Is Hewitt a better player than Murray or Roddick?

[Sid_Vicious]

Hewitt's ground strokes were praised in his early career. He certainly had power when he wanted to. Not as much as Murray but you're underrated him here. Safin and Roddick had more power than Murray too.

Murray is better from the baseline, I said as much but I don't think the gap is that significant. Hewitt definitely had the better forehand IMO. Even if Murray could whack it harder when he wants to.

I really didn't underrate him. He had a very mediocre amount of power compared to other top players. I sometimes watch the beatdowns Federer gave him and the thing that stands out more than anything is how weak Hewitt's groundstrokes are. Even when the guy tried to pound winners, Federer got his racquet on the ball. His forehand was not a standout shot by any means he when tried to press Federer with that shot, he hit more horrendous errors rather than winners.Murray's forehand stinks a lot of the time as well, but when its on it can match Hewitt's forehand in the defensive department and exceed it in offensive capabilities.

IMO, Hewitt exceeds Murray by a longshot in terms of tenacity. He has become a big champion with his game, but I think if he had Murray's skills, he would have won a lot more slams than Murray has been able to.


Roddick and Hewitt only played 1 big match and that was 2005 AO. And over his 10 year career, Roddick has never managed to standout at that event. It's not Roddick's fault that grass doesn't have a masters events, but him taken down Hewitt in straight sets in the 2nd biggest grass event and Cincy shows that Hewitt didn't necessarily have an edge over Roddick unless they were playing on slow HC or low bouncing HC/Indoors (TMC 2004 for example).

 

[90's Clay]

Murray is clearly the best of the 3. Hes taken out Fed at the Olympics, won countless Masters titles, won 2 slams beating Nole. Beaten Rafa at the slams. Won his 2 slams in a non transitional era (much stronger) than Hewitt's 2 slams in the vacuum era post Agassi/Sampras, Pre Fedal

 

[Deleted member 512391]

I think that Hewitt is better than any of them. He is clearly better than Roddick since he's won more (significant) titles: two Majors and two Masters Cups.
What differs him from Murray is the fact that he not only reached No. 1, but was able to keep that position during 2002 without losing it. That requires a mental strength Murray could only dream about.

Also, I would say that Hewitt's significance for tennis overall is much bigger than Murray's. He was the first baseliner who, helped with the polyester strings and lighter racquet frames, made serve and volley players look ordinary by completely deconstructing their game and beating them on regular basis. His appearance and rise, combined with improvements in equipment, made a huge impact on the game back then.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

I think that Hewitt is better than any of them. He is clearly better than Roddick since he's won more (significant) titles: two Majors and two Masters Cups.
What differs him from Murray is the fact that he not only reached No. 1, but was able to keep that position during 2002 without losing it. That requires a mental strength Murray could only dream about.

.

That is indeed impressive that he was able to get and hold on to the top ranking for so long, but calling it something "Murray could only dream out" is absolutely ridiculous.

Hewitt played his best tennis when the coast was clear of any tennis giants. He wasn't even that dominant but he finished number 1 two years in a row. In 2001 he won 1 slam, WTF, 0 masters. In 2002 he won 1 masters, 1 slam, and WTF.

Murray has been ranked as high as number 2 the past two years, but his competition makes it WAY harder than Hewitt ever had it.

2012 YE #1- Djokovic- 1 slam, 3 Masters, WTF, RU in all 4 majors. There were hardly any 1st and 2nd round beatdowns that Hewitt received frequently in 2001-2002.

2013 YE#1- Nadal- 2 slams, 5 masters and he still barely held on to the ranking. Djokovic was threatening to steal it until the very end.

This shows how hard it is reach number 1 nowadays. Hewitt's mental strength wouldn't get him to number 1 had he played against the same opposition Murray has. Murray is a great player sandwhiched between far greater players and that is the biggest reason why he has never been number 1. Had the coast been gentler for him as it was for Roddick and Hewitt, he would have definitely sat on the throne at some point.

