Andy Murray is not an "all time great"

[Deleted member 307496]

So Hewitt is a better player because he didn't win as much as Murray due to tougher draws? That's some weird logic

I'm not even saying Hewitt is better than Murray.. I'm saying putting crap on the people who actually thought they were even before he won Wimbledon is illogical - especially when they don't even mention them in the same way anymore (myself).

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Well, Hewitt already won Wimbledon in 2002 with a pretty weak draw. In 2001, he lost to Escude in the 4th round, so it's tough to see him getting by Tsonga and Berdych (two players he never beat) plus Kyrgios and Raonic. 2004-2005 Hewitt would have a better shot, but who did he actually beat those years who compares to Tsogna/Berdych/Kyrgios/Raonic on grass? Here's the lineup: Jurgen Melzer, Irakli Labadze, Ivanišević (#415 at the time), Moya, Christophe Rochus, Jan Hernych, Justin Gimelstob, and Taylor Dent.

The bottom line is that I just don't see 2004/2005 Hewitt getting by both Tsonga and Berdych, who were terrible matchups for him. Their wins over him in 2006 and 2007 when Lleyton was the "better" player are pretty damning in addition to their overall 70 record against him.

You don't see Hewitt (who didn't lose to anybody bar Federer and a red-hot Safin) getting by freaking Berdych (a compulsive mug who would bend over for Hewitt as he was a top player) and Tsonga - who actually comes to the net frequently and enjoys his S&V being a tough matchup for Hewitt? Prime Hewitt would eat him for breakfast just like he did guys like Rafter and Henman (true S&V players).

Stop underrating the guy for God's sake - Hewitt would be in with a shot at winning this Wimbledon.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

And Hewitt had already undergone not one, but two surgeries by 2006. That's why he had such a light schedule in 2005.. so sure, Tsonga and Berdych can beat Hewitt when he is past his best. But does that really prove anything?

Karlovic was also a horrible matchup for him and he's won titles over him as a journeyman years past his best. He's a good enough player to win this year's Wimbledon.

Hewitt was a shell of himself by 2007.. losing to a nobody at the US Open even.

 

[tacou]

Thousands and thousands have held ATP ranking points.
Murray has TWO Wimbledons and a US Open.
He is among the very best ever to play.
Top 10 all time? Heck no. Top 20? Probably not.
But anyone who wins a single slam is great, anyone with three is definitely an all time great.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I also have to add - Hewitt has wins over Sampras and Federer on grass. Sampras and Federer were top 2 or 3 players at the time.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Murray got this draw at age 29. At age 29, Hewitt lost in the 2nd round of Wimbledon to Soderling, who proceeded to get straight setted by Tomic in the 3rd round.

Beyond that, let's look at Murray's draw: Tsonga in the QF: Tsonga was 4-0 against Hewitt, including straight set wins at Queen's Club in 2007 (when Tsonga was #121 and Hewitt was #16) and Wimbledon in 2012. Berdych in the SF: Berdych was 3-0 against Hewitt, including straight set wins in indian Wells in 2006 (when Berdych was #25 and Hewitt was #10) and at the U.S. Open in 2014. Raonic in the F: Raonic was 1-1 against Murray, losing to Lleyon at the 2012 Australian Open but winning at D.C. in 2014.

Obviously, the Raonic results don't tell us too much, but I have a tough time seeing Hewitt beating both Tsonga and Berdych.

Hewitt was already past his best by 2006, as I've already said in a post above due to undergoing not one, but two surgeries on his foot at his very peak. Due to lack of technology he was never able to bounce back the same way Murray did and penalizing him in this vein isn't fair in my opinion as the equipment used to recover from surgeries wasn't as up to date as current technology.

The 2007 loss isn't shocking to me. He lost to a low-ranked player at the 2007 US Open and his 2008 season was a trainwreck. The Berdych loss came when Hewitt was recovering from surgery -- should we hold Murray accountable for his straight-sets loss to Fognini in early 2014? Or what about Giraldo? I guess he'd have never made a French Open final with that record.. But guess what? He's done it.

 

[NatF]

Well, Hewitt already won Wimbledon in 2002 with a pretty weak draw. In 2001, he lost to Escude in the 4th round, so it's tough to see him getting by Tsonga and Berdych (two players he never beat) plus Kyrgios and Raonic. 2004-2005 Hewitt would have a better shot, but who did he actually beat those years who compares to Tsogna/Berdych/Kyrgios/Raonic on grass? Here's the lineup: Jurgen Melzer, Irakli Labadze, Ivanišević (#415 at the time), Moya, Christophe Rochus, Jan Hernych, Justin Gimelstob, and Taylor Dent.

