How do Murray and Hewitt compare

[mattosgrant]

Generally speaking how would you compare the two at this point. I think they are clearly the 2 best 2 slam only winners ever. Both have some huge advantages over the other. Hewitt has two straight YE#1s while Murray hasnt even spent a week there. Yet Murray has 8 slam finals I believe, which is pretty amazing (Hewitt has 4). Murray has something like 10 Masters vs only 2 for Hewitt. Hewitt though has 2 YEC. Murray has the Olympic Gold.

A really subjective comparision. I might go slightly with Murray just because 8 additional Masters and 4 additional slam finals could overcome some time at #1 and 2 YEC, but it is very close.

As for comparing their competition, while I dont think 2001-2003 was super weak like some, it also lacked anyone of even say Djokovic's caliber to contend with and for years Murray had prime Nadal, a formidable (even if not totally prime Federer), and Djokovic, even if not so much the last year or two. Hewitt was stopped from chances often by a totally peak Federer in 04-05. I would say overall Murray had it tougher as far as competition though, for whatever that is worth (I evaluate achievements and perhaps subjective views on level of play before competition generally).

 

[ibbi]

If Murray had come up in that transitional period when Hewitt did he'd probably have won more than 2 slams.

 

[mattosgrant]

If Murray had come up in that transitional period when Hewitt did he'd probably have won more than 2 slams.

I agree he probably would, but that wasnt as weak a period as some say it is. Well 2002 was pretty weak. 2001 and 2003 were both pretty good years. Agassi was good those years. Sampras was good at the U.S Open, even if nowhere else. Rafter was pretty good in 2001. Kuerten was pretty good in 2001. I am struggling to even think of a 3rd person besides Hewitt and Agassi for 2002 though; 2002 for sure was weak. I guess Haas (someone who was never in a million years winning a major) was 3rd best of 2002 probably.

 

[Mainad]

As things stand, I give the edge to Hewitt because he achieved the number #1 ranking.

 

[NatF]

If Murray had come up in that transitional period when Hewitt did he'd probably have won more than 2 slams.

Not if he was 20-21 years old like Hewitt was in that period...Something people forget when they judge Hewitt is that he was still developing when he won those slams.

 

[mattosgrant]

Not if he was 20-21 years old like Hewitt was in that period...Something people forget when they judge Hewitt is that he was still developing when he won those slams.

That is the thing though. Do we assume someone is the exact same age, or their primes (which for Murray would be a somewhat later age) happen to coincide at the same time, even if it means one being older. That is another complication of those kind of hypotheticals.

You are right that Murray being born the same day wouldnt work out, as he wasnt that good yet at 20 or 21, and then he would be coming into his prime at the same time as Federer which wouldnt work out for him when he couldnt even beat old Federer in slams for the longest time.

 

[ibbi]

Not if he was 20-21 years old like Hewitt was in that period...Something people forget when they judge Hewitt is that he was still developing when he won those slams.

Sure, you're right. Murray's a late bloomer, and Hewitt a very early one. I was talking more generally. There's not much doubt for me that Murray's best is better than Lleyton's.

 

[mattosgrant]

People say they are similar but I dont see them as all that similar in playing styles. Both are excellent defensive players and very consistent. Both return very well. Murray has alot more variety though, and more creativity in his game. He often doesnt know how to use it properly though. Hewitt is mentally alot tougher, and by a huge margin in fact. Murray is capable of more power off various shots, but has a tendency to not use it and play too defensively. So they are similar in some respects, but also pretty different.

 

[Mainad]

People say they are similar but I dont see them as all that similar in playing styles. Both are excellent defensive players and very consistent. Both return very well. Murray has alot more variety though, and more creativity in his game. He often doesnt know how to use it properly though. Hewitt is mentally alot tougher, and by a huge margin in fact. Murray is capable of more power off various shots, but has a tendency to not use it and play too defensively. So they are similar in some respects, but also pretty different.

I've heard quite a few people say that, but what does it mean exactly? After all, Murray has won more big titles, won the same number of Slams but been in twice as many Slam finals. In what way is Hewitt mentally tougher?