 

[90's Clay]

I think that Hewitt is better than any of them. He is clearly better than Roddick since he's won more (significant) titles: two Majors and two Masters Cups.
What differs him from Murray is the fact that he not only reached No. 1, but was able to keep that position during 2002 without losing it. That requires a mental strength Murray could only dream about.

Also, I would say that Hewitt's significance for tennis overall is much bigger than Murray's. He was the first baseliner who, helped with the polyester strings and lighter racquet frames, made serve and volley players look ordinary by completely deconstructing their game and beating them on regular basis. His appearance and rise, combined with improvements in equipment, made a huge impact on the game back then.

Murray would have been an EASY #1 during Hewitt's time (Transitional era) and #1 for far longer than Hewitt and would have won farrrr more slams than just the two that Hewitt did at the time

Hewitt's mini era (2001-2004) was during a transitional time in tennis when there wasn't any greats in their primes around. that was post Agassi/Sampras prime and pre Nadal/Fed/Djoker prime.

Hewitt gets a lot of love around here (rightfully so he was a great fighter and player) but the fact is he only managed TWO slams during a time when the men's game was at its weakest


Whereas if you took Hewitt out of the equation (2001-2004) and stick a prime Murray in there, he wins anywheres from 6-7 slams, a couple YEC, and many masters titles

 

[mike danny]

Murray would have been an EASY #1 during Hewitt's time (Transitional era) and #1 for far longer than Hewitt and would have won farrrr more slams than just the two that Hewitt did at the time

Hewitt's mini era (2001-2004) was during a transitional time in tennis when there wasn't any greats in their primes around. that was post Agassi/Sampras prime and pre Nadal/Fed/Djoker prime.

Hewitt gets a lot of love around here (rightfully so he was a great fighter and player) but the fact is he only managed TWO slams during a time when the men's game was at its weakest


Whereas if you took Hewitt out of the equation (2001-2004) and stick a prime Murray in there, he wins anywheres from 6-7 slams, a couple YEC, and many masters titles

I would not be so sure about 2004. That was the year Hewitt really had to deal with a great in Federer. Murray would not do any better euther vs Fed that year

 

[Deleted member 512391]

Murray would have been an EASY #1 during Hewitt's time (Transitional era) and #1 for far longer than Hewitt and would have won farrrr more slams than just the two that Hewitt did at the time

Hewitt's mini era (2001-2004) was during a transitional time in tennis when there wasn't any greats in their primes around. that was post Agassi/Sampras prime and pre Nadal/Fed/Djoker prime.

Hewitt gets a lot of love around here (rightfully so he was a great fighter and player) but the fact is he only managed TWO slams during a time when the men's game was at its weakest


Whereas if you took Hewitt out of the equation (2001-2004) and stick a prime Murray in there, he wins anywheres from 6-7 slams, a couple YEC, and many masters titles

I can count at least 10 woulds, coulds and shoulds in this post, which is basically irrelevant wishful thinking.

And even if we accept your silly theory about "Transitional period" and weak opponents, I don't remember that Murray beat either Federer or Nadal at USO 2012 or Wimbl 2013, so his wins don't prove anything, right?

Unlike Murray, Hewitt had to deal with peak Federer when he played his best tennis (2004-2005 were Hewitt's best years), which makes your boy Murray even more lucky.
Murray had to play Djokovic in the first Slam final he won and was actually lucky that Djokovic didn't have a single day off, while a teenage Hewitt dismantled a living legend (7-6 6-1 6-1, remember?).

 

[Deleted member 512391]

That is indeed impressive that he was able to get and hold on to the top ranking for so long, but calling it something "Murray could only dream out" is absolutely ridiculous.

Hewitt played his best tennis when the coast was clear of any tennis giants. He wasn't even that dominant but he finished number 1 two years in a row. In 2001 he won 1 slam, WTF, 0 masters. In 2002 he won 1 masters, 1 slam, and WTF.