The bottom line is that I just don't see 2004/2005 Hewitt getting by both Tsonga and Berdych, who were terrible matchups for him. Their wins over him in 2006 and 2007 when Lleyton was the "better" player are pretty damning in addition to their overall 70 record against him.

He won Wimbledon convincingly in 2002, his level in the last couple of rounds was awesome as well. The only person who played well against Murray in this years draw was Tsonga and the h2h between him and Lleyton means very little to me considering the spread of those meetings. Berdych was quite poor in the SF and is not as dangerous as he used to be. Hewitt's record against top 10 players before his surgeries was very good.

Your use of 06/07 is nonsensical really, Tsonga has one win over Lleyton in 2007 in 2 tiebreaks - hardly a big enough sample. As far as Berdych goes in 2006 he actually ended the year ranked higher than Hewitt so calling Hewitt the better player is incorrect - he was on the way down and Berdych the way up, not to mention Hewitt had missed a lot of tennis at the end of 05 due to surgeries. You're missing context.

Tsonga would be difficult because he played great for sets 1, 3 and 4 of the QF but Berdych was poor. I'm more concerned with form than name, Moya in the 2004 draw at Wimbledon played better than any of those guys you mentioned bar potentially Tsonga and Hewitt shut him down in 4 sets - Moya also had a good h2h with Lleyton at the time.

I'm not really invested in arguing that Hewitt would have won this slam or that slam, my initial point was to clarify what Saby meant.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

He won Wimbledon convincingly in 2002, his level in the last couple of rounds was awesome as well. The only person who played well against Murray in this years draw was Tsonga and the h2h between him and Lleyton means very little to me considering the spread of those meetings. Berdych was quite poor in the SF and is not as dangerous as he used to be. Hewitt's record against top 10 players before his surgeries was very good.

Your use of 06/07 is nonsensical really, Tsonga has one win over Lleyton in 2007 in 2 tiebreaks - hardly a big enough sample. As far as Berdych goes in 2006 he actually ended the year ranked higher than Hewitt so calling Hewitt the better player is incorrect - he was on the way down and Berdych the way up, not to mention Hewitt had missed a lot of tennis at the end of 05 due to surgeries. You're missing context.

Tsonga would be difficult because he played great for sets 1, 3 and 4 of the QF but Berdych was poor. I'm more concerned with form than name, Moya in the 2004 draw at Wimbledon played better than any of those guys you mentioned bar potentially Tsonga and Hewitt shut him down in 4 sets - Moya also had a good h2h with Lleyton at the time.

I'm not really invested in arguing that Hewitt would have won this slam or that slam, my initial point was to clarify what Saby meant.

My points are all articulated better here. Thanks, @NatF.

 

[buscemi]

You don't see Hewitt (who didn't lose to anybody bar Federer and a red-hot Safin) getting by freaking Berdych (a compulsive mug who would bend over for Hewitt as he was a top player) and Tsonga - who actually comes to the net frequently and enjoys his S&V being a tough matchup for Hewitt? Prime Hewitt would eat him for breakfast just like he did guys like Rafter and Henman (true S&V players).

Stop underrating the guy for God's sake - Hewitt would be in with a shot at winning this Wimbledon.

Berdych and Tsonga were 7-0 against Hewitt. And what is this about Hewitt not losing to anybody barring Federer and red-hot Tsonga? He had plenty of losses against lesser players during his prime at both Majors and Masters Series events.

 

[buscemi]

And Hewitt had already undergone not one, but two surgeries by 2006. That's why he had such a light schedule in 2005.. so sure, Tsonga and Berdych can beat Hewitt when he is past his best. But does that really prove anything?

Karlovic was also a horrible matchup for him and he's won titles over him as a journeyman years past his best. He's a good enough player to win this year's Wimbledon.

Hewitt was a shell of himself by 2007.. losing to a nobody at the US Open even.

Your initial post said, "Give Hewitt Murray's draw this year and he wins a 3rd major too." If your point is simply that Hewitt is "a good enough player to win this year's Wimbledon," I agree. My point is that there's a very solid chance he loses to one of Kyrgios, Tsonga, Berdych, and Raonic, with the middle two having a 7-0 record against him, including wins when Hewitt was the "better" player, although not as good as he was at his peak.

 

[buscemi]

He won Wimbledon convincingly in 2002, his level in the last couple of rounds was awesome as well. The only person who played well against Murray in this years draw was Tsonga and the h2h between him and Lleyton means very little to me considering the spread of those meetings. Berdych was quite poor in the SF and is not as dangerous as he used to be. Hewitt's record against top 10 players before his surgeries was very good.