 

[NatF]

Sure, you're right. Murray's a late bloomer, and Hewitt a very early one. I was talking more generally. There's not much doubt for me that Murray's best is better than Lleyton's.

I think Hewitt's best was in 04-05 before he got injured - I think it was comparable to Murray's personally, he was just more unfortunate with injuries.

But many share your opinion.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Hewitt doesn't get the respect he deserves. I never liked him or his style of play but he beat Sampras at the USO, which earns him great kudos. Rafa fans tend to dismiss Hewitt because they are eager to promote the "Fed dominated a weak era" argument. There was nothing weak about Hewitt, he was mentally strong, extremely fast and for a couple of years, he was a great player.

Obviously Hewitt was mentally stronger than Murray, he didn't lose his first 4 slams and fought for every match. He never grabbed his thigh when things were going against him, he didn't fake injuries and he didn't look up at his box screaming obscenities every .07 seconds, as Muzz does. He didn't fold in matches he should have won, as Murray has done many times early in his career.

You also have to look at the differences in their physiques and see that Murray has a tremendous advantage here. Hewitt is 5'11 (if that) and Muzz is 6'3 and a physical beast with legs like a sequoia. It's like comparing a heavyweight to a welterweight.

 

[ibbi]

I think Hewitt's best was in 04-05 before he got injured - I think it was comparable to Murray's personally, he was just more unfortunate with injuries.

But many share your opinion.

Well, I wouldn't disagree with the notion that he had become a more well rounded player by that point. He certainly had a far more complete game, with a serve that was a genuine weapon for him, but I think the people in this thread bemoaning Hewitt's underrated status are being pretty harsh on Murray. Hewitt had it hard enough dealing with Federer and Roddick, Murray's having to deal with Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic seems more than a little bit tougher a task, and the amount of times he's seen tournaments end at the hands of those three and those three alone is more than equal to Hewitt's repeated despatching by his two rivals.

Hell, forget the fact that they have two grand slams apiece, and look at their respective records at Masters 1000 level.

 

[mattosgrant]

I've heard quite a few people say that, but what does it mean exactly? After all, Murray has won more big titles, won the same number of Slams but been in twice as many Slam finals. In what way is Hewitt mentally tougher?

Hewitt is without question one of the mentally toughest players of all time. He is on par with someone like Nadal in that category (and I dont think I need to explain Murray wouldnt be anywhere near someone like Nadal in that category).

Murray isnt neccessarily mentally weak, but not super strong either. As you mentioned he is 2-6 in slam finals, and his play in all the losses except Wimbledon 2012 to Federer was average to below for his standard. The first 3 he played very poorly in. Some consider him an underachiever, and you are generally never an underachiever if you are mentally particularly tough (unless you are injury proned or lazy).

 

[Mainad]

Hewitt doesn't get the respect he deserves. I never liked him or his style of play but he beat Sampras at the USO, which earns him great kudos. Rafa fans tend to dismiss Hewitt because they are eager to promote the "Fed dominated a weak era" argument. There was nothing weak about Hewitt, he was mentally strong, extremely fast and for a couple of years, he was a great player.

Completely agree. Pity you don't afford Murray the same kind of respect!

Obviously Hewitt was mentally stronger than Murray, he didn't lose his first 4 slams and fought for every match. He never grabbed his thigh when things were going against him, he didn't fake injuries and he didn't look up at his box screaming obscenities every .07 seconds, as Muzz does. He didn't fold in matches he should have won, as Murray has done many times early in his career.

He only made 4 Slam finals. Murray made 8. As for his on-court behaviour...you have seriously got to be kidding me! He was hated by practically all the other players on tour when he was at his peak. He regularly fought and argued with umpires, linesmen, other players and once got accused of racism. His off-colour language would have made a docker blush! Murray is an absolute saint by comparison!

You also have to look at the differences in their physiques and see that Murray has a tremendous advantage here. Hewitt is 5'11 (if that) and Muzz is 6'3 and a physical beast with legs like a sequoia. It's like comparing a heavyweight to a welterweight.

What's that got to do with anything? Murray still had to undergo back surgery at the height of his prime. Not as severe as Hewitt's injuries but severe enough to virtually lose a year of his prime career! He knows what it's like to get injured!

