Hewitt vs Murray if Murray wins 3rd slam this weekend

G

gerrysbland

Banned
How would you rate the careers of Hewitt vs Murray if Murray wins his 3rd slam this weekend.

Hewitt would have 1 less slam but 2 YE#1s vs Murray who hasn't even spent a single week there, plus 2 WTF titles. Murray would have the extra slam, many more Masters, and the Olympic Gold. So it would be close. I think right now you have to say Hewitt is clearly ahead while both have 2 slams.
 
gerrysbland said:
How would you rate the careers of Hewitt vs Murray if Murray wins his 3rd slam this weekend.

Hewitt would have 1 less slam but 2 YE#1s vs Murray who hasn't even spent a single week there, plus 2 WTF titles. Murray would have the extra slam, many more Masters, and the Olympic Gold. So it would be close. I think right now you have to say Hewitt is clearly ahead while both have 2 slams.
Click to expand...

Not sure if OP is trolling or has no clue about tennis

Hewitt won when there were no good players around. Sampras and Agassi were getting old and Big 4 hadn't emerged.

2002 Wimbledon Championships

Agassi, Federer and Sampras lost in the second round. Federer lost in the first round.

Quarter finals
Hewitt, Sjeng Schalken, Tim Henman, André Sá, Xavier Malisse, Richard Krajicek, David Nalbandian, Nicolás Lapentti

Truly the golden age of tennis.
 
pvo10 said:
Not sure if OP is trolling or has no clue about tennis

Hewitt won when there were no good players around. Sampras and Agassi were getting old and Big 4 hadn't emerged.

2002 Wimbledon Championships

Agassi, Federer and Sampras lost in the second round. Federer lost in the first round.

Quarter finals
Hewitt, Sjeng Schalken, Tim Henman, André Sá, Xavier Malisse, Richard Krajicek, David Nalbandian, Nicolás Lapentti

Truly the golden age of tennis.
Click to expand...
You know nothing about tennis, get out of the thread.
 
Noleberic123 said:
Yeah for me murray is ahead slightly even now. This AO title if he were to win would seal it.
Click to expand...
For sure. This final is pivotal in his rise back up the rankings, something Hewitt could never achieve again after injury. So edge goes to Murray for that too.
 
And Murray beat Janowicz in the Semis. Didnt Kubot makes the QFs that year. Golden age LOL

Murray would have got time #1 in Hewitt's time. The Olympic Gold also redressed the WTF imbalance partially. However lets not forget Murray might not have been so good on the 'faster' courts. While itwas Fed who denied LH a few more finals. But

Andrew it is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
King Fed WW said:
And Murray beat Janowicz in the Semis. Didnt Kubot makes the QFs that year. Golden age LOL
Click to expand...
Krajicek is a Wimbledon winner too, I'm sure pvo10 wouldn't know that because their age is the number in their username.

Lapentti was a good grass player also, having him in a QF doesn't mean it's "weak".

Schalken, Malisse and Henman were also good grass players, getting their highest ranking from their run that Wimbledon.
 
Noleberic123 said:
I don't know looking at the slams from 2008-present which ones could he have won do you think?
Click to expand...

It doesn't always work like that though. Imagine sticking Murray into Hewitt's era age for age. Murray developed early and had a high level of game by 2008 and was producing peak levels of form by 2010, but he wasn't a winner like Hewitt was. It's not guaranteed that Murray would have won as much as Hewitt did in his glory days because Murray needed a long time to really learn how to deal with the pressure of Slam finals and needed a long time to believe in himself as a winner at the very highest level.
 
Nathaniel_Near said:
It doesn't always work like that though. Imagine sticking Murray into Hewitt's era age for age. Murray developed early and had a high level of game by 2008 and was producing peak levels of form by 2010, but he wasn't a winner like Hewitt was. It's not guaranteed that Murray would have won as much as Hewitt did in his glory days because Murray needed a long time to really learn how to deal with the pressure of Slam finals and needed a long time to believe in himself as a winner at the very highest level.
Click to expand...