I was responding to a post that said, "Give Hewitt Murray's draw this year and he wins a 3rd major too," so I'm not debating 2002. That year's Wimbledon is already one of Lleyton's two Majors. The question is whether 2001/2004/2005/etc. Hewitt could have added a 3rd Major to his tally if given Murray's 2016 Wimbledon draw. Of course, you could also ask the reverse: Could 2009-2012/2015/etc. Murray have added a 4th Major to his tally if given Hewitt's 2002 Wimbledon draw?

 

[NatF]

I was responding to a post that said, "Give Hewitt Murray's draw this year and he wins a 3rd major too," so I'm not debating 2002. That year's Wimbledon is already one of Lleyton's two Majors. The question is whether 2001/2004/2005/etc. Hewitt could have added a 3rd Major to his tally if given Murray's 2016 Wimbledon draw. Of course, you could also ask the reverse: Could 2009-2012/2015/etc. Murray have added a 4th Major to his tally if given Hewitt's 2002 Wimbledon draw?

Fair enough, I would say Hewitt of 04-05 would be favoured to add Wimbledon this year to his collection, probably not 2001 - though his ability on grass was obviously there with multiple Queens titles already.

 

[heninfan99]

he's in a nether world somewhere between Del Potro and Courier

 

[mellowyellow]

My own personal opinion is that Edberg/Becker territory suffices for "all time" greatness. I agree with @buscemi's suggestion of 5+ majors and some time at #1. Murray may be slightly unlucky never to get to #1 thus far, but I just can't see myself calling someone who has never been #1 an ATG.

I can't see it, no matter what he does and especially, now. He has opportunistic wins and titles. Good for him but he doesn't and his career should never inspire someone to talk of him in that light... He has been a great, better than good player. His record though against the mediocrity and performances against the best are questionable. Going forward the young talent isn't really proving themselves either....

 

[mellowyellow]

You don't see Hewitt (who didn't lose to anybody bar Federer and a red-hot Safin) getting by freaking Berdych (a compulsive mug who would bend over for Hewitt as he was a top player) and Tsonga - who actually comes to the net frequently and enjoys his S&V being a tough matchup for Hewitt? Prime Hewitt would eat him for breakfast just like he did guys like Rafter and Henman (true S&V players).

Stop underrating the guy for God's sake - Hewitt would be in with a shot at winning this Wimbledon.

He would have won this easy IMO.

 

[Unforgiven79]

Courier often gets called one with 4 slams, which Murray doesn't seem too far away from now.

Yes, but Big Jim in fact was the dominant No.1 across 1991-92; when he won AO and FO in 1992, everybody was looking at him for the Grand Slam, the same way of Nole this year (as well he evaporated in mid-Wimbledon against the Underdog of the Year). He was the boss back then.

All time great or not, he's a great player. Just enjoy that.

Agreed.
Anyway, just to set the record straight, everybody calls Vilas (best ranking No.2), Geroulaitis (best ranking No.3), and Becker (clinched No.1 for a few weeks) all-time greats.
There is no strict rule, but I think time makes memories sweeter. In a decade or two, everybody will be prasing "The Big Boy from Scotland" as one of the all-rounders of all time.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Berdych and Tsonga were 7-0 against Hewitt. And what is this about Hewitt not losing to anybody barring Federer and red-hot Tsonga? He had plenty of losses against lesser players during his prime at both Majors and Masters Series events.

Between 2004-2005..

I'm not responding to your other post as I'll detail my reply in this one: I articulated my point(s) wrong and what I really meant was that I feel Hewitt was a good enough player at his best to have won this year's Wimbledon. I do not believe he is a better player than Murray and if anything he is inferior to him -- but he was a great player in his own right at his best.

 

[metsman]

Well, Hewitt already won Wimbledon in 2002 with a pretty weak draw. In 2001, he lost to Escude in the 4th round, so it's tough to see him getting by Tsonga and Berdych (two players he never beat) plus Kyrgios and Raonic. 2004-2005 Hewitt would have a better shot, but who did he actually beat those years who compares to Tsogna/Berdych/Kyrgios/Raonic on grass? Here's the lineup: Jurgen Melzer, Irakli Labadze, Ivanišević (#415 at the time), Moya, Christophe Rochus, Jan Hernych, Justin Gimelstob, and Taylor Dent.

The bottom line is that I just don't see 2004/2005 Hewitt getting by both Tsonga and Berdych, who were terrible matchups for him. Their wins over him in 2006 and 2007 when Lleyton was the "better" player are pretty damning in addition to their overall 70 record against him.

cmon man...just poor.

