Hewitt vs Murray if Murray wins 3rd slam this weekend

[6-3 6-0]

I agree with Sabratha. He will be ahead of Hewitt if he wins on Sunday, but that's an if. As it stands now, they are dead equal IMO.

 

[Mainad]

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.

Actually, as it stands right now, I slightly favour Hewitt because of the number 1 ranking. I just think an extra Slam would give the edge to Murray!

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Actually, as it stands right now, I slightly favour Hewitt because of the number 1 ranking. I just think an extra Slam would give the edge to Murray!

I think an extra slam would give the huge advantage to Murray actually. 8 Grand Slam finals is nothing to laugh about, and it's the main reason I put Murray ahead of Hewitt - plus his longevity at the top of the sport.

 

[TMF]

Biased

Nope, a 3rd Slam would definitely put Murray above Hewitt in terms of achievement, albeit not by much.

Have you taken a page out of THUNDERVOLLEY'S book ?

You just can't say 3>2 and it's all said and done. There's more to tennis achievement than just the slams that they have won. Hewitt spent 80 weeks at #1, 2 WTF, and 2 Year End #1. Something that Murray is dying to achieve!

 

[adil1972]

nothing beats CYGS and slam count, who cares about YE#1 and weeks as no. 1

 

[zep]

Look if cilic could win a slam in this generation, then im not going to deny Hewitt could have won 2.

Are you kidding? Did you see how well Cilic played? Blasted everyone off the court. Hewitt can't play like that even in his dreams.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Are you kidding? Did you see how well Cilic played? Blasted everyone off the court. Hewitt can't play like that even in his dreams.

Go away. (10littlezeps).

 

[Noleberic123]

Are you kidding? Did you see how well Cilic played? Blasted everyone off the court. Hewitt can't play like that even in his dreams.

no I actually im not kidding. Hewitt is a greater champion than cilic. im not going to doubt him

 

[Gary Duane]

That's some great advice I should take.

We all should!

 

[Gary Duane]

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.

I think it's reasonable to compare 2006 Fed with 2011 Novak, for instance, and I'd say for those years they were pretty equal!

 

[Gary Duane]

2,814 posts in less than a year. If you spent as much time on the court as you do the forums, you might know something about tennis.

You won't be here long. Your mouth is too big.

 

[Noleberic123]

I think it's reasonable to compare 2006 Fed with 2011 Novak, for instance, and I'd say for those years they were pretty equal!

Peak fed and peak novak are pretty equal. but fed was able to sustain it for a long period of time which makes him the better tennis player.

 

[Gary Duane]

no I actually im not kidding. Hewitt is a greater champion than cilic. im not going to doubt him

Cilic to me is a perfect example of a one slam wonder. Until he does something else really impressive, to me he is just an asterisk.

 

[Gary Duane]

Peak fed and peak novak are pretty equal. but fed was able to sustain it for a long period of time which makes him the better tennis player.

So far, absolutely. But if by some chance he pulls off another 3 slam year - say this one - I think we need to reconsider a bit.

Fed's three years of three slams remains pretty much a topper though!

 

[Noleberic123]

Cilic to me is a perfect example of a one slam wonder. Until he does something else really impressive, to me he is just an asterisk.

Exactly!! He wont do anything else impressive

 

[Noleberic123]

So far, absolutely. But if by some chance he pulls off another 3 slam year - say this one - I think we need to reconsider a bit.

Fed's three years of three slams remains pretty much a topper though!

The only way I will reconsider is if nole wins the CYGS this year.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

In regard to 2011 Djokovic VS 2006 Federer, I give the slight edge to Federer due to the WTF and slightly more impressive W/L record. If Novak had won the WTF, they'd be equal though.

 

[Noleberic123]

In regard to 2011 Djokovic VS 2006 Federer, I give the slight edge to Federer due to the WTF and slightly more impressive W/L record. If Novak had won the WTF, they'd be equal though.

We are talking about their peak form during those years though.

