Is Hewitt a better player than Murray or Roddick?

[Kenshin]

Lleyton Hewitt has 2 grandslams and 2 masters 1000.
Andy Murray has 2 grandslams and 9 masters 1000.
Andy Roddick has 1 grandslam and 5 masters 1000.

I created this thread to celebrate Hewitt's milestone "600" match wins on ATP tour. Only Federer and Nadal has more wins on ATP tour among the active players. Hewitt and Roddick has been ranked No.1 while Murray has not. Hewitt has won 2 WTF while both Murray and Roddick haven't. However, Murray is the only player to win a gold medal at Olympics among the three. At present I consider Hewitt a better player than either Murray or Roddick. If Murray wins 1 more grandslam and adds a couple more masters 1000 or win WTF, then I will consider Murray above them. What do you guys think? Do you agree or disagree? I welcome your comments.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Hewitt is greater than Roddick, yes.

At present Hewitt is greater than Murray but it's very close between them. Murray could well overtake Hewitt, but it depends on how motivated he is to continue winning majors, WTF, reach #1 etc. from here on in.

 

[Russeljones]

Hewitt broke through against overwhelming odds, I thought at the time. Old guard wasn't quite done yet and some new guys (not Lleyton) seemed destined to pick up the baton. I can't really see Murray doing what Hewitt did. Like I always say, if they had begun their careers simultaneously (or close enough) with Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray would have found themselves demoralised very quickly and would have looked much more ordinary. I think Hewitt's career shines more because of the superstars that he had to contend with.

 

[DRII]

do you mean better or more acomplished?

consider that Hewitt has had much more time on tour than Murray and therefore has had more oppurtunity to achieve.

as far as 'better', i think Hewitt is slightly above Roddick but not as good as prime Murray...

 

[TMF]

Greater:
1. Hewitt
2. Murray(for now)
3. Roddick

Better:
1. Hewitt
2. Roddick
3. Murray

 

[DRII]

Hewitt broke through against overwhelming odds, I thought at the time. Old guard wasn't quite done yet and some new guys (not Lleyton) seemed destined to pick up the baton. I can't really see Murray doing what Hewitt did. Like I always say, if they had begun their careers simultaneously (or close enough) with Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray would have found themselves demoralised very quickly and would have looked much more ordinary. I think Hewitt's career shines more because of the superstars that he had to contend with.

:shock:

:lol:



idk if you know what you're actually saying or not...

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Hewitt is possibly more talented then either, certainly more so than Roddick. He's got the killer passes, the touch, the volleys, the lobs. All that Hewitt didn't have was a consistently healthy body.

 

[TMF]

Hewitt broke through against overwhelming odds, I thought at the time. Old guard wasn't quite done yet and some new guys (not Lleyton) seemed destined to pick up the baton. I can't really see Murray doing what Hewitt did. Like I always say, if they had begun their careers simultaneously (or close enough) with Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray would have found themselves demoralised very quickly and would have looked much more ordinary. I think Hewitt's career shines more because of the superstars that he had to contend with.

Hewitt and Roddick are the unlucky players, unlike Murray who is 6 years younger than Federer. Had Murray was at the same age playing prime Federer, he wouldn't have 2 slams, especially Wimbledon. Nadal and Nole at their prime wasn't good enough to hold off Murray from winning 2 slams.

 

[Annie]

This is obviously great thread rather than FOD's Trolling omelette. :lol:

 

[NatF]

In terms of greatness...

Hewitt >= Murray > Roddick

In terms of level of play they're all pretty similar IMO. Hewitt matches up really well with Roddick though.

 

[syc23]

Murray greater by a country mile. Do people honestly think Hewitt at 20-24 have a prayer of winning slams against peak Fed/Rafa/Djokovic/Murray let alone getting to no.1?

Not a chance.

 

[NatF]

Murray greater by a country mile. Do people honestly think Hewitt at 20-24 have a prayer of winning slams against peak Fed/Rafa/Djokovic/Murray let alone getting to no.1?

Not a chance.

Murray has no prayer of winning slams versus Peak Federer...

 

[Anti-Fedal]

Murray greater by a country mile. Do people honestly think Hewitt at 20-24 have a prayer of winning slams against peak Fed/Rafa/Djokovic/Murray let alone getting to no.1?

Not a chance.

When did Murray beat Nadal or Fed to win a slam?

Remind me when that was.

