Which career would you pick-Hewitt or Murrays

N

NadalFan201

Rookie
At this point right now if Murray was to retire , who's career would you pick Hewitts or Murrays?
Both have two grand slams (Us open and Wimbledon)
Hewitt has No.1 ranking
Murray has more Masters
Hewitt has two WTF's
Murray has Olympic gold
Its very close but I would go with Murray because he played in a slightly tougher era.Hewitt bet Old Man Sampras and the wildly Inconsistent Nalbandian to win his slams while Murray bet prime Djokovic
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
Murray probably, Hewitt had too many injuries. Although I think right now in terms of accomplishments they're pretty even.
 
R

robertharris

Banned
Right now I would pick Hewitt's career. I am not sure which career is truly better. Murray with 6 more Masters titles, 2 more slam finals, Olympic Gold, and far more longevity and consistency both near the very top is probably the better career. However Hewitt with the 2 YEC, 2 year end #1s, and his Davis Cup titles would have the more prolific career that is more known to the general public if both had been retired for 10 years, at this point.

Murray with a 3rd slam will definitely be above though, and he should get atleast that at some point. Would be surprised if he retired with any less than 4 slam titles. He might well never spend a week at #1, but then again Hewitt probably wouldn't spend even a week at #1 in the era of Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer either.

If the question was who was the better player that would also be tough. I think their prime playing levels are pretty similar across all surfaces, but Murray's lasted a lot longer than Hewitt's had already.
 
N

NadalFan201

Rookie
robertharris said:
Right now I would pick Hewitt's career. I am not sure which career is truly better. Murray with 6 more Masters titles, 2 more slam finals, Olympic Gold, and far more longevity and consistency both near the very top is probably the better career. However Hewitt with the 2 YEC, 2 year end #1s, and his Davis Cup titles would have the more prolific career that is more known to the general public if both had been retired for 10 years, at this point.

Murray with a 3rd slam will definitely be above though, and he should get atleast that at some point. Would be surprised if he retired with any less than 4 slam titles. He might well never spend a week at #1, but then again Hewitt probably wouldn't spend even a week at #1 in the era of Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer either.

If the question was who was the better player that would also be tough. I think their prime playing levels are pretty similar across all surfaces, but Murray's lasted a lot longer than Hewitt's had already.
Click to expand...

Yeah no doubt with a 3rd slam Murray moves ahead
 
H

helterskelter

G.O.A.T.
Basically this ^^.

Although Murray actually has three more Slam finals already (7-4).

They are also tied at 28-28 in career titles right now.
 
N

NadalFan201

Rookie
helterskelter said:
Basically this ^^.

Although Murray actually has three more Slam finals already (7-4).

They are also tied at 28-28 in career titles right now.
Click to expand...

They both won their first slam at the us open and then went on to win wimbledon the year after , there are a lot of similarities between the two
 
TERRASTAR18

TERRASTAR18

Hall of Fame
murray- he won wimbledon and is the first uk player to do it in a long time. not to mention that wimbly gold medal no one besides serena has. he stands to make beckham like money.
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
Hewitt has near 80 weeks at #1, if he wasn't injured in 06 onwards he would have had the same level of consistancy Murray has had too,
 
R

robertharris

Banned
NatF said:
Hewitt has near 80 weeks at #1, if he wasn't injured in 06 onwards he would have had the same level of consistancy Murray has had too,
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be so sure. He is a grinder and grinders tend to have shorter primes, especialy if they don't have the insane talent of say Bjorn Borg or Rafael Nadal. Some would say Murray is too but I wouldn't really say that. Murray is kind of a hybrid of a lot of of styles, and even when he chooses to play somewhat more defensively he isn't really grinding or working as hard as Hewitt seems to. Murray has more options on how to play and win.

