How do Murray and Hewitt compare

[syc23]

Let's see, Hewitt playing in peak Roger, Rafa, Nole and Murray era would have Zero slams, zero Masters 1000s, zero YE no.1 and Zero WTFs.

It's safe to say Murray would have achieved considerably more than he has now if he played in the early 2000s. No Roger, Nadal and Nole in his way would be easy pickings.

Hewitt should be glad he snatched 2 slams before the top4 emerged.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Let's see, Hewitt playing in peak Roger, Rafa, Nole and Murray era would have Zero slams, zero Masters 1000s, zero YE no.1 and Zero WTFs.

It's safe to say Murray would have achieved considerably more than he has now if he played in the early 2000s. No Roger, Nadal and Nole in his way would be easy pickings.

Hewitt should be glad he snatched 2 slams before the top4 emerged.

If Murray played against peak Federer, he'd have 0 slams to his name too. And probably a few less Masters 1000s.

He was "lucky" given his own circumstances. I also noticed you said way back that Hewitt would only be No. 7 today. Why is that? He's obviously a better player than Ferrer as he beat Federer 9 times more than he ever has.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

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.

I don't know if it would even take 5 sets for Hewitt to beat Sampras. To me he wasn't really that much more impressive than what I saw of him in 2000. I think Hewitt of 2002 takes Sampras of 2000, and probably in 3 or 4 sets. I think it'd be a thrashing.

Sampras would only stand a chance if he used his old All-Court game from 1993-2000. Other than that he's toast.

 

[LoboLaw1984]

Seriously? Murray is way better than Hewitt ever was.

 

[syc23]

If Murray played against peak Federer, he'd have 0 slams to his name too. And probably a few less Masters 1000s.

He was "lucky" given his own circumstances. I also noticed you said way back that Hewitt would only be No. 7 today. Why is that? He's obviously a better player than Ferrer as he beat Federer 9 times more than he ever has.

I never used the word "lucky", Hewitt won the 2 slams against his contemporaries at the time against a young Nalby and ageing Sampras. Just like Andy had to negotiate the players which included Federer, Rafa and Nole to secure his slams and Olympics.

The fact is both could only be judged against the players they have actually faced. All these discussion is just what ifs. I would still stand by that Hewitt would still be no.7 at best if he is 22 today.

 

[NatF]

Let's see, Hewitt playing in peak Roger, Rafa, Nole and Murray era would have Zero slams, zero Masters 1000s, zero YE no.1 and Zero WTFs.

It's safe to say Murray would have achieved considerably more than he has now if he played in the early 2000s. No Roger, Nadal and Nole in his way would be easy pickings.

Hewitt should be glad he snatched 2 slams before the top4 emerged.

Murray doesn't win slams at 20-21 like Hewitt did. And he doesn't break through Federer to win slams once 2004 rolls around.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Let's see, Hewitt playing in peak Roger, Rafa, Nole and Murray era would have Zero slams, zero Masters 1000s, zero YE no.1 and Zero WTFs.

It's safe to say Murray would have achieved considerably more than he has now if he played in the early 2000s. No Roger, Nadal and Nole in his way would be easy pickings.

Hewitt should be glad he snatched 2 slams before the top4 emerged.

If this era actually existed, then be sure Murray would be little above Ferrer in terms of achievements.

 

[andymaratkimi]

Hewitt has dominant the game for a short time,but Murray hasn't reach No.1 yet.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I never used the word "lucky", Hewitt won the 2 slams against his contemporaries at the time against a young Nalby and ageing Sampras. Just like Andy had to negotiate the players which included Federer, Rafa and Nole to secure his slams and Olympics.

The fact is both could only be judged against the players they have actually faced. All these discussion is just what ifs. I would still stand by that Hewitt would still be no.7 at best if he is 22 today.

Excuses..

Hewitt was beating Sampras when he was still in his prime, albeit late and as a teenager.

Andy was still losing to Federer when he was 31 years old, and I honestly believe Hewitt could take Djokovic or Nadal for a Grand Slam if they swap eras. Heck, I think he could beat Federer at the AO in 2013 if we put his 2005 AO version into that time.

No way Hewitt would only be ranked 7 today. More like 2 or 3. He's a lot more talented and had more game than you're giving him credit for. He isn't a lesser version of Ferrer, he is a greater version of him.. Much like Murray.

