PDA

View Full Version : Hewitt vs Murray- who is the greater player now


NadalAgassi
09-11-2012, 06:14 PM
The Murray vs Roddick poll was far more one sided than I thought it would be so maybe this would be a closer poll. I would favor Hewitt in this one at this point since he was a 2 time year end event Champion, 2 time year end #1, and a 2 slam winner. Murray will probably pass him sometime next year though.

90's Clay
09-11-2012, 06:17 PM
Hewitt for sure.. Reign at #1 that lasted quite a while. 2 slams on 2 different surfaces and took out Pete to win his first slam which more impressive to me then taking out Nole in the finals even if Pete was 30.



Hewitt was the better and greater player during his heyday IMO even though his run didn't last a long time due to injuries.

But I'm sure Murray will surpass Hewitt sometime in the next few years.

papertank
09-11-2012, 06:17 PM
Hewitt so far. I think Murray will be greater when things are said and done though.

MurrayMyInspiration
09-11-2012, 06:21 PM
Murray. Assess their era's...And murray edges it. Slam Gold medal. 4 slam finals. 4 semis in 1 year. Never got shat on by fed amongst other things. Still hewitt a great champion.

NJ1
09-11-2012, 06:22 PM
Hewitt so far. I think Murray will be greater when things are said and done though.

I agree with this

Tennis_Maestro
09-11-2012, 06:23 PM
Hewitt's still ahead on the achievements scale. As far as sheer talent is concerned you cannot look past Andy Murray here. However, as a competitor, Hewitt takes it, will to win/desire and mental fortitude. (Being able to keep control of your emotions @ the most pressure of times)

Hewitt punched above his weight for a very long time, as far as a player is concerned, that bloke absolutely squeezed out every juice of talent he had and brought upon huge success with it.

Mustard
09-11-2012, 06:24 PM
Lleyton Hewitt
2 major titles (2001 US Open, 2002 Wimbledon)
2 runner-ups in majors (2004 US Open, 2005 Australian Open)
Quarter Final Loser at the French Open in 2001 and 2004
2 Masters Cup titles (now World Tour Finals) in 2001 and 2002
2 masters series titles (2002 Indian Wells, 2003 Indian Wells)
28 career titles in all
Winner of the Davis Cup with Australia in 1999 and 2003
Career high world ranking of number 1

Andy Murray
1 major title (2012 US Open)
4 runner-ups in majors (2008 US Open, 2010 Australian Open, 2011 Australian Open, 2012 Wimbledon)
Semi Final Loser at the French Open in 2011
2012 London Olympics gold medalist
Semi Final Loser at the World Tour Finals in 2008 and 2010
8 masters series titles (2008 Cincinnati, 2008 Madrid Indoor, 2009 Miami, 2009 Montreal, 2010 Toronto, 2010 Shanghai, 2011 Cincinnati, 2011 Shanghai)
24 career titles in all
Career high world ranking of number 2

MurrayMyInspiration
09-11-2012, 06:24 PM
TennisMaestro How come you are up at 3am in the morning? BTW u can ask same of me.

Tennis_Maestro
09-11-2012, 06:28 PM
Lleyton Hewitt
2 major titles (2001 US Open, 2002 Wimbledon)
2 runner-ups in majors (2004 US Open, 2005 Australian Open)
Quarter Final Loser at the French Open in 2001 and 2004
2 Masters Cup titles (now World Tour Finals) in 2001 and 2002
2 masters series titles (2002 Indian Wells, 2003 Indian Wells)
28 career titles in all
Winner of the Davis Cup with Australia in 1999 and 2003
Career high world ranking of number 1

Andy Murray
1 major title (2012 US Open)
4 runner-ups in majors (2008 US Open, 2010 Australian Open, 2011 Australian Open, 2012 Wimbledon)
Semi Final Loser at the French Open in 2011
2012 London Olympics gold medalist
Semi Final Loser at the World Tour Finals in 2008 and 2010
8 masters series titles (2008 Cincinnati, 2008 Madrid Indoor, 2009 Miami, 2009 Montreal, 2010 Toronto, 2010 Shanghai, 2011 Cincinnati, 2011 Shanghai)
24 career titles in all
Career high world ranking of number 2

Wait Hewitt only won 2 masters series titles? :shock: That is shocking. If not for the 2 Masters Cups (WTF's) .. I would actually have Murray down as having achieved more. (If not for the masters cups (WTF's) )

8 to 2 in favour of Murray is substantial. I suppose the year end championships are the only remaining factor.

Ofcourse one grandslam behind still...

...and the year end ranking means ******** to me, I don't really place as much importance on it as most others do on here, I don't feel it should be held in as much glory. Its gimmicky to me.

veritech
09-11-2012, 06:28 PM
I have to go with Hewitt. 2 slams and back to back TMC's over 1 slam and zero TMC's/WTF's. most important factor are the slams.

however, Murray still has lots of time to catch up.

Tennis_Maestro
09-11-2012, 06:29 PM
TennisMaestro How come you are up at 3am in the morning? BTW u can ask same of me.

I'm still getting drunk of Murray's win mayan! :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

Tennis_Maestro
09-11-2012, 06:30 PM
I have to go with Hewitt. 2 slams and back to back TMC's over 1 slam and zero TMC's/WTF's.

however, Murray still has lots of time to catch up.

Not really. One slam and he'd be ahead of Hewitt IMO.

8 - 2 to Andy in Masters series, that's ridiculous.

rdis10093
09-11-2012, 06:31 PM
hewitt two grand slams plus one grand slam for doubles, year end #1 twice, and davis cup king so yeah............ murray is not even close

veritech
09-11-2012, 06:32 PM
Not really. One slam and he'd be ahead of Hewitt IMO.

8 - 2 to Andy in Masters series, that's ridiculous.

Andy can win as many masters as he wants, if he's still one slam below Hewitt, there's no way he can be considered greater than Hewitt.

masters are good, but slams are vital.

Tennis_Maestro
09-11-2012, 06:33 PM
....and Hewitt only won a Masters Series @ one event, that's quite remarkable, I always had Hewitt down as having won more Masters than that. I suppose Leyton was always the best of 5 set master and Masters are best of 3, although used to be 5 for the final.