Hewitt beat Henman in 02 convincingly, a better grass courter than anyone Murray faced this year. Henman played an ok match but still better than Kyrgios/Raonic/berdych at least. Schalken in 02 probably played better than anyone Murray played this year

Hewitt after 05 was nowhere near the same player. He could play some solid tennis at times but just not comparable to what he was before, using those versions to establish a "matchup" is absolute bs. For example I suppose Hewitt and Murray have good matchups against Federer based on their 08-10 and pre-04 head to head because Federer was unfocused in most of those matches and making like 15 UFE a set.

Yet another example of looking at the names over level...Berdych/Kyrgios/Raonic all played terrible, they would be absolutely no challenge for Hewitt or any other top player in form, especially hewitt, who, like, Murray, would neutralize their serves.

Tsonga played well in spurts but was terrible for 2 sets and folded his tent and left at the end of the day so I don't see Hewitt losing there. Berdych in his current state is not a threat to any top player. He's alive and well cause of the mugs however.

 

[buscemi]

Fair enough, I would say Hewitt of 04-05 would be favoured to add Wimbledon this year to his collection, probably not 2001 - though his ability on grass was obviously there with multiple Queens titles already.

Sounds good. I might quibble with your wording and say that Hewitt of 04-05 would have been one of the favorites as opposed to THE favorite, but I think we're pretty much on the same page.

 

[buscemi]

He would have won this easy IMO.

I don't see how it would be easy. The one year Hewitt won Wimbledon -- 2002 -- he scraped by Schalken 7-5 in the QF in the fifth set after twice being down a break in that final set. If he had Murray's 2016 Wimbledon draw, that match would have been against Tsonga. I don't see that match being easy at all.

 

[buscemi]

Between 2004-2005..

I'm not responding to your other post as I'll detail my reply in this one: I articulated my point(s) wrong and what I really meant was that I feel Hewitt was a good enough player at his best to have won this year's Wimbledon. I do not believe he is a better player than Murray and if anything he is inferior to him -- but he was a great player in his own right at his best.

Thanks. I think we're on the same page.

 

[metsman]

He won Wimbledon convincingly in 2002, his level in the last couple of rounds was awesome as well. The only person who played well against Murray in this years draw was Tsonga and the h2h between him and Lleyton means very little to me considering the spread of those meetings. Berdych was quite poor in the SF and is not as dangerous as he used to be. Hewitt's record against top 10 players before his surgeries was very good.

Your use of 06/07 is nonsensical really, Tsonga has one win over Lleyton in 2007 in 2 tiebreaks - hardly a big enough sample. As far as Berdych goes in 2006 he actually ended the year ranked higher than Hewitt so calling Hewitt the better player is incorrect - he was on the way down and Berdych the way up, not to mention Hewitt had missed a lot of tennis at the end of 05 due to surgeries. You're missing context.

Tsonga would be difficult because he played great for sets 1, 3 and 4 of the QF but Berdych was poor. I'm more concerned with form than name, Moya in the 2004 draw at Wimbledon played better than any of those guys you mentioned bar potentially Tsonga and Hewitt shut him down in 4 sets - Moya also had a good h2h with Lleyton at the time.

I'm not really invested in arguing that Hewitt would have won this slam or that slam, my initial point was to clarify what Saby meant.

hewitt also lost to henman, who was on his very last legs, and Hewitt had beat him with his eyes closed before that, around the same time as he lost to berdych in 06. He was in terrible form in early 06 because he skipped the end of 05 and had to take care of his baby. Was not matchfit as a result of that and the surgeries took a toll on him.

 

[metsman]

I don't see how it would be easy. The one year Hewitt won Wimbledon -- 2002 -- he scraped by Schalken 7-5 in the QF in the fifth set after twice being down a break in that final set. If he had Murray's 2016 Wimbledon draw, that match would have been against Tsonga. I don't see that match being easy at all.

because Schalken played near his best in the 5th set while Tsonga fell asleep. Given that it would have been quite easy in the end just like it was for Murray.

 

[metsman]

I was responding to a post that said, "Give Hewitt Murray's draw this year and he wins a 3rd major too," so I'm not debating 2002. That year's Wimbledon is already one of Lleyton's two Majors. The question is whether 2001/2004/2005/etc. Hewitt could have added a 3rd Major to his tally if given Murray's 2016 Wimbledon draw. Of course, you could also ask the reverse: Could 2009-2012/2015/etc. Murray have added a 4th Major to his tally if given Hewitt's 2002 Wimbledon draw?

Or you could ask...how many majors would Murray have if he had to face peak Federer or god mode Safin at every non-FO major in 2012-2013?

Regardless that isn't the point, Murray's career at this point is more impressive than Hewitt's but in terms of peak play on faster surfaces they are about the same and Hewitt in certain settings may also be better in that regard.

 

[NatF]

Or you could ask...how many majors would Murray have if he had to face peak Federer or god mode Safin at every non-FO major in 2012-2013?

