Who currently is "greater"? Hewitt or Murray?

[Laniarty]

Olympic Gold meant next to nothing when Hewitt competed for it by the way, he even lost in the 1st round of the Sydney Olympics in Australia; and I'm sure if he actually wanted to win and dug deep he could have, who won it that year anyway? A journeyman from Sampras' era?

Yevgeny Kafelnikov beat Tommy Haas. So at least it was someone who has also won a slam.

 

[The_Order]

2005 Hewitt is peak Hewitt, in 2004 it was obvious he wasn't playing at the same level. In 2004 he got double bageled by Federer, in 2005 at the same tournament he nearly took him to 5. So Hewitt would probably make the SF at Roland Garros in 2005, and depending on his draw even the final.

But you keep finding more excuses to put Murray up despite him being as bad as Hewitt on clay.

It wasn't just that US Open match though. In Australia Fed bageled him and in Wimbledon he was VERY close giving a bagel and a breadstick.

I think the off season before 2005 Hewitt gained a lot of confidence after Rasheed's pre season plan to add more bulk to his frame. You could see that added confidence even in his clothing too, he started wearing the singlet tops to show off his new 'guns'.

That US05 sf was his last big shot though. It's almost like he knew that and went all out. It's just that he never had the weapons and mindset to beat peak Federer especially in Bo5.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

It wasn't just that US Open match though. In Australia Fed bageled him and in Wimbledon he was VERY close giving a bagel and a breadstick.

I think the off season before 2005 Hewitt gained a lot of confidence after Rasheed's pre season plan to add more bulk to his frame. You could see that added confidence even in his clothing too, he started wearing the singlet tops to show off his new 'guns'.

That US05 sf was his last big shot though. It's almost like he knew that and went all out. It's just that he never had the weapons and mindset to beat peak Federer especially in Bo5.

Hewitt took the first set in Australia, and he also took a set at Wimbledon. I still think he played better in 2005. Probably the best of his career. No early losses in Grand Slams, and he was consistent right up until he had to miss a quarter of the year due to injury/surgery.

Hewitt's added bulk also made his "good shots" from 2001-2002 almost firm weapons, especially his backhand. He could even have powerful rallies with prime Nalbandian on hardcourt and still come out the victor.

I disagree about that USO 2005 match, I think Hewitt was playing most people that way in 2005. Look at his matches at the Australian Open, he relied upon power more than ever before. This is what I mean, people say Hewitt didn't have power or what-have-you, but he played similar to how Murray did in 2012 and 2013 for his major titles..

I think after that US Open 2004 final, Federer was in Hewitt's head for good.. He wasn't going to beat him, but he could have pushed him to 5 in that US Open semifinal. Murray beat Djokovic at the US Open (who is nowhere near as good as Federer on the surface, especially peak Federer) and if I'm correct you also said 2005 USO Hewitt could win the 2012 US Open, but disagree about 2005 Hewitt winning 2013 Wimbledon.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I don't see how 2005 Hewitt would have beaten either Murray or Djokovic at the 2012 USO but I suppose with the windy conditions you never know. I also don't see him beating 2013 Murray at Wimbledon, at least not the final version. It would be close for sure but I'd still expect to see Andy holding up the trophy at the end.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I don't see how 2005 Hewitt would have beaten either Murray or Djokovic at the 2012 USO but I suppose with the windy conditions you never know. I also don't see him beating 2013 Murray at Wimbledon, at least not the final version. It would be close for sure but I'd still expect to see Andy holding up the trophy at the end.

The fact that he nearly took peak Federer to 5 seems to elude you.. If he takes someone who has 5 titles on the surface and is still to this day making the SF, some 9 years later, to 4 very tight sets, you don't think he could beat Djokovic if he filled in instead of Murray?

I could easily say the same about peak Murray playing in 2004-2007 with his abysmal record VS Federer in Grand Slams..

 

[Djokovic2011]

The fact that he nearly took peak Federer to 5 seems to elude you.. If he takes someone who has 5 titles on the surface and is still to this day making the SF, some 9 years later, to 4 very tight sets, you don't think he could beat Djokovic if he filled in instead of Murray?

I could easily say the same about peak Murray playing in 2004-2007 with his abysmal record VS Federer in Grand Slams..