Mustard
09-11-2012, 06:33 PM
Wait Hewitt only won 2 masters series titles? :shock:

Yes, Hewitt won Indian Wells in 2002 and 2003, beating Henman and Kuerten in the respective finals. Hewitt lost 5 masters series finals. He lost 2000 Stuttgart Indoor to Ferreira, 2002 Cincinnati to Moya, 2002 Paris Indoor to Safin, 2004 Cincinnati to Agassi and 2005 Indian Wells to Federer.

Tennis_Maestro
09-11-2012, 06:34 PM
Andy can win as many masters as he wants, if he's still one slam below Hewitt, there's no way he can be considered greater than Hewitt.

masters are good, but slams are vital.

WHAT DID I SAY?

Read my post. This is what irritates me. I said "Not really, ONLY ONE SLAM BEHIND"

Why repeat what I basically already said and then point out the obvious by saying slams mean more than masters series?

After he equalises with one more slam, he takes it, 8-2 in the Masters Series, that was my point. Bloody hell.

MurrayMyInspiration
09-11-2012, 06:35 PM
I'm still getting drunk of Murray's win mayan! :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

Get drunk on this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQPd0HHRvjo :o Muzza,Music,Magic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

veritech
09-11-2012, 06:39 PM
WHAT DID I SAY?

Read my post. This is what irritates me. I said "Not really, ONLY ONE SLAM BEHIND"

Why repeat what I basically already said and then point out the obvious by saying slams mean more than masters series?

After he equalises with one more slam, he takes it, 8-2 in the Masters Series, that was my point. Bloody hell.

was I disagreeing with you? is there a problem with reiterating?

if you're getting ****ed about talking to complete strangers about tennis in absolutely innocent environments you need to get out more.

Tennis_Maestro
09-11-2012, 06:40 PM
hewitt two grand slams plus one grand slam for doubles, year end #1 twice, and davis cup king so yeah............ murray is not even close

He is very close. Why dismiss his 6 masters series lead? ..and do you honesty expect Murray to EVER win a Davis Cup when he represents Great Britain, seriously? :roll: I don't even know why people feel the Davis cup should even be considered when summing up a player's career achievements... its an achievement, but something they achieved through a team.

MurrayMyInspiration
09-11-2012, 06:41 PM
was I disagreeing with you? is there a problem with reiterating?

if you're getting ****ed about talking to complete strangers about tennis in absolutely innocent environments you need to get out more.

Chill the both of you and get some Sebastian Ingrosso and Tommy Trash into ya pronto http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQPd0HHRvjo :-o

Tennis_Maestro
09-11-2012, 06:42 PM
was I disagreeing with you? is there a problem with reiterating?

if you're getting ****ed about talking to complete strangers about tennis in absolutely innocent environments you need to get out more.

Yes, it much sounded like you were disagreeing with me, re-read your post and I do get out, very often in-fact, I was joking around with MurrayMyInspiration.

Vcore89
09-11-2012, 07:17 PM
Heiwtt of course. Maybe Murray can or can not eclipse Hewitt's achievement to date but for now it is Hewitt has got the upper hand. Safin too.

kishnabe
09-11-2012, 07:17 PM
Hewitt should have more MS1000....it doesn't make sense with his quality from 2000-05.

Hewitt still above.....till Murray wins 3 slams in total. Equal when Murray gets two.

NadalAgassi
09-11-2012, 07:20 PM
This poll is almost as lopsided as the Murray vs Roddick one in Murray's favor. So it seems the strong consensus is Hewitt > Murray > Roddick at this point.

MurrayMyInspiration
09-11-2012, 07:20 PM
Hewitt should have more MS1000....it doesn't make sense with his quality from 2000-05.

Hewitt still above.....till Murray wins 3 slams in total. Equal when Murray gets two.

Go back to your old avatar please..I always thought you were cooler with it and you always stood out for some strange reason.

nereis
09-12-2012, 02:33 AM
As far as titles on a resume goes:

2 GS > 1 GS

Wimbledon Champion > Wimbledon Runners Up

To me smaller tournaments don't even matter that much.

Masters tournaments are mostly there just so that players can make money and prepare for the grand slams.

Zarfot Z
09-12-2012, 03:44 AM
2 > 1

Until Murray matches or surpasses 2 Grand Slams, he will always be less great.

Red Sunset
09-12-2012, 03:46 AM
Is this a trick question? Hewitt obviously.

Paul Murphy
09-12-2012, 03:54 AM
I'll take two majors and 80 weeks at No.1 over Murray's record any day.

BeHappy
09-12-2012, 04:02 AM
Lleyton Hewitt of course.

2 slams > 1
2 year end no. 1's > 0
2 TMC's > 0

Win % in slam finals
Hewitt: 50% (2 of 4)
Murray 20% (1 of 5)

Competition at slams they won:
Hewitt: Sampras, Agassi, Safin, Federer, Philippoussis, Rafter, Roddick, Haas, Moya, Ferrero Nalbandian, Henman, Ivanisevic etc.

Murray: Federer, Djokovic, Tsonga.

Easily Hewitt. Look at the players who went into his slams and he finished on top of. No Nadal at this US Open.




His rally ball was so much deeper and flatter than Murrays, he had a better forehand. Serve = the same. Return = Hewitt, but not by much.

Hawkeye7
09-12-2012, 04:04 AM
What does the ranking matter? The fact that Hewitt got to No. 1 by winning one slam a year doesn't speak for dominance.

I agree however that he has had the better career so far. Murray has time though.

Paul Murphy
09-12-2012, 04:07 AM
What does the ranking matter? The fact that Hewitt got to No. 1 by winning one slam a year doesn't speak for dominance.

I agree however that he has had the better career so far. Murray has time though.

Plenty of players seem to think it matters.
They're keen to get to No.1 and/or stay there.
Huge amount of prestige comes with that elite territory.

Tennis_Maestro
09-12-2012, 05:34 AM
Hewitt should have more MS1000....it doesn't make sense with his quality from 2000-05.

Hewitt still above.....till Murray wins 3 slams in total. Equal when Murray gets two.