Regardless that isn't the point, Murray's career at this point is more impressive than Hewitt's but in terms of peak play on faster surfaces they are about the same and Hewitt in certain settings may also be better in that regard.

This is how I feel as well. Murray has been able to maintain himself at the highest level consistently for a lot longer than Hewitt was able to. That's the fundamental difference between them, not some perceived gap in their levels of play - at least on quicker courts.

 

[buscemi]

cmon man...just poor.

Hewitt beat Henman in 02 convincingly, a better grass courter than anyone Murray faced this year. Henman played an ok match but still better than Kyrgios/Raonic/berdych at least. Schalken in 02 probably played better than anyone Murray played this year

Hewitt after 05 was nowhere near the same player. He could play some solid tennis at times but just not comparable to what he was before, using those versions to establish a "matchup" is absolute bs. For example I suppose Hewitt and Murray have good matchups against Federer based on their 08-10 and pre-04 head to head because Federer was unfocused in most of those matches and making like 15 UFE a set.

Yet another example of looking at the names over level...Berdych/Kyrgios/Raonic all played terrible, they would be absolutely no challenge for Hewitt or any other top player in form, especially hewitt, who, like, Murray, would neutralize their serves.

Tsonga played well in spurts but was terrible for 2 sets and folded his tent and left at the end of the day so I don't see Hewitt losing there. Berdych in his current state is not a threat to any top player. He's alive and well cause of the mugs however.

Again, I was responding to a post stating that Hewitt would have added a 3rd Major to his resume if he had Murray's 2016 Wimbledon draw, so I wasn't looking at how 2002 Hewitt (who already won Wimbledon) would have done with that draw. That said, I will note that Schalken, like Tsonga, played terribly for two sets in 2002 and still had multiple chances to win in the fifth set before going down 7-5 against Hewitt.

I agree that Hewitt post-2005 wasn't the same as Hewitt from 2001-2005. That said, he was still a top 10 player who had just made the finals of San Jose and Las Vegas when he lost to 20 year-old, #25 Berdych in straight sets in Indian Wells, the same Berdych who would get smoked by #27 Baghdatis in the same round. I don't think that win or Tomas's other 2 wins over Hewitt are dispositive, but they are pretty solid evidence that this would have been a tough matchup.

Similarly, Hewitt was in pretty good form and still #16 when he lost to #121 Tsonga at Queen's Club. Lleyton was coming off of a SF appearance in Rome (losing to Nadal 7-5 in the 3rd set), SF in Poertschach, and R16 at the French (again, losing to Nadal). Meanwhile, Tsonga, while showing some promise, was still ranked outside the top 100 and only had two top 100 wins on the year coming into the match (#99 Guccione and #85 Karlovic). Again, neither this win nor Tsonga's 3 others against Hewitt are dispositive, but they suggest a tough matchup.

 

[metsman]

This is how I feel as well. Murray has been able to maintain himself at the highest level consistently for a lot longer than Hewitt was able to. That's the fundamental difference between them, not some perceived gap in their levels of play - at least on quicker courts.

Yup, completely agree, of course, like @Sabratha pointed out, maybe Hewitt could have maintained his level a while longer with today's surgery recovery techniques (I don't think the game has changed much from 06 but I think sports medicine definitely has).

 

[buscemi]

hewitt also lost to henman, who was on his very last legs, and Hewitt had beat him with his eyes closed before that, around the same time as he lost to berdych in 06. He was in terrible form in early 06 because he skipped the end of 05 and had to take care of his baby. Was not matchfit as a result of that and the surgeries took a toll on him.

And the match before he played Berdych, Hewitt beat Schuettler, who was otherwise 3-1 against him. Look, I fully agree that Hewitt wasn't at his peak in 2006, but he was still producing some good results, and Berdych's game was still underdeveloped.

 

[Deleted member 744633]

Agreed! Also, I must clarify when I say Murray is better than Hewitt. That's a very subjective view point. I can only say Murray is more accomplished that Hewitt.

I'm not even saying Hewitt is better than Murray.. I'm saying putting crap on the people who actually thought they were even before he won Wimbledon is illogical - especially when they don't even mention them in the same way anymore (myself).

 

[metsman]

Again, I was responding to a post stating that Hewitt would have added a 3rd Major to his resume if he had Murray's 2016 Wimbledon draw, so I wasn't looking at how 2002 Hewitt (who already won Wimbledon) would have done with that draw. That said, I will note that Schalken, like Tsonga, played terribly for two sets in 2002 and still had multiple chances to win in the fifth set before going down 7-5 against Hewitt.