Like I said, he could perhaps beat Djokovic due to the windy conditions but I'm really not so sure. Nole is the kind of player that Hewitt hates going up against as he basically does everything that Lleyton does only better(apart from the net game). I suppose in some ways it's similar to how I see the Serena/Sharapova match-up play out.

And while I don't think Murray would fare much better against Federer in 2004-2007, I've no doubt that he'd still perform better in the majors than Hewitt did during that same period.

 

[The_Order]

Hewitt took the first set in Australia, and he also took a set at Wimbledon. I still think he played better in 2005. Probably the best of his career. No early losses in Grand Slams, and he was consistent right up until he had to miss a quarter of the year due to injury/surgery.

I think that first set in Ao was won mainly from Fed having a couple of demons from their Davis Cup match and Hewitt drawing confidence from it.

Once the dust settled though you could tell Fed was really working his way into the match.

As for Wimbledon, I think that second set was more due to Fed dropping off the intensity.

I agree 2005 he performed better in the majors for sure.

I disagree about that USO 2005 match, I think Hewitt was playing most people that way in 2005. Look at his matches at the Australian Open, he relied upon power more than ever before. This is what I mean, people say Hewitt didn't have power or what-have-you, but he played similar to how Murray did in 2012 and 2013 for his major titles..

Yeah he was definitely playing that way more so than his entire career. But playing peak Federer that way is a different story to playing Nalbandian and Roddick that way.

The reason people say that about Hewitt is because you don't judge of just one season. Otherwise, people would be inflating Novak even more (as if there aren't enough doing that already)

I think after that US Open 2004 final, Federer was in Hewitt's head for good.. He wasn't going to beat him, but he could have pushed him to 5 in that US Open semifinal. Murray beat Djokovic at the US Open (who is nowhere near as good as Federer on the surface, especially peak Federer) and if I'm correct you also said 2005 USO Hewitt could win the 2012 US Open, but disagree about 2005 Hewitt winning 2013 Wimbledon.

Yeah I think he could win US12 playing in his 05 form, but I'm not willing to give him WIM13 with the way Novak was playing prior to the final (that SF screwed him up imo) and the way Murray was playing after surviving that scare against Verdasco. Hewitt's 2005 or 2006 WIM form would not be enough to get the job done.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Yeah he was definitely playing that way more so than his entire career. But playing peak Federer that way is a different story to playing Nalbandian and Roddick that way.

The reason people say that about Hewitt is because you don't judge of just one season. Otherwise, people would be inflating Novak even more (as if there aren't enough doing that already)

I agree, but people often cite his early round losses in Grand Slams, not realizing he was yet to reach his peak form. His peak form is definitely 2005, but we both already agree on this.

[QUOTE="The_Order]
Yeah I think he could win US12 playing in his 05 form, but I'm not willing to give him WIM13 with the way Novak was playing prior to the final (that SF screwed him up imo) and the way Murray was playing after surviving that scare against Verdasco. Hewitt's 2005 or 2006 WIM form would not be enough to get the job done.[/QUOTE]
I think he'd beat Djokovic due to the fact that Hewitt is a natural grasscourter while Djokovic isn't and IMO his form wasn't anywhere close to what it was in 2011 when he beat Nadal.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Like I said, he could perhaps beat Djokovic due to the windy conditions but I'm really not so sure. Nole is the kind of player that Hewitt hates going up against as he basically does everything that Lleyton does only better(apart from the net game). I suppose in some ways it's similar to how I see the Serena/Sharapova match-up play out.

And while I don't think Murray would fare much better against Federer in 2004-2007, I've no doubt that he'd still perform better in the majors than Hewitt did during that same period.

I doubt he would outperform Hewitt in 2005 if switched, I think they'd probably have similar results. 2004, maybe.

And I don't think Djokovic is the sort of player Hewitt hates facing, he leads the H2H with Agassi and he is very similar to Djokovic himself. I think Hewitt hated facing really powerful baseliners like Federer, not so much retrievers with a good amount of power. That is why I think 2011 Djokovic would beat any version of Hewitt, his aggression would be too much for him. Any other year and his aggression isn't anywhere close to what it was then.

 

[The_Order]

I doubt he would outperform Hewitt in 2005 if switched, I think they'd probably have similar results. 2004, maybe.

