Is Murray really greater than Hewitt?

[killerboss]

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.

I'm not too sure either what you mean about anything being gift wrapped, but yeah due to his own injury problems and the resurgence of Federer and Nadal the number 1 ranking was never going to be sustainable. I'm sure he would have been in the top 4 had he not been injured and was playing at the same level as in 2016.

 

[Nole_King]

I'm not too sure either what you mean about anything being gift wrapped, but yeah due to his own injury problems and the resurgence of Federer and Nadal the number 1 ranking was never going to be sustainable. I'm sure he would have been in the top 4 had he not been injured and was playing at the same level as in 2016.

His level of play did contribute to his injury woes. He saw a chance to get to #1 and gave it all. And like I said credit to him. He did absolutely great post USO till end of year. My terming something gift wrapped had to do with this blind fan of his on TTW, who, post after post has been harping on the 40+ weeks that Murray remained number 1. He even claimed that Nadal was in action till Shanghai in 2016 to credit Murray for building such a big gap between him and Nadal that it took 40 weeks in 2017 for Nadal to over take Murray.

 

[Mainad]

His level of play did contribute to his injury woes. He saw a chance to get to #1 and gave it all. And like I said credit to him. He did absolutely great post USO till end of year. My terming something gift wrapped had to do with this blind fan of his on TTW, who, post after post has been harping on the 40+ weeks that Murray remained number 1. He even claimed that Nadal was in action till Shanghai in 2016 to credit Murray for building such a big gap between him and Nadal that it took 40 weeks in 2017 for Nadal to over take Murray.

What is so difficult for you to comprehend? Murray built up such a big lead in points by the end of 2016 that, despite his hip injury preventing him from playing at that level to defend them in 2017, it still took 41 weeks for Nadal to overtake him. It's not rocket science and it wasn't gift-wrapped either. Maybe if you read this very very slowly some of these basic facts might begin to penetrate the dim and darkest recesses of your extremely prejudiced brain. But I won't bet on it.

 

[Nole_King]

What is so difficult for you to comprehend? Murray built up such a big lead in points by the end of 2016 that, despite his hip injury preventing him from playing at that level to defend them in 2017, it still took 41 weeks for Nadal to overtake him. It's not rocket science and it wasn't gift-wrapped either. Maybe if you read this very very slowly some of these basic facts might begin to penetrate the dim and darkest recesses of your extremely prejudiced brain. But I won't bet on it.

What is so difficult for you to read and comprehend that the lead that Murray had over Nadal was built due to absence of Nadal from the tour starting from French Open 2016. So whatever you recommend about slow reading actually applies to you.

 

[ericarnett88]

..

 

[Mainad]

What is so difficult for you to read and comprehend that the lead that Murray had over Nadal was built due to absence of Nadal from the tour starting from French Open 2016. So whatever you recommend about slow reading actually applies to you.

Learn your facts. The only big events Nadal skipped in the 2nd half of 2016 (post Wimbledon) were Toronto, Paris-Bercy and the WTF and he was never exactly the favourite for the last 2 now, was he?

 

[Nole_King]

Learn your facts. The only big events Nadal skipped in the 2nd half of 2016 (post Wimbledon) were Toronto, Paris-Bercy and the WTF and he was never exactly the favourite for the last 2 now, was he?

Again you learn your facts. Nadal WITHDREW from French, skipped Wimbledon, tried making a comeback in hard court season and left the tour for the rest of the year after losing his first match in Shanghai. And you want us to believe that there was nothing wrong with Nadal and that he just skipped 3 tournaments? You are seriously becoming pathetic here.

 

[Mainad]

Again you learn your facts. Nadal WITHDREW from French, skipped Wimbledon, tried making a comeback in hard court season and left the tour for the rest of the year after losing his first match in Shanghai. And you want us to believe that there was nothing wrong with Nadal and that he just skipped 3 tournaments? You are seriously becoming pathetic here.

Nadal played every single hard court event following Wimbledon bar Toronto until the very last 2 (Paris and the WTF). Given that he had never won either of them or Shanghai it's a reasonable assumption to make that 2016 would have been no different no matter how fit or injured he claimed to be. Remember, Nadal is ALWAYS injured except when he loses but he has never been as big a loser as you are in your utterly futile attempts to discredit Murray's achievements in 2016. Pathetic is YOUR middle name!