 

[NatF]

Murray would be greater. Not a landslide though IMO. I still think their levels of play are similar.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

The only thing Hewitt would have over muzz is that he was the dominant player in the world at a time. Murray has never been that.

 

[NatF]

The only thing Hewitt would have over muzz is that he was the dominant player in the world at a time. Murray has never been that.

Being the YE #1 (at 20 years old no less) is a big achievement. It evens out the things Muray has over him at the moment IMO.

Once Murray wins a third slam the difference between them will be roughly the same as a 2 slam winner vs 3 slam winner with comparable other achievements IMO.

 

[BGod]

At his best, Hewitt beats Murray 8, maybe 9 times out of 10.

Overall careers? It's easier to be consistent these days with the surfaces meshing together but I suppose I'd take Murray.

 

[Djokovic2011]

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!

But with regards to the last part of your post, Hewitt wasn't like Rios, Wozniacki, Safina and Jankovic. He did actually win slams!

 

[Djokovic2011]

Actually, as it stands right now, I slightly favour Hewitt because of the number 1 ranking. I just think an extra Slam would give the edge to Murray!

Out of interest Mainad who do you think the greater player is in this scenario?:

Player A has 2 slams, 2 finals, 3 WTFs, 10 Masters 1000s and at least a year at #1.

Player B has 3 slams, 5 finals, 0 WTFs, 5 Masters 1000s and zero weeks at #1

Be interested to hear your thoughts. :smile:

 

[cc0509]

A third slam win for Murray would put him ahead of Hewitt despite Hewitt's better number one stats and 2 WTF titles IMO. It would be very close between them but that extra slam bumps Murray up for me.

 

[Djokovic2011]

A third slam win for Murray would put him ahead of Hewitt despite Hewitt's better number one stats and 2 WTF titles IMO. It would be very close between them but that extra slam bumps Murray up for me.

Quelle surprise!!

 

[Djokovic2011]

I think Murray winning a fourth slam will give him a clear edge over Hewitt but three isn't really enough when taking into account Hewitt's other stats(WTFs, weeks at #1). The majors aren't the only four tournaments that get played throughout the year and they never will be.

 

[Mainad]

Out of interest Mainad who do you think the greater player is in this scenario?:

Player A has 2 slams, 2 finals, 3 WTFs, 10 Masters 1000s and at least a year at #1.

Player B has 3 slams, 5 finals, 0 WTFs, 5 Masters 1000s and zero weeks at #1

Be interested to hear your thoughts. :smile:

IMO I would call this one a tie. Player A's poorer Slam record but better overall performance on tour plus the #1 ranking balances out Player B's better Slam record but less impressive overall performance on tour.

 

[sliceroni]

Peak fed and peak novak are pretty equal. but fed was able to sustain it for a long period of time which makes him the better tennis player.

True. But not on the faster grass courts.

 

[Soul_Evisceration]

2,814 posts in less than a year. If you spent as much time on the court as you do the forums, you might know something about tennis.

Well you know nothing about tennis so I suggest you shut the **** up.

 

[gerrysbland]

Murray would be ahead by a considerable margin.. I'd argue he'd be ahead even now with this extra slam final even.

That is silly. Are you forgetting Hewitt has 2 YE#1s (vs Murray who hasn't spent a single week there), and 2 YEC (way below a slam, but still the biggest non slam event and comparing two 2 slam winners or potentially a 2 and 3 slam winner). Even if Hewitt would be ahead if Murray wins it would be just barely, and there is no way he could be ahead now. There is no head to head history between them, well not of the meaningful kind, to bring into the discussion either unlike say Federer vs Nadal.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

2,814 posts in less than a year. If you spent as much time on the court as you do the forums, you might know something about tennis.

If by that you mean knowing as much as you seem to, I think I will stick to the forums.