And I don't think Djokovic is the sort of player Hewitt hates facing, he leads the H2H with Agassi and he is very similar to Djokovic himself. I think Hewitt hated facing really powerful baseliners like Federer, not so much retrievers with a good amount of power. That is why I think 2011 Djokovic would beat any version of Hewitt, his aggression would be too much for him. Any other year and his aggression isn't anywhere close to what it was then.

No he doesn't. It's 4 all with 1 win for Hewitt coming from a walkover.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Prime for prime Nole would still lead Hewitt though Saby, not just from 2011 form alone. He's simply a much better player and far more consistent.

 

[The_Order]

Prime for prime Nole would still lead Hewitt though Saby, not just from 2011 form alone. He's simply a much better player and far more consistent.

We are not making a comparison with Novak and Hewitt.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

No he doesn't. It's 4 all with 1 win for Hewitt coming from a walkover.

OK, thanks for correcting me.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Prime for prime Nole would still lead Hewitt though Saby, not just from 2011 form alone. He's simply a much better player and far more consistent.

Yeah Djokovic would lead him, but that doesn't mean he can't beat him in slams.

 

[Djokovic2011]

We are not making a comparison with Novak and Hewitt.

Hey don't blame me, it's always Saby who brings Novak up when he's talking about prime Hewitt.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Hey don't blame me, it's always Saby who brings Novak up when he's talking about prime Hewitt.

Except when you think I'm trying to say Hewitt and Djokovic are equals I'm not. I'm actually mainly trying to debunk the Murray >>>>>>>>>> Hewitt myth..

 

[The_Order]

Except when you think I'm trying to say Hewitt and Djokovic are equals I'm not. I'm actually mainly trying to debunk the Murray >>>>>>>>>> Hewitt myth..

They're about equal in terms of peak play.

In terms of consistency I'd give the nod to Murray.

But I don't like when people say stuff like "Oh u guyz r krazy, Hewitt #1 for 80 weeks Muzza never got there even once lolz"

It's not as simple as that. No way does Hewitt reach #1 if the same age as Murray. He might still win a US Open title, but I don't think he gets Wimbledon and he definitely doesn't make it to as many slam finals as Murray has.

I think I already pointed out that for Fed to take #1 in 2012 he had to:

win WTF, make AO and RG SF, win 3 Masters and win Wimbledon all in the span of about 9 months.

In Hewitt's entire career his cabinet is not much better than that. 1 more US Open title, 1 less Masters title, 1 more WTF/YEC title, made AO F but never got to RG SF.

And even with all that, Fed was only #1 for a few months.

Nadal's 2013 season alone he won arguably more valuable (or at least equal) titles than Hewitt did in his career with 2 majors and 5 Masters (vs 2 majors, 2 Masters and 2 YEC). Even with that he barely took over Novak...

No way does Hewitt reach #1 if same age as Murray, absolutely no freaking way.

 

[Djokovic2011]

^^^

:lol:

 

[Midaso240]

I still give Lleyton the slight edge

 

[The_Order]

The other thing that I didn't like in this thread was NatF trying to make a case for Hewitt "if he didn't have injuries he might've taken #1 and won more majors".

LOL! Nadal is miles above Hewitt and look at all the injury problems he's had! Where are you now Nat? Why don't you talk to me about how many more majors and weeks at #1 Nadal would have if not for injuries?

Of course, you don't want to do that now do you? :lol:

When I say Nadal lost to Ferrer and Wawrinka at AO mainly because of injury you say it's an excuse. So why are you now making these same excuses for Hewitt?

You don't think much of Hewitt, probably didn't even watch him play unless playing Federer or a match prior to meeting Federer if he wins. The ONLY reason you are defending him is to pump up Federer's competition, trying to make it look like he's way above Murray and close to Novak lol.

 

[NatF]

The other thing that I didn't like in this thread was NatF trying to make a case for Hewitt "if he didn't have injuries he might've taken #1 and won more majors".

LOL! Nadal is miles above Hewitt and look at all the injury problems he's had! Where are you now Nat? Why don't you talk to me about how many more majors and weeks at #1 Nadal would have if not for injuries?