I agree that Hewitt post-2005 wasn't the same as Hewitt from 2001-2005. That said, he was still a top 10 player who had just made the finals of San Jose and Las Vegas when he lost to 20 year-old, #25 Berdych in straight sets in Indian Wells, the same Berdych who would get smoked by #27 Baghdatis in the same round. I don't think that win or Tomas's other 2 wins over Hewitt are dispositive, but they are pretty solid evidence that this would have been a tough matchup.

Similarly, Hewitt was in pretty good form and still #16 when he lost to #121 Tsonga at Queen's Club. Lleyton was coming off of a SF appearance in Rome (losing to Nadal 7-5 in the 3rd set), SF in Poertschach, and R16 at the French (again, losing to Nadal). Meanwhile, Tsonga, while showing some promise, was still ranked outside the top 100 and only had two top 100 wins on the year coming into the match (#99 Guccione and #85 Karlovic). Again, neither this win nor Tsonga's 3 others against Hewitt are dispositive, but they suggest a tough matchup.

How on earth do you quote his ranking in early 06 when all of it was from his 05 season? He was in poor form in early 06, lost to Chela at the AO and ancient Henman whom he had owned previously at Miami. Form-wise, pretty far from a top 10 player. And regardless Berdych finished 06 ranked 6 spots higher than Hewitt which is more indicative than a ranking which is mostly based off 05. Hewitt's form improved a bit from the FO onwards in 06 but in the early parts of the year it was pretty poor.

Similarly Hewitt and Tsonga finished 07 ranked 21 and 43...both really far from a peak level although again the trajectory of their rankings is telling, Hewitt was falling, Tsonga was rising. Given that, two tiebreak sets in a grass court warmup don't really mean anything...

 

[buscemi]

Or you could ask...how many majors would Murray have if he had to face peak Federer or god mode Safin at every non-FO major in 2012-2013?

Regardless that isn't the point, Murray's career at this point is more impressive than Hewitt's but in terms of peak play on faster surfaces they are about the same and Hewitt in certain settings may also be better in that regard.

Again, I think we're largely on the same page. Murray has the more impressive career and better peak play on slower surfaces, but the two are about the same in terms of peak play on faster surfaces.

 

[metsman]

And the match before he played Berdych, Hewitt beat Schuettler, who was otherwise 3-1 against him. Look, I fully agree that Hewitt wasn't at his peak in 2006, but he was still producing some good results, and Berdych's game was still underdeveloped.

Schuettler was losing in like all first rounds in 06.

Maybe peak Berdych would be a tough matchup for Hewitt, who knows, but you can say the same for Murray too and Murray still destroyed him. None of that matters because Berdych played a terrible match and in general has been cannon fodder for top players the last 1-2 years.

 

[metsman]

Again, I think we're largely on the same page. Murray has the more impressive career and better peak play on slower surfaces, but the two are about the same in terms of peak play on faster surfaces.

agreed

 

[buscemi]

How on earth do you quote his ranking in early 06 when all of it was from his 05 season? He was in poor form in early 06, lost to Chela at the AO and ancient Henman whom he had owned previously at Miami. Form-wise, pretty far from a top 10 player. And regardless Berdych finished 06 ranked 6 spots higher than Hewitt which is more indicative than a ranking which is mostly based off 05. Hewitt's form improved a bit from the FO onwards in 06 but in the early parts of the year it was pretty poor.

Similarly Hewitt and Tsonga finished 07 ranked 21 and 43...both really far from a peak level although again the trajectory of their rankings is telling, Hewitt was falling, Tsonga was rising. Given that, two tiebreak sets in a grass court warmup don't really mean anything...

Let's start with Hewitt in 2007. Yes, he had a slow start at the Australian Open, losing to Chela in the 2nd round. But then, as I noted, he made consecutive finals in San Jose and Las Vegas and beat Schuettler, who always gave him problems, just before losing to Berdych. Then, yes, he did get upset by Henman, but he then had some very solid results on clay and won Queen's Club, which actually rose his ranking to #9 for Wimbledon, where he made the QF. It wasn't until the 2nd half of the year that his ranking dropped. His results from San Jose to Wimbledon were pretty solid.

As for Berdych, he was 6-6 coming into the match against Hewitt at Indian Wells, and, as I noted, got crushed in his next match against Baghdatis. Indeed, Berdych was 6-6 in the 12 matches before he played Hewitt and 6-6 in the 12 matches after he played Hewitt. Again, as you noted, he then played well for the rest of the year to raise his ranking, but he was no great shakes at the time of his match against Hewitt.

Next, let's look at Hewitt in 2007. He was #16 entering the match against Tsonga, and, despite losing that match and all of the points from his 2006 win at Queen's Club, he was still #16 entering the U.S. Open, losing to Djokovic at Wimbledon and Federer at Canada and Cincinnati. Again, as in 2006, his results tailed off toward the end of the year, but he was playing pretty well in the middle of the year.

