute open stance with a minimum of forward move, it is not powerful and lacks of length. He just muscles the ball with an effort to give the ball a power from his body rotation. But that can’t be played as standard FH that way. He looks really passive and too heavy, like he would have a ten kilos weight on his feet. His BH is really ok and can play really nice flat winners and slices from that wing.
I will not mention the difference in the second serve and on the return and Nole’s improvent on volleys and smashes. The most striking thing is that Novak is able to see the ball much better than his opponents and can speed up the ball from both sides massively. I still see some Novak’s hitting of Fed’s hard hit forehands, when Novak was able to play them as half volleys. His move supported by super reflexes gives him a big advantage against his opponents even if he is not a natural attacking player. Murray’s move is not worse against Nole on grass and I am not affraid to say that it is even better. His powerful legs offset Nole’s flexibility and his court coverage is fully comparable with Nole.
Murray can play a very good efficient grass tennis, but I see Nole’s current grass game as superior due to Murray’s worse mental side with mentioned technical flaws.

Murray at his absoulte best was a better grass court player than Djokovic. Djokovic had a small advantage on hard courts and a bigger advantage on clay.

If you look at Djokovic's three Wimbledon titles;
2011 - he was near on unbeatable this year.
2014 - weak opposition. Nadal made usual early exit, Murray not fully recovered, Federer probably just too old to handle him.
2015 - A bit of 2011 and a bit of 2014.

I just think Djokovic's whole game is that far ahead of the field at the moment. It's taking an amazing Wawrinka performance to beat him in a big tournament. I don't think he's a great grass court player, more of a great player playing on grass.

I always find it strange that Djokovic doesn't play any grass tournament before Wimbledon. You would think that would be a very risky strategy but like you said, he has won 3 wimbledons now and he also has a runner up and semi final finish in most of the others.

The one time he bothered to play at Queens, he was very impressive and made it to the final and lost to Nadal in a really good competitive match (and that was nadal during his peak form on grass when he was also winning Wimbledon).

I would agree that Murray is the more natural player on grass but you could argue that if novak played more events on grass, he could well have won numerous other titles like Queens or Halle but he just didn't play.

Although grass is not as fast as it used to be, it still requires a lot of transition from clay, anybody who plays tennis knows there is a huge difference (particularly with the movement). If you had asked me 5 years ago would Novak win 3 wimbledons, I would have honestly said no. I thought he would have won 3 French opens before winning 3 on the grass.

However, he has proven more than capable and he now has the same amount of Wimbledon wins as Becker and Edberg. He must be very good on the surface ! Murray has under achieved at Wimbledon in my opinion. Whatever about the loss to an inspired Federer twice, you would have thought he would have competed better against Nadal those 3 times they played. He never even got Nadal to 5. That for me is the biggest surprise and one of the main reasons why Murray has had less success than Novak at Wimbledon.

I meant to also say that the Wimbledon final between Novak and Murray was a bit of an anti climax. I think most people (neutrals) would have seen that Djokovic was spent from his semi final with del potro, I think that match was about 5 hours long!

In the final, Novak led by a break in two of the sets and the more ruthless novak would never have allowed that to slip twice. Murray played exceptionally well that day but also had the advantage as he always does of having the home crowd behind him. You cannot under estimate the importance of having basically home advantage in a big match like that.

Don't get me started with the Olympics match, I still think tennis involvement in the Olympics is a complete joke.

What I will say is I would consider Murray just as good as Djokovic on grass and I would agree that he is more natural on the surface than Novak. However, I think if you offered Murray the 3 wins of Novak at Wimbledon over his own record, he would take it hands down.

I still think Murray will win another Wimbledon, he is too good a grass court player not to

I think Novak has had a little luck along the way at Wimbledon too. Not luck in the sense of fluke but luck in the sense of things falling his way.

At RG, things worked against him. He had a tough draw, the scheduling of his SF disadvantaged him and he faced the performance of a lifetime from Stan in the final.

At Wimbledon this year:
- he got the draw that meant he would only have to face one of Federer or Murray and not both.
- he could very easily have lost to Anderson in the 4th round but squeaked through.
- In the SF he didn't face his bête noire Wawrinka but rather his bunny Gasquet.
- He faced Federer under cooler conditions that suited him (Djokovic).

If Roland Garros seems to be his 'unlucky' slam, Wimbledon has been quite kind to him.

It wouldn't have required a big shift in events for him to have 2 RG titles but only 1 Wimbledon.

slashermcguirk wrote:I think most people (neutrals) would have seen that Djokovic was spent from his semi final with del potro, I think that match was about 5 hours long!

I thought that too, but Novak has subsequently said he felt fine physically for that final but was just emotionally flat on the day.

But I agree it was a poor match. Strip away the historical significance of Andy's win and I don't think it would live long in the memory.