...but he doesn't. Why are you making excuses for him? He has less Masters 1000's and Murray is only 25. One more slam and Murray is way ahead of him on the achievements scale.

Tennis_Maestro
09-12-2012, 05:36 AM
As far as titles on a resume goes:

2 GS > 1 GS

Wimbledon Champion > Wimbledon Runners Up

To me smaller tournaments don't even matter that much.

Masters tournaments are mostly there just so that players can make money and prepare for the grand slams.

Absolute bollocks. Masters series are there with good significance. They identify a player's consistency throughout a season. You cannot merely go on a player's Grandslam record. Aggasi has a brilliant Masters series record and its why he's up there in the hall-of-fame.

Tennis_Maestro
09-12-2012, 05:37 AM
My opinion is Murray's exactly one slam off and that's it. Being number 1 in that era meant ********, moment Fed stepped in, Hewitt was kicked aside, speaks a lot.

nereis
09-12-2012, 05:56 AM
Absolute bollocks. Masters series are there with good significance. They identify a player's consistency throughout a season. You cannot merely go on a player's Grandslam record. Aggasi has a brilliant Masters series record and its why he's up there in the hall-of-fame.

Agassi is tier 2-3 not because of his Masters record but because he managed to win all four majors in his career.

Absent his French Open title he would not be in the same breath as Sampras.

No one has ever identified someone's record outside the majors as anything but a bonus.

It's like listing the number of mid-tier deals you've worked on for a CV rather than the big rockstar IPOs you've been lead left on.

Russeljones
09-12-2012, 06:13 AM
11 trolls in beaver hats.

Tennis_Maestro
09-12-2012, 06:23 AM
Agassi is tier 2-3 not because of his Masters record but because he managed to win all four majors in his career.

Absent his French Open title he would not be in the same breath as Sampras.

No one has ever identified someone's record outside the majors as anything but a bonus.

It's like listing the number of mid-tier deals you've worked on for a CV rather than the big rockstar IPOs you've been lead left on.

Speak for yourself. Masters series definitely show a greater depth to a tennis player's achievements. Tennis isn't merely about jus 4 tournament per calendar year.

Tony48
09-12-2012, 07:25 AM
Achievement-wise, it's not even close. But Murray will perhaps (PERHAPS) eclipse Hewitt in that regard.

Tennis_Maestro
09-12-2012, 07:27 AM
Achievement-wise, it's not even close. But Murray will perhaps (PERHAPS) eclipse Hewitt in that regard.

How is it not even close, when he is merely 1 Grandslam behind? :confused:

After he's equalised, then what separates them? :confused:

norbac
09-12-2012, 07:33 AM
At this point, Hewitt for sure. Nice to see him back in the top 100 as well.

Russeljones
09-12-2012, 08:02 AM
How is it not even close, when he is merely 1 Grandslam behind? :confused:

After he's equalised, then what separates them? :confused:

Just ask Murray how hard winning 'merely' 1 Grand Slam is.

rdis10093
09-12-2012, 08:11 AM
so is tennis maestro a murray fan or hewitt fan ?

Tennis_Maestro
09-12-2012, 08:14 AM
Just ask Murray how hard winning 'merely' 1 Grand Slam is.

Doesn't matter. You can't say that he is miles off on paper when he is one slam away from being on par. Its going to be hard for another slam but you would think it is only inevitable with Federer retiring sometime in the next 3 years.

Tennis_Maestro
09-12-2012, 08:14 AM
so is tennis maestro a murray fan or hewitt fan ?

Both.

I believe Murray is more talented and Hewitt has achieved more for only his one slam lead, simple. That won't last long however.

BigServer1
09-12-2012, 08:15 AM
Hewitt for now, but I think Murray will eclipse that soon enough.

Retaliation
09-12-2012, 08:59 AM
Hewitt, but Murray's caught up a lot in the last 2 months. Hewitt was pretty dominant for almost 2 years. Murray has never been dominant.

Tennis_Maestro
09-12-2012, 09:01 AM
Hewitt, but Murray's caught up a lot in the last 2 months. Hewitt was pretty dominant for almost 2 years. Murray has never been dominant.

When there was no Federer, Nadal, Djokoivc and Murray.

Tennis_Maestro
09-12-2012, 09:01 AM
Also, where's Hewitt's Olympic Gold?

Retaliation
09-12-2012, 09:20 AM
When there was no Federer, Nadal, Djokoivc and Murray.

That would be something if Murray were to have to deal with Fed, Nadal, Djokoivc [sic] and MURRAY.

Either way, we are looking at career accomplishments so far, and that advantage goes to Hewitt. Nice try, though.

Retaliation
09-12-2012, 09:23 AM
Also, where's Hewitt's Olympic Gold?

Also, where's Murray's second slam?

Also, where's Murray's weeks at #1 record at? I googled it, but nothing came up. Not even on Wikipedia. The internet must be broken or something.

Hewitt>Murray.

Thanks for the memories.

Retaliation
09-12-2012, 09:26 AM
EDIT:

I just re-read the initial poll question. It is this:

"Who is the greater player now- Hewitt vs Murray"

The greater player right now is Murray. I even voted for him. BUT, Hewitt has still had the more accomplished career thus far.

tacou
09-12-2012, 09:29 AM
Hewitt far and away. Murray I think will end his career with AT LEAST 2 slams, probably 3-4, and have a "better career" than Lleyton, but he won't have the weeks at #1. Murray might never get to #1, actually.

Nathaniel_Near
09-12-2012, 09:50 AM
Achievements wise, by pure numbers, Hewitt is the 'greater' player, but I think Murray is a slightly 'better' player than Hewitt ever was, and I think that his achievements will further legitimise this view when all is said and done.

Gasolina
09-12-2012, 09:57 AM
Wait are we basing this off

1. Is Murray a better player now than Hewitt ever was?

or

2. Who has more achivements?

or

3. Who would win? Prime Murray or Prime Hewitt?

Breaker
09-12-2012, 09:57 AM
Hewitt more accomplished and the better player. Doesn't have Olympic medal because he skipped 2004 Olympics to play other tournaments since a lot of top players didn't care as much about Olympics until recently.