As for Tsonga, I don't think there's any doubt that his star was on the rise in 2007, but still, the win over Hewitt was the only top 50 win he had in 2007 until Metz in October.

 

[buscemi]

Schuettler was losing in like all first rounds in 06.

He was even worse in 2007, but he still straight setted Hewitt in Mumbai. He also beat him in Monte Carlo in 2004, although he did lose to Lleyton in Rotterdam. Finally, he beat him in Australia in Davis Cup on grass in 2000, the same year that Hewitt beat Sampras in the finals of Queen's Club. It was a tough matchup for Lleyton.

 

[Unforgiven79]

I must clarify when I say Murray is better than Hewitt. That's a very subjective view point. I can only say Murray is more accomplished that Hewitt.

You just cannot compare, due to the different surrounding environments:
Hewitt was in his prime form and mental focus in 2001-02, and that, simply put, was well enough to dominate the rankings back then, in the weakest tennis period. All the really talented ones were curtaining their careers (Sampras, Agassi, Henman, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Kuerten) or fighting with themselves (Safin, Federer). I never had the feeling he really had to push his own limits beyond the reasonable. First surgeries, Federer raising to power - all the glamour gone.
Murray in his prime had 3 beasts ahead of him, technically, physically, and mentally. He had to improve dramatically (just see his clay-court playing), and as you are No.4 in the world ranking there is not that much room for dramatic improvement. Still he did. And now he is more solid than Hewitt was.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

You just cannot compare, due to the different surrounding environments:
Hewitt was in his prime form and mental focus in 2001-02, and that, simply put, was well enough to dominate the rankings back then, in the weakest tennis period. All the really talented ones were curtaining their careers (Sampras, Agassi, Henman, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Kuerten) or fighting with themselves (Safin, Federer). I never had the feeling he really had to push his own limits beyond the reasonable. First surgeries, Federer raising to power - all the glamour gone.
Murray in his prime had 3 beasts ahead of him, technically, physically, and mentally. He had to improve dramatically (just see his clay-court playing), and as you are No.4 in the world ranking there is not that much room for dramatic improvement. Still he did. And now he is more solid than Hewitt was.

1996-1998 was weaker than 2001-2002.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

And Henman (who reached his career high ranking of 4 in 2002) Rafter (who Hewitt was beating as a baby while he was at his peak) and Kuerten who he beat on clay in his prime. Just LOL. Some subjective opinion from you there.

Guess you missed out on when the likes of Martin and Pioline occupied the top 4 rankings.

 

[buscemi]

And Henman (who reached his career high ranking of 4 in 2002) Rafter (who Hewitt was beating as a baby while he was at his peak) and Kuerten who he beat on clay in his prime. Just LOL. Some subjective opinion from you there.

Guess you missed out on when the likes of Martin and Pioline occupied the top 4 rankings.

Pioline was never top 4. He was briefly #10 at the end of 1993/beginning of 1994 (he even had a couple of weeks at #9), got back to #10 for 3 weeks in 1998, and then returned to the top 10 for a spell in 2000, getting as high as #5 for a couple of weeks in May.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Pioline was never top 4. He was briefly #10 at the end of 1993/beginning of 1994 (he even had a couple of weeks at #9), got back to #10 for 3 weeks in 1998, and then returned to the top 10 for a spell in 2000, getting as high as #5 for a couple of weeks in May.

You're right I was wrong - but he did get to become 5th in the world during Sampras' era and he's not exactly the poster-child of tennis-era-strength.

 

[buscemi]

You're right I was wrong - but he did get to become 5th in the world during Sampras' era and he's not exactly the poster-child of tennis-era-strength.

I don't know that I'd call 2000 Sampras's era. I think that's 1993-1998 (or Wimbledon 1999). In 2000, Pete was a pretty clear #3 behind Kuerten and Safin.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I don't know that I'd call 2000 Sampras's era. I think that's 1993-1998 (or Wimbledon 1999). In 2000, Pete was a pretty clear #3 behind Kuerten and Safin.

He spent some time at #1 however, even toward the end of the year.

 

[buscemi]

He spent some time at #1 however, even toward the end of the year.

Sure, he was still a great player, but definitely not at his 1993-1998 (1999 Wimbledon) level. On the other hand, let's take a top 4 Frenchman right in the middle of Hewitt's peak: Sebastian Grosjean. He was top 10 from May 21, 2001 through the end of the year, ending the year at #6. In 2001, he was top 10 every week through November 4th (except for a few weeks at #11), peaking at #4.