Why surprised that Murray lost all three times to Rafa at Wimbledon? To me, Rafa was at his peak on grass for at least two out of the three times that they met there. Rafa was always the more aggressive player when playing against Murray. If Rafa could beat Fed the King of grass back then, surely he could beat Murray on grass. Its not like Rafa was playing poorly but still beat Murray; he was playing well on grass back then.

To me Novak could succeed on grass because he's simply very good at both his serves and his returns. He may slip and fall more often then Fed or Rafa or Murray when on grass but he's agile and flexible enough to pick himself up quickly and slides along the baseline so well to get to any shot. In fact I feel that he could rely solely on his baseline game to beat almost everyone, including Fed; his improved net approaches is an added advantage to his already hard to beat baseline game. I would say he can play consistently well even on grass but Murray's level fluctuates more frequently.

I may even consider that grass has become Novak's second favorite surface, better than clay. Novak seems to struggle more on clay despite having more match plays on clay. Perhaps there are more clay court experts than grass court experts around.

To be honest I have reevaluated and have to rate Novak as the better grass court player. Novak was not playing as well in 2012 and 2013 and Andy had stepped up his games, those are the only times they have met on grass. But I think if you look at the totality of the last few years you see a number of factors that tilt the advantage to Novak on grass.

1. Better second serve, Novak's second serve is hard to attack on any surface and Murray's is much more up and down and not as precise or heavy

2. Novak has more aggressive court position generally, often you can hit a winner off of a fast surface without much effort on a rather weak shot if you just redirect the ball early

3. More precise with his ground strokes. Similar to point 2, grass favors a player who can hit his spots, often just hitting into the open court when your opponent is stretched even if you do it without a huge shot will be enough to win the point

4. Murray has better volleys but just doesn't come in very much. In most of their matchups Novak moves into net more often and makes an effort to get to net whenever he plays especially on grass, Andy doesn't do it enough for my money

On the other two surfaces, a player can build up such a body of work on a surface that even without a slam, you can argue the merits of his achievements well. Grass is really Wimbledon, and preparation for Wimbledon. Have to go with Djokovic

Should have said a slam count deficit, but you get the jist.

3 Wimbledons to 1, you cannot really argue for Andy any more, although I would have done in 2013 and maybe in 2014.

In the match against Federer, I thought his second serve remains an issue.

His depth for me, after re-watching some of that match, was not good. Djoko's was exceptional.

LuvSports! wrote:His depth for me, after re-watching some of that match, was not good. Djoko's was exceptional.

I agree. Murray's ground strokes lacked the depth and power of Djokovic's V Federer hence he lost plus of course Federer served a lot better V Murray.

I said at the time Murray just seemed to be rolling his shots in around the service line and that is never going to get the job done V Federer.

It's an interesting question, I think it's a combo of Djokovic's great match play and unlucky/lucky draws. Novaks routes to the final the last 2 years haven't been the most difficult, I think Murray was somewhat unlucky to run into a more inform Federer and Nadal during 08-12. Murray has the more suitable game for grass, Novak has the best all court game under today's conditions.

I think it's a bit of an anomaly as its incredible to me that Novak only has 1 US Open title but has 3 Wimbledons, seems the wrong way round to me! If Murray won the US Open this year, would anyone say that means Murray has a better game for Flushing Meadows than Novak? I wouldn't think so.

I mean who is a better grass court player, Dustin Brown or David Ferrer? Ferrer has by far the better results but Brown's game is much more suited for the surface, it's hard to judge who is BETTER on grass but one thing is clear, Ferrer is by far the better player.

In my opinion Novak is the better player while Murray is the better grass court player, combine that with Murray running into a godly Federer in 12 and 14 and a godly Nadal in 08 and 10 and Novak just being better than everyone in the tour and that's how it's happened.

Federer in *15 even

You make some good points CAS, but I disagree because I don't feel like Murray plays in a manner that makes him particularly a great grass court player. I mean he has a good slice backhand, moves well on the surface, and has good hands. But he isn't a huge server or a player who gets to net all the time. I think potentially Murray could be the best grass court player on tour but he just plays in my mind at least too counterpunching a style match in and match out to give him credit for being qualitatively better on grass.

Therefore I think the results decide it there. Novak doesn't play many grass tournaments but if he played more he would probably win those as well. And I agree about his game being more all court that plays well on any surface as opposed to him changing it around drastically. But I do find that he is more aggressive with the first ball and moves in more on grass than on the other surfaces which sometimes I wish he would be that aggressive on the other surfaces. However I guess he sees more reward to it on grass so it makes sense.

Didn't Murray also win the Olympics on grass, beating Djokovic and Federer?

However I do believe Novak's best game is better than any player on any surface apart maybe Nadal at his best on the clay.

I'd put Stan and Feds in that list of those who could beat novak at his best.