 

[Nole_King]

Nadal played every single hard court event following Wimbledon bar Toronto until the very last 2 (Paris and the WTF). Given that he had never won either of them or Shanghai it's a reasonable assumption to make that 2016 would have been no different no matter how fit or injured he claimed to be. Remember, Nadal is ALWAYS injured except when he loses but he has never been as big a loser as you are in your utterly futile attempts to discredit Murray's achievements in 2016. Pathetic is YOUR middle name!

Nadal withdrew from French (only time ever) which is strong enough reason for any objective tennis follower to agree that things were not right with him physically. He tried to come back by playing in Cinci, USO and Shanghai but was well below par and ended up skipping the rest of the season.

And it is hilarious how skipping Toronto, Paris and WTF post Wimbledon counts for so little for you. You would be surprised to know that it is equal to what he was actually able to participate in (Cinci, Shanghai and USO).

Again you are a willfully blind Murray supporter who keeps on exaggerating his idol to no extent. And best part is that you think someone who doesn't agree with you is a loser with pathetic as a middle name ... LOL.

 

[Mainad]

Nadal withdrew from French (only time ever) which is strong enough reason for any objective tennis follower to agree that things were not right with him physically. He tried to come back by playing in Cinci, USO and Shanghai but was well below par and ended up skipping the rest of the season.

And it is hilarious how skipping Toronto, Paris and WTF post Wimbledon counts for so little for you. You would be surprised to know that it is equal to what he was actually able to participate in (Cinci, Shanghai and USO).

Again you are a willfully blind Murray supporter who keeps on exaggerating his idol to no extent. And best part is that you think someone who doesn't agree with you is a loser with pathetic as a middle name ... LOL.

I'm far from being blind wilfully or otherwise. I just want him to be given his due and not unfairly put down by the likes of wilfully blind haters like you.

 

[Nole_King]

I'm far from being blind wilfully or otherwise. I just want him to be given his due and not unfairly put down by the likes of wilfully blind haters like you.

Lol .. because someone doesnt think that Murray is an ATG they become blind haters.

Blind supporters are people like you who with 3 slams of Murray make him an ATG whereas there are ATGs who have one 3 slams in one year with two of them having done it multiple times ...

 

[Mainad]

Lol .. because someone doesnt think that Murray is an ATG they become blind haters.

They certainly are if they try to make out that everything he achieved was "gift wrapped". Whether or not he is an ATG is just a matter of opinion and not written in stone by anybody.

Blind supporters are people like you who with 3 slams of Murray make him an ATG whereas there are ATGs who have one 3 slams in one year with two of them having done it multiple times ...

Don't try and play the innocent. I only defend him against blind haters like you although I agree it is a complete waste of time engaging with you and your ilk because, in the end, all you're trying to do is troll me. I note you have not engaged with a single other poster on this forum about anything else which confirms what I already knew which is why this and any further conversation with you on this subject is now terminated. Cheerio!

 

[Nole_King]

They certainly are if they try to make out that everything he achieved was "gift wrapped". Whether or not he is an ATG is just a matter of opinion and not written in stone by anybody.



Don't try and play the innocent. I only defend him against blind haters like you although I agree it is a complete waste of time engaging with you and your ilk because, in the end, all you're trying to do is troll me. I note you have not engaged with a single other poster on this forum about anything else which confirms what I already knew which is why this and any further conversation with you on this subject is now terminated. Cheerio!

People like me who acknowledge Murray to be an accomplished player but simply not ATG stuff are not blind haters. I give him the credit of reaching #1 but staying there for more than half of 2017 was GIFT WRAPPED ...

Nice that you are going through history of my posts. You can refer to the Novak Rafa H2H thread if you think I am obsessed with Murray. Contrary you are the one who brings Murray in every thread even if someone is discussing Raonic. ROFL

 

[Enceladus]

Both are not an ATG. That’s for sure.

Even the both two altogether don't have enough grandslams to reach the ATG category.

@Mainad

 

[Deleted member 770948]

Hewitt is better at everything except for the backhand and serve, but Murray's serve is no prize either.

 

[Mainad]

Even the both two altogether don't have enough grandslams to reach the ATG category.

@Mainad

If you add the numbers in '2013' the 1st year Murray won Wimbledon, you get '6'. Arguably his greatest season, 2016, ends in a '6. That alone should give him ATG status.

@Enceladus

 

[TMF]

Even the both two altogether don't have enough grandslams to reach the ATG category.