 

[West Coast Ace]

Murray - taller, better career.

Hewitt - more weeks at number 1, much hotter wife.

 

[MarcusInKensington]

No contest - Murray.

Hewitt is the 2nd biggest beneficiary of the transitional era. If Murray had been in his prime during the early 2000s we would be talking about him in the top 5 of all time in terms of slam and tournament results.

Plus, Hewitt is Australian, which really counts against him.

 

[bjsnider]

Murray already has more titles and many more major finals. Murray has played in a more difficult era than Hewitt, and had better results than Hewitt against, for example, Federer. Murray is bigger, stronger, much better serve, much better return, probably does everything better than Hewitt ever did. I think Murray's best game straight sets Hewitt's best game on any surface.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Murray ...probably does everything better than Hewitt...

Except compete when things get tough in the later rounds of majors.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

If Murray had come up in that transitional period when Hewitt did he'd probably have won more than 2 slams.

Yeah..

Murray has a transitional period right now and he's at his peak. He still hasn't added to his tally.

On the other hand peak Hewitt would have won 1 or 2 more majors if Federer weren't playing. That includes hypothetical victories over Nadal and Djokovic, because they aren't Federer and I believe peak Hewitt would get them at least once each.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Murray already has more titles and many more major finals. Murray has played in a more difficult era than Hewitt, and had better results than Hewitt against, for example, Federer. Murray is bigger, stronger, much better serve, much better return, probably does everything better than Hewitt ever did. I think Murray's best game straight sets Hewitt's best game on any surface.

He has better results against Federer? Says who?

Hewitt has a 9-18 H2H with Federer, and Murray has an 11-12 H2H with Federer.. And despite playing against absolute peak Federer, Hewitt still has a decent H2H record against him.

Meanwhile Murray had to wait for Federer to decline a little before reaping the benefits.

I like Murray and all, but he just isn't as good as a lot of members here make out (at least it isn't BFT level though).

 

[Mainad]

He has better results against Federer? Says who?

Hewitt has a 9-18 H2H with Federer, and Murray has an 11-12 H2H with Federer.. And despite playing against absolute peak Federer, Hewitt still has a decent H2H record against him.

Meanwhile Murray had to wait for Federer to decline a little before reaping the benefits.

Don't forget that Murray recorded his first win against Federer in 2006 when Federer was at his absolute peak!

I like Murray and all, but he just isn't as good as a lot of members here make out (at least it isn't BFT level though).

You're doing it again and trying to knock down Murray in order to build up Hewitt. Why do you persistently need to do this? The fact remains that they are more or less level in achievement except that Hewitt currently has the the edge with the #1 ranking.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Don't forget that Murray recorded his first win against Federer in 2006 when Federer was at his absolute peak!

Hewitt defeated prime Federer too. 2003 Davis Cup ring any bells?

Or how about the 2002 Masters Cup? Federer played about as well as he did during their 2003 Davis Cup meeting and it went the distance; but Hewitt emerged victorious.

You're doing it again and trying to knock down Murray in order to build up Hewitt. Why do you persistently need to do this? The fact remains that they are more or less level in achievement except that Hewitt currently has the the edge with the #1 ranking.

I'm not knocking down Murray.. I am expressing my opinion. Just like a lot of people here think it is a joke to compare the two which I think is a bit silly..

 

[Mainad]

Hewitt defeated prime Federer too. 2003 Davis Cup ring any bells?

Or how about the 2002 Masters Cup? Federer played about as well as he did during their 2003 Davis Cup meeting and it went the distance; but Hewitt emerged victorious.

I'm not denying any of that but you implied that Murray had not been able to beat Federer at his peak!

I'm not knocking down Murray.. I am expressing my opinion. Just like a lot of people here think it is a joke to compare the two which I think is a bit silly..

I understand that and I agree with you but it is better to compare them both positively IMO rather than make negative comments about one of them in order to make your point about the other (although I hold my hands up and admit I've been a bit guilty of that myself at times).