Of course, you don't want to do that now do you? :lol:

When I say Nadal lost to Ferrer and Wawrinka at AO mainly because of injury you say it's an excuse. So why are you now making these same excuses for Hewitt?

You don't think much of Hewitt, probably didn't even watch him play unless playing Federer or a match prior to meeting Federer if he wins. The ONLY reason you are defending him is to pump up Federer's competition, trying to make it look like he's way above Murray and close to Novak lol.

I went to bed, now go **** yourself :lol:

All I said was we don't know what Hewitt could of achieved in this era potentially without injuries. Also I've never denied Nadal has suffered from injuries, Hewitt has been a favorite of mine for years. I didn't have access to many matches in his best years but I've since watched a lot of his old matches - most not including Federer.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

They're about equal in terms of peak play.

In terms of consistency I'd give the nod to Murray.

But I don't like when people say stuff like "Oh u guyz r krazy, Hewitt #1 for 80 weeks Muzza never got there even once lolz"

It's not as simple as that. No way does Hewitt reach #1 if the same age as Murray. He might still win a US Open title, but I don't think he gets Wimbledon and he definitely doesn't make it to as many slam finals as Murray has.

I think I already pointed out that for Fed to take #1 in 2012 he had to:

win WTF, make AO and RG SF, win 3 Masters and win Wimbledon all in the span of about 9 months.

In Hewitt's entire career his cabinet is not much better than that. 1 more US Open title, 1 less Masters title, 1 more WTF/YEC title, made AO F but never got to RG SF.

And even with all that, Fed was only #1 for a few months.

Nadal's 2013 season alone he won arguably more valuable (or at least equal) titles than Hewitt did in his career with 2 majors and 5 Masters (vs 2 majors, 2 Masters and 2 YEC). Even with that he barely took over Novak...

No way does Hewitt reach #1 if same age as Murray, absolutely no freaking way.

I think he'd have a career almost identical to Murray, minus the Olympic Gold plus maybe a WTF or two. He might not spend any time at #1 but he would be #2 for long stretches, probably longer than Murray I'd say... He was #3 before Nadal even had any points at the US Open and he performed miserably in the Master's tournaments leading up to the USO. He also probably had chances at #1 if he had kept on playing at the level he demonstrated earlier in the year at Wimbledon and at the US Open, but like Hewitt, injury seems to have derailed him.

 

[Revenant]

Nadal's 2013 season alone he won arguably more valuable (or at least equal) titles than Hewitt did in his career with 2 majors and 5 Masters (vs 2 majors, 2 Masters and 2 YEC).

2 Slams = 2 Slams
2 Masters = 2 Masters
2 WTFs > 3 Masters

So it's not "at least equal". It is at best equal.

 

[The_Order]

I went to bed, now go **** yourself :lol:

LOL what?

All I said was we don't know what Hewitt could of achieved in this era potentially without injuries. Also I've never denied Nadal has suffered from injuries, Hewitt has been a favorite of mine for years. I didn't have access to many matches in his best years but I've since watched a lot of his old matches - most not including Federer.

Well then we don't know what Nadal would've done without injuries, I mean damn he could've won RG04, AO06, WIM09, AO13, AO14, US12 and US14. Man he'd be on 21 majors right now! :lol:

 

[The_Order]

2 Slams = 2 Slams
2 Masters = 2 Masters
2 WTFs > 3 Masters

So it's not "at least equal". It is at best equal.

2 WTFs > 3 Masters?

I think not, according to the system that *******s like yourself use, 1WTF = 1500 points. Therefore 2 WTF = 3000 points. 3 Masters = 3000 points.

However, Lleyton did not win every match in 2002 so his total points are less than 1500, making it less than 3000 :lol:

So yeah, nice try but once again you're wrong :lol:

 

[Vensai]

Andy Murray is on the brink of surpassing Lleyton Hewitt, but not yet.

 

[The_Order]

I think he'd have a career almost identical to Murray, minus the Olympic Gold plus maybe a WTF or two. He might not spend any time at #1 but he would be #2 for long stretches, probably longer than Murray I'd say... He was #3 before Nadal even had any points at the US Open and he performed miserably in the Master's tournaments leading up to the USO. He also probably had chances at #1 if he had kept on playing at the level he demonstrated earlier in the year at Wimbledon and at the US Open, but like Hewitt, injury seems to have derailed him.