NadalAgassi
09-12-2012, 11:27 AM
Wait are we basing this off

1. Is Murray a better player now than Hewitt ever was?

or

2. Who has more achivements?

or

3. Who would win? Prime Murray or Prime Hewitt?

You make your own critiera.

Tennis_Maestro
09-12-2012, 12:04 PM
Listen.

Anyone who knows anything about tennis knows Murray has more talent than Hewitt ever did.

On paper, he's one slam behind.

As a competitor, Hewitt is better.

Player - Murray

Competitor - Hewitt

Achievements - Hewitt (For now)

NadalAgassi
09-12-2012, 12:11 PM
Listen.

Anyone who knows anything about tennis knows Murray has more talent than Hewitt ever did.

On paper, he's one slam behind.

As a competitor, Hewitt is better.

Player - Murray

Competitor - Hewitt

Achievements - Hewitt (For now)

I feel the same way. Talent and game wise Hewitt is better. Mentally Hewitt is tougher in big matches thus far.

Peak to peak well Hewitt had a great 18 month run, vs a very weak field but he still deserves credit for it. I disagree with posters who say he dominated though. 2 slams and 2 Masters in 2 years (even with 2 WTFs as well) is not dominant by any measure. He wasnt even secure at the #1 spot and had to seal it by outperforming Agassi at the WTF both years. He was a worthy #1 that 18 month period but in no way a dominant one. Murray still has never been close to being a #1 player thus far, even this year he has no shot to get there, but cant imagine Hewitt ever having been #1 in an era with prime Djokovic, prime Nadal, and slam winning Federer either. If they played peak to peak it would be interesting. In slams Hewitt's mental strength might take him out ahead some of the time atleast.

Career wise Hewitt has achieved more for sure with his 1 extra slam, 2 extra WTFs, and two year end #1s. The 8 Masters titles to 2 is quite a huge gap though and brings them closer. Murray with 2 slams would make it a very close debate, even if he hasnt won the WTF yet.

I think Murray is the better player but Hewitt at this point the greater one.

Breaker
09-12-2012, 12:28 PM
Listen.

Anyone who knows anything about tennis knows Murray has more talent than Hewitt ever did.



Nope, this is your opinion. For me prime Hewitt is a slightly better player even disregarding of his superior accomplishments at the moment, they're both massively talented players who use their skill sets slightly differently which could be a product of the 1 generation gap they have.

Hewitt's down the line shots/redirection and ability to attack serves (one of the best of all time) as well as recognise when to come forward and talent at net (in addition to brilliant defensive skill of course) made him the phenomenal player he was. His sliding second serve was also fairly unique and had him winning more points than Murray's more attackable second serve.

Murray uses his returning skill defensively and is one of the best ever at just getting big serves in play. Has more of a peak level in terms of power but doesn't redirect as well as Hewitt or change direction in rallies/take the ball as early as Hewitt could. They're both great defending and not much separating them there.

zam88
09-12-2012, 12:36 PM
So, hypothetically there is a player that's flat out incredible in 3 set matches, but just loses it in 5 set tournaments.

he averages 4.5 masters a year on multiple surfaces over a 10 year career and gets 45 of the suckers... the record by FAR. And he of course gets several other 250 and 500 level tournaments... eventually notching one of the highest number of tournament wins in history (top 6)

He even is ranked #1 from time to time and even wins the 3-set WTF's a few times as well.... never for more than 40 weeks at a time, but spends a good solid 150 weeks at #1 over his career.

His career even includes 2 Olympic silvers (great until the 5 set match, then he collapses.

In slams, he's a frequent quarterfinalist, but has only made a few semis.. only 2 finals (both losses)... basically journeyman results in slams.

Where does this player rank historically?

Hood_Man
09-12-2012, 12:42 PM
I'd say Hewitt. I'm as happy as a pig in chardonnay for Murray, and I'm sure he'll go on to even greater things now that he's finally broken through.

But Hewitt was #1 for a long time, that's incredible no matter how weak the field supposedly was.
It's really not like he did it "simply" by winning lots of tournaments just to keep his ranking points high either, he did it with two majors and two Tennis Masters Cups (amongst other things of course).

Nadal_2008
09-12-2012, 01:05 PM
I feel the same way. Talent and game wise Hewitt is better. Mentally Hewitt is tougher in big matches thus far.

Peak to peak well Hewitt had a great 18 month run, vs a very weak field but he still deserves credit for it. I disagree with posters who say he dominated though. 2 slams and 2 Masters in 2 years (even with 2 WTFs as well) is not dominant by any measure. He wasnt even secure at the #1 spot and had to seal it by outperforming Agassi at the WTF both years. He was a worthy #1 that 18 month period but in no way a dominant one. Murray still has never been close to being a #1 player thus far, even this year he has no shot to get there, but cant imagine Hewitt ever having been #1 in an era with prime Djokovic, prime Nadal, and slam winning Federer either. If they played peak to peak it would be interesting. In slams Hewitt's mental strength might take him out ahead some of the time atleast.

Career wise Hewitt has achieved more for sure with his 1 extra slam, 2 extra WTFs, and two year end #1s. The 8 Masters titles to 2 is quite a huge gap though and brings them closer. Murray with 2 slams would make it a very close debate, even if he hasnt won the WTF yet.

I think Murray is the better player but Hewitt at this point the greater one.

Your forgetting that Hewitt's peak wasn't the 18 months he was number 1. His best tennis came between 2004 and 2005 when he lost to peak federer in the latter stages of 5 majors. I think Murray has more to his game then lleyton, but I still think in a grand slam over 5 sets lleyton Hewitt of 2005 Australian open form would beat Murray at his best. As for this theory of lleyton winning in a weak era, that's bollocks. You can only beat the players in front of you. And in the 2 years he was number 1 he had to finish infront of Safin,Kuerten, Ferrero, Agassi, Sampras, Rafter, Henman, federer, roddick, moya etc etc

NadalAgassi
09-12-2012, 01:34 PM
Hewitt lost to Federer alot in slams in 2004 and 2005 but he could have lost in many of them to other players to. An old Agassi and Roddick won about half of their matches with Hewitt around then. Nalbandian usually beat Hewitt from 2004 onwards. Safin of course a threat in any slam he goes deep, and if he is playing well enough to be in the semis or finals in fact likely to beat Hewitt (their overall H2H is a virtual tie, even with Safin's inconsistency). Ferrero always beats Hewitt on clay and by late 2002 was always challenging him on non clay surfaces. Moya owned Hewitt for awhile. The only slam Hewitt lost to Federer he was "likely" to win is Wimbledon 2005, but maybe he could have won another somewhere, so probably he would have 4 at most even without Federer. One wants to play the eliminate Federer game and Roddick becomes greater than Hewitt as he almost certainly wins more slams of the two in that scenario, but I dont feel that is the case at all, which shows how silly that type of reasoning is.