@Mainad

That's why I've said Murray is far from an ATG. There's no fine line that separated him from an ATG otherwise there would be a good discussion.

 

[TMF]

If you add the numbers in '2013' the 1st year Murray won Wimbledon, you get '6'. Arguably his greatest season, 2016, ends in a '6. That alone should give him ATG status.

@Enceladus

Murray has achieved more than enough to get inducted into Hall of Fame. That's a great honor.

However to be an All Time Great, he has to catch this man who has set the minimum standard.

 

[Enceladus]

If you add the numbers in '2013' the 1st year Murray won Wimbledon, you get '6'. Arguably his greatest season, 2016, ends in a '6. That alone should give him ATG status.

@Enceladus

I understand that it's hard for you to come to terms with the fact that Murray is not an ATG player. But because of him, the limit for entering the ATG category will not be lowered. And remember, Murray needs to reach 6 grandslams, addition numbers in the year is a futile endeavor.

 

[Deleted member 771911]

I am not a fan of either.
But Hewitt's career would be the one I would want. Coming out so young and beating Sampras in a slam final, winning Wimbledon, two year end No.1s. To me, that was always the tennis dream. Murray's career arc is more painful with all the choking, big losses, etc.
Credit to Murray, he turned it around. I think his longevity, extra slam and way more slam finals gets him the nod here.

 

[Red Rick]

Hewitt 01, 02, 04, 05 ~ Murray 12, 13, 15, 16 - Murray winning an extra slam is 100% due to competition.

The difference is that Murray has 08, 09, 10, and 11 aside from those years whereas Hewitt basically only has 00 being even a top 10 player.

So Murray definitely had the better career, whether his faux-contender/pretender 08-11 years should be enough to make him greater is up to how you evaluate.

Muzz could win the Grand Slam in 2002 lol

 

[Mainad]

I understand that it's hard for you to come to terms with the fact that Murray is not an ATG player. But because of him, the limit for entering the ATG category will not be lowered. And remember, Murray needs to reach 6 grandslams, addition numbers in the year is a futile endeavor.

But you told me the number '6' has mystical qualities.

 

[NatF]

Muzz could win the Grand Slam in 2002 lol

Only ever won one slam in a year but sure

 

[Enceladus]

But you told me the number '6' has mystical qualities.

I was talking about 6 grandslams. And also about the fact that the number 6 was chosen by creators of the tennis in the 19th century as the smallest possible number to achieve the set. The reason why the number 6 and not another number was chosen is that 6 is half a dozen, an old unit of measure whose roots go back to ancient Mesopotamia.
When Murray wins 6 grandslams, I will recognize him as an ATG player. You have my word.

 

[Vanilla Slice]

It’s Murray and it’s not really close. I myself would rather have Murray’s career than Hewitts. I’ll give up one YE#1 and YEC to have 2 gold medals, a longer career arc, more grandslams, titles, and masters. He played against much better competition and eventually broke through. He will be remembered much longer.

 

[Mainad]

I was talking about 6 grandslams. And also about the fact that the number 6 was chosen by creators of the tennis in the 19th century as the smallest possible number to achieve the set. The reason why the number 6 and not another number was chosen is that 6 is half a dozen, an old unit of measure whose roots go back to ancient Mesopotamia.
When Murray wins 6 grandslams, I will recognize him as an ATG player. You have my word.

So the number '6' has only mystical qualities when its applied to Grand Slams?

 

[mike danny]

It’s Murray and it’s not really close. I myself would rather have Murray’s career than Hewitts. I’ll give up one YE#1 and YEC to have 2 gold medals, a longer career arc, more grandslams, titles, and masters. He played against much better competition and eventually broke through. He will be remembered much longer.

He played against much better competition, but like Hewitt, also had his fair share of fortune with his 2 Wimb draws and the Big 3 collapsing post the FO in 2016.

 

[D.Nalby12]

I enjoyed Hewitt's game much more. I don't remember anyone giving him pusher tag. He was true counter puncher. Murray OTOH had everything to have big game but couldn't develop it due to faulty technique of forehand, poor offensive footwork etc.

 

[Roddickulous1]

I'd put Murray as favorite to win 02 WIM if he's replacing Hewitt and a decent shot at AO. AO was a weak tournament. Agassi who probably would've won if he was healthy had pulled out due to a wrist injury. Safin is the only guy in the draw I see potentially beating Murray but his play was very up and down in the semi. Other than that, competition wasn't really much to write home about. Hewitt himself had chicken pox prior to the tournament and blisters on his foot which contributed to his early loss. Same thing with Wimbledon. That's a draw Murray would go through.