When would he be #2 for long stretches? Which years from 2008-2014 would he be #2 for a long stretch, in your opinion?

 

[Revenant]

2 WTFs > 3 Masters?

I think not, according to the system that *******s like yourself use, 1WTF = 1500 points. Therefore 2 WTF = 3000 points. 3 Masters = 3000 points.

However, Lleyton did not win every match in 2002 so his total points are less than 1500, making it less than 3000 :lol:

So yeah, nice try but once again you're wrong :lol:

Oh, really? ATP points? In that case, 3 Semifinals > 1 Title. Because 2160 > 2000.

Explain this, good sir:

You can shove your sf and qf where the sun doesn't shine. 1 title means more than 1000000 sf and qf.

 

[The_Order]

Oh, really? ATP points? In that case, 3 Semifinals > 1 Title. Because 2160 > 2000.

Explain this, good sir:

Do you really need me to explain things like this to you?

-> Having 3 Masters is having 3 titles.

-> Having 3 sf is having 0 titles.

So the points comparison is useless in that case, good sir...

 

[Deleted member 307496]

When would he be #2 for long stretches? Which years from 2008-2014 would he be #2 for a long stretch, in your opinion?

First half of 2013, and he'd probably keep it until Nadal won the US Open. And he'd probably get it in his younger years too I believe, he was ranked #6 as a 19 year old in 2000... And a year later overtook everyone else for the #1 spot. Yeah, I think, weak era aside, he'd be capable of attaining that even as a baby. Remember, 2009-2010 Murray wasn't the most consistent player by any means..

 

[The_Order]

First half of 2013, and he'd probably keep it until Nadal won the US Open. And he'd probably get it in his younger years too I believe, he was ranked #6 as a 19 year old in 2000... And a year later overtook everyone else for the #1 spot. Yeah, I think, weak era aside, he'd be capable of attaining that even as a baby. Remember, 2009-2010 Murray wasn't the most consistent player by any means..

But he'd be the age equivalent of Murray turning 26 here. His AO06 and RG06 performances.

Even if he did, there's no way he'd keep it until Nadal wins US Open that's a huge stretch. Nadal won IW, Madrid, Rome & RG. That's 5000 points already, not counting Acapulco + Barcelona + Monte Carlo final = 5000 + 1600 points, putting him on 6600 total points.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

LOL what?



Well then we don't know what Nadal would've done without injuries, I mean damn he could've won RG04, AO06, WIM09, AO13, AO14, US12 and US14. Man he'd be on 21 majors right now! :lol:

I don't know about Wimbledon 2009 or Australian Open 2013 for two different reasons. One; Roddick was playing super dangerous on grass and Nadal, naturally, after a great year has a subpar one. That's just the way he is. I think 2009 Roddick could take out 2009 uninjured Nadal for sure, especially on grass where he's more prone to upsets.

Australian Open 2013 would have to go to Djokovic, I don't think Nadal would have beat him there. He couldn't against Wawrinka in 2014 and I think Djokovic played better at the 2013 AO than in 2014. I'd have to back Novak on this one (never thought I'd say that!).

I also don't see uninjured Nadal beating 2014 AO Wawrinka at the AO. Remember, this is Nadal's worst slam and his results this year have been patchy everywhere. Wawrinka would probably take it in 5 sets.

USO 2012 would probably go to Murray, the guy has beaten peak Nadal (not on hard court, but in general) there and I think he'd replicate this feat in 2012.

Roland Garros 2004 would probably go to uninjured Nadal.

AO 2006 - it depends. I think Davydenko would take out hypothetical 2006 AO Nadal, remember, the next year Gonzalez took him out..

 

[Revenant]

Do you really need me to explain things like this to you?

-> Having 3 Masters is having 3 titles.

-> Having 3 sf is having 0 titles.

So the points comparison is useless in that case, good sir...

Oh, I guess 2 Masters + 1 250 > 1 Slam. Got it. LOL!

 

[Deleted member 307496]

But he'd be the age equivalent of Murray turning 26 here. His AO06 and RG06 performances.

