Is Murray really greater than Hewitt?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 748597
  • Start date Start date

Who is really greater?

  • Total voters
    220
skaj said:
I don't see how can Hewitt be better off the second, nor how is Murray who is obviously a faster server better off the first mostly because he got it in more often...
Click to expand...

Because placement is as if not more important than speed? Hewitt wasn't far off in aces or winning percentage behind first serve comparing their best years - if he was behind at all. The biggest gap in their serves is that Murray probably got his first serve into play more often. Should go without saying that getting the first serve in is an important component of the first serve right...

Also you claim Murray's faster first serve makes his first clearly better, but apparently Hewitt having a faster second serve doesn't make his second serve better? Where's the logic in that...
 
NatF said:
Because placement is as if not more important than speed? Hewitt wasn't far off in aces or winning percentage behind first serve comparing their best years - if he was behind at all. The biggest gap in their serves is that Murray probably got his first serve into play more often. Should go without saying that getting the first serve in is an important component of the first serve right...

Also you claim Murray's faster first serve makes his first clearly better, but apparently Hewitt having a faster second serve doesn't make his second serve better? Where's the logic in that...
Click to expand...

And Hewitt has better placement than Murray?

As for the logic, I commented on your post that said that Murray is better off the first mostly because he got it in more often. So, I was saying that it is not mostly because of that, but that the speed has as much to do with it. He is one of the faster servers ever, Hewitt far from it. The difference in speed for the first serve is significant, which is not the case for the second(if there is any...).
 
So now some posters now saying that Murray was only better because of longevity and consistency... I find this also to be unfair to Murray and frankly nonsensical. The guy has posted better results to the point where they are not even comparable in 3/4 slams. Even the only slam where it is comparable (USO), Murray still has a slightly better win percentage lol. And then there is the case of like 14 m1000s.

He's more consistent because his game holds up better, because he is a better player. Both are baseline grinders who rely on their speed, only Murray is doing it better. It's as dumb as saying something like Andre is only better than Courier because of longevity.
 
Last edited:
skaj said:
And Hewitt has better placement than Murray?

As for the logic, I commented on your post that said that Murray is better off the first mostly because he got it in more often. So, I was saying that it is not mostly because of that, but that the speed has as much to do with it. He is one of the faster servers ever, Hewitt far from it. The difference in speed for the first serve is significant, which is not the case for the second(if there is any...).
Click to expand...

Hewitt had good placement off the serve. Don't know if it was better than Murray or not but it wasn't a weakness he had...

Across their career's on serve Murray has won less than a percentage more of his first serve points (74.5% vs 73.7%), he also is slightly behind Hewitt on second serve points won (52.7% vs 51.9%) - this is despite a less injury hampered career. If you compare both their best five year periods 00-05 for Hewitt and 11-16 for Murray, Hewitt actually tops him for both 75.2% vs 74.9% on first and 53.5% vs 52.3% on second. Yet Murray still has a higher percentage of serve points won, why? Because he got more first serves in e.g. 60.2% vs 53.2%...

So yes Murray's main advantage on serve was his consistency getting the first ball in...

Also: https://matchstat.com/tennis/head-to-head this has slam match stats from the FO 2003 onwards, often this includes the serve speeds. Murray's second serve speeds actually dipped in 2011/2012 up until 2016 from what I've seen, maybe his back troubles? In 2009/2010 I think he was actually quite decent in that respect. But his second serve speeds in that 2012-2013 peak window were clearly lower than Hewitt's on average from what I've seen, likewise in 2015.
 
-snake- said:
They were, Judy, and you know it.
Click to expand...

cropped_MI-new-St-Patrick-Snakes-Getty.jpg
 
NatF said:
Hewitt had good placement off the serve. Don't know if it was better than Murray or not but it wasn't a weakness he had...

Across their career's on serve Murray has won less than a percentage more of his first serve points (74.5% vs 73.7%), he also is slightly behind Hewitt on second serve points won (52.7% vs 51.9%) - this is despite a less injury hampered career. If you compare both their best five year periods 00-05 for Hewitt and 11-16 for Murray, Hewitt actually tops him for both 75.2% vs 74.9% on first and 53.5% vs 52.3% on second. Yet Murray still has a higher percentage of serve points won, why? Because he got more first serves in e.g. 60.2% vs 53.2%...

So yes Murray's main advantage on serve was his consistency getting the first ball in...