Also when you get injured, unless it is unrecoverable, you typically bounce back, just as Nadal did this year. Unlike you are no longer good enough any longer and the effects of aging and general wear have started to take their toll. You will likely see that with Murray's bounce back from back injury, where I have no doubt he will be back to being atleast a top 5 and probably top 3 player.
 
Last edited:
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
robertharris said:
I wouldn't be so sure. He is a grinder and grinders tend to have shorter primes, especialy if they don't have the insane talent of say Bjorn Borg or Rafael Nadal. Some would say Murray is too but I wouldn't really say that. Murray is kind of a hybrid of a lot of of styles, and even when he chooses to play somewhat more defensively he isn't really grinding or working as hard as Hewitt seems to. Murray has more options on how to play and win.
Click to expand...

Well Hewitt was at or near the top of the game from 2001-2005, with a bump in the road in 2003. But that's 4-5 years. Murray's been at the top since 2008, so right now they're pretty similar although Murray is a bit ahead. Without injuries I don't see why Hewitt couldn't gone on for another 2-3 years at a high level. Hewitt had surgeries unlike Nadal. We'll see about Murray.
 
S

Silent

Professional
Hewitt's.

I have to side with the one who for a certain period of time, was called the best in the world.
 
Russeljones

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
NadalFan201 said:
At this point right now if Murray was to retire , who's career would you pick Hewitts or Murrays?
Both have two grand slams (Us open and Wimbledon)
Hewitt has No.1 ranking
Murray has more Masters
Hewitt has two WTF's
Murray has Olympic gold
Its very close but I would go with Murray because he played in a slightly tougher era.Hewitt bet Old Man Sampras and the wildly Inconsistent Nalbandian to win his slams while Murray bet prime Djokovic
Click to expand...

You're joking about Hewitt's competition right? Hewitt had to face prime Federer!
 
R

robertharris

Banned
NatF said:
Well Hewitt was at or near the top of the game from 2001-2005, with a bump in the road in 2003. But that's 4-5 years. Murray's been at the top since 2008, so right now they're pretty similar although Murray is a bit ahead. Without injuries I don't see why Hewitt couldn't gone on for another 2-3 years at a high level. Hewitt had surgeries unlike Nadal. We'll see about Murray.
Click to expand...

I thought Nadal had an actual knee surgery at one point in his earlier years at World #2, but I could be wrong. I wasn't following him super closely back then.
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
robertharris said:
I thought Nadal had an actual knee surgery at one point in his earlier years at World #2, but I could be wrong. I wasn't following him super closely back then.
Click to expand...

I don't think he's ever had surgery. Different injuries anyway. Clearly Hewitt's ended his career as a top player while Nadal has been able to cope with his tendonitis.
 
R

robertharris

Banned
Russeljones said:
You're joking about Hewitt's competition right? Hewitt had to face prime Federer!
Click to expand...

He probably means his competition when he won those 2 slams. His best win was a tired and past his prime Sampras. His other wins were Kafelnikov, a very young Roddick (in 2001), Schalken, Nalbandian (back when he was an unknown and on grass). Murray definitely beat overall tougher competition to win this slams, beating peak Djokovic in 2 slam finals.

As for facing prime Sampras, well Murray had to face peak Nadal, peak Djokovic, and older but still outstanding (until 2012) Federer. I would say collectively that is still harder. Think of how many majors Murray was denied by Nadal, Djokovic, and Federer combined. It would be a stagerring total, and far more than Hewitt was denied by Federer. Although I consider Hewitt a superior player than Roddick, when it comes to the Federer factor, Roddick is the biggest victim of Federer's peak years, not Hewitt.

Anyway none of this really matters to who had the better career, which is pretty much only about their achievements.
 
Last edited:
firepanda

firepanda

Professional
Screw No. 1. No-one will remember that. Winning my home tournament is so much better. Not to mention all the endorsements...
 
MonkeyBoy

MonkeyBoy

Hall of Fame
Murray is already an all time great for what he's achieved in an incredibly top heavy era.