I'm starting to think certain Murray fans are threatened by Hewitt and his legacy, so they try to downplay it as much as possible. The reality is that they are both comparable and are, in my opinion, about as talented and showed a similar level of play at their peaks.

 

[NatF]

Hewitt being #1 in 2001 would be like Murray of 2007 being #1 - which would not happen in any era.

The talk of their games is probably more interesting, IMO;

Movement = Tie
Mentality = Hewitt
ROS = Tie
Netgame = Hewitt
Serve = Murray first - Hewitt second
Backhand = Murray
Forehand = Tie
Touch = Murray

The most controversial thing is probably the forehand, but despite Murray's forehand having more significantly more top end pace I don't think it's an overall better shot day in and day out.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Seriously? Murray is way better than Hewitt ever was.

Revisionist history at its best.

Saying this is almost equal to saying everything is improving and that nothing has declined as technology has become more prominent. When in actuality only certain aspects have, while others have remained the same.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Hewitt being #1 in 2001 would be like Murray of 2007 being #1 - which would not happen in any era.

The talk of their games is probably more interesting, IMO;

Movement = Tie
Mentality = Hewitt
ROS = Tie
Netgame = Hewitt
Serve = Murray first - Hewitt second
Backhand = Murray
Forehand = Tie
Touch = Murray

The most controversial thing is probably the forehand, but despite Murray's forehand having more significantly more top end pace I don't think it's an overall better shot day in and day out.

I think Hewitt was quicker than Murray, if only slightly.

2004-2005 Hewitt was a little slower though, but I get the feeling he compensated a little speed for more power as the dynamics of the game shifted more towards power hitting.

 

[NatF]

So...overall a tie?

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Hewitt being #1 in 2001 would be like Murray of 2007 being #1 - which would not happen in any era.

The talk of their games is probably more interesting, IMO;

Endurance = Hewitt slight
Defence = Murray
Offence = I dunno, tie. Murray on his best day simply has better offence and defence IMO
Movement = Tie
Mentality = Hewitt
ROS = Murray slight
Netgame = Hewitt
Serve = Murray slight
Backhand = Murray
Forehand = Tie
Touch = Murray very slight, Hewitt has great skills. Actually, maybe a Tie.
Passes = Hewitt

The most controversial thing is Nick Kyrgios

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Overall Hewitt, because he had the foresight and work ethic to be great young and be the best in the world for a substantial period of time. In the end Murray, due to superior fitness/health.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

So...overall a tie?

Yeah, you were pretty spot on. I can't say I disagree with anything.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Overall Hewitt, because he had the foresight and work ethic to be great young and be the best in the world for a substantial period of time. In the end Murray, due to superior fitness/health.

Would you say their level of talent was that different though? Naturally?

I get the impression a lot of people who say Hewitt just "worked hard" didn't really watch the man at his best. I know you have and like myself you're an expert when it comes to Hewitt and his game so I was wondering.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Would you say their level of talent was that different though? Naturally?

I get the impression a lot of people who say Hewitt just "worked hard" didn't really watch the man at his best. I know you have and like myself you're an expert when it comes to Hewitt and his game so I was wondering.

Their talents are similarly distributed. Murray has more overall athletic talent because he's also a stronger guy and when he puts it together just has the bigger game. Hewitt had talent for understanding the game quickly and was a natural competitor. Both have a lot of similar strengths such as great touch, feel, variety, ball control and rally consistency. Hewitt and Murray played in different times that required a different hierarchy of prerequisites, that's all. Which is why it's foolish to assume Murray would achieve the same as Hewitt if we just shove him back into Hewitt's time. Hewitt's problem was fitness which robbed him of a much longer competitive playing span. Murray has a skill-set that would suit Hewitt's time but his mentality would be in question up until his mid 20s probably. Hewitt had the apt skill-set and the mind.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Their talents are similarly distributed. Murray has more overall athletic talent because he's also a stronger guy and when he puts it together just has the bigger game. Hewitt had talent for understanding the game quickly and was a natural competitor. Both have a lot of similar strengths such as great touch, feel, variety, ball control and rally consistency. Hewitt and Murray played in different times that required a different hierarchy of prerequisites, that's all. Which is why it's foolish to assume Murray would achieve the same as Hewitt if we just shove him back into Hewitt's time. Hewitt's problem was fitness which robbed him of a much longer competitive playing span.