I definitely agree murray doesnt have the champions mentality like Hewitt does. But i disagree that murray 2012-2013 wouldn't have won the same slams as Hewitt. Possibly even more than Hewitt. I mean murray in 2012-2013 beat djokovic in two finals and Federer in one. You need to have some serious mental strength and belief to accomplish that. And i also disagree in how you stated that murray was showing peak levels of form in 2010. I never saw peak murray until 2012 AO. Which IMO stands to this day as the best match he has ever played against djokovic.
 
Noleberic123 said:
I definitely agree murray doesnt have the champions mentality like Hewitt does. But i disagree that murray 2012-2013 wouldn't have won the same slams as Hewitt. Possibly even more than Hewitt. I mean murray in 2012-2013 beat djokovic in two finals and Federer in one. You need to have some serious mental strength and belief to accomplish that. And i also disagree in how you stated that murray was showing peak levels of form in 2010. I never saw peak murray until 2012 AO. Which IMO stands to this day as the best match he has ever played against djokovic.
Click to expand...
If we go by an age to age comparison, he wouldn't have had a chance to add more because peak Federer was around. In 2001-2002, I don't know if he'd win more, probably about the same I think. Hewitt did have to take down Sampras for his USO win.
 
Noleberic123 said:
Look if cilic could win a slam in this generation, then im not going to deny Hewitt could have won 2.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

I'm not a believer of the whole "peak Cilic would beat peak Djokovic or peak Federer" deal. I think he lucked out a little, and in many other eras he wouldn't have a slam.
 
Comparing how Hewitt or Murray would have done if they switched places historically is quite a hopeless venture. However, comparing their stats is fine, and I would personally rate Murray a bit ahead if he wins on sunday. But I do think 80 weeks at numero uno is a big thing too, though.
 
Sysyphus said:
Comparing how Hewitt or Murray would have done if they switched places historically is quite a hopeless venture. However, comparing their stats is fine, and I would personally rate Murray a bit ahead if he wins on sunday. But I do think 80 weeks at numero uno is a big thing too, though.
Click to expand...

Worth two slams IMO.
 
pvo10 said:
Not sure if OP is trolling or has no clue about tennis

Hewitt won when there were no good players around. Sampras and Agassi were getting old and Big 4 hadn't emerged.

2002 Wimbledon Championships

Agassi, Federer and Sampras lost in the second round. Federer lost in the first round.

Quarter finals
Hewitt, Sjeng Schalken, Tim Henman, André Sá, Xavier Malisse, Richard Krajicek, David Nalbandian, Nicolás Lapentti

Truly the golden age of tennis.
Click to expand...

Oh look, a green hater. :neutral:
 
Noleberic123 said:
I definitely agree murray doesnt have the champions mentality like Hewitt does. But i disagree that murray 2012-2013 wouldn't have won the same slams as Hewitt. Possibly even more than Hewitt. I mean murray in 2012-2013 beat djokovic in two finals and Federer in one. You need to have some serious mental strength and belief to accomplish that. And i also disagree in how you stated that murray was showing peak levels of form in 2010. I never saw peak murray until 2012 AO. Which IMO stands to this day as the best match he has ever played against djokovic.
Click to expand...

Murray of 2012-13 should definitely achieve highly in Hewitt's winning time-frame but he was already in his mid 20's by that point. Hewitt probably produced his best stuff around about 04/05 and was halted by a Roger with maximum momentum and exuberance. After this period, Hewitt never really retained his peak form again, so Murray will probably have Hewitt beat for longevity, consistency and fitness, but if you take Murray back to that period where Federer was a wrecking ball, I'm not entirely sure how much success he'd have.

On a fundamental level:

Murray is capable of good results playing in faster conditions and slower conditions whereas...

Hewitt's capacity to succeed in the slower tour conditions is more questionable, therefore...

Murray is probably slightly greater than Hewitt, and will extend the gap further.
 
Noleberic123 said:
that's true. But Hewitt wouldn't be number 1 either if he had to play djokovic and nadal in their prime.
Click to expand...

And in 15-20 years time, we will be saying the same about these players now. Everything changes, be it technology, training methods, nutrition, humanity, and genetics. Everything changes.