FWIW, Pioline was 5-1 against Grosjean.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Sure, he was still a great player, but definitely not at his 1993-1998 (1999 Wimbledon) level. On the other hand, let's take a top 4 Frenchman right in the middle of Hewitt's peak: Sebastian Grosjean. He was top 10 from May 21, 2001 through the end of the year, ending the year at #6. In 2001, he was top 10 every week through November 4th (except for a few weeks at #11), peaking at #4.

FWIW, Pioline was 5-1 against Grosjean.

And? I'd still say a Grosjean and Pioline debate would be fairly close -- even including Cedric's two GS finals.

 

[buscemi]

And? I'd still say a Grosjean and Pioline debate would be fairly close -- even including Cedric's two GS finals.

I thought we were comparing the "weakness" of 2001-2002 vs. 1996-1998. I agree that the Pioline vs. Grosjean debate would be fairly close as to who is better, but my point is that Pioline was only top 10 (exactly #10) for 3 weeks from 1996-1998 while Grosjean was top 10 for the better part of 2001-2002.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I thought we were comparing the "weakness" of 2001-2002 vs. 1996-1998. I agree that the Pioline vs. Grosjean debate would be fairly close as to who is better, but my point is that Pioline was only top 10 (exactly #10) for 3 weeks from 1996-1998 while Grosjean was top 10 for the better part of 2001-2002.

Which may go to show Grosjean was a better player than Pioline (despite the H2H deficit).

If he was able to keep himself afloat for longer periods of time and we agree there was a void during both periods -- then this may be testament to that.

 

[buscemi]

Which may go to show Grosjean was a better player than Pioline (despite the H2H deficit).

If he was able to keep himself afloat for longer periods of time and we agree there was a void during both periods -- then this may be testament to that.

Well, that's kind of a chicken and egg type question, right? Was Grosjean able to keep afloat longer because he was better than Pioline or because the competition was worse?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Well, that's kind of a chicken and egg type question, right? Was Grosjean able to keep afloat longer because he was better than Pioline or because the competition was worse?

How could the competition be worse if it was at an all-time low in 1996-1998 with Sampras barely keeping afloat and Agassi missing from the men's game? Not to mention no All Time Great players to take over during this stagnation period. I don't think 2001-2002 was much better, but IMO it was 'better' to some extent.

I do get your premise though - so don't think it's lost on me.

I can agree to disagree however, but that was the worst state I've ever seen tennis in -- and that includes 2001-2002, 2004-2007 and 2014-now.

 

[Deleted member 744633]

Agreed! That's why I changed my opinion from 'better' to more accomplished.

You just cannot compare, due to the different surrounding environments:
Hewitt was in his prime form and mental focus in 2001-02, and that, simply put, was well enough to dominate the rankings back then, in the weakest tennis period. All the really talented ones were curtaining their careers (Sampras, Agassi, Henman, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Kuerten) or fighting with themselves (Safin, Federer). I never had the feeling he really had to push his own limits beyond the reasonable. First surgeries, Federer raising to power - all the glamour gone.
Murray in his prime had 3 beasts ahead of him, technically, physically, and mentally. He had to improve dramatically (just see his clay-court playing), and as you are No.4 in the world ranking there is not that much room for dramatic improvement. Still he did. And now he is more solid than Hewitt was.

 

[buscemi]

How could the competition be worse if it was at an all-time low in 1996-1998 with Sampras barely keeping afloat and Agassi missing from the men's game? Not to mention no All Time Great players to take over during this stagnation period. I don't think 2001-2002 was much better, but IMO it was 'better' to some extent.

I do get your premise though - so don't think it's lost on me.

I can agree to disagree however, but that was the worst state I've ever seen tennis in -- and that includes 2001-2002, 2004-2007 and 2014-now.

Well, we already did Pioline vs. Grosjean. How about Jiri Novak (Year-End #7 in 2002) vs. Becker (YE #7 in 1996), Moya (YE #7 in 1997), and Henman (YE #7 in 1998)?

2002 was the one year that Novak was in the top 10 (and one of only two years he was in the top 20) and the only year he made it past the 4th round of a Major. He never won a Masters Series title.

Meanwhile, (1) Becker was a 7 time Major champion who, in 1996, won the Australian Open, won a Masters Series title, and made the final of WTF; (2) Moya was a Major champion (in 1998), a Major finalist (in 1997), a winner of 3 Masters Series titles, and beat Sampras at WTF in 1997; and (3) Henman was a six-time Major semifinalists, made the SF of Wimbledon, Miami, Canada, and WTF in 1998, and won a Masters Series title in Paris (in 2003).

Upsets happen at Majors, but QF/SF/F are usually your money rounds, and the #7 players in the world in 1996/1997/1998 were much better than the #7 player in 2002.