Hewitt is not quite an all time great in my mind. Definitely a hall of famer, but his dominance was short lived and situated in a mega care bear transitional era.
 
chicagodude

chicagodude

Hall of Fame
MonkeyBoy said:
Murray is already an all time great for what he's achieved in an incredibly top heavy era.

Hewitt is not quite an all time great in my mind. Definitely a hall of famer, but his dominance was short lived and situated in a mega care bear transitional era.
Click to expand...

IMO Murray is not quite yet an all-time great, no more than Hewitt is, although admittedly that's because Murray's had to face such stiff competition.

I full expect Murray to be an all-time great when he retires though, I'd be surprised if he doesn't end up winning at least 2-3 more GS titles.

Right now it's a tough call, to me it would basically boil down to what somebody finds more important: being ranked #1 in the world or having an olympic gold medal. GS is the same and the MS titles and WTF pretty much cancel eachother out.

Tough call, really...I'd probably pick Murray's since for me, a gold medal has something special + it's for your country as well (I know DC is as well, but it's a team accomplishment and for sure less important for your country tahn the gold medal).
 
victorcruz

victorcruz

Hall of Fame
I'd pick Murray based on the fact that he brought a win for his country in the Olympics and also won at Wimbledon for the Brits.
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
chicagodude said:
IMO Murray is not quite yet an all-time great, no more than Hewitt is, although admittedly that's because Murray's had to face such stiff competition.

I full expect Murray to be an all-time great when he retires though, I'd be surprised if he doesn't end up winning at least 2-3 more GS titles.

Right now it's a tough call, to me it would basically boil down to what somebody finds more important: being ranked #1 in the world or having an olympic gold medal. GS is the same and the MS titles and WTF pretty much cancel eachother out.

Tough call, really...I'd probably pick Murray's since for me, a gold medal has something special + it's for your country as well (I know DC is as well, but it's a team accomplishment and for sure less important for your country tahn the gold medal).
Click to expand...

#1 is far more important in tennis than a Gold Medal especially when it's 2 YE #1's and almost 80 weeks at the top spot.
 
R

robertharris

Banned
firepanda said:
Screw No. 1. No-one will remember that. Winning my home tournament is so much better. Not to mention all the endorsements...
Click to expand...

When people look at the history of the game of players of the distant past they know little about, the first things they will look at are:

1. Slam titles
2. Year End #1s
3. YEC titles
4. Davis Cup titles

and to a lesser extent than these Olympic medals, weeks at #1, tournament titles, slam finals

Hewitt right now is ahead in 3 of the first 4 things I believe people would look at, in fact Murray is a zero in all of them, so at this point Hewitt's career would be envisioned as more impressive 50 years from now by people who don't remember ever seeing either play.
 
Who Am I?

Who Am I?

Banned
MonkeyBoy said:
Murray is already an all time great for what he's achieved in an incredibly top heavy era.

Hewitt is not quite an all time great in my mind. Definitely a hall of famer, but his dominance was short lived and situated in a mega care bear transitional era.
Click to expand...

I'm a fan of Murray, but he isn't all time great, not yet at least. He needs at least 6+ slams to be considered amongst the elite, which I'm pretty sure he will accomplish.
 
chicagodude

chicagodude

Hall of Fame
NatF said:
#1 is far more important in tennis than a Gold Medal especially when it's 2 YE #1's and almost 80 weeks at the top spot.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree historically that has been the case and I know the Olympic gold medal in tennis has only become important to players the last decade or so.

But, the OP's question was which career you'd pick, not which career had more impact in tennis history.

For me, the Olympic gold medal would be special enough to pick Murray's career, although it's a close call over the #1 position.
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
chicagodude said:
Yes, I agree historically that has been the case and I know the Olympic gold medal in tennis has only become important to players the last decade or so.

But, the OP's question was which career you'd pick, not which career had more impact in tennis history.