Don't see him beating peaking Sampras at USO and not a given at all that he gets by Agassi either unless he plays his best tennis (something like 08 SF vs Ned). Also wouldn't favor him at FO having to go through a gauntlet of great clay courters in a zoning Costa/Corretja/Ferrero especially considering clay is his worst surface and I wouldn't count on him to pull 3 great matches in a row.

 

[buscemi]

I'd put Murray as favorite to win 02 WIM if he's replacing Hewitt and a decent shot at AO. AO was a weak tournament. Agassi who probably would've won if he was healthy had pulled out due to a wrist injury. Safin is the only guy in the draw I see potentially beating Murray but his play was very up and down in the semi. Other than that, competition wasn't really much to write home about. Hewitt himself had chicken pox prior to the tournament and blisters on his foot which contributed to his early loss. Same thing with Wimbledon. That's a draw Murray would go through.

Don't see him beating peaking Sampras at USO and not a given at all that he gets by Agassi either unless he plays his best tennis (something like 08 SF vs Ned). Also wouldn't favor him at FO having to go through a gauntlet of great clay courters in a zoning Costa/Corretja/Ferrero especially considering clay is his worst surface and I wouldn't count on him to pull 3 great matches in a row.

How are we running this exercise? Are we saying Murray is born in 1981 like Hewitt instead of 1987? That would make 2002 Murray's original 2008. In 2008, Murray's 2008 results at Majors were:

Australian Open: lost to Tsonga in 4 sets in the 1st round​

French Open: lost to Almagro in 4 sets the 3rd round (won in 5 sets against a wild card in the 1st round)​

Wimbledon: lost to Nadal in the QF 6-3, 6-2, 6-4 (won his amazing 5 set comeback against Gasquet in the 4th round)​

U.S. Open: lost to Federer 6-2, 7-5, 6-2 in the final​

 

[timnz]

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.

I confess to not knowning how the ELO ranking is calculated, but I find it odd that Borg is there in the 1982, 1983, 1984 rankings since he was largely retired and only played occasionally.

 

[Roddickulous1]

How are we running this exercise? Are we saying Murray is born in 1981 like Hewitt instead of 1987? That would make 2002 Murray's original 2008. In 2008, Murray's 2008 results at Majors were:

Australian Open: lost to Tsonga in 4 sets in the 1st round​

French Open: lost to Almagro in 4 sets the 3rd round (won in 5 sets against a wild card in the 1st round)​

Wimbledon: lost to Nadal in the QF 6-3, 6-2, 6-4 (won his amazing 5 set comeback against Gasquet in the 4th round)​

U.S. Open: lost to Federer 6-2, 7-5, 6-2 in the final​

I didn't have a particular Murray year in mind. I was just taking into account how he has generally performed at those events over the course of his prime. For the hypotheticals, I had replaced Hewitt with Murray for the slams and presumed the same draws that Hewitt had.

Even if you take Murray's best years at each slam, I'm not sure if he'd win more than 2 that year. There's multiple Murray years where he'd win Wimbledon. AO, I don't mind giving him the benefit of the doubt vs Safin in the semi (don't think anyone else was beating Murray). I don't think Murray's top end at the AO is as good as Safin's top end but Safin was nowhere near his best early in the 02 semi. He was down a set and a break. This is an element that would remain constant in a hypothetical with Murray. It took until the medical time out midway through the second set for Safin to start playing better (heat was affecting him and tired legs). This caused a bit of a momentum swing as Safin broke back immediately after and won the second set in a TB. How Murray deals with this would be a factor. If Murray can establish a large enough of a head start and I think he could've (he might not even need the TB to win the first set), he'd be in prime position to win. There was another momentum swing early in the 4th that benefited Safin when the rain happened and the match was then played indoors. Haas didn't deal well and Safin ran away with the match.

For USO, I'm not sure any version of Murray is beating that Sampras. Same with FO. Not sure which version of Murray gets through 3 great clay courters consecutively while having enough left in the tank after each match.

 

[Vanilla Slice]

He played against much better competition, but like Hewitt, also had his fair share of fortune with his 2 Wimb draws and the Big 3 collapsing post the FO in 2016.

Definitely a fair critique. Murray’s first Slam was quite impressive though and so was Hewitt. Murray’s second was more impressive than Hewitts Wimbledon I think.