 

[racquetreligion]

Hewitt mentally is many eons ahead of Muzza but in the last 5 years Hewitt with all his issues and lack of talent
is still stronger mentally but speed, power and agility are all but gone except in a few matches.
Hewitt would be hard pressed to keep up with todays pace of ball even if he was younger but would have
ranked in the top 10 like a Ferrer yet failed against the big guns most of the time.
Muzza is a mental midget but an exceptional athletic tennis player that could have won more slams
against a Sampras, Hewitt and Safin. Muzzas reflexes are second to none.

The thing is this argument is riddled with holes as all players peak and evolve according to the conditions
surrounding them including the style of their challengers. Courts, balls are one thing but players also all play
different, so they impart their own conditioning on each other to get to the top of the table.

Someone like Lendl would have dominated Murray both in their prime and back in Lendls era but
today a Lendl hitting a ball similar to Wawrinka/Federer/Nole combined would be even more lethal
with racquet/string technology and his amazing mental strength when he was a peak.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I'm not denying any of that but you implied that Murray had not been able to beat Federer at his peak!

Not at all.. Murray was always capable of beating Federer; it just became 'the usual' instead of the upset due to Federer declining later on.

I understand that and I agree with you but it is better to compare them both positively IMO rather than make negative comments about one of them in order to make your point about the other (although I hold my hands up and admit I've been a bit guilty of that myself at times).

When certain members on here (not going to name names) come by and rile things up a bit; opinions change. I have to give you kudos for being consistent in your own opinion though. I do agree achievements wise Hewitt has the edge, but in terms of ability I'd say they are on the same level. Murray may be a little better but not by a huge amount.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Hewitt mentally is many eons ahead of Muzza but in the last 5 years Hewitt with all his issues and lack of talent
is still stronger mentally but speed, power and agility are all but gone except in a few matches.
Hewitt would be hard pressed to keep up with todays pace of ball even if he was younger but would have
ranked in the top 10 like a Ferrer yet failed against the big guns most of the time.
Muzza is a mental midget but an exceptional athletic tennis player that could have won more slams
against a Sampras, Hewitt and Safin. Muzzas reflexes are second to none.

The thing is this argument is riddled with holes as all players peak and evolve according to the conditions
surrounding them including the style of their challengers. Courts, balls are one thing but players also all play
different, so they impart their own conditioning on each other to get to the top of the table.

Someone like Lendl would have dominated Murray both in their prime and back in Lendls era but
today a Lendl hitting a ball similar to Wawrinka/Federer/Nole combined would be even more lethal
with racquet/string technology and his amazing mental strength when he was a peak.

I don't get where this Ferrer comparison comes from.

Ferrer's record against Federer = 0.
Hewitt's = 9.

That there shows the difference in talent/potential..

 

[Wynter]

I've heard quite a few people say that, but what does it mean exactly? After all, Murray has won more big titles, won the same number of Slams but been in twice as many Slam finals. In what way is Hewitt mentally tougher?

I would say his capacity to accomplish what he did with less weapons. In essence Murray is slightly more talented, but in terms of actual accomplishments Hewitt slightly edges him with the #1 ranking, in my view.

In essence Hewitt was talented but more limited, Murray was less limited but Hewitt has still achieved more. On Slow Courts I'd favor Murray, Fast Courts was Hewitt's bread and butter though and they'd both be extremely competitive vs one another.

Mentally in matches, Murray has a tendency to get frustrated, Hewitt wasn't one to get frustrated but rather he'd be the one making the opponent frustrated. A lot of his comebacks started with him preying upon an opponents weakness once he identified it, I suppose in comparing the two, Hewitt was more vicious in matches, he really desired to win more than anybody and that was what often made the difference.

Hewitt had the mentality that enabled him to always want it more than the other player back in his prime, which is the biggest difference between the two I can identify.

 

[BGod]

I agree he probably would, but that wasnt as weak a period as some say it is. Well 2002 was pretty weak. 2001 and 2003 were both pretty good years. Agassi was good those years. Sampras was good at the U.S Open, even if nowhere else. Rafter was pretty good in 2001. Kuerten was pretty good in 2001. I am struggling to even think of a 3rd person besides Hewitt and Agassi for 2002 though; 2002 for sure was weak. I guess Haas (someone who was never in a million years winning a major) was 3rd best of 2002 probably.