Also: https://matchstat.com/tennis/head-to-head this has slam match stats from the FO 2003 onwards, often this includes the serve speeds. Murray's second serve speeds actually dipped in 2011/2012 up until 2016 from what I've seen, maybe his back troubles? In 2009/2010 I think he was actually quite decent in that respect. But his second serve speeds in that 2012-2013 peak window were clearly lower than Hewitt's on average from what I've seen, likewise in 2015.
Click to expand...
% would likely always be a problem for Hewitt because of his height, but it's worth noting that his percentage went up after he switched to poly just like everyone else so it's probably more like 55/56 vs 60. But yeah no doubt that's Hewitt's biggest weakness, and honestly it's a big weakness for Murray too because getting in only 60% without an elite first serve and garbage 2nd is a liability. He should be into the mid 60's like Djoker usually is. Federer is usually 61/62 with a significantly better serve on both deliveries.
 
metsman said:
% would likely always be a problem for Hewitt because of his height, but it's worth noting that his percentage went up after he switched to poly just like everyone else so it's probably more like 55/56 vs 60. But yeah no doubt that's Hewitt's biggest weakness, and honestly it's a big weakness for Murray too because getting in only 60% without an elite first serve and garbage 2nd is a liability. He should be into the mid 60's like Djoker usually is. Federer is usually 61/62 with a significantly better serve on both deliveries.
Click to expand...

Yeah he didn't switch to poly until 04 I think.

Not sure if it was height, technique or down to his approach. Hewitt rarely seemed to play it safe on the first serve and roll it in, he usually went to the lines and for aces.
 
NatF said:
Hewitt had good placement off the serve. Don't know if it was better than Murray or not but it wasn't a weakness he had...

Across their career's on serve Murray has won less than a percentage more of his first serve points (74.5% vs 73.7%), he also is slightly behind Hewitt on second serve points won (52.7% vs 51.9%) - this is despite a less injury hampered career. If you compare both their best five year periods 00-05 for Hewitt and 11-16 for Murray, Hewitt actually tops him for both 75.2% vs 74.9% on first and 53.5% vs 52.3% on second. Yet Murray still has a higher percentage of serve points won, why? Because he got more first serves in e.g. 60.2% vs 53.2%...

So yes Murray's main advantage on serve was his consistency getting the first ball in...

Also: https://matchstat.com/tennis/head-to-head this has slam match stats from the FO 2003 onwards, often this includes the serve speeds. Murray's second serve speeds actually dipped in 2011/2012 up until 2016 from what I've seen, maybe his back troubles? In 2009/2010 I think he was actually quite decent in that respect. But his second serve speeds in that 2012-2013 peak window were clearly lower than Hewitt's on average from what I've seen, likewise in 2015.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about weakness or not, but the fact that he didn't place the ball better than Murray, which is what we are talking about here.

Then you are giving percentages, with minimal differences btw, as if they played same points and opponents in those matches... And than again trying to ignore the fact that Murray hits faster first server, just because he put more of them in(Hewitt would put more in if he could - serve faster naturally).

And thanks for sharing your perception regarding their second serve speeds in different seasons...
 
skaj said:
I wasn't talking about weakness or not, but the fact that he didn't place the ball better than Murray, which is what we are talking about here.

Then you are giving percentages, with minimal differences btw, as if they played same points and opponents in those matches... And than again trying to ignore the fact that Murray hits faster first server, just because he put more of them in(Hewitt would put more in if he could - serve faster naturally).

And thanks for sharing your perception regarding their second serve speeds in different seasons...
Click to expand...

Sure they played different opponents. Stats still show exactly what I've been saying though.
 
Nole Slam said:
Murray

3 Slams
1 YEC
1 YE #1
41 weeks at number one (inflated)

Hewitt

2 Slams
2 YECs
2 YE #1
80 weeks at number one

Discuss.
Click to expand...
It is Murray's consistency in making Slam finals and semi-finals that carries it for me. Murray was in the last 4 - 21 times. Compared to Hewitt (who I have to say is continually underrated) - 8 times.

I don't know why you say 'inflated' to his weeks at number 1. His count of weeks followed all the rules. It was as simple as this, no other player had as many points during those weeks over the previous 12 months, in each of the weeks he was number 1.
 
killerboss said:
So now some posters now saying that Murray was only better because of longevity and consistency... I find this also to be unfair to Murray and frankly nonsensical. The guy has posted better results to the point where they are not even comparable in 3/4 slams. Even the only slam where it is comparable (USO), Murray still has a slightly better win percentage lol. And then there is the case of like 14 m1000s.

He's more consistent because his game holds up better, because he is a better player. Both are baseline grinders who rely on their speed, only Murray is doing it better. It's as dumb as saying something like Andre is only better than Courier because of longevity.
Click to expand...
Murray has only 1 more slam than Hewitt despite having a much longer career. Not the same as with Agassi and Courier.
 
mike danny said:
Murray has only 1 more slam than Hewitt despite having a much longer career. Not the same as with Agassi and Courier.
Click to expand...