Except a champion's ability to adapt, whatever the circumstances.

I think too many people forget this fact.
 
Hewitt has 80 weeks as No.1 as well as two YE No.1s (+ 2 WTF titles) to his advantage.

Murray has 7 more masters 1000 titles, 4 more slam finals (and maybe one title more, come Sunday).

Even if Murray wins his 3rd slam on Sunday, there won't be a huge difference between them.
 
gregor.b said:
And in 15-20 years time, we will be saying the same about these players now. Everything changes, be it technology, training methods, nutrition, humanity, and genetics. Everything changes.

Except a champion's ability to adapt, whatever the circumstances.

I think too many people forget this fact.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Hewitt was a great champion! Murray, mental struggles most of the time.
 
Sabratha said:
Krajicek is a Wimbledon winner too, I'm sure pvo10 wouldn't know that because their age is the number in their username.

Lapentti was a good grass player also, having him in a QF doesn't mean it's "weak".

Schalken, Malisse and Henman were also good grass players, getting their highest ranking from their run that Wimbledon.
Click to expand...

'Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.'
 
It's probably true that Hewitt wouldn't have been no.1 if his prime period coincided with Murray/Djokovic/Nadal, because the results that they (particularly Djokovic) produced were too consistent.

Only using numbers to distinguish between players is quite hollow and isn't actually objective at all -- that's a fallacy. It's just a simplistic cop-out and laziness.

Ultimately though it just doesn't matter much.

Context matters and numbers and statistics are arrived to and created through entirely subjective and variable happenings.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gerrysbland said:
How would you rate the careers of Hewitt vs Murray if Murray wins his 3rd slam this weekend.

Hewitt would have 1 less slam but 2 YE#1s vs Murray who hasn't even spent a single week there, plus 2 WTF titles. Murray would have the extra slam, many more Masters, and the Olympic Gold. So it would be close. I think right now you have to say Hewitt is clearly ahead while both have 2 slams.
Click to expand...

If Murray wins his 3rd slam this weekend I'd have him equal with Hewitt in achievements. I know most people on these boards only care about the majors and nothing else but you can't just write off 2 WTFs and 80 weeks at #1 and I say that as someone who was far from being a Hewitt fan.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
If Murray wins his 3rd slam this weekend I'd have him equal with Hewitt in achievements. I know most people on these boards only care about the majors and nothing else but you can't just write off 2 WTFs and 80 weeks at #1 and I say that as someone who was far from being a Hewitt fan.
Click to expand...

I think that is a reasonable position.

Murray still has the hole of not being #1 at all.
I think the 80 weeks part is a bit more trivial in this particular comparison, though.
 
gregor.b said:
And in 15-20 years time, we will be saying the same about these players now. Everything changes, be it technology, training methods, nutrition, humanity, and genetics. Everything changes.

Except a champion's ability to adapt, whatever the circumstances.

I think too many people forget this fact.
Click to expand...

then we might as well say you can compare 2014 djokovic to Federer 2004. i think because this was recent we can compare. But you cant compare djokovic to borg for example.
 
pvo10 said:
'Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.'
Click to expand...

pvo10
New User

Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 29

As a more established poster than you or I would say, have several seats.
 
Rusty has been #1, something the Muzzard doesn't seem to care about. I think he's wrong. Rusty peaked at an earlier age than some of his peers, notably that Swiss dude. That worked heavily in his favour in terms of early accomplishments.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
80 weeks at #1 is trivial?! Surely you jest?
Click to expand...

Of course it is not trivial in general terms, but I think that stat is more relevant when comparing between folks who have all been #1 at least at some point.

Having been #1 at all vs. not having been >>>>> Having more #1 weeks than someone else who has still been #1.

:)
 
I love both players, Hewitt was the reason I became a tennis fan back in 2001 when he beat Sampras at the USO.

Muzz is one of my current favorites players.

Having said this, I still consider that, even tho Murray gets his 3th GS this weekend, he still has a long road to go before he catches Hewitt in terms of greatness and achievements.