Guys like Safin and Ferrero were in the Top 5 way ahead of Haas....Federer finished 2002 ranked #6.

To answer the OP, prime for prime it's always going to be Hewitt but Murray has had the better career with little question. More consistent deep runs at the Slams, losing 4 Finals to Djokovic and 2 to Federer. The #1 ranking doesn't cover all he's done when you throw in the Masters, etc.

 

[bjsnider]

He has better results against Federer? Says who?

Hewitt has a 9-18 H2H with Federer, and Murray has an 11-12 H2H with Federer..

You did, in your next sentence. I know it's popular on the interwebs for people to think opinions overrule facts, but they actually don't. I looked that up, and it's a thing. Facts are all.

 

[NatF]

I don't think Hewitt's supposed lack of power is as big a weakness as Murray's second serve.

 

[mattosgrant]

Yeah..

Murray has a transitional period right now and he's at his peak.

I would agree if Djokovic werent there. The fact Djokovic is there prevents this from being true.

 

[mattosgrant]

Guys like Safin and Ferrero were in the Top 5 way ahead of Haas

Ferrero was only a threat on clay (where Hewitt was a non factor) except for 2003. So the two arent really rivals are competition for each other. If they play on clay Ferrero waltzes, and off clay where Ferrero is a non threat Hewitt always wins apart from 1 win for Ferrero over badly slumping Hewitt at the 03 U.S Open. Hewitt vs Ferrero is the equivalent of say maybe Sampras vs Kuerten, but even Kuerten was more a threat off clay as his WTF (beating Sampras) and Cincinnati titles prove than Ferrero. Like Hewitt, Sampras was a virtual non factor on clay, so the extent of the whole basis (clay and more clay) of the formidability of Kuerten and Ferrero was irrelevant to both Sampras and Hewitt.

I dont remember the exact year end rankings of 2002. I do remember though that Haas spent alot of the year ranked 2nd or 3rd, even if he might have ended the year ranked lower that is where he spent much of the year. I also dont remember Safin being any kind of factor the rest of the year after the embarassing Australian Open final defeat.
I do remember Agassi and Haas being Hewitt's closest competition overall.

 

[base615]

Hewitt has more fight, Murray has more game.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

You did, in your next sentence. I know it's popular on the interwebs for people to think opinions overrule facts, but they actually don't. I looked that up, and it's a thing. Facts are all.

What facts? Hewitt has about the same amount of victories over Federer as Murray.. So they have about the same amount of success against Federer.. Nalbandian is also up there. These 3 are the players that have caused Federer the most damage on the tennis circuit apart from Djokovic and Nadal.

Only in your own world is 9 victories a far cry from 11, even given the circumstances..

 

[Djokovic2011]

I would agree if Djokovic werent there. The fact Djokovic is there prevents this from being true.

Sabratha will simply counter this by saying that Djokovic can only win one major a year which excludes him for being considered a dominant champion, hence the current transitional era. Book it.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Ferrero was only a threat on clay (where Hewitt was a non factor) except for 2003. So the two arent really rivals are competition for each other. If they play on clay Ferrero waltzes, and off clay where Ferrero is a non threat Hewitt always wins apart from 1 win for Ferrero over badly slumping Hewitt at the 03 U.S Open. Hewitt vs Ferrero is the equivalent of say maybe Sampras vs Kuerten, but even Kuerten was more a threat off clay as his WTF (beating Sampras) and Cincinnati titles prove than Ferrero. Like Hewitt, Sampras was a virtual non factor on clay, so the extent of the whole basis (clay and more clay) of the formidability of Kuerten and Ferrero was irrelevant to both Sampras and Hewitt.

I dont remember the exact year end rankings of 2002. I do remember though that Haas spent alot of the year ranked 2nd or 3rd, even if he might have ended the year ranked lower that is where he spent much of the year. I also dont remember Safin being any kind of factor the rest of the year after the embarassing Australian Open final defeat.
I do remember Agassi and Haas being Hewitt's closest competition overall.