Murray was denied slams not just by Federer, but by Nadal and Djokovic, who are all far superior to any player from back then (apart from Federer). It doesnt mean he deserves one slam, as I mentioned I dont like all the excuses, in the end you win what you win. For the record though you eliminate Federer and Murray could have as many or more slams as Hewitt without Federer, considering Murray was arguably likely to win all 3 slams he lost to Federer in the finals (he was playing better than Nadal or Djokovic at each event, and apart from Djokovic at the 2008 U.S Open all were eliminated in a previous round by Murray or someone other than Federer anyway). Also eliminate Federer and Hewitt's competition really goes to the dogs compared to Murray's since it is now Roddick, Haas, and mid 30s Agassi vs prime Djokovic and Nadal. No contest.

As for while Hewitt was #1 in 2002 Johansson and Gaudio won slams, Haas got to #2 late in the year despite not winning a single tournament all year, missing time, and having only one decent slam showing, Schalken was one of the key players of the year. Many of the players you mentioned- Rafter, Henman, Moya, young Federer and Roddick, Kuerten, were 0 factors that year. The end of 2001 was decent I suppose.

I still voted for Hewitt in the poll anyway.

Cesc Fabregas
09-12-2012, 02:01 PM
Hewitt was probably good for another slam or 2. I remember wanted him to win the Aussie in 05 but it wasn't meant to be.

Cup8489
09-12-2012, 02:18 PM
Murray. Assess their era's...And murray edges it. Slam Gold medal. 4 slam finals. 4 semis in 1 year. Never got shat on by fed amongst other things. Still hewitt a great champion.

This counts as being shat on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Acr01iwvtpY

NadalDramaQueen
09-12-2012, 02:29 PM
This counts as being shat on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Acr01iwvtpY

The point at 8:50 sums up the match. If the Murray that showed up in that 2008 final would have played the Federer that showed up against Hewitt, Murray would have eaten at least one bagel.

jokinla
09-12-2012, 04:45 PM
Have to go with Hewitt still, perhaps Murray will change this, but not yet.

Mustard
09-12-2012, 07:41 PM
Hewitt lost to Federer alot in slams in 2004 and 2005 but he could have lost in many of them to other players to. An old Agassi and Roddick won about half of their matches with Hewitt around then.

Hewitt led Roddick 6-1 in their head-to-head after their 2005 Indian Wells semi final match, having just beat Roddick in the 2005 Australian Open semi finals, and winning the last 20 points in their 2004 Masters Cup semi final. Hewitt was ahead of Roddick at the time as Federer's main rival before Nadal started his awesome shoot up the rankings, no matter what the US commentators say.

NadalAgassi
09-12-2012, 07:52 PM
Hewitt led Roddick 6-1 in their head-to-head after their 2005 Indian Wells semi final match, having just beat Roddick in the 2005 Australian Open semi finals, and winning the last 20 points in their 2004 Masters Cup semi final. Hewitt was ahead of Roddick at the time as Federer's main rival before Nadal started his awesome shoot up the rankings, no matter what the US commentators say.

In 2004-2005 Hewitt led 3-2. Hardly a blowout. Both of Roddick's wins were in straight sets, one on grass, and one on hard courts. Hewitt won a super tough 4 setter in Australia where Roddick blew numerous chances and probably should have even won the match in straights that day, and a very tight match in Indian Wells ending in a 3rd set breaker, and only one very easy win for Hewitt in the WTF RR in 2004, but to be expected when Hewitt is light years better in the post U.S Open season than Roddick over the years. Matches before that are meaningless to what their chances had they played those 2 years (which is what is being discussed) were. Roddick was not a real contender and nowhere near the same player back in 2001 and you know that full well.

The only place they would have played anyway is Wimbledon in 2004 and 2005. Their only match on grass those two years was won fairly easily by Roddick in straight sets. So I was perhaps being generous even giving Hewitt 1 of those 2 hypothetical Wimbledon meetings, you are deluding yourself if you think Hewitt was winning both of them. Here all these years later I dont think Hewitt has ever beaten Roddick on grass btw.

As for who was Federer's main rival in 04/05 pre Nadal, Roddick was always ranked ahead of Hewitt for every single week of those two years, and neither beat Federer even once those two years, while beating him once in late 2003, so I dont see where Hewitt stands ahead in that regard (and I like Hewitt alot more than Roddick).

Mustard
09-12-2012, 08:04 PM
As for who was Federer's main rival in 04/05 pre Nadal, Roddick was always ranked ahead of Hewitt for every single week of those two years

False. Hewitt was number 2 for much of 2005 before Nadal took over on the 25th July, and you've personally acknowledged why Hewitt didn't finish 2004 as number 2, i.e. due to Hewitt's lower ranking as a result of not playing tournaments post US Open in 2003. In 2005, Wimbledon scandalously seeded Hewitt (world number 2) at number 3, while Roddick (world number 4) was seeded at number 2. This almost certainly cost Hewitt a Wimbledon final appearance.

Sid_Vicious
09-12-2012, 08:08 PM
This counts as being shat on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Acr01iwvtpY

omg, Federer's forehand was nasty in this match.

Also, Andy has come a long way as well. He plays points a lot smarter now and his shots have more depth on them now. Especially on the forehand.

NadalAgassi
09-12-2012, 08:15 PM
False. Hewitt was number 2 for much of 2005 before Nadal took over on the 25th July, and you've personally acknowledged why Hewitt didn't finish 2004 as number 2, i.e. due to Hewitt's lower ranking as a result of not playing tournaments post US Open in 2003. In 2005, Wimbledon scandalously seeded Hewitt (world number 2) at number 3, while Roddick (world number 4) was seeded at number 2. This almost certainly cost Hewitt a Wimbledon final appearance.