I agree with this.

Murray has better genetics altogether (taller, stronger, more durability) but Hewitt had a much better understanding of the game from a young age. Murray has come a long way but he isn't quite as knowledgeable as Hewitt was mentally or even in terms of shot selection.

 

[Zoolander]

I beg to differ. Andy's wife is cute but she's not the cutest.

ATP Hot Wife Ranking Points

1. Rafa's Girl-Friend - 12,150
2. Novak's Wife - 11,800
3. Andy's Wife - 8,550
4. Roger's Wife - 8,275

Rafa's Girlfriend gets the top honor because Rafa didn't leave her for sexy Shakira. It's also no secret that Jim Courier has a thing for Rafa's girlfriend

Novak could also easily get Ana Ivanovic but stayed with Jelena.

This is a patently false rankings list. Theres no way Mirka could get 8,275 points.

 

[NatF]

Endurance = Hewitt slight
Defence = Murray
Offence = I dunno, tie. Murray on his best day simply has better offence and defence IMO
Movement = Tie
Mentality = Hewitt
ROS = Murray slight
Netgame = Hewitt
Serve = Murray slight
Backhand = Murray
Forehand = Tie
Touch = Murray very slight, Hewitt has great skills. Actually, maybe a Tie.
Passes = Hewitt

The most controversial thing is Nick Kyrgios

A more comprehensive breakdown.

I think Murray on his best day will have more offence simply due to being a bigger guy, but I don't think the gap is too large when Hewitt can do more at the net and is quite capable of doing damage off both sides even against elite movers.

I don't think Hewitt is going to miss overheads and his second serve is significantly better. So I think he might be slightly more complete but less overpowering.

I think against S&V players Hewitt has the better returns, against today's baseliners Murray would have the edge. Touch I went with Murray because he's more likely to use the drop shot. Hewitt has equal or better touch at net and an equal or better lob. But I feel Murray just uses it more from the back of the court.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

A more comprehensive breakdown.

I think Murray on his best day will have more offence simply due to being a bigger guy, but I don't think the gap is too large when Hewitt can do more at the net and is quite capable of doing damage off both sides even against elite movers.

I don't think Hewitt is going to miss overheads and his second serve is significantly better. So I think he might be slightly more complete but less overpowering.

I think against S&V players Hewitt has the better returns, against today's baseliners Murray would have the edge. Touch I went with Murray because he's more likely to use the drop shot. Hewitt has equal or better touch at net and an equal or better lob. But I feel Murray just uses it more from the back of the court.

I think that's just a consequence of their times. I think Murray would have been a truly tremendous returner against S&V. Murray has better feel on the return than Hewitt IMO and has more options though I still think Hewitt would be a top returner if he was rising today. Hewitt would need a year or two extra to find success though today, not because the era is better but because it's more physical, so there are different demands on the body.

Regarding touch: the reason I thought it is virtually a tie is because we can't discount Hewitt's touch at the net which is clearly superior to Murray's. Hewitt's "completeness" and natural understanding also factors into that because he just looks way more comfortable up at net, so I'd agree he was more complete but less overpowering. But yeah, Murray does use that touch more from the back of the court. Both have great lobs.. I guess the best of the last 15 years.

 

[NatF]

I agree with all of this. Murray probably does have the edge in terms of overall returning - though one poster saying the gap as vast is just talking crazy.

 

[jwjh]

I beg to differ. Andy's wife is cute but she's not the cutest.

ATP Hot Wife Ranking Points

1. Rafa's Girl-Friend - 12,150
2. Novak's Wife - 11,800
3. Andy's Wife - 8,550
4. Roger's Wife - 8,275

Rafa's Girlfriend gets the top honor because Rafa didn't leave her for sexy Shakira. It's also no secret that Jim Courier has a thing for Rafa's girlfriend

Novak could also easily get Ana Ivanovic but stayed with Jelena.

Rafa didn't want to break his contract, that's why.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

It's not vast, just that Murray's sheer variety of options on the return are vast, and instinctively impressive.

 

[Zoolander]

Hewitt won both his grand slams by age 20. He never won another. Strange considering most players dont peak til their mid 20's at least. I think that says a lot.

If peak Hewy plays peak Muzza, my moneys on Muz.