Murray was more complete across the surfaces, more successful at all of the slams (maybe equal at USO) and had harder competition. Credit for Hewitt to peak early to get his slams in, but Murray would’ve won Just as much in that same era if not more

edit: actually USO Hewitt was definitely better imo

 

[Deleted member 748597]

@Turing @Sunny014

I wanna hear your opinions on the matter.

 

[Sunny014]

@Turing @Sunny014

I wanna hear your opinions on the matter.

Hewitt is Old Wine
Murray is Old Wine in a new bottle.

They are the same, good enough to beat non ATGs and then falling short vs ATGs. Murray has an extra slam in a more homogenous era, maybe Hewitt would have had 3 instead of 2 in such conditions, or maybe Murray would have had 2 in Hewitt's conditons, they are the same, nothing much to separate them.

 

[Sport]

 

[Sport]

 

[Sport]

Murray is greater both in terms of career achievements and in terms of peak level.

The fact that Murray has an extra Slam, the all-time record of Olympic Gold in singles and 12 extra Masters 1000 make the discussion over.

Plus, no version of Hewitt was beating Djokovic neither at the US Open 2012 nor at Wimledon 2013. Murray is a far superior player at any single Slam than Hewitt.

AO: Murray > Hewitt.
RG: Murray > Hewitt.
WB: Murray > Hewitt.
USO: Murray > Hewitt.

 

[Sunny014]

Olympics has no value in GOAT race to be honest, it is like a masters win at best.....

 

[RS]

Murray is greater both in terms of career achievements and in terms of peak level.

The fact that Murray has an extra Slam, the all-time record of Olympic Gold in singles and 12 extra Masters 1000 make the discussion over.

Plus, no version of Hewitt was beating Djokovic neither at the US Open 2012 nor at Wimledon 2013. Murray is a far superior player at any single Slam than Hewitt.

AO: Murray > Hewitt.
RG: Murray > Hewitt.
WB: Murray > Hewitt.
USO: Murray > Hewitt.

Agree.

 

[Sport]

The Olympics have an important role in when comparing tennis players. The Olympic Gold in singles is equally relevant than the Nitto ATP finals (formerly known as Masters Cup/World Tour Finals).

Are the Olympics and the Nitto ATP finals equally relevant? It is not a secret that the Nitto ATP Finals have been historically more relevant than the Olympic Gold in singles. But times changes, and right now it is a legitimate question.

Let us compare these two prestigious tournaments:
1) Historical relevance: the argument of the lack of historical relevance of the Olympics is
not valid. Following that logic, the Australian Open is irrelevant because historically many
great players like Borg or McEnroe largely ignored it. The fact that somerthing was irrelevant
in the past does not mean that is is irrelevant in the present.
2) Difficulty: The Nitto ATP Finals are played among the best 8 ATP players in the ranking. It makes
the draw extremely though. Every calendar year, there is an edition of this tournament. On the other hand, Olympic Games are played every four years. To stablish an analogy with football/soccer: what is more difficult to achieve the Champions League or the World Cup? Real Madrid has won 12 Champions League titles, but no national team has ever won the World Cup more than 5 times. So, even though the Nitto ATP finals are very difficult to win because of the quality of the opponents, the OG in singles is even more difficult to achieve because of the limited number of editions.
3) Correlation between ATP points and prestige of a tournament: the ATP gives 0 ATP points to the Olympic Gold winner. Murray, the last winner, won 0 ATP points. But, for example, Federer has 25 ATP 250 titles and 0 Olympic Gold in singles, which illustrates that the OG in singles is far more difficult to achieve than any ATP 250. Most people will agree that the Olympics represent a more prestigious tournament than any ATP 250 title. Subsequently, there is not always a correlation between ATP points and the prestige of a tournament.
4) Some non-ATG player won the Olympic Gold: Federer fans sometimes suggest that because X player (who is not an all-time great) won the Olympic Gold, the Olympic Gold lacks merit. According to that logic, the ATP Finals are not meritorious either, since multiple non-legends such as Álex Corretja, Grigor Dimitrov or Alexander Zverev have won it.
5) Current prestige among players: many all-time great players like Steffi Graf, Serena Williams, Agassi, Djokovic or Murray argue that the Olympic Gold Medal in singles is so prestigious or even more
than a GS.
Source:

Olympics or Slams - What's More Important For Tennis Players?

