Better on clay: Hewitt or Murray?

[NatF]

Thought it might be an interesting discussion as Hewitt vs Murray seems to be the flavor of the month;

Murray:

- Best results at the FO. 2x SF + 2x QF + 4R
- 3x SF at the Masters level, + 5x additional QF
- 63% win/loss record
- 1x top 10 wins on clay

Hewitt:

- Best results at the FO. 2x QF + 4x 4R.
- 4x SF at the Masters level, 1x QF (Note Hewitt has played Monte Carlo just 3 times)
- 64% win/loss record on clay
- 2 titles
- 6x top 10 wins on clay

Anyone think of any other important stats I will add them to this post.

Clearly Murray has had the better results at the FO, though one minor thing in Hewitt's favor is that he's taken a set from Nadal in one of their 4 meetings there. At the Masters level I consider it a wash basically - slightly in Murray's favor, Murray has had a lot more quarter finals but Hewitt has skipped a lot of them.

The titles are pretty irrelevant as Murray would easily win a ATP 250 on clay if he wanted to. Tiny edge to Hewitt here together with his better win/loss ratio despite playing on till 33.

The main edge Hewitt has is many more wins against top 10 opponents. Murray has only ever beaten one top 10 player on clay - Davydenko in 2009 at Monte Carlo. Hewitt has the bigger scalps with Kuerten in Davis Cup (in Brazil) etc...Both have given Nadal tough battles at the Masters level (Hamburg 2007 for Lleyton and Rome 2014 for Murray).

I think it's actually quite even...

In Murray's favor you have a much better record at the FO + slightly superior Masters results.

Hewitt has the better wins and win/loss record. Might favor Murray slightly not sure.

 

[batz]

I'm going to say a tie

 

[FanOfLu]

This topic:

 

[batz]

This topic:

Thank you for your valuable contribution. This thread just wouldn't have been the same without it.

 

[FanOfLu]

Thank you for your valuable contribution. This thread just wouldn't have been the same without it.

 

[Bukmeikara]

I would say Hewitt, in his late 20s he had to play Nadal a lot of times at the French and he skipped most of the Masters because of injuries or lacking the ranking. Nothing against Murray but his SF runs were mostly because of the opening in the draw and back in early Hewitt days you had a lot more dept on clay than present time.

About that Murray can easily win any 250s clay title I think is quite arrogant to say such think because he would most likely play an event with Ferrer, Berdych, Del Potro or Wawrinka. Its like saying that if you want to you can hook up with Natalie Portman but because you dont like you wont.

And some years ago Federer lost in Estoril to Montanes, if someone like Roger can lose to someone like Montanes than Murray would probably lose a lot more of those matches.

 

[NatF]

I would say Hewitt, in his late 20s he had to play Nadal a lot of times at the French and he skipped most of the Masters because of injuries or lacking the ranking. Nothing against Murray but his SF runs were mostly because of the opening in the draw and back in early Hewitt days you had a lot more dept on clay than present time.

About that Murray can easily win any 250s clay title I think is quite arrogant to say such think because he would most likely play an event with Ferrer, Berdych, Del Potro or Wawrinka. Its like saying that if you want to you can hook up with Natalie Portman but because you dont like you wont.

And some years ago Federer lost in Estoril to Montanes, if someone like Roger can lose to someone like Montanes than Murray would probably lose a lot more of those matches.

You have to win as many or more matches to reach the SF of the FO then to win a piddling 250 on clay. He could probably get Ferrer or Berdych on clay iif he played them enough.

I do think Hewitt has the better wins on clay, but 2 SF's at the French is a big deal. Andy did have to win some tough matches just this year to get there.

 

[jg153040]

Davy is better than both. If it wasn't for that cheat Puerta, he has RG final at least.

 

[Mustard]

Hewitt has the best win on clay:

In the 2001 Davis Cup quarter finals, Brazil vs. Australia in Kuerten's hometown of Florianopolis, on clay, Hewitt beat Kuerten 7-6, 6-3, 7-6, to help Australia win the tie. This was during a year in which Kuerten went 36-3 on clay.

 

[NatF]

Hewitt has the best win on clay:

In the 2001 Davis Cup quarter finals, Brazil vs. Australia in Kuerten's hometown of Florianopolis, on clay, Hewitt beat Kuerten 7-6, 6-3, 7-6, to help Australia win the tie. This was during a year in which Kuerten went 36-3 on clay.

You think that gives him the edge over Murray?

 

[Mustard]

You think that gives him the edge over Murray?

Yes, I do. Why shouldn't it?

 

[tennis_pro]

Yes, I do. Why shouldn't it?

Because it was only 1 match.

 

[NatF]

Yes, I do. Why shouldn't it?

I don't disagree with you, I was just getting clarification. Hewitt has better showings on clay just not as many deep results.

 

[Mustard]

Because it was only 1 match.

What is Murray's biggest match win on clay?

 

[jg153040]

I don't disagree with you, I was just getting clarification. Hewitt has better showings on clay just not as many deep results.

By the way, why is Murray so poor on clay? On paper it looks Murray should have been very good on clay. Is it stamina?

 

[NatF]

By the way, why is Murray so poor on clay? On paper it looks Murray should have been very good on clay. Is it stamina?

His shots are flat and his forehand is often a bit meh in general. He has to red line with that shot to do damage to the top guys.

 

[batz]

I would say Hewitt, in his late 20s he had to play Nadal a lot of times at the French and he skipped most of the Masters because of injuries or lacking the ranking. Nothing against Murray but his SF runs were mostly because of the opening in the draw and back in early Hewitt days you had a lot more dept on clay than present time.