Either way the following is true:

-Hewitt did NOT dominate Roddick in 04/05, it was an even matchup, and it is 04/05 only that was being discussed by the OP.

-Roddick has always had the edge on Hewitt on grass. Winning their lone meeting on the surface in Hewitt's "prime" in straight sets, leading Hewitt 3-0 overall on grass.

- It is hugely unlikely Hewitt was winning both Wimbledons in 2004 and 2005 over Roddick had Federer not existed, especialy seeing how Roddick played that 04 final with Federer. He "might" have been able to win 1 of them, more likely 2005.


In the end if Federer was out of the way best case scenario for Hewitt is 2 slams. 1 of the 2 Wimbledons Roddick lost to Federer in the final (more likely 2005), and 1 of the 2 U.S Opens Agassi and Hewitt both lost to Federer. For the record going into both the 02 and 04 U.S Opens Hewitt had lost his last 2 hard court encounters to Agassi including their last in 2004. So 2 slams at most, but possibly not even that. Definitely wasnt winning the Australian Open where Nalbandian, Safin, Roddick, were all playing strongly and Hewitt was starting his climb back.

Mustard
09-12-2012, 08:32 PM
Best case scenario for Hewitt if Federer is out of the way is that Hewitt wins 5 majors in the 2004-2005 period (2004 AO, 2004 W, 2004 USO, 2005 W, 2005 USO). Regarding 2004 Wimbledon, Hewitt's match against Federer in the quarter finals was closer than the scoreline suggests.

NadalAgassi
09-12-2012, 08:34 PM
Best case scenario for Hewitt if Federer is out of the way is that Hewitt wins 5 majors in the 2004-2005 period (2004 AO, 2004 W, 2004 USO, 2005 W, 2005 USO).

Yes in some Hewitttard fantasy World. Might as well say best case for Nikolay Davydenko or James Blake with Federer out of the way is for them to have won all the slams they lost to Federer too. Regarding Wimbledon 2004 I know Hewitt played a good match vs Federer, but Roddick with his form in the final would have had no problem overpowering Hewitt to win, especialy having just beaten him in straight sets at Queens on Hewitt's best grass (just compare his Queens record to Wimbledon over the years), and Hewitt having 0 career wins over Roddick on grass.

Mustard
09-12-2012, 08:37 PM
When does a win at Queen's Club equal a win at Wimbledon? Stefan Edberg didn't get that message in 1988 when he faced Boris Becker in the Wimbledon final. Besides, Roddick barely got past Ancic in the semi finals of 2004 Wimbledon.

NadalAgassi
09-12-2012, 08:49 PM
Ancic was considered one of the best grass courters in the mid 2000s before his illness. What is your point. Do you think Hewitt would have waltzed past him with ease. Federer had to play his very best tennis beat Ancic 4, 4, and 4 at Wimbledon in 2006. Hewitt struggled to beat Carlos freaking Moya on grass that year, going to a 4th set tiebreak. Are you going to tell me now Moya is a better grass courter than Ancic (go right ahead and do so btw, I love your lack of tennis knowledge beyond stats digging exposed).

The point about the Queens match is it throws a spike into your whole argument Hewitt was beating Roddick everywhere since he dominated him. He did not dominate Roddick in 2004-2005 as already pointed out, and Roddick has always had the upper hand on grass which is where their only possible slam meetings in 2004 and 2005 would have occured anyway. He won the only match on grass in their primes and around that time in straight sets, he would win their only match at Wimbledon even if it came when both were past their primes, so all the evidence in a hypothetical grass matchup in 2004/2005 is in Roddick's favor, all you have is idle speculation for Hewitt.

You can continue living in your own Worlds, you do on most things, but most people would agree Roddick was beating Hewitt at Wimbledon 2004 atleast. If anything match was closer than the score it was moreso the final than the quarters. Roddick played amazing, was overpowering Federer from the baseline most of the first 3 sets but lost due to a bad start in the 2nd, losing momentum with the rain delay in the 3rd set, and squandering many chances through the match. 2005 would be a tougher call.

BeHappy
09-13-2012, 02:40 AM
Lleyton Hewitt of course.

2 slams > 1
2 year end no. 1's > 0
2 TMC's > 0

Win % in slam finals
Hewitt: 50% (2 of 4)
Murray 20% (1 of 5)

Competition at slams they won:
Hewitt: Sampras, Agassi, Safin, Federer, Philippoussis, Rafter, Roddick, Haas, Moya, Ferrero Nalbandian, Henman, Ivanisevic etc.

Murray: Federer, Djokovic, Tsonga.

Easily Hewitt. Look at the players who went into his slams and he finished on top of. No Nadal at this US Open.




His rally ball was so much deeper and flatter than Murrays, he had a better forehand. Serve = the same. Return = Hewitt, but not by much.

Just to add to this "weak era" thing, I disagree:

Federer couldn't dominate until every single one of those players mentally or physically broke down.

And yes Sampras and Agassi were 30+, but so is Federer. Djokovic isn't at his best.

In addition, no Nadal at the Olympics and USO, so that could be regarded as an asterix considering Nadal always beats Murray at the slams.

Magnus
09-13-2012, 02:42 AM
Hewitt - 2 slams
Murray - 1 slam

Where is the question here? When and if Murray wins another slam this question becomes relevant.

DRII
09-13-2012, 04:38 AM
Murray was always the better player; at least since 2008/2009.

There's nothing Hewitt does better than Murray, except for mental stregnth. Murray has better defense and offense (when he chooses to use it).

Hewitt has acheived more, but in a very transitional time period.