 

[TMF]

Murray greater by a country mile. Do people honestly think Hewitt at 20-24 have a prayer of winning slams against peak Fed/Rafa/Djokovic/Murray let alone getting to no.1?

Not a chance.

Roger was 5 years past his prime in 2013. With back problem it was his worst year in his career.

Murray is from Nole/Nadal generation, but they couldn't stop Murray from winning 2 slams. Hewitt/Roddick was the unfortunate one because Federer was too bloody good.

 

[Annie]

It would be great if Hewitt wins his next match.

 

[Kenshin]

do you mean better or more acomplished?

consider that Hewitt has had much more time on tour than Murray and therefore has had more oppurtunity to achieve.

as far as 'better', i think Hewitt is slightly above Roddick but not as good as prime Murray...

Good point. I apologize for being vague. What I meant is as a "better overall player."

 

[Roddick85]

Good thread.

I believe Murray is the more talented of the 3. Murray won his slams in a much tougher era than Hewitt, and does pretty much everything Hewitt does, but even better. As far as Roddick goes, I'd put Roddick ahead of Hewitt as well, or maybe a tie, but that'd be pushing it. The H2H between the 2 is 7-7, Roddick had the more offensive game while Hewitt was more defensive. I still think Roddick is not getting his dues/respect here. Both Hewitt and Roddick became top guys around the sametime, Roddick's reign in the top 10 lasted a lot longer than Hewitt's, more MS-1000 as well as many slam finals, let's not dismiss those.

Funny to see how much love Hewitt gets as a player here with his 2 slams and 2 MS-1000. While Federer gets bashed by people claiming he won most of his slams in the transitional period, Hewitt gets praised for his 2 slams in 2001-2002, which is pretty much the gap period between the Sampras and Federer era.
To me, Hewitt was the real transition champion.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

Roddick- By a little

Murray- Nope!

 

[FreeBird]

Murray will be miles better than these two and when he retires, these two will not even be in his vicinity in terms of achievements.

Between Roddick and Hewitt, IMO Hewitt.

 

[objectivity]

do you guys think Hewitt or Roddick "suffered" more from being directly under the shadow of Federer?

 

[Sid_Vicious]

do you guys think Hewitt or Roddick "suffered" more from being directly under the shadow of Federer?

Roddick for sure. 4 slams finals lost to Federer. That Wimbledon final in 2009 probably crushed all the fight in Roddick. The following 3 ( and final) years for Roddick were horrible. Hewitt never lost a match like the 2009 Wimbledon final to Federer. Most of the time he got crushed in 3-4 sets against Federer after 2004.

 

[Roddick85]

do you guys think Hewitt or Roddick "suffered" more from being directly under the shadow of Federer?

Roddick : Yes totally. It's no secret Federer owned him in slams, and had it not been for that infamous rain delay at Wimby 2004, Roddick's career achievement could be totally different today, with the H2H against him maybe not as one sided.
Hewitt : Maybe a little, but I think what ultimately hurt Hewitt's career was the bad string of injuries he suffered, more so than the dominance of Mr. Federer.

 

[TMF]

do you guys think Hewitt or Roddick "suffered" more from being directly under the shadow of Federer?

Roddick.

3 losses at Wimbledon should say enough.

 

[Kenshin]

Lleyton Hewitt vs Andy Murray-Murray leads 1-0.
Lleyton Hewitt vs Andy Roddick-They share the head-to-head 7-7.
Andy Murray vs Andy Roddick-Murray leads 8-3.

Weeks at No.1-Hewitt at 80, Roddick at 13 weeks.
Grandslams runners-up Hewitt 2 times, Roddick 4 times and Murray 5 times.

 

[TMF]

Lleyton Hewitt vs Andy Murray-Murray leads 1-0.
Lleyton Hewitt vs Andy Roddick-They share the head-to-head 7-7.
Andy Murray vs Andy Roddick-Murray leads 8-3.

Weeks at No.1-Hewitt at 80, Roddick at 13 weeks.
Grandslams runners-up Hewitt 2 times, Roddick 4 times and Murray 5 times.

H2H can be misleading. Murray is 8-3 against Roddick but Roddick is 5-4 against Nole. And Nole is 11-8 against Murray. Using these stats alone, you can't determine who's the better player.

 

[Kenshin]

H2H can be misleading. Murray is 8-3 against Roddick but Roddick is 5-4 against Nole. And Nole is 11-8 against Murray. Using these stats alone, you can't determine who's the better player.