Murray has been ranked as high as number 2 the past two years, but his competition makes it WAY harder than Hewitt ever had it.

2012 YE #1- Djokovic- 1 slam, 3 Masters, WTF, RU in all 4 majors. There were hardly any 1st and 2nd round beatdowns that Hewitt received frequently in 2001-2002.

2013 YE#1- Nadal- 2 slams, 5 masters and he still barely held on to the ranking. Djokovic was threatening to steal it until the very end.

This shows how hard it is reach number 1 nowadays. Hewitt's mental strength wouldn't get him to number 1 had he played against the same opposition Murray has. Murray is a great player sandwhiched between far greater players and that is the biggest reason why he has never been number 1. Had the coast been gentler for him as it was for Roddick and Hewitt, he would have definitely sat on the throne at some point.

No matter how you slice it, all of Murray's big wins carry an asterisk.

In my opinion, he won the USO, after five sets, because he played Djokovic who didn't have a day off (after playing three sets the day before against Ferrer).
And both Olympics and Wimbledon ... he owes to one man: Delpo, who drained every last bit of life from both Federer and Djokovic.

And Hewitt's win against Sampras (five time champion there) in the USO final is much, much bigger than any of Murray's against Djokovic.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

No matter how you slice it, all of Murray's big wins carry an asterisk.

In my opinion, he won the USO, after five sets, because he played Djokovic who didn't have a day off (after playing three sets the day before against Ferrer).
And both Olympics and Wimbledon ... he owes to one man: Delpo, who drained every last bit of life from both Federer and Djokovic.

And Hewitt's win against Sampras (five time champion there) in the USO final is much, much bigger than any of Murray's against Djokovic.

Sure, people will always make arguments like that, but I didn't expect a Hewitt fan to make this one. Especially when you claim that Murray won over Federer and Djokovic because they had been zapped of energy. You should know that the same thing is said about Hewitt's win over Sampras. It isn't like the year before where Safin overpowered and outplayed Sampras in every way imaginable. Sampras just played a trainwreck of match in 2001. We can also bring up the 2002 Wimbledon final while we are at it when Hewitt played an opponent who was so nervous that he couldn't eat or talk much before the match... so if Murray's big wins carry and asterisk, the same goes to Hewitt. However, I prefer to not deal with asterisks.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

Sure, people will always make arguments like that, but I didn't expect a Hewitt fan to make this one. Especially when you claim that Murray won over Federer and Djokovic because they had been zapped of energy. You should know that the same thing is said about Hewitt's win over Sampras. It isn't like the year before where Safin overpowered and outplayed Sampras in every way imaginable. Sampras just played a trainwreck of match in 2001. We can also bring up the 2002 Wimbledon final while we are at it when Hewitt played an opponent who was so nervous that he couldn't eat or talk much before the match... so if Murray's big wins carry and asterisk, the same goes to Hewitt. However, I prefer to not deal with asterisks.

If you don't like asterisks (speculations, in other words), then I don't understand your previous post where you claimed that the only reason Murray haven't reached No. 1 is because his competition was tougher, indicating that he would have been No. 1 in 2001 or in 2002. You just don't know what would have happened...I just continued with "the asterisk game".

And let me remind you that he lost FOUR Major finals before he finally won, where Hewitt destroyed Sampras in his first ever Slam final, not to mention that he was barely 20 years old. That's why I said that Murray "could only dream about Hewitt's mental strength...".

 

[Mainad]

No matter how you slice it, all of Murray's big wins carry an asterisk.

In my opinion, he won the USO, after five sets, because he played Djokovic who didn't have a day off (after playing three sets the day before against Ferrer).