Vcore89
09-14-2012, 05:51 PM
Lleyton Hewitt (http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/H432.aspx) became Australia’s most-capped Davis Cup player when he played his 32nd tie...Murray needs to do that too aside from targeting slams and getting to the number 1 ranking!:)

monfed
09-14-2012, 07:30 PM
I think Murray is a better all-round player especially when he doesn't push.(like the first set in Wimby final, etc). Certainly has more variety than Hewitt. Hewitt was mentally tougher and has higher accomplishments.

cknobman
09-15-2012, 05:42 AM
You never rank someone who has been ranked #1 and won multiple grand slams below someone who is a 1 slam winner and never even been ranked #2

batz
09-15-2012, 05:46 AM
You never rank someone who has been ranked #1 and won multiple grand slams below someone who is a 1 slam winner and never even been ranked #2

Fair point. But Murray has been ranked #2.

TheFifthSet
09-15-2012, 07:01 AM
I actually think this is a pretty fair comparison. Murray has the consistency. Hewitt so far has more majors, and 2 year ends to 0 for Murray, plus the weeks at number one. However, Murray is ahead in masters series by a lot.

I think a lot of people here underrate Hewitt's talent. I don't think it's that far apart at all. I remember how stunned I was watching Hewitt in that final against Sampras -- I can't remember Murray impressing me that much in one match. Prime Hewitt had as good a return. Better passing shots (young Hewitt was great on the pass), similar defense and scrambling, great lobs, slightly worse first serve but much better seconds serve. Murray has more firepower, a better backhands, slightly better volleys and a better slice, but Hewitt was mentally stronger/tougher.

With that said, yes, I believe Murray is likely a slightly better player because he is more physically gifted. Hewitt is the more accomplished player, but probably not for long. It's close, though.

Warmaster
09-15-2012, 07:25 AM
Achievement wise Hewitt is still ahead.

Murray will probably surpass him but for now you have to go for Hewitt.


I've always felt Hewitt is very underrated on this forum.

NadalDramaQueen
09-15-2012, 09:53 AM
Achievement wise Hewitt is still ahead.

Murray will probably surpass him but for now you have to go for Hewitt.


I've always felt Hewitt is very underrated on this forum.

Hewitt is extremely underrated. On a faster surface, do you really think a very young Murray is going to beat an old Sampras in a slam final? I don't think he would even come close.

Murray's game is more suited to the conditions today, but Hewitt would be better with the conditions early in the last decade.

BauerAlmeida
09-15-2012, 09:55 AM
I don't think Murray will surpass Hewitt. Roddick yes, but not Hewitt.

2 year end number 1, 2 slams, 2 MC, a Davis Cup. I don't think so. He will come close though.

tennisplayer1993
09-15-2012, 10:01 AM
hewitt by miles at this point in murray's career

Tennis_Maestro
09-15-2012, 02:18 PM
I don't think Murray will surpass Hewitt. Roddick yes, but not Hewitt.

2 year end number 1, 2 slams, 2 MC, a Davis Cup. I don't think so. He will come close though.

Stop quacking.

A considerable lack of common sense in this post.

Would Hewitt have achieved 2 year end numbers ones with Federer, Djokovic and Nadal in the game? 3 player's amongst the top 15 best players in living history? Give me a break. Unfair comparison.

2 slams? Murray's one behind.

2 masters cups? Murray has plenty of time to surpass this feat with Federer being the best Indoor player in the World soon to be retiring.

A Davis Cup? Are you absolutely shitting me? You put a Davis Cup towards a player's individual achievements? Troicki has a Davis Cup FFS, but that's because he has an amazing team of player's to back him up. Who in the blazes does Murray have? Daniel Evans? Have you ever heard of this guy? The Davis Cup is not an individual achievement and even if Murray were to win both of his singles rubbers, he would need help from either the doubles or singles. Not happening I am afraid, especially against the bigger Nations. Another absolute unfair comparison.

The only valid comparisons you have here are Slams and Masters Series Cups ... its funny though, how you conveniently allowed the Masters titles to slip your mind. Does 8 to 2 not compensate for the lack of Masters Series Cups?

In short, he's one slam and possibly a masters series cup (World Tour Finals) behind, although I'm sure he'll win atleast another 2 slams, so for you to be quacking on about Masters Series Cups is jus not really that much a big deal here.

2 Masters cups < 8 Masters series ... ask any player which they would rather have....

Slams are the only achievements separating these two.

fps
09-15-2012, 03:04 PM
Hewitt still, has greater achievements, at this point.

BauerAlmeida
09-15-2012, 03:58 PM
Stop quacking.

A considerable lack of common sense in this post.

Would Hewitt have achieved 2 year end numbers ones with Federer, Djokovic and Nadal in the game? 3 player's amongst the top 15 best players in living history? Give me a break. Unfair comparison.

2 slams? Murray's one behind.

2 masters cups? Murray has plenty of time to surpass this feat with Federer being the best Indoor player in the World soon to be retiring.

A Davis Cup? Are you absolutely shitting me? You put a Davis Cup towards a player's individual achievements? Troicki has a Davis Cup FFS, but that's because he has an amazing team of player's to back him up. Who in the blazes does Murray have? Daniel Evans? Have you ever heard of this guy? The Davis Cup is not an individual achievement and even if Murray were to win both of his singles rubbers, he would need help from either the doubles or singles. Not happening I am afraid, especially against the bigger Nations. Another absolute unfair comparison.

The only valid comparisons you have here are Slams and Masters Series Cups ... its funny though, how you conveniently allowed the Masters titles to slip your mind. Does 8 to 2 not compensate for the lack of Masters Series Cups?

In short, he's one slam and possibly a masters series cup (World Tour Finals) behind, although I'm sure he'll win atleast another 2 slams, so for you to be quacking on about Masters Series Cups is jus not really that much a big deal here.

2 Masters cups < 8 Masters series ... ask any player which they would rather have....

Slams are the only achievements separating these two.

1-It's not Hewitt's fault if he didn't face Nadal, Djokovic or Federer. He can face whoever he has in front. And he had to face some great players: Agassi, Safin, Kuerten, Haas, Sampras.

2-Murray may win 2 WTF but he didn't. I'm the one who lack common sense and you are mentioning something that MAY happen in the future??

3-Only one slam behind. Yes, but it's still one slam. He has to win it. It took him a lot to win the first one, we don't know when he will win the second one. Maybe next AO, maybe never. Again, conjectures. We don't know if he will win another slam or how many.

4-2 WTF and 2 M1000 are better than 8 M1000 IMO.

