Hewitt vs Murray- who is the greater player now

Who is the greater player now- Hewitt vs Murray

  • Total voters
    103
  • Poll closed .
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
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

90's Clay

Banned
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.
 
M

MurrayMyInspiration

Guest
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.
 
Tennis_Maestro

Tennis_Maestro

Banned
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

Mustard

Bionic Poster
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
 
M

MurrayMyInspiration

Guest
TennisMaestro How come you are up at 3am in the morning? BTW u can ask same of me.
 
Tennis_Maestro

Tennis_Maestro

Banned
Mustard said:
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
Click to expand...

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

veritech

Hall of Fame
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.
 
rdis10093

rdis10093

Hall of Fame
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

veritech

Hall of Fame
Tennis_Maestro said:
Not really. One slam and he'd be ahead of Hewitt IMO.

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

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

Tennis_Maestro

Banned
....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.
 
Last edited:
Mustard

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Tennis_Maestro said:
Wait Hewitt only won 2 masters series titles? :shock:
Click to expand...

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

Tennis_Maestro

Banned
veritech said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
veritech

veritech

Hall of Fame
Tennis_Maestro said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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

Tennis_Maestro

Banned
rdis10093 said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Tennis_Maestro

Tennis_Maestro

Banned
veritech said:
was I disagreeing with you? is there a problem with reiterating?

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

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.
 
Last edited:
Vcore89

Vcore89

Talk Tennis Guru
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

kishnabe

Talk Tennis Guru
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.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
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.
 
M

MurrayMyInspiration

Guest
kishnabe said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

nereis

Semi-Pro
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.
 
B

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
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.
 
Last edited:
Hawkeye7

Hawkeye7

Professional
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.
 
P

Paul Murphy

Hall of Fame
Hawkeye7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Tennis_Maestro

Banned
kishnabe said:
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.
Click to expand...

...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.
 
Last edited:
Tennis_Maestro

Tennis_Maestro

Banned
nereis said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Tennis_Maestro

Banned
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.
 
N

nereis

Semi-Pro
Tennis_Maestro said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Tennis_Maestro

Tennis_Maestro

Banned
nereis said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Tennis_Maestro

Tennis_Maestro

Banned
Russeljones said:
Just ask Murray how hard winning 'merely' 1 Grand Slam is.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Retaliation

Retaliation

New User
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
  • Poll
Hewitt vs Murray now
Replies
29
Views
2K
powerangle
powerangle
N
  • Poll
Murray vs Roddick- which one is now greater
Replies
48
Views
3K
redpurusha
R
powerangle
  • Poll
Who currently is "greater"? Hewitt or Murray?
5 6 7
Replies
344
Views
14K
Deleted member 307496
D
G
Hewitt vs Murray if Murray wins 3rd slam this weekend
2
Replies
92
Views
3K
timnz
T
Steve0904
  • Poll
Hewitt vs Murray- who wins on grass?
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
Nathaniel_Near
N
Top