About that Murray can easily win any 250s clay title I think is quite arrogant to say such think because he would most likely play an event with Ferrer, Berdych, Del Potro or Wawrinka. Its like saying that if you want to you can hook up with Natalie Portman but because you dont like you wont.

And some years ago Federer lost in Estoril to Montanes, if someone like Roger can lose to someone like Montanes than Murray would probably lose a lot more of those matches.

You can win a clay 250 event by winning four matches in a row. Something that Murray has done on numerous occasions on clay. It's not like Murray has tried and failed to win a 250 clay event - he's never entered one in his career. A double grand slam champion winning a clay 250 event is in no way analogous to Joe Soap off the internet getting a ride a Natalie Portman.

Perhaps you could expand on your assertion in bold. There are umpteen clay 250 events that play without top tenners.

 

[NatF]

You can win a clay 250 event by winning four matches in a row. Something that Murray has done on numerous occasions on clay. It's not like Murray has tried and failed to win a 250 clay event - he's never entered one in his career. A double grand slam champion winning a clay 250 event is in no way analogous to Joe Soap off the internet getting a ride a Natalie Portman.

Perhaps you could expand on your assertion in bold. There are umpteen clay 250 events that play without top tenners.

This ^^^

That's why I don't consider Murray's lack of a title on clay particularly significant in this comparison.

 

[*Sparkle*]

Murray might not win the first clay 250 he entered, but if he entered two or three, with the specific view of upping his clay game and gaining a title, he'd manage it.

 

[swordtennis]

Refer to post #9.
Big win. That is when I was interested in clay i really liked Kuerten one of my favorites of all time. The deep root of it lies in the superior mental strength of Hewitt. Murray can be good on clay but mentally it is really really hard for Murray to deal with. Physically he can have some big wins.

 

[NatF]

Hewitt has also given Nadal a tough battle at the FO too. Pushed him hard in 2006.

 

[Deleted member 22147]

Anybody who seen what Hewitt did for Australia in the 2001 Davis Cup tie against Brazil will likely vote for Hewitt, and rightly so. He demolished a prime Kuerten in front of one of the most hostile crowds imaginable. Heroic.

 

[conway]

I would pick Murray due to his RG semis. I don't see what other edge either would have on the other. Neither made a masters final, won hardly any (or any) tournaments on clay. I know Murray hasn't won one, Hewitt might have won a really small one or two, but not sure. Murray's better RG record has to be the tipping point in his favor.

 

[conway]

Hewitt has also given Nadal a tough battle at the FO too. Pushed him hard in 2006.

I saw that match and despite that Hewitt somehow snuck out a set, I didn't see that as a tough match. Nadal won something like 40 more points, had way more winners, way fewer unforced errors. I consider the 2011 semis which Nadal won in straight sets, but Murray squandered close to 20 break point chances, as a tougher match.

 

[Mainad]

I would pick Murray due to his RG semis. I don't see what other edge either would have on the other. Neither made a masters final, won hardly any (or any) tournaments on clay. I know Murray hasn't won one, Hewitt might have won a really small one or two, but not sure. Murray's better RG record has to be the tipping point in his favor.

Hewitt won 1999 Delray Beach (beat Malisse) and 2009 Houston (beat Odesnik), both 250 level claycourt events at the time. He has never made the final of a claycourt Masters.

 

[conway]

Hewitt won 1999 Delray Beach (beat Malisse) and 2009 Houston (beat Odesnik), both 250 level claycourt events at the time. He has never made the final of a claycourt Masters.

Ok thanks. Hmmm that might balance things out a bit since Murray never won a clay title. Then again Murray never plays 250 events on clay, and probably would have no problem winning a few of them.

 

[NatF]

I saw that match and despite that Hewitt somehow snuck out a set, I didn't see that as a tough match. Nadal won something like 40 more points, had way more winners, way fewer unforced errors. I consider the 2011 semis which Nadal won in straight sets, but Murray squandered close to 20 break point chances, as a tougher match.

The stats between the matches are fairly similar. Probably not a tough match you're right though.

 

[conway]

The stats between the matches are fairly similar. Probably not a tough match you're right though.

I just never felt watching the 2006 match that Nadal might lose (and back then I hated Nadal and would get excited at any feeling he might lose). Watching the 2011 match it felt like Murray was close to really breaking through and might even go on a real run if he could just get a crucial break which he kept squandering. Granted 2011 Nadal was kind of awful for his standards on clay, and much weaker than 2006.

 

[NatF]

I just never felt watching the 2006 match that Nadal might lose (and back then I hated Nadal and would get excited at any feeling he might lose). Watching the 2011 match it felt like Murray was close to really breaking through and might even go on a real run if he could just get a crucial break which he kept squandering. Granted 2011 Nadal was kind of awful for his standards on clay, and much weaker than 2006.

That's a major point really. That's why I think taking a set is more impressive, even if neither looked like winning. Better to scrap out a set with guts than to lose in 3. Hewitt lost 2 sets by quite a margin but winning a set 7-5 and losing another 4-6 cancels out Murray never losing a set with less than 4 games IMO.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I just never felt watching the 2006 match that Nadal might lose (and back then I hated Nadal and would get excited at any feeling he might lose). Watching the 2011 match it felt like Murray was close to really breaking through and might even go on a real run if he could just get a crucial break which he kept squandering. Granted 2011 Nadal was kind of awful for his standards on clay, and much weaker than 2006.

2011 was the start of Murray's peak, Hewitt was past his prime even in 2006. It's like comparing 2001 Hewitt with 2014 Murray.