A blog about anything and everything tennis - ATP, WTA, Grand Slams, interviews, translations and more.

www.letsecondserve.com

How Important is an Olympic Gold Medal in Tennis?

An Olympic Gold Medal in singles is not as relevant as a GS, but in modern tennis it is at least equally relevant as the Nitto ATP finals, a tournament played every year, while the Olympics are disputed every four years. The Olympic Gold Medal does not give the players any ATP points. Murray, the last winner, won 0 new ATP points. Players play both for their individual resume and their country. The Olympic Gold Medal in singles is like the World Cup of Football in terms of difficulty. In fact, it is even more difficult to win a Gold Medal in singles than winning a Grand Slam. Grand Slams are more prestigious and more relevant but not more difficult to achieve. Players can try to win a particular Grand Slam every year, which means they can try it 15 or 16 times in their career. But players can only try to win an
Olympic Gold Medal in singles 3 or 4 times in their career. For example, Federer lost to Haas in 2000, Berdych in 2004, Blake in 2008 and Murray in 2012. Even Federer found it impossible to win one. It shows how difficult it is to achieve. Before anyone start with the argument that some unknown player has won the Gold Medal, I will reply than Gaston Gaudio won a Grand Slam in 2004 and only a few people remember him.

Sampras participated in the 1992 Olympics, and Agassi won the Gold Medal in 1996. In the
90s, the Olympic Gold Medal started to be more relevant, but in the XXI century the Olympic
Gold in singles has acquired a new status as a relevant trophy in tennis. A great exaple of its
importance can be appreciated in how Djokovic cried of emotion and pain when Del Potro
beat him in the 2016 Summer Olympics.

In sum, both trophies are equally relevant. The Nitto ATP Finals are historically very relevant. The Nitto ATP finals are also disputed among the 8 players with highest ATP ranking. It makes pretty difficult draws. On the other hand, the Olympic Gold in singles is only played every four years, which makes it an extremely difficult trophy to achieve, even more than the ATP finals, because of the limited number of editions. And it is becoming more and more prestigious in the XXI century.

There is no objective reason to consider the ATP finals more relevant than the OG in singles, especially when the first one is played every year and the second one every four years, making it even more difficult to achieve.

 

[Deleted member 770948]

Murray is taller, but Hewitt is better in every other way.

 

[Keizer]

Olympics has no value in GOAT race to be honest, it is like a masters win at best.....

This is not a GOAT race, this is comparing two players that are clearly not in the GOAT race. For my part, Murray is clearly better than Hewitt. Won more titles, won more majors, won more matches at a better clip. Several posts here seem to be implicitly undermining Murray’s longevity as a positive factor in the comparison vs Hewitt, who is about the same age as Federer but was irrelevant post 2005. If you argue that Hewitt being injured deflated his results, surely you can argue than Murray’s injury in 2016 has put an effective stop to his chances of big results as well. All in all, Murray’s career is the 4th best of all ATP players if you take into account results from 2000 on — not Agassi’s, Hewitt’s, Safin’s or Wawrinka’s.

 

[Deleted member 770948]

LOL@GOAT race.
There is no such thing.
What are they racing for?
Something with no title, no ranking points, no criteria....
Tennis has never had a GOAT and never will.

 

[Blahovic]

Murray was a much better player than Hewitt. Completely different level of athleticism.

Honestly, height really does matter. Even the best Hewitt would get his serve eaten alive against the best players of Murray's era.

 

[mike danny]

Murray is greater both in terms of career achievements and in terms of peak level.

The fact that Murray has an extra Slam, the all-time record of Olympic Gold in singles and 12 extra Masters 1000 make the discussion over.

Plus, no version of Hewitt was beating Djokovic neither at the US Open 2012 nor at Wimledon 2013. Murray is a far superior player at any single Slam than Hewitt.

AO: Murray > Hewitt.
RG: Murray > Hewitt.
WB: Murray > Hewitt.
USO: Murray > Hewitt.

LMAO at no version of Hewitt beating those versions of Djokovic.

Murray ain't better than Hewitt at the USO.

 

[mike danny]

Murray was a much better player than Hewitt. Completely different level of athleticism.

Honestly, height really does matter. Even the best Hewitt would get his serve eaten alive against the best players of Murray's era.

Just like Murray's second serbe did?

 

[NatF]

Agree.

Lol.

 

[thomasferrett]

Is Murray really better than Volandri? That is the real question.

 

[Deleted member 771911]

Soon to be in the former pros player forum.