For me, the Olympic gold medal would be special enough to pick Murray's career, although it's a close call over the #1 position.
Click to expand...

Oh ok, that's fair enough. Are you British?
 
chicagodude

chicagodude

Hall of Fame
robertharris said:
When people look at the history of the game of players of the distant past they know little about, the first things they will look at are:

1. Slam titles
2. Year End #1s
3. YEC titles
4. Davis Cup titles

and to a lesser extent than these Olympic medals, weeks at #1, tournament titles, slam finals

Hewitt right now is ahead in 3 of the first 4 things I believe people would look at, in fact Murray is a zero in all of them, so at this point Hewitt's career would be envisioned as more impressive 50 years from now by people who don't remember ever seeing either play.
Click to expand...

I don't think DC wins are really considered that important. Right now an olympic gold is valued more than a DC win I'd say. Too bad you can't use that to compare woth previous greats, since the Olympic gold in tennis has only become coveted recently.
I never understood why people feel a DC win carries weight for an individual player's career. Players from a weak country are always disadvantaged that way (e.g. Murray).
 
chicagodude

chicagodude

Hall of Fame
NatF said:
Oh ok, that's fair enough. Are you British?
Click to expand...

Nah, I'm Dutch. Still waiting for a really good Dutch player since Krajicek and Eltingh/Haarhuis (Schalken was good too).
Haase could become a steady top-30 player, but I'm not sure if he will...
 
Mainad

Mainad

Bionic Poster
robertharris said:
When people look at the history of the game of players of the distant past they know little about, the first things they will look at are:

1. Slam titles
2. Year End #1s
3. YEC titles
4. Davis Cup titles

and to a lesser extent than these Olympic medals, weeks at #1, tournament titles, slam finals

Hewitt right now is ahead in 3 of the first 4 things I believe people would look at, in fact Murray is a zero in all of them, so at this point Hewitt's career would be envisioned as more impressive 50 years from now by people who don't remember ever seeing either play.
Click to expand...

I believe Masters 1000 titles would also be taken into consideration and I wonder if winning your home Slam would also be given extra kudos as it seems to be a very difficult thing for a player to accomplish these days (prior to Murray, the last guy to do it was Roddick at the 2003 USO). Hewitt, of course, never won his home Slam and only made 1 final there. But if both their careers were to end tomorrow, I agree that Hewitt would have the overall edge.
 
Last edited:
rdis10093

rdis10093

Hall of Fame
respect the man and the effort are more important in my option. Murray's career is legacy of crying to his box and pulling at his crotch.

I actually relay like murray's game. very smart tennis, his attitude just drives me in the opposite direction.
 
rdis10093

rdis10093

Hall of Fame
can of worms
Fig. a very difficult issue or set of problems; an array of difficulties. (*Typically: be ~; Open ~.) This political scandal is a real can of worms. Let's not open that can of worms!
See also: can, Worms



how so? hewitt is the better player hands down. I doubt murray will be playing at hewitt's age. Hewitt has so much passion for the game.
 
chicagodude

chicagodude

Hall of Fame
rdis10093 said:
respect the man and the effort are more important in my option. Murray's career is legacy of crying to his box and pulling at his crotch.

I actually relay like murray's game. very smart tennis, his attitude just drives me in the opposite direction.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I guess we have a different interpretation of the question.
Mine was: if you'd have the identical accomplishments as Murray or Hewitt, which would you prefer to have, i.e. imagine yourself playing and achieving the same things in your own way.
 
R

robertharris

Banned
Mainad said:
I believe Masters 1000 titles would also be taken into consideration and I wonder if winning your home Slam would also be given extra kudos as it seems to be a very difficult thing for a player to accomplish these days (prior to Murray, the last guy to do it was Roddick at the 2003 USO). Hewitt, of course, never won his home Slam and only made 1 final there. But if both their careers were to end tomorrow, I agree that Hewitt would have the overall edge.
Click to expand...