Even if he did, there's no way he'd keep it until Nadal wins US Open that's a huge stretch. Nadal won IW, Madrid, Rome & RG. That's 5000 points already, not counting Acapulco + Barcelona + Monte Carlo final = 5000 + 1600 points, putting him on 6600 total points.

I'm not using an age equivalent because it's an unfair way to compare them.. Obviously Hewitt was done as a top player before Murray, but he was also a better player than he was as a teenager, ending 2000 at #7 and ending 2001 at #1, while Murray ended 2006 at #17 and 2007 at #11..

So I believe if we take 2005 Hewitt and put him into 2013 (saying he won the US Open the year before) he'd be ranked 2 for a long stretch. He'd obviously lose the position to Nadal and inevitably end the year at around 4 or 5 due to the same injury that made him have surgery and sit out of the game in 2005..

 

[The_Order]

Oh, I guess 2 Masters + 1 250 > 1 Slam. Got it. LOL!

No, you haven't got anything.

The majors are the most important titles, no amount of Masters, 500, WTF or 250 events will overtake a major.

However, the WTF is not as important. The tennis channel criteria says overall performance in ATP events. It does not have a separate category for the WTF like it does for majors :lol:

 

[The_Order]

I don't know about Wimbledon 2009 or Australian Open 2013 for two different reasons. One; Roddick was playing super dangerous on grass and Nadal, naturally, after a great year has a subpar one. That's just the way he is. I think 2009 Roddick could take out 2009 uninjured Nadal for sure, especially on grass where he's more prone to upsets.

Australian Open 2013 would have to go to Djokovic, I don't think Nadal would have beat him there. He couldn't against Wawrinka in 2014 and I think Djokovic played better at the 2013 AO than in 2014. I'd have to back Novak on this one (never thought I'd say that!).

I also don't see uninjured Nadal beating 2014 AO Wawrinka at the AO. Remember, this is Nadal's worst slam and his results this year have been patchy everywhere. Wawrinka would probably take it in 5 sets.

USO 2012 would probably go to Murray, the guy has beaten peak Nadal (not on hard court, but in general) there and I think he'd replicate this feat in 2012.

Roland Garros 2004 would probably go to uninjured Nadal.

AO 2006 - it depends. I think Davydenko would take out hypothetical 2006 AO Nadal, remember, the next year Gonzalez took him out..

I was just trolling there, of course he wouldn't have won all of those. But he might've won some of them.

US14 I can see him winning that with little problems if in top form.
WIM09 I'd give him a more than decent chance
AO06 probably not developed enough to go deep in a HC slam at the time, but IF he got to the final against Federer I'd pick him to win it.
US12 Muzza struggled Berdych almost went 5 sets, Novak was struggling badly with the wind, an in form Nadal would be favorite for that one.
AO14 I seriously doubt Wawrinka wins that one. Ok he took the first set, but come on it's not like Nadal has never lost the first set and comeback and won in a major final. Stan never took a set off Rafa before, I'm sure against a healthy version of Rafa he'd be lucky to get 2.

 

[Revenant]

No, you haven't got anything.

The majors are the most important titles, no amount of Masters, 500, WTF or 250 events will overtake a major.

However, the WTF is not as important. The tennis channel criteria says overall performance in ATP events. It does not have a separate category for the WTF like it does for majors :lol:

They don't even mention the Olympics, so Nadal's Gold is absolutely worthless. LOL!

 

[Revenant]

I was just trolling

We know that you're a troll.

 

[NatF]

LOL what?



Well then we don't know what Nadal would've done without injuries, I mean damn he could've won RG04, AO06, WIM09, AO13, AO14, US12 and US14. Man he'd be on 21 majors right now! :lol:

Could be who knows...

If he brought his best form to all those tournaments why not. My hypothetical was that Hewitt in his best form would have the game to take the slams that Murray took - perhaps with his better indoor form he could have the WTF as well. Enough to make a small push for #1 if had some consistency year round. I don't think that's so outrageous...maybe unlikely but I prefer not to make such iron clad guarantees.

 

[saintlaurent]

I agree the hypothetical what if Hewitt didn't have his injuries really means nothing. That is like saying Nadal should already be considered the GOAT as he probably already would have the same Slam record (and really he probably would have already when you think about it) if it weren't for his injuries, or Graf is the real grass GOAT and not Navratilova as without Graf's knee surgery everyone knows she would have broken and probably blown away Navratilova's Wimbledon record. Obviously both of those things would sound silly, so likewise is speculation what Hewitt would be without his injuries. As in those cases, injuries are part of the game.