Even so, Murray's general slam performances and achievements have surpassed Hewitt's. Like I said, he has been better in 3 out of 4 slams to the point where it isn't even close. And he hasn't actually had a much longer career, infact so far his career hasn't even been longer at all. He's just been better for longer.
 
I'm a huge Hewitt fan and Murray hater

Murray is better no question not sure why this is even a thread tbh
 
Honestly, I feel like people really underestimate just what it took Murray to get that #1 ranking in 2016. People did not give Murray any real chance of getting the #1 ranking at all.

Seriously, In June of 2016 after Novak had won the French Open and before the Queen's Club tournament began, Novak had 9,025-point lead in the ATP Rankings. He had built what most people felt was an insurmountable lead for the #1 spot.

Following the French Open, Murray would achieve these results:

Won Queen
Won Wimbledon
Won Summer Olympics
Runner up at Cincinnati
Quarterfinal at US Open
Won China Open
Won Shanghai
Won Vienna
Won Paris
Won the World Tours Finals

Now, Murray played the last five tournaments in a span of a month and a half from October to November in which he won 23 straight matches that were contested with two other walkover for 25 straight wins in his last five tournaments.

To me, Murray's year end #1 was far more impressive than Hewitt #1 ranking.
 
BladeDaywalker said:
Honestly, I feel like people really underestimate just what it took Murray to get that #1 ranking in 2016. People did not give Murray any real chance of getting the #1 ranking at all.

Seriously, In June of 2016 after Novak had won the French Open and before the Queen's Club tournament began, Novak had 9,025-point lead in the ATP Rankings. He had built what most people felt was an insurmountable lead for the #1 spot.

Following the French Open, Murray would achieve these results:

Won Queen
Won Wimbledon
Won Summer Olympics
Runner up at Cincinnati
Quarterfinal at US Open
Won China Open
Won Shanghai
Won Vienna
Won Paris
Won the World Tours Finals

Now, Murray played the last five tournaments in a span of a month and a half from October to November in which he won 23 straight matches that were contested with two other walkover for 25 straight wins in his last five tournaments.

To me, Murray's year end #1 was far more impressive than Hewitt #1 ranking.
Click to expand...
It was impressive mostly because of the huge gap in points between him and Novak that he had to overcome.

But as far as competition went after the FO, it wasn't better than Hewitt's.
 
killerboss said:
Even so, Murray's general slam performances and achievements have surpassed Hewitt's. Like I said, he has been better in 3 out of 4 slams to the point where it isn't even close. And he hasn't actually had a much longer career, infact so far his career hasn't even been longer at all. He's just been better for longer.
Click to expand...
Hewitt was done as a top player at age 25. So yeah, Murray has definitely had the much longer career at the top.
 
Mainad said:
Do yourself a favour and see where Murray's state of fitness was in 2017. He suffered an attack of shingles at the start of the season and then his hip injury started to become more and more severe. He simply couldn't play any longer at his top level. Nevertheless it still took 41 weeks before Nadal could overtake him into the #1 spot. That was a measure of the big lead in points he built up in 2016. He was gift-wrapped nothing.
Click to expand...

You kind of prove my point that Murray did nothing to remain at #1 for 40 weeks. And he exerted himself like anything to get to #1 and the body gave up. Can't blame anyone for that.

And IT IS GIFT WRAPPED when the YE#2 who was just 400 points behind continues with his downward spiral for another 18 months while the red hot players on the tour in 2017 (Nadal and Federer) were away for almost the complete second half of 2016 thereby helping Murray to build up a big lead over them.

I believe your basic comprehension skills go for a toss when Murray is mentioned anywhere.
 
skaj said:
Stats show numbers for different points, whole points.
Click to expand...

Not even sure what you're saying. The stats show that they're very close on serve, Hewitt arguably a bit better on first & second in terms of winning points but Murray gets more firsts in. Which is exactly what I've been saying.
 
NatF said:
Not even sure what you're saying. The stats show that they're very close on serve, Hewitt arguably a bit better on first & second in terms of winning points but Murray gets more firsts in. Which is exactly what I've been saying.
Click to expand...

The stats are showing what you have just written - points won. Points don't depend on serve alone.
 
skaj said:
The stats are showing what you have just written - points won. Points don't depend on serve alone.
Click to expand...

Ok, but you disagreed with Hewitt having a better forehand and we both agree that Murray is better off the backhand side so something has to give.
 
Nole_King said:
You kind of prove my point that Murray did nothing to remain at #1 for 40 weeks. And he exerted himself like anything to get to #1 and the body gave up. Can't blame anyone for that.

And IT IS GIFT WRAPPED when the YE#2 who was just 400 points behind continues with his downward spiral for another 18 months while the red hot players on the tour in 2017 (Nadal and Federer) were away for almost the complete second half of 2016 thereby helping Murray to build up a big lead over them.