You can slice it any way you like. Djokovic had chances to win both his losing Slam finals with Murray. He levelled the USO match at 2 sets all and had numerous break back chances in the Wimbledon final. He couldn't take them because Murray just outplayed him. There can be no more an asterisk for Murray because he had an extra day off at the USO then there can be for Federer when he had an extra day off before his win over Murray at the 2008 USO. if you want to start scrutinising Slam wins for comparative length of semi-finals then you can't just do it for Murray, you're going to have to go down the list and be prepared to stick very many asterisks against a whole host of Slam wins by various players!

And both Olympics and Wimbledon ... he owes to one man: Delpo, who drained every last bit of life from both Federer and Djokovic.

Well, bully for Delpo! How come he didn't beat Federer and Djokovic then and go for his own glory in the Olympic and Wimbledon finals? How come Federer and Djokovic didn't just tank to him knowing they'd be too knackered to face Murray in the final? What's Murray supposed to do about the fact that neither of them could manage a routine win against a guy who's normally their pigeon? Should the Olympic and Wimbledon finals have been cancelled because Djokovic and Federer were daft enough to put themselves through long semi-finals when, as former Wimbledon champions, both should have come through in straight sets against a guy who has never won a grass title?

And Hewitt's win against Sampras (five time champion there) in the USO final is much, much bigger than any of Murray's against Djokovic.

I don't agree. Sampras was well past his prime in that final as indicated by the fact he was only seeded #10 at that tournament. He had only one more year to play. Murray faced the reigning world #1 players in both grasscourt finals (Olympics and Wimbledon) and the world #2 and defending champion (and soon to be #1 again) in the final of the US Open!

 

[naslamchamp]

You dreamed this or? What are you on?

No I was very much awake. If you disagree though then feel free to enlighten me on who exactly he faced in late 2001-early 2003 when he racked up all his biggest achievements, all his major titles, and all his time at #1. You cant say Federer who had not even made it past the quareterfinals of a slam yet, and was much weaker than the 2008-2014 (minus 2013) Federer that Murray faced. You cant say Roddick who was really an overhyped scrub at that point, before starting to get his act together for the first time ever upon dumping Goldfine. You cant say Sampras who was in the midst of a 25 month tournament-less streak, and like Federer and Roddick was mostly ranked outside the top 10. You cant say Kuerten who was hip busted out of any contention forever. So that leaves who? Tommy Haas, Sebastian Grosjean, 33 year old Agassi. Basically old Agassi was his only legitimate competition, and good luck arguing mid 30s Agassi is tougher competition than prime Djokovic, prime Nadal, and even a post peak Federer, who Murray has had to face every moment he was a contender.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

If you don't like asterisks (speculations, in other words), then I don't understand your previous post where you claimed that the only reason Murray haven't reached No. 1 is because his competition was tougher, indicating that he would have been No. 1 in 2001 or in 2002. You just don't know what would have happened...I just continued with "the asterisk game".

Umm, that is an absolute fact. I'm sorry, but having the top of the rankings being inundated by guys like Djokovic, Nadal, and even Federer (in 2012) makes it very hard to become world number 1. Murray has had years where he has won a slam, masters events, and multiple slam finals and still he never got close to becoming number 1. For Hewitt, that was enough to secure number 1. That is not an "asterisk". That is simply a fact; Nadal and Djokovic are contenders for the top ranking along with him. Who did Hewitt have behind him? Agassi wasn't exactly breathing down his neck to have him hand his number 1 rank up to him.

 

[dpli2010]

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.

- Skill set: Murry~Hewitt~Roddick;
- Court versatility: Murry~Hewitt>Roddick;
- Court intelligence: Murry>Roddick~Hewitt;
- Overall: Murry>Hewitt>Roddick.