Good point. I listed these stats so we can be as fair as possible and I thought it might give an insight. Please do consider with the stats on my former post.

 

[Terenigma]

Hewitt and Murray are miles better than Roddick. but to pick between them is comes down to who has achieved more. In that respect i think Murray is the better player. If you think about their main weapons, Hewitt's would be pretty much ineffective against a guy just as fast as him with just as good of returns. Whereas Murray has a powerful first serve and much more power.

But seriously, i get comparing Murray to Hewitt but either of them to Roddick? Give me a break.

 

[dominikk1985]

murray is way better than either one. baby murray was already winning some matches against peak fed and nadal(06 cincy against fed, 08 USO against nadal) while roddick and hewitt never could touch fed and also shortly after that also got dominated by nadal.

 

[mike danny]

Roddick : Yes totally. It's no secret Federer owned him in slams, and had it not been for that infamous rain delay at Wimby 2004, Roddick's career achievement could be totally different today, with the H2H against him maybe not as one sided.
Hewitt : Maybe a little, but I think what ultimately hurt Hewitt's career was the bad string of injuries he suffered, more so than the dominance of Mr. Federer.

In 2004 and 2005 Hewitt was really affected by Fed's dominance more than injuries. It was 2006 when injuries finally destroyed him.

In 2004 and 2005 he had chances at a slam each year

2004: USO (and maybe AO, though he still had to win 3 more matches after the Federer one)

2005: W (Roddick was not playing as well as the previous year) and USO (vs 35 year old Agassi, who was coming after 3 con 5 setters, i would give Hewitt a chance)

So Federer denied Hewitt 3 slams in 2004 and 2005 combined.

So yes Fed's dominace hurt Hewitt a lot before injuroes finally took over

 

[mike danny]

Hewitt and Murray are miles better than Roddick. but to pick between them is comes down to who has achieved more. In that respect i think Murray is the better player. If you think about their main weapons, Hewitt's would be pretty much ineffective against a guy just as fast as him with just as good of returns. Whereas Murray has a powerful first serve and much more power.

But seriously, i get comparing Murray to Hewitt but either of them to Roddick? Give me a break.

You are underestimating Roddick. Roddick gave more fight to Federer in slam finals than Murray. This is really something to be taken into account

 

[mike danny]

Roddick : Yes totally. It's no secret Federer owned him in slams, and had it not been for that infamous rain delay at Wimby 2004, Roddick's career achievement could be totally different today, with the H2H against him maybe not as one sided.
Hewitt : Maybe a little, but I think what ultimately hurt Hewitt's career was the bad string of injuries he suffered, more so than the dominance of Mr. Federer.

Well tehnically the H2H would still be lopsided.

The only matches Roddick could have won were:

-one match in 2002 which ended in a decisive tiebreak. Firgot the event

-W 2004 (though far from a certainty) Without the rain delay maybe Roddick could have won the 3rd. And from that point on, anything could have happened.

-Shanghai 2006 - had 2MP

-Miami 2009 - i really don't understand how he lost that one

-W 2009 - i think it is pretty clear why

-USO 2007 could be another option. Had he won the first 2 sets, he may have won given how aggressive he was off the ground and on serve

So overall he could have won 6 more matches. But the H2H would have still been 18-6 which is still as lopsided as it gets

Federer is simply more talented than Roddick and because of this, he would have always owned Roddick, no matter how many more matches would have lost to him

 

[jersey34tennis]

i'd say hewitt is still above murray right now. grand slams are even . masters aren't close but i think if you factor in davis cop performances that SHOULD count for a hell of a lot of pull. i'd say roddicks davis cup record keeps him relatively on par with murray right now in spite of the one less slam. murray wins one more slam and he pulls above roddick and is dead even with hewitt

 

[Roddick85]

Federer is simply more talented than Roddick and because of this, he would have always owned Roddick, no matter how many more matches would have lost to him

There's no doubt in my mind that Federer is more talented than Roddick. Completely agree with you on that. However, I do believe the H2H became so one-sided because all those beatings Roddick took had an effect on him mentally. Even before a match was started or a single stroke was hit, Roddick was already beaten just because of that, much like what Federer-Nadal turned to after 2009 AO. Had Roddick won one of those close encounters earlier in his career, I do think Federer would still lead the H2H, but it would be a bit better 21-3.