Yes, Hewitt had MUCH LESS competitition, we all know that, but that's not an aspect that remain written in the books of tennis.
 
Last edited:
By only looking at the numbers, one can forget how they got there in the first place.
 
TommyA8X said:
Hewitt has 80 weeks as No.1 as well as two YE No.1s (+ 2 WTF titles) to his advantage.

Murray has 7 more masters 1000 titles, 4 more slam finals (and maybe one title more, come Sunday).

Even if Murray wins his 3rd slam on Sunday, there won't be a huge difference between them.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. It is marginally in favor of Andy.

Hewitt playing as a journeymen is discoloring our opinion of him. But make no mistake, he is same level as Murray.
 
Emiliano55 said:
I love both players, Hewitt was the reason I became a tennis fan back in 2001 when he beat Sampras at the USO.

Muzz is one of my current favorites players.

Having said this, I still consider that, even tho Murray gets his 3th GS this weekend, he still has a long road to go before he catches Hewitt in terms of greatness and achievements.
Click to expand...

Nope, a 3rd Slam would definitely put Murray above Hewitt in terms of achievement, albeit not by much.
 
Mainad said:
Nope, a 3rd Slam would definitely put Murray above Hewitt in terms of achievement, albeit not by much.
Click to expand...
He would be a Courier level player, not a Hewitt level player if he won a 3rd slam in my opinion..
 
Mainad said:
Nope, a 3rd Slam would definitely put Murray above Hewitt in terms of achievement, albeit not by much.
Click to expand...

I don't think so Mainad though I get the impression you're a bit like cc0 in that it's all about the slams for you? Personally I've never subscribed to this way of thinking.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
I don't think so Mainad though I get the impression you're a bit like cc0 in that it's all about the slams for you? Personally I've never subscribed to this way of thinking.
Click to expand...

I think so, honestly. Given all the other things Murray achieved ie. the 9 Masters titles, the OSG and greater number of Slam finals, it more or less balances out the other things Hewitt achieved ie. 2 WTFs and 2 Masters and the number 1 ranking.

Whilst I agree it's not all about the Slams, they are nevertheless the peak achievement in tennis and to have won more of them than someone else in combination with other achievements gives one the advantage IMO.

The number 1 ranking is all very fine and worthy but without the biggest events in tennis to back it up it is a bit of a hollow achievement. Just ask Rios, Wozniacki, Safina and Jankovic!
 
Mainad said:
I think so, honestly. Given all the other things Murray achieved ie. the 9 Masters titles, the OSG and greater number of Slam finals, it more or less balances out the other things Hewitt achieved ie. 2 WTFs and 2 Masters and the number 1 ranking.

Whilst I agree it's not all about the Slams, they are nevertheless the peak achievement in tennis and to have won more of them than someone else in combination with other achievements gives one the advantage IMO.

The number 1 ranking is all very fine and worthy but without the biggest events in tennis to back it up it is a bit of a hollow achievement. Just ask Rios, Wozniacki, Safina and Jankovic!
Click to expand...
I wouldn't go that far, Hewitt wasn't some weak #1 player. He always held a slam every week he ranked #1 in the world.. And the two years he ended No. 1, he won the Masters Cup, along with a Masters title in 2002 and 2003, with finals coming in many different years (even as a teenager in 2000 he made a Masters final).

I do agree that 3 slams would put a marginal gap between them, but as it stands right now, I'd only slightly favor Murray.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
  • Poll Poll
Hewitt vs Murray now
Replies
29
Views
3K
powerangle
powerangle
M
How do Murray and Hewitt compare
2
Replies
83
Views
4K
LoboLaw1984
L
powerangle
  • Poll Poll
Who currently is "greater"? Hewitt or Murray?
5 6 7
Replies
344
Views
25K
Deleted member 307496
D
V
  • Poll Poll
Kuerten vs Murray vs Hewitt
2 3
Replies
116
Views
8K
Deleted member 307496
D
NatF
  • Poll Poll
Better on clay: Hewitt or Murray?
Replies
29
Views
4K
Deleted member 307496
D
Back
Top