 

[Djokovic2011]

No I was very much awake. If you disagree though then feel free to enlighten me on who exactly he faced in late 2001-early 2003 when he racked up all his biggest achievements, all his major titles, and all his time at #1. You cant say Federer who had not even made it past the quareterfinals of a slam yet, and was much weaker than the 2008-2014 (minus 2013) Federer that Murray faced. You cant say Roddick who was really an overhyped scrub at that point, before starting to get his act together for the first time ever upon dumping Goldfine. You cant say Sampras who was in the midst of a 25 month tournament-less streak, and like Federer and Roddick was mostly ranked outside the top 10. You cant say Kuerten who was hip busted out of any contention forever. So that leaves who? Tommy Haas, Sebastian Grosjean, 33 year old Agassi. Basically old Agassi was his only legitimate competition, and good luck arguing mid 30s Agassi is tougher competition than prime Djokovic, prime Nadal, and even a post peak Federer, who Murray has had to face every moment he was a contender.

WOW. You really don't like Hewitt do you?

 

[naslamchamp]

No matter how you slice it, all of Murray's big wins carry an asterisk.

In my opinion, he won the USO, after five sets, because he played Djokovic who didn't have a day off (after playing three sets the day before against Ferrer).
And both Olympics and Wimbledon ... he owes to one man: Delpo, who drained every last bit of life from both Federer and Djokovic.

And Hewitt's win against Sampras (five time champion there) in the USO final is much, much bigger than any of Murray's against Djokovic.

Not a Murray fan but your logic here is ********.

First off there is no basis for Djokovic likely beating Murray on grass period. Murray has always been the better grass player, even though Djokovic won Wimbledon first. When they last played on grass at the Olympics, Murray won comfortably. The fact Djokovic had to go 5 sets with Del Potro anyway, only makes it obvious he was never beating Murray.

As for the U.S Open, Djokovic is 1-4 overall in U.S Open finals. The Djokovic-Ferrer semifinal was ridiculously easy, so to put Djokovic's defeat down to that to the point it devalues Murray's win is:lol: By that logic probably 2 or 3 of Sampras's U.S Opens wouldnt count since he won playing Agassi who had a hard fought semifinal that ended late evening before.

Also beating grandpa Sampras who was ranked 17th in the world and was in the middle of a 25 month tournament-less drought is not even close to as big a win as beating #1 ranked Djokovic. That isnt even mentioning Sampras was dead for that final, and served about 30 mph slower than usual on both 1st and 2nd serves, and was 2 steps slow.

 

[SamprasisGOAT]

Hewitt is a mental migit

 

[naslamchamp]

WOW. You really don't like Hewitt do you?

I like him just fine. I am breaking down the ridiculous suggestion Hewitt had tougher competition. Yes he faced peak Federer a couple years, but most of his prime and the duration of ALL his wins and biggest achievements he faced NOBODY like I said. So to put Murray down in favor of Hewitt based on tougher competition for Hewitt is laughable. Put Hewitt ahead for his time at #1 and WTF titles sure, but competition, haha.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I certainly wouldn't say Murray beat Djokovic comfortably at the Olympics. It was 7-5, 7-5 and lasted two hours, hardly what you'd call a beatdown.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

I certainly wouldn't say Murray beat Djokovic comfortably at the Olympics. It was 7-5, 7-5 and lasted two hours, hardly what you'd call a beatdown.

Djokovic had a serious braincramp on matchpoint in that match. I can't believe he serve and volleyed.

 

[TeamOB]

Hewitt is a mental migit

 

[The-Champ]

The commentator today during the Nadal-Hewitt match said that Lleyton has never defeated a reigning world number 1 in his career. Is that true?

 

[Sid_Vicious]

The commentator today during the Nadal-Hewitt match said that Lleyton has never defeated a reigning world number 1 in his career. Is that true?

Just checked. I think that is indeed the case.

Roddick only has 1. (def. Federer in Miami 2008 )

It's just interesting trivia. Not an important statistics. Carlos Moya has 4 wins over the number 1(Hewitt) in 2002 alone. It's funny that 4/5 of Moya's wins over Hewitt came in 2002, when he beat Hewitt like a drum; four straight set beatdowns.

 

[rocketassist]

Hewitt is the greatest of the 3 unless Murray either wins a third slam or gets #1.