There's nothing weak about Agassi, even 30+ Agassi.. He didn't win a GS tournament in 2002, but he ended the year as a strong #2 and with multiple Masters shields.

Safin was good also. He had a decent run at Wimbledon in 2002 too.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Sabratha will simply counter this by saying that Djokovic can only win one major a year which excludes him for being considered a dominant champion, hence the current transitional era. Book it.

He's a dominant #1 but he is not dominant anywhere apart from the AO. Even then he can be beaten if the conditions are right.. Roddick, Tsonga and Stan can attest to this.

 

[Djokovic2011]

He's a dominant #1 but he is not dominant anywhere apart from the AO. Even then he can be beaten if the conditions are right.. Roddick, Tsonga and Stan can attest to this.

2 of those 3 defeats came before 2011. And it's not just the AO where he's dominant, he's also won the last 3 WTFs.

 

[mattosgrant]

There's nothing weak about Agassi, even 30+ Agassi.. He didn't win a GS tournament in 2002, but he ended the year as a strong #2 and with multiple Masters shields.

Safin was good also. He had a decent run at Wimbledon in 2002 too.

I agree Agassi was very good at that point. However he was Hewitt's only real competition that year. I cant see Haas for instance as real competition for Hewitt. As I mentioned Ferrero is the clay man, and Hewitt the everything but clay man, so they dont match up other than Ferrero winning easily should they play on clay, and Hewitt always winning if they play anywhere else. I dont remember Safin either being much of a factor post Australia in 2002 at all. He and Hewitt played a couple times at the very end of the year when the slams and whole season was almost over.

Also peak Djokovic >>>> somewhat prime but not peak Agassi.

 

[mattosgrant]

Sabratha will simply counter this by saying that Djokovic can only win one major a year which excludes him for being considered a dominant champion, hence the current transitional era. Book it.

He still prevents Murray from winning alot more slams. There wasnt one player who prevented Hewitt from winning many slams in 2001-2003, even if the field was decent in 2001 and 2003 IMO. Yes you had Federer doing that in 2004-2005. Murray had the big 3 combining to do that until recently, and still has Djokovic doing that now after Fedal have badly faded.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I agree Agassi was very good at that point. However he was Hewitt's only real competition that year. I cant see Haas for instance as real competition for Hewitt. As I mentioned Ferrero is the clay man, and Hewitt the everything but clay man, so they dont match up other than Ferrero winning easily should they play on clay, and Hewitt always winning if they play anywhere else. I dont remember Safin either being much of a factor post Australia in 2002 at all. He and Hewitt played a couple times at the very end of the year when the slams and whole season was almost over.

Also peak Djokovic >>>> somewhat prime but not peak Agassi.

Safin played very well towards the end of 2002. People were talking about him being a threat for the Masters Cup after he cleaned Lleyton's clock at the Paris Masters in 2002. But in the end, Lleyton pulled through.

Don't forget Federer was a threat indoors then too.. He gave Hewitt a good match at the Masters Cup. A year later and Federer won the whole thing, in dominant fashion over Agassi too.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

He still prevents Murray from winning alot more slams. There wasnt one player who prevented Hewitt from winning many slams in 2001-2003, even if the field was decent in 2001 and 2003 IMO. Yes you had Federer doing that in 2004-2005. Murray had the big 3 combining to do that until recently, and still has Djokovic doing that now after Fedal have badly faded.

Hewitt had Agassi and Federer stopping him..

Tell me he wouldn't have trounced Sampras in the 2002 US Open final if it wasn't for Agassi.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Don't forget Hewitt had to contend with guys like Rafter and Moya too..

 

[mattosgrant]

I was just referring to 2002 as weak. I acknowledged 2001 and 2003 were decent years. Rafter didnt even play in 2002, he was retired. I know Moya was pretty good off and on but his potential slam winning/peak years were for sure 97-99. He was still a threat (sometimes) but could never see him winning a big title again by that point.

Haas was #2 or #3 ranked most of 2002 right? I love the guy but he was never going to win a slam, and atleast by the rankings he was the next biggest threat to Hewitt and Agassi that year.