Anyway as this is a comparision with Murray, it could well be Murray's prime will be prematurely ended at a time he looked (pre back surgery) to be capable of 3-4 more slams. That is in sharp contrast to Hewitt who didn't look likely at all to ever win another slam at the end of 2005, despite still being a strong contender near the top then. The emergence of Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray in hindsight makes that more evident, along with his grinding style not likely being condusive to great longevity, and that he is older than Federer and Roddick so it is not like he can wait out Federer especialy to just fade before he does. So if Murray doesn't win another slam he probably lost a lot more through injury than Hewitt did. All Hewitt lost was maybe another 2-3 years a top 5ish player who still wouldn't win another slam.

 

[Anti-Fedal]

Both overrated. Hewitt won his slams in a transitional period. Murray won his slams by avoiding Fed and Nadal and playing Djokovic with the aid of some favorable circumstances. Safin is better than both of them.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I agree the hypothetical what if Hewitt didn't have his injuries really means nothing. That is like saying Nadal should already be considered the GOAT as he probably already would have the same Slam record (and really he probably would have already when you think about it) if it weren't for his injuries, or Graf is the real grass GOAT and not Navratilova as without Graf's knee surgery everyone knows she would have broken and probably blown away Navratilova's Wimbledon record. Obviously both of those things would sound silly, so likewise is speculation what Hewitt would be without his injuries. As in those cases, injuries are part of the game.

Anyway as this is a comparision with Murray, it could well be Murray's prime will be prematurely ended at a time he looked (pre back surgery) to be capable of 3-4 more slams. That is in sharp contrast to Hewitt who didn't look likely at all to ever win another slam at the end of 2005, despite still being a strong contender near the top then. The emergence of Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray in hindsight makes that more evident, along with his grinding style not likely being condusive to great longevity, and that he is older than Federer and Roddick so it is not like he can wait out Federer especialy to just fade before he does. So if Murray doesn't win another slam he probably lost a lot more through injury than Hewitt did. All Hewitt lost was maybe another 2-3 years a top 5ish player who still wouldn't win another slam.

It was the time period Hewitt was born into. Hewitt was also a very good player at a young age (like Nadal, really) ending within the top 8 as a 19 year old, ending as the #1 at 20 and 21, ect. Murray wasn't ready yet to become a top player at the same ages.. and his results speak for themselves.. But Hewitt unfortunately peaked the same time Federer did in 2005.. If he had to play the 2013 AO Federer like Murray did, he'd also probably win with his 2005 form.. I'd actually back 2005 AO Roddick over that Federer too.. And that is Murray's only win over Federer in a Grand Slam to record.

So, I don't really think Murray's emergence in 2008 is really going to affect peak (2005) Hewitt, because technically he'd still be the better player and he also has the better results.. Same thing with 2009 Murray, 2005 Hewitt is the better player in comparison, 2010 Murray too. 2011 Murray is above him but that is also technically Murray's peak year, and Federer was no longer at his peak (or according to some people even in his prime) anymore then and he still would have lost to him in Grand Slams had they played...


So what's the difference? They're basically equal to each other.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Both overrated. Hewitt won his slams in a transitional period. Murray won his slams by avoiding Fed and Nadal and playing Djokovic with the aid of some favorable circumstances. Safin is better than both of them.

Safin won his first slam a year before Hewitt and at the time Hewitt was beating Sampras more than Safin was away from the big events..

 

[Djokovic2011]

Safin won his first slam a year before Hewitt and at the time Hewitt was beating Sampras more than Safin was away from the big events..

You have to concede though Saby that Safin's AO was more impressive than either of the Slams that Lleyton won, given that he had to get through peak Fed at the time. And I say this as someone who couldn't stand Safin.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

You have to concede though Saby that Safin's AO was more impressive than either of the Slams that Lleyton won, given that he had to get through peak Fed at the time. And I say this as someone who couldn't stand Safin.

Well yeah, getting through peak Federer and peak Hewitt on hardcourt is harder than getting through Kafelnikov and old Sampras..