 

[Zoolander]

I do think if Hewitt was born 5-10 years earlier he wins more slams. But as conditions were slowed and the competition developed i just think he was out of his power league.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Many of us believe Hewitt produced his best tennis from 2004-2005, where he went QF, QF, F, F, A, SF, SF, and reached a YEC F (lost to Federer).

If his body could have held up he might have continued such prolific results for a while longer. Federer stopped him.

Federer also stopped Murray.

I do think if Hewitt was born 5-10 years earlier he wins more slams. But as conditions were slowed and the competition developed i just think he was out of his power league.

This isn't out of the question and perhaps Hewitt is inherently less suited to the current climate than Murray. Fundamentally though, I think Hewitt would be an achiever in at least most eras due to the solid completeness of his game and that includes worthy athleticism, so he wouldn't necessarily be without his chances to make an impact. I concede that your idea here is a distinct possibility though. Hewitt doesn't hit the biggest ball and isn't the biggest guy.

Sabratha won't like it.

 

[jwjh]

Who has better anticipation, though? I'm going with Murray (recency effect).

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

They use their anticipation differently. Murray's is bizarre because he commits to his anticipatory instincts, whether right or wrong, earlier than any other player I've ever seen in tennis, ever. By contrast, Federer, who is known for also having great anticipation, has had long durations during his career where he virtually refused to guess and depended on reacting instead (sometimes hates committing for fear of being wrong, why look the fool). The subtleties of anticipation and how players use it is worth a whole separate thread. It gets complicated.

He's old now though so he has to guess a lot more (Fed).

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Hewitt won both his grand slams by age 20. He never won another. Strange considering most players dont peak til their mid 20's at least. I think that says a lot.

If peak Hewy plays peak Muzza, my moneys on Muz.

Many of us believe Hewitt produced his best tennis from 2004-2005, where he went QF, QF, F, F, A, SF, SF.

If his body could have held up he might have continued such prolific results for a while longer. Federer stopped him.

Federer also stopped Murray.



This isn't out of the question and perhaps Hewitt is inherently less suited to the current climate than Murray. Fundamentally though, I think Hewitt would be an achiever in at least most eras due to the solid completeness of his game and that includes worthy athleticism, so he wouldn't necessarily be without his chances to make an impact. I concede that your idea here is a distinct possibility though. Hewitt doesn't hit the biggest ball and isn't the biggest guy.

Sabratha won't like it.

Hewitt could hit a big ball when he wanted to though.

I think he'd win the same Grand Slams Murray won - Wimbledon and the US Open. Novak would be his best bet at a victory too -- seeing as his variety would hurt him more than Federer or Nadal.

Murray isn't the most powerful guy either. By that I mean he uses it very rarely -- but there have been times where Hewitt was about as aggressive (if not as aggressive, close to) Murray in terms of ball striking. Sure, Murray hits a bigger ball, but it isn't by a country mile.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Murray's instincts defensively are certainly unusual and in that sense his anticipation is perhaps unrivalled but it's hard to say. I used to hold the opinion that he had the best anticipation but I think it's more a sense of style. There are periods where it seems virtually impossible to get a ball by Djokovic. After a while in the 2015 Ao final it seemed that Djokovic knew where every. single. shot. was going, even when Murray tried to mix it up. Sometimes these players can just get into a zone where they can read the game absolutely and are in the full control. Federer often gave off this impression in offence; the match against Ferrer in the YEC Finals was sheer mastery, and he had Ferrer on a string for the entire match. His clarity of thought and anticipation was through the roof.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Hewitt won both his grand slams by age 20. He never won another. Strange considering most players dont peak til their mid 20's at least. I think that says a lot.

If peak Hewy plays peak Muzza, my moneys on Muz.

Revisionist history at its best again I feel..

As more time elapses, people relate more with the now. I've come to accept this. It's probably why guys like Laver and Gonzalez aren't as respected as Federer or Nadal -- they truly are victims of their time. Just like Federer and Nadal will be some day.

 

[LoboLaw1984]

I think Hewitt was quicker than Murray, if only slightly.

2004-2005 Hewitt was a little slower though, but I get the feeling he compensated a little speed for more power as the dynamics of the game shifted more towards power hitting.

Maybe I just don't remember, but it seems like they were about equal in speed, but Murray has bigger serve / return / groundies.