Agassi only stopped Hewitt once from a potential slam. They only played once in a slam that I know of, although they probably played somewhere else in one when Hewitt was still very young or something. Why would Hewitt for sure have beaten Sampras? Sampras won a tough 4 setter with Agassi but really overpowered him in doing so (84 winners to 27), after Agassi had manhandled Hewitt. Now I know all 3 matchups are totally different. Sampras was infinitely better in the 02 final than 01, night and day, and Hewitt would have far more pressure on him than 2001 since he was now the favorite.

 

[Gonzalito17]

Hewitt and Murray only played once, it was early in Murray's career in the San Jose final which was AM's first title in ATP. Hewitt has had the better career, he's won Davis Cup and was number one for two years in a row. People who didn't see Hewitt in his prime can't understand or appreciate how great he was Watch some You Tube of his best matches from his prime. Or read the book "Facing Hewitt." Taking nothing away from Murray who is also a great player, but for two years Hewitt was THE BEST. And don't even try to mumble anything about transitional periods. HEWITT was THE BEST for two years.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I was just referring to 2002 as weak. I acknowledged 2001 and 2003 were decent years. Rafter didnt even play in 2002, he was retired. I know Moya was pretty good off and on but his potential slam winning/peak years were for sure 97-99. He was still a threat (sometimes) but could never see him winning a big title again by that point.

Haas was #2 or #3 ranked most of 2002 right? I love the guy but he was never going to win a slam, and atleast by the rankings he was the next biggest threat to Hewitt and Agassi that year.

Agassi only stopped Hewitt once from a potential slam. They only played once in a slam that I know of, although they probably played somewhere else in one when Hewitt was still very young or something. Why would Hewitt for sure have beaten Sampras? Sampras won a tough 4 setter with Agassi but really overpowered him in doing so (84 winners to 27), after Agassi had manhandled Hewitt. Now I know all 3 matchups are totally different. Sampras was infinitely better in the 02 final than 01, night and day, and Hewitt would have far more pressure on him than 2001 since he was now the favorite.

Haas spent little time at #2..

For the most part it was Agassi and Safin who held that ranking. Kuerten at the start of 2002 until he dropped off. I don't see anything weak about that..

I hate repeating myself, but Federer was also a big factor towards the end of 2002 too. Especially at the Masters Cup and Madrid.

 

[mattosgrant]

Federer was pretty good in no tournaments but not slams. He didnt get past the round of 16 of any slam between Wimbledon 2001 and Wimbledon 2003.

2002 just seems like a strange off year. Johansson winning the Australian. A way past his prime Albert Costa winning the French (wouldnt be a shock in 95-98 but sure was in 2002) over a semi tanking Ferrero. Nalbandian well before his prime reaching the Wimbledon final on what would always be by far his worst surface. Then washed up Sampras who had not won a tournament in 25 months somehow winning the U.S Open for a swan song slam. The YEC was by far the highlight of the year, with some excellent matches, but nothing before that came close.

 

[falstaff78]

As things stand, I give the edge to Hewitt because he achieved the number #1 ranking.

good heavens an objective poster on talk tennis who can look beyond the fanbase to which he belongs!!!

v. impressed with your objectivity, sir!

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Federer was pretty good in no tournaments but not slams. He didnt get past the round of 16 of any slam between Wimbledon 2001 and Wimbledon 2003.

2002 just seems like a strange off year. Johansson winning the Australian. A way past his prime Albert Costa winning the French (wouldnt be a shock in 95-98 but sure was in 2002) over a semi tanking Ferrero. Nalbandian well before his prime reaching the Wimbledon final on what would always be by far his worst surface. Then washed up Sampras who had not won a tournament in 25 months somehow winning the U.S Open for a swan song slam. The YEC was by far the highlight of the year, with some excellent matches, but nothing before that came close.

In regard to Sampras V Hewitt (hypothetical) I'd give Hewitt the edge for sure. He hadn't lost a match to Sampras since he was 19 years old and ranked between 6-9..

 

[mattosgrant]

I think it would be a toss up. Sampras played really well in that final with Agassi. However Hewitt is a tougher matchup for Sampras than Agassi, and he could have worn Sampras out too. Agassi had Sampras tired by the end and probably wins if he gets it to a 5th set.