I believe your basic comprehension skills go for a toss when Murray is mentioned anywhere.
Click to expand...

When a player wins as much as Andy did in the 2nd half of 2016 and overcame a deficit of more than 9,000 ranking points to overtake the reigning world #1 and then beat him for the title in the season-ending finale, that's a job well-earned and accomplished. Nothing about it was "gift-wrapped". You may apply that description to some players who got to #1 just by doing little while players ranked above them dropped ranking points in their favour. That most certainly wasn't the case with Andy, he went out and earned it (if the likes of Fed and Nadal dropped out anywhere that's on them, nothing to do with Andy).

So quit with your hate-filled trolling and learn to live with it. There's a good lad!
 
Safin was above both players. Hewitt generally had light competition to win his slams, while Safin beat the creme de la creme.

Safin also better than Murray for the same reason. Hewitt and Murray are very comparable in how they achieved their achievements. Likewise, Safin and Wawrinka are very comparable for the same reason.
 
mike danny said:
Hewitt was done as a top player at age 25. So yeah, Murray has definitely had the much longer career at the top.
Click to expand...

And Safin was done when he turned 25 (AO 2005), Nalbandian was done in GS tournaments at age of 24 (RG 2006), Ferrero was done at age of 23 (AO 2004), Roddick was done after his tragic defeat in Wimbledon 2009 at age of 26 and Davydenko was done in AO 2010 when he was 28.

At least in the case of Murray, he finished his 20s at a great level to reach his end of his maximum level at 30 years old.
 
skaj said:
Yes, I am the one who answers with "lol" when has no arguments and calls people names ... jesus...
Click to expand...

Just because you present something as an argument doesn't mean it actually is. Don't see any verifiable statements re Hewitt vs Murray serve from you in this thread.
 
skaj said:
Yes, I am the one who answers with "lol" when has no arguments and calls people names ... jesus...
Click to expand...

I mean you barely address my points so what am I supposed to say? You say Murray has a significantly better serve because he hit it faster, despite having at best equal success behind both first and second serves. When I point out Hewitt hit his second faster you dismiss it as significant.

Nothing left to say.
 
NatF said:
I mean you barely address my points so what am I supposed to say? You say Murray has a significantly better serve because he hit it faster, despite having at best equal success behind both first and second serves. When I point out Hewitt hit his second faster you dismiss it as significant.

Nothing left to say.
Click to expand...

No, I said that Murray's speed on the 1st serve is significantly faster, unlike the difference on the second serve.
You just gave some stats and "analysed" it in a simple and reductive manner, as I explained already.
 
skaj said:
No, I said that Murray's speed on the 1st serve is significantly faster, unlike the difference on the second serve.
You just gave some stats and "analysed" it in a simple and reductive manner, as I explained already.
Click to expand...

As opposed to you who hasn't analysed anything...
 
zep said:
Murray and it's not even close. Hewitt would have never become #1 in any period other than 2001-02 when the tour was weak af.

h8k6K2C.png
Click to expand...
Despite ELO being a pretty trash measure of players' level, you should at least put more effort into a decent graph by summing up their net ELO rather than in a bar graph like this.
 
Mainad said:
When a player wins as much as Andy did in the 2nd half of 2016 and overcame a deficit of more than 9,000 ranking points to overtake the reigning world #1 and then beat him for the title in the season-ending finale, that's a job well-earned and accomplished. Nothing about it was "gift-wrapped". You may apply that description to some players who got to #1 just by doing little while players ranked above them dropped ranking points in their favour. That most certainly wasn't the case with Andy, he went out and earned it (if the likes of Fed and Nadal dropped out anywhere that's on them, nothing to do with Andy).

So quit with your hate-filled trolling and learn to live with it. There's a good lad!
Click to expand...

Go back and read what I referred to as GIFT WRAPPED. I said credit to Murray for what he did to get to #1 but the 40 weeks at #1 were GIFT WRAPPED because the #2 went through a sink hole and the other hot players of 2017 came back after half year layoff.

This is not trolling but logic which you fail to comprehend. In your blind love for Murray you keep on exaggerating his achievements. You need to learn to live with the fact that Murray has been a good player but not an ATG that you proclaim him to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Djokovic is closer to Federer than Nadal is
10 11 12
Replies
556
Views
40K
Deleted member 748597
D
D
The Wawrinka and Hewitt
2 3
Replies
107
Views
6K
Poisoned Slice
Poisoned Slice
D
  • Poll Poll
Nadal vs Sampras
2 3
Replies
115
Views
8K
GhostofPetros
GhostofPetros
D
  • Poll Poll
Murray should donate his achievements to Djokovic
Replies
12
Views
1K
Bender
Bender
D
Djokovic vs Nadal
Replies
15
Views
882
Rago
Rago
Back
Top