 

[objectivity]

There's no doubt in my mind that Federer is more talented than Roddick. Completely agree with you on that. However, I do believe the H2H became so one-sided because all those beatings Roddick took had an effect on him mentally. Even before a match was started or a single stroke was hit, Roddick was already beaten just because of that, much like what Federer-Nadal turned to after 2009 AO. Had Roddick won one of those close encounters earlier in his career, I do think Federer would still lead the H2H, but it would be a bit better 21-3.

Agreed. I was just about to post something like this in my other thread on Monumental Matches. If roddick had won the 2004 Wimbledon, I don't think Federer would have had things that easy. He would still have dominated the era, but with Nalbandian (if he had won USO 2003 which he should have!), confident Roddick and an emerging Nadal, Federer would have had his hands full. Pity only 1 of the 3 phenomenon really happened.

 

[monfed]

Murray has more game than Hewitt but the latter's mental strength is about 10 leagues above the former. However, Roddick > both

 

[Phoenix1983]

Murray has more game than Hewitt but the latter's mental strength is about 10 leagues above the former. However, Roddick > both

I agree with the Murray-Hewitt comments, but why say Roddick is greater than both?

 

[objectivity]

I agree with the Murray-Hewitt comments, but why say Roddick is greater than both?

yeah why? after all, i thought according to "some" fans of a certain someone, the only titles that matter are Grand Slam and WTF, not Masters series? Double standards much?

 

[monfed]

I agree with the Murray-Hewitt comments, but why say Roddick is greater than both?

Well ofcourse it's more complicated than that but since you asked my reasoning is that I think peak Rod beats any version of Murray on any surface besides maybe slow HC. 04 Rod will beat any version of Murray on grass,maybe even the 05 version would trump Murray. Without Fed, ARod would've had atleast 6-7 slams easy.

As far as Hewitt goes, I think it's about the same besides AO and comparable surfaces. Fast HC(and I mean a genuine fast HC like USO 04-06 time) and grass I'd pick Roddick if he's on his game. What did Hewitt achieve at Wimby after his 2002 win which was a tourny of shock upsets? Pretty much nothing. Roddick had 3 finals and 1 semi.

So,overall Roddick's my pick.

 

[objectivity]

Well ofcourse it's more complicated than that but since you asked my reasoning is that I think peak Rod beats any version of Murray on any surface besides maybe slow HC. 04 Rod will beat any version of Murray on grass,maybe even the 05 version would trump Murray. Without Fed, ARod would've had atleast 6-7 slams easy.

As far as Hewitt goes, I think it's about the same besides AO and comparable surfaces. Fast HC(and I mean a genuine fast HC like USO 04-06 time) and grass I'd pick Roddick if he's on his game. What did Hewitt achieve at Wimby after his 2002 win which was a tourny of shock upsets? Pretty much nothing. Roddick had 3 finals and 1 semi.

So,overall Roddick's my pick.

Wait a minute, I thought the only titles that matter are Grand Slam and WTF, not Masters series? So the fact that Murray and Hewitt have 2 each while Roddick only has 1... shouldn't that be all we care about?

quite sure this question will be dodged. sigh...

 

[Lavs]

Greater than both - Yes!
More talanted than Murray - No.

 

[NatF]

Hewitt vs Murray v Roddick the strokes...

Hewitt vs Murray

Serve: Edge to Murray, Hewitt's first serve is underrated and his second serve is better. But Murray has more consistency and a bigger first serve.
Forehand: Edge to Hewitt, Hewitt's forehand was a really good shot. A bit better than Murrays.
Backhand: Edge to Murray, Hewitt has a great backhand but Murray's is a bit better.
Return: Even, both are excellent.
Movement: Even, both great movers.
Volley: Solid edge to Hewitt, Hewitt is just better at the net IMO.
Extra's e.g. lobs, droppers: Even here, I rate Hewitt's lob as better but Murray has him beat in other area's.
Mental: Edge Hewitt.


Even matchup IMO. Both do alot of the same things well. Murray is slightly better off the ground but Hewitt is better at the net.

Hewitt vs Roddick

Serve: Big edge to Roddick, obviously.
Forehand: Edge to Roddick, both had great forehands but Roddick's was better.
Backhand: Big edge to Hewitt, his backhand was a great shot...Roddick's wasn't.
Return: Big edge to Hewitt, no explanation needed.
Movement: Big edge to Hewitt, Hewitt was a great mover, Roddick a good one.
Volley: Solid edge to Hewitt, Hewitt is an excellent volleyer. Roddick is decent but not great.
Extra's e.g. lobs, droppers: Big edge to Hewitt, dat lob!
Mental: Slight edge to Lleyton. Both are strong but I give Hewitt the edge.

is better overall, Roddick can score some wins but in general like in their early rivalry Hewitt wold get the best of Roddick.