Agree with whoever said Andy had a bit of fortune avoiding peak Federer and Hewitt some misfortune, but he was able to grab a couple and 80 weeks on top before Roger peaked, so it wasn't all bad for Lleyton.

 

[jg153040]

Safin=Roddick=Murray=Hewitt

Some have more titles just because of luck of Fed's fluctuation.

All those guys would do nothing against peak Fed.

 

[Mainad]

Safin=Roddick=Murray=Hewitt

Some have more titles just because of luck of Fed's fluctuation.

All those guys would do nothing against peak Fed.

Safin beat peak Fed at 2005 Australian Open. Murray beat peak Fed at 2006 Cincinnati!

 

[SLD76]

Safin beat peak Fed at 2005 Australian Open. Murray beat peak Fed at 2006 Cincinnati!

Safin had to play the match of his life to do it and by 2006, he was finished.

Murray still has never beaten Roger in a slam.

 

[Mainad]

Safin had to play the match of his life to do it and by 2006, he was finished.

Nevertheless, he did it! 8)

Murray still has never beaten Roger in a slam.

Oh dear, forgotten the 2013 AO semi-final already? But admittedly, that was not quite prime Fed!

 

[jg153040]

Safin beat peak Fed at 2005 Australian Open. Murray beat peak Fed at 2006 Cincinnati!

I'm talking those guys can't consistently win majors vs peak Fed. So, they took advantage of it.

None of them won any majors going trough peak, even non peak Fed.

Except that match Safin got a bit lucky. But he was way inconsistent to put him above Hewitt, Roddick, Murray. They are about the same caliber player to me.

If you remove Fed, they all win about 3-5 majors. So, I consider them about the same tier.

 

[Mainad]

I'm talking those guys can't consistently win majors vs peak Fed. So, they took advantage of it.

None of them won any majors going trough peak, even non peak Fed.

Safin went on to win the 2005 AO after beating peak Fed in the semis.

Except that match Safin got a bit lucky.

Ah well, you make your own luck, don't you? So do all the top players including Fed, peak or otherwise.

But he was way inconsistent to put him above Hewitt, Roddick, Murray. They are about the same caliber player to me.
If you remove Fed, they all win about 3-5 majors. So, I consider them about the same tier.

Maybe.

 

[jg153040]

Safin went on to win the 2005 AO after beating peak Fed in the semis.



Ah well, you make your own luck, don't you? So do all the top players including Fed, peak or otherwise.



Maybe.

Nothing personal to Safin. Fed won a couple of majors due to luck too. All I'm saying is that my opinion is that those guys are the same tier, even though they don't have the exact same achievements due to some luck.

Nobody is saying Delpo is better than Hewitt, Roddick, Murray, Djokovic. But he was the only one able to beat Fed in a GS final out of those guys. So, sometimes luck plays a small part.

 

[Sunny014]

Stats say :

Lleyton Hewitt lost 13 times in his career in Slams to the eventual champion.
Sir Andy Murray lost 13 times in his career in slams to the eventual champion.
Andy Roddick has lost 10 times in his career in Slams to the eventual champion
Juan Martin Del Potro has lost 7 times in his career in Slams to the eventual champion.
Stan Wawrinka has lost 5 times in his career to the eventual champion
Marat Safin has lost 3 times in his career to the eventual champion

 

[Deleted member 771911]

By some margin.

 

[Aabye5]

No

 

[ForehandOnTheRun]

Thiem is a better play than Roddick, of course Hewitt is

 

[Sunny014]

Thiem is a better play than Roddick, of course Hewitt is

Lleyton Hewitt lost 13 times in his career in Slams to the eventual champion.
Sir Andy Murray lost 13 times in his career in slams to the eventual champion.
Andy Roddick has lost 10 times in his career in Slams to the eventual champion

What is the difference between the 3 ? Murray was no better than Hewitt/Roddick, they were all in the same league.