While as a Nadal fan I would love to say the Masters 1000 titles are that important for players of the distant past, I don't believe that is the case today. Now maybe 30 years from now when players like Nadal and Murray are of the distant past the thinking will be different. Another poster mentioned Davis Cup going down in importance and the Olympic Gold rising as an example of how things change.

When it comes to players who played a long time ago who I wasn't alive to follow though I never look up the Masters equivalents they wont. It frankly doesn't interest me much, despite that when it comes to current and very recent players the Masters events do interest me. I do however like to see the slam titles, the streaks of overall dominance or on a surface, players that were able to win various slams and on different surfaces, how many years a player was considered #1 for the year (either with computer rankings or without), etc...Masters titles, which were only officialy termed that until recently, not so much.
 
90's Clay

90's Clay

Banned
Probably Murray's. He isn't playing in a weak transitional era post something/pre something all time greats around like Hewitt
 
Tenez101

Tenez101

Banned
Mustard said:
Considering Hewitt's Davis Cup exploits in comparison to Murray's, I don't know how you can say that.
Click to expand...

I'm mainly referring to the Olympics Singles Gold, ending the British Open-era slam drought, and most of all Wimbledon. You're right that Andy's Davis Cup record doesn't even come close to Hewitt's.
 
chicagodude

chicagodude

Hall of Fame
It seems a lot of people here are judging which one was better, while the questions really was: which would you pick if you were to have one of the two?

I mean, if I were playing myself, I wouldn't give a crap about whether I was playing in a weak era or not, I would just want to reach certain goals.
 
rdis10093

rdis10093

Hall of Fame
not to "open a can of worms" (is that an american saying?) but how is playing with the GOAT a weak era?
 
Mainad

Mainad

Bionic Poster
chicagodude said:
It seems a lot of people here are judging which one was better, while the questions really was: which would you pick if you were to have one of the two?

I mean, if I were playing myself, I wouldn't give a crap about whether I was playing in a weak era or not, I would just want to reach certain goals.
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't think it can ever get better than being a Brit WHO ACTUALLY WON WIMBLEDON! :)

So I would prefer to be Murray.
 
rdis10093

rdis10093

Hall of Fame
that is just for pride though, a slam is a slam. If anything it proves the lack of depth for British tennis.
 
Mainad

Mainad

Bionic Poster
rdis10093 said:
that is just for pride though, a slam is a slam. If anything it proves the lack of depth for British tennis.
Click to expand...

Yes, but we're not discussing the lack of depth in British tennis, just the remarkable achievement of one British player winning the men's singles title at Wimbledon for the first time in 77 years! And it's not just Wimbledon (although that has special resonance for Brits like me) but for any guy to win his home country's premier tournament in front of his home crowd is an exceptional achievement.

Actually, as I pointed out earlier, winning your home Slam seems to be getting more and more difficult to achieve. Before Murray, the last guy to do it was Roddick at 2003 USO. This is because the tour has been dominated for the last decade by a bunch of guys who don't have any home Slams, they're just busy winning everybody else's. Murray is the first guy in a decade to punch through that barrier and achieve it. Hewitt never did.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
How do Murray and Hewitt compare
2
Replies
83
Views
2K
LoboLaw1984
L
M
Kuerten or Hewitt- Whose Career Would You Rather Have
2
Replies
66
Views
4K
Anaconda
A
powerangle
  • Poll
Who currently is "greater"? Hewitt or Murray?
5 6 7
Replies
344
Views
14K
Deleted member 307496
D
Aussie Darcy
  • Poll
If Wawrinka manages to win slam #4, do you think many would prefer Stan's career over Murrays?
2 3
Replies
107
Views
4K
forehandblast
F
HewittAlwaysDisappoints
  • Poll
Who has had the better career so far - Hewitt or Murray?
Replies
28
Views
2K
killerboi2
killerboi2
Top