 

[zep]

no I actually im not kidding. Hewitt is a greater champion than cilic. im not going to doubt him

It is not about being a greater champion. That is quite obvious. But take the USO title away, Ferrer has had a much better career than Cilic. If you look at the players who have managed to win slams outside the big 4 in the last 7-8 years--be it Del Potro, Wawrinka or Cilic, they have one thing in common. They all have the firepower to beat anyone on their day. They clicked for a fortnight and managed to win a slam. Hewitt did not have it. His game would not hold up.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

It is not about being a greater champion. That is quite obvious. But take the USO title away, Ferrer has had a much better career than Cilic. If you look at the players who have managed to win slams outside the big 4 in the last 7-8 years--be it Del Potro, Wawrinka or Cilic, they have one thing in common. They all have the firepower to beat anyone on their day. They clicked for a fortnight and managed to win a slam. Hewitt did not have it. His game would not hold up.

According to a 16-year-old kid called zep his game wouldn't hold up. "It's an opinion, we're all entitled to it". You just prove you're a complete noob with statements like that. No firepower? Unlike what you think, Hewitt was no Ferrer and when you were about 3 years old in 2005, he showed a whole lot of it.

Now get out of here.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

That is silly. Are you forgetting Hewitt has 2 YE#1s (vs Murray who hasn't spent a single week there), and 2 YEC (way below a slam, but still the biggest non slam event and comparing two 2 slam winners or potentially a 2 and 3 slam winner). Even if Hewitt would be ahead if Murray wins it would be just barely, and there is no way he could be ahead now. There is no head to head history between them, well not of the meaningful kind, to bring into the discussion either unlike say Federer vs Nadal.

I value his 8 Grand Slam finals over Hewitt's 4, that's the main difference.

 

[gerrysbland]

Actually that is a good point. I had totally forgotten Murray was in so many slam finals. Maybe since his performances in most of them sucked so much you forgot he was there so often, but crappy final performances or not he still made those finals. I now take back my original stance. Murray is definitely above Hewitt with his 3rd slam. Still not sure if he is yet for me though, if he loses.

 

[sundaypunch]

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.

Federer was so bad in this tournament, he actually lost twice.

 

[forehand fan]

every one in this board have a habit of double counting. you can't say hewitt ha 2 slams 2 wtfs and 2 ye no 1 s. it's either 2 ye no 1's or 2 slams and 2 wtfs. as the points from slams and wtfs contrbuted to him being world no 1.as for the question murray already for me. both has 2 slams. hewitt has 2 wtfs more than murray while murray has 7 more masters and osg. i think they more than make up for 2 wtfs

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Federer was so bad in this tournament, he actually lost twice.

LOL

10 lol's

 

[zep]

According to a 16-year-old kid called zep his game wouldn't hold up. "It's an opinion, we're all entitled to it". You just prove you're a complete noob with statements like that. No firepower? Unlike what you think, Hewitt was no Ferrer and when you were about 3 years old in 2005, he showed a whole lot of it.

Now get out of here.

Hey *****hole, would you ever stop stalking me? Didn't you put me in ignore list? What a creepy old fart.

 

[Vcore89]

I really think Murray's gonna bag this one (no disrespect for Nole but...) yet I don't think Hewitt can be dismissed as lesser to Murray (assumning he wins AO 2015)...just imagine Hewitt's Davis Cup commitments...speaks volumes!

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Hey *****hole, would you ever stop stalking me? Didn't you put me in ignore list? What a creepy old fart.

If you ever stop putting crap on Hewitt, kiddo, I'd stop stalking you. But you make it your duty to make stupid posts, so..

 

[timnz]

Nope

that's true. But Hewitt wouldn't be number 1 either if he had to play djokovic and nadal in their prime.

And yet Hewitt regularly took sets off Djokovic since Hewitt has been 5 to 10 years past his prime with busted toes with metal in them and other injuries. I don't have any problem with believing peak Hewitt could win matches against Djokovic. Case in example - Olympics 2012 - 31 year old Hewitt takes first set off Djokovic then pushes Djokovic to 5-7 in the next set. Do we really think 2012 Hewitt was as good as 2001 to 2005 Hewitt? Djokovic is a better player for sure....but not as far ahead as you are indicating.