5-Hewitt was very important in Australia's DC win. Wining almost every important match he has. Murray doesn't even play it, so it's not like he is winning every match but the team doesn't go on to win it because of the other players. You would be right if Great Britan was losing every tie 3-2 with Murray winning his 2 matches. But that's not the case.

Tennis_Maestro
09-15-2012, 04:48 PM
1-It's not Hewitt's fault if he didn't face Nadal, Djokovic or Federer. He can face whoever he has in front. And he had to face some great players: Agassi, Safin, Kuerten, Haas, Sampras.

2-Murray may win 2 WTF but he didn't. I'm the one who lack common sense and you are mentioning something that MAY happen in the future??

3-Only one slam behind. Yes, but it's still one slam. He has to win it. It took him a lot to win the first one, we don't know when he will win the second one. Maybe next AO, maybe never. Again, conjectures. We don't know if he will win another slam or how many.

4-2 WTF and 2 M1000 are better than 8 M1000 IMO.

5-Hewitt was very important in Australia's DC win. Wining almost every important match he has. Murray doesn't even play it, so it's not like he is winning every match but the team doesn't go on to win it because of the other players. You would be right if Great Britan was losing every tie 3-2 with Murray winning his 2 matches. But that's not the case.

1 - Its not his fault, yet neither is it Murray's.

2- 8 Masters series involves you beating a series of top class players whom otherwise would be competing in WTF's come the end of the season.

3- The first one usually thereafter opens the floodgates and with him being the second best hardcourt player out there ATM (Since Federer will be feigning) the chances on another slam @ either of the Aussie Open or the US Open are high. Even Wimbledon, with that crowd behind him.

4- The fact Murray has been able to mount 8 masters series titles and whilst Hewitt managed a pathetic 2 in a weaker era, speaks volumes. Hewitt may have 2 WTF's but to hold that in the same esteem as winning 8 masters series by the age of 25 is both stupid and bias.

5- Stop talking about Davis Cup mate. Murray makes a specific effort to avoid representing GB in their Davis Cup side as he recognises it is not worth his time and he would be better served preparing for Grand-slams.

MTF07
09-15-2012, 05:46 PM
I actually think this is a pretty fair comparison. Murray has the consistency. Hewitt so far has more majors, and 2 year ends to 0 for Murray, plus the weeks at number one. However, Murray is ahead in masters series by a lot.

I think a lot of people here underrate Hewitt's talent. I don't think it's that far apart at all. I remember how stunned I was watching Hewitt in that final against Sampras -- I can't remember Murray impressing me that much in one match. Prime Hewitt had as good a return. Better passing shots (young Hewitt was great on the pass), similar defense and scrambling, great lobs, slightly worse first serve but much better seconds serve. Murray has more firepower, a better backhands, slightly better volleys and a better slice, but Hewitt was mentally stronger/tougher.

With that said, yes, I believe Murray is likely a slightly better player because he is more physically gifted. Hewitt is the more accomplished player, but probably not for long. It's close, though.

I actually think Hewitt is a better volleyer than Murray.

cknobman
09-16-2012, 06:50 AM
You never rank someone who has been ranked #1 and won multiple grand slams below someone who is a 1 slam winner and never even been ranked #2

Fair point. But Murray has been ranked #2.

:shock: .

Mainad
09-16-2012, 07:44 AM
Fair point. But Murray has been ranked #2.



:shock: .

Murray was ranked #2 for a few weeks in August 2009.

abmk
09-16-2012, 09:05 AM
Murray was always the better player; at least since 2008/2009.

There's nothing Hewitt does better than Murray, except for mental stregnth. Murray has better defense and offense (when he chooses to use it).

Hewitt has acheived more, but in a very transitional time period.

hewitt is better at returning, his FH is slightly better , he's better at passing and he's better at the net ....

abmk
09-16-2012, 09:07 AM
I actually think this is a pretty fair comparison. Murray has the consistency. Hewitt so far has more majors, and 2 year ends to 0 for Murray, plus the weeks at number one. However, Murray is ahead in masters series by a lot.

I think a lot of people here underrate Hewitt's talent. I don't think it's that far apart at all. I remember how stunned I was watching Hewitt in that final against Sampras -- I can't remember Murray impressing me that much in one match. Prime Hewitt had as good a return. Better passing shots (young Hewitt was great on the pass), similar defense and scrambling, great lobs, slightly worse first serve but much better seconds serve. Murray has more firepower, a better backhands, slightly better volleys and a better slice, but Hewitt was mentally stronger/tougher.

With that said, yes, I believe Murray is likely a slightly better player because he is more physically gifted. Hewitt is the more accomplished player, but probably not for long. It's close, though.

this - the returning/passing from hewitt in that USO final was astounding ..... it gets so overlooked its unbelievable ....

just like to add that while murray's game is probably better suited for today's baseline oriented era , hewitt's would probably be better in the 70s or 80s or 90s ....

Mainad
09-17-2012, 08:31 AM
hewitt is better at returning, his FH is slightly better , he's better at passing and he's better at the net ....

You're possibly right about FH and net play. Returning and passing? No. Murray is at least as good if not better.

roberttennis54
09-17-2012, 10:12 AM
You're possibly right about FH and net play. Returning and passing? No. Murray is at least as good if not better.

Return game is close, but the edge goes to Hewitt. Hewitt faced bigger serves than Murray on faster courts. The same goes for passing shots. Murray needs time to pass people especially on the forehand. Hewitt is the best at passing shots I have ever seen.

Best passers in recent years.

1. Hewitt
2. Nadal/Federer
3. Agassi

Murray is a distant fourth. Murray does not take the ball as early as Federer, Agassi or Hewitt, restricting the time the returner has to get set or close in. Nor does he have the raw power and spin of Nadal to just overpower net rushers.

Tony48
09-17-2012, 11:38 AM
How is it not even close, when he is merely 1 Grandslam behind? :confused:

After he's equalised, then what separates them? :confused:

Maybe I worded that wrong. I meant to say that there is a clear and unquestionable line that separates Murray and Hewitt right now. They are close, achievement-wise.

dangalak
09-17-2012, 04:23 PM
Hewitt, cuz Murray played in a weak era.