Roddick vs Murray

Serve: Big edge to Roddick, no explanation needed.
Forehand: Edge to Roddick, Lendl Murray's forehand is good but peak Roddick's was better.
Backhand: Big edge to Murray, Murray has one of the best backhands of the modern era. Roddick's was mostly a rally shot.
Return: Big edge to Murray, no explanation needed really.
Movement: Big edge to Murray, Roddick moved well but Murray is excellent.
Volley: Even, Roddick was capable of volleying quite well as is Murray. I see them as equals here controversially.
Extra's e.g. lobs, droppers: Big edge to Murray. Roddick didn't really use these very often so Murray is clearly much better.
Mental: Edge to Roddick.

Overall Murray is slightly better IMO. Although on the faster surfaces Roddick's serve and forehand combo would give him the edge.


I left out passing shots by accident...

Hewitt > Murray > Roddick in this regard.

 

[mike danny]

Agreed. I was just about to post something like this in my other thread on Monumental Matches. If roddick had won the 2004 Wimbledon, I don't think Federer would have had things that easy. He would still have dominated the era, but with Nalbandian (if he had won USO 2003 which he should have!), confident Roddick and an emerging Nadal, Federer would have had his hands full. Pity only 1 of the 3 phenomenon really happened.

Just like if Federer won the 2008 W final, there would be no mental block vs Rafa. And the 2009 AO would alos be his, instead of Rafa's

 

[Maximagq]

Murray > Hewitt > Roddick

 

[TeamOB]

Hewitt>Murray>>Roddick

Roddick shouldn't even be compared to these two since he only won one slam and GS>>>anything else in tennis. Hewitt has the edge over Murray since he reached #1.

 

[Mainad]

When did Murray beat Nadal or Fed to win a slam?

Remind me when that was.

You don't need reminding, do you? But I think you do need to be reminded that he beat the world #1 Djokovic to win Wimbledon and the same guy when he was ranked #2 and defending champion to win the US Open!

Remind me how many world #1s or #2s Federer had to beat to win any of his Slams?

 

[NatF]

You don't need reminding, do you? But I think you do need to be reminded that he beat the world #1 Djokovic to win Wimbledon and the same guy when he was ranked #2 and defending champion to win the US Open!

Remind me how many world #1s or #2s Federer had to beat to win any of his Slams?

Nadal at Wimbledon in 06/07 and Djokovic in 2012. Hard to beat the #1 when you've been #1 for 302 weeks...

The poster you're quoting isn't even a fan of Federer if you can't tell by his name.

 

[Mainad]

Well ofcourse it's more complicated than that but since you asked my reasoning is that I think peak Rod beats any version of Murray on any surface besides maybe slow HC. 04 Rod will beat any version of Murray on grass,maybe even the 05 version would trump Murray. Without Fed, ARod would've had atleast 6-7 slams easy.

Well, considering baby Murray straight-setted peak Roddick on grass at Wimbledon in 2006, I think that blows that particular theory clean out of the water, don't you? In the 2006-7 period, Murray was 1-0 against Roddick on grass and 3-2 against him on hardcourt.

 

[beast of mallorca]

Murray > Hewitt > Arod

 

[NatF]

Well, considering baby Murray straight-setted peak Roddick on grass at Wimbledon in 2006, I think that blows that particular theory clean out of the water, don't you? In the 2006-7 period, Murray was 1-0 against Roddick on grass and 3-2 against him on hardcourt.

lol at 2006 Wimbledon Roddick being peak Roddick...his game was in the gutter that year until Cinncinati.

 

[Mainad]

Nadal at Wimbledon in 06/07 and Djokovic in 2012. H*** to beat the #1 when you've been #1 for 302 weeks.

.
Lol...fair point. But he only had to beat 1 seeded player (Roddick) to win his first Slam at 2003 Wimbledon and an unseeded player in the final. Ditto Nadal and Djokovic in the finals. Murray never had that luxury.

The poster you're quoting isn't even a fan of Federer if you can't tell by his name.

Maybe not, but he's clearly no fan of Murray either and was quite willing to use Federer and Nadal to try to diminish Murray's Slam achievements!