Is Murray really greater than Hewitt?

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

Who is really greater?

  • Total voters
    161
It' close, in terms of results Murray's longevity edges it for him and makes it a no contest. Both at their best, it can be comparable. They actually have similar strengths and weaknesses, Murray has better touch/feel with the ball while Hewitt has a much better mentality.
 
Blahovic said:
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.
Click to expand...

bwahahaha
ha ha ha ha

The bold part in particular is a such a joke.

hopelessly ignorant Djokovic fanboys are so clueless that they are a laughing stock.
 
Last edited:
Blahovic said:
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.
Click to expand...
Both were athletic and very quick but lacked power on the FH side which is why Djokovic and Federer kept rolling over both when they peaked.
 
Sport said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sport once again exhibiting he has little clue of tennis before Nadal.

Hewitt of USO 01 SF/F, 04 before the final, 05 SF would beat Djokovic of USO 12 in the wind.
As far as Wim 13 final is concerned, its just beyond laughable. Djokovic was a zombie in that final - tired due to the delpo semi. Any version of prime Hewitt beats him.

USO: Hewitt > Murray
peaked higher in SF/F of USO 2001 than Murray did in USO 12 SF/F.

Hewitt has 1 win, 1 final, 3 semis, 2 QFs
Murray has 1 win, 1 final, 1 semi, 3 QFs

Also at the YEC: Hewitt > Murray (2 YECs+1 YEC final as opposed to 1 YEC win)

Hewitt has 1 more year ending at #1 and more # of weeks at #1 than Murray does.

Wimbledon is close b/w them level wise.
 
Last edited:
abmk said:
Sport once again exhibiting he has little clue of tennis before Nadal.

Hewitt of USO 01 SF/F, 04 before the final, 05 SF would beat Djokovic of USO 12 in the wind.
As far as Wim 13 final is concerned, its just beyond laughable. Djokovic was a zombie in that final - tired due to the delpo semi. Any version of prime Hewitt beats him.

USO: Hewitt > Murray
peaked higher in SF/F of USO 2001 than Murray did in USO 12 SF/F.

Hewitt has 1 win, 1 final, 3 semis, 2 QFs
Murray has 1 win, 1 final, 1 semi, 3 QFs

Also at the YEC: Hewitt > Murray (2 YECs+1 YEC final as opposed to 1 YEC win)

Hewitt has 2 years at #1 and more # of weeks at #1 than Murray does.

Wimbledon is close b/w them level wise.
Click to expand...

No proof of that happening. Unless you can make those versions play somehow can we decide who would've won that day. Eye tests are biased and hypothetical. Live in the real world dude.

There is a difference between 'Greater' and 'Better'. Greatness is measured by achievements period. Murray has achieved slightly more than Hewitt with that extra slam
 
Tennis_Freak99 said:
No proof of that happening. Unless you can make those versions play somehow can we decide who would've won that day. Eye tests are biased and hypothetical. Live in the real world dude.
Click to expand...

He said "Plus, no version of Hewitt was beating Djokovic neither at the US Open 2012 nor at Wimledon 2013. "
Hence I replied the way I did.

Tennis_Freak99 said:
There is a difference between 'Greater' and 'Better'. Greatness is measured by achievements period. Murray has achieved slightly more than Hewitt with that extra slam
Click to expand...

no question. Murray is overall the greater player.
 
Tennis_Freak99 said:
No proof of that happening. Unless you can make those versions play somehow can we decide who would've won that day. Eye tests are biased and hypothetical. Live in the real world dude.

There is a difference between 'Greater' and 'Better'. Greatness is measured by achievements period. Murray has achieved slightly more than Hewitt with that extra slam
Click to expand...
Playing better is based so much on opinion.
 
Murray would smoke Hewitt on slower courts. The only way Hewitt could beat Murray is if he got him to come to net. I don't see how their games match up at all. One was a counter-puncher whose game was tailored to eat S&V players for breakfast. The other was a baseliner who at his best could cat & mouse opponents in a way that made them look silly, even doing it to Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic on occasion. Murray's passing shots could never touch Hewitt's, but he didn't face many net-rushers when it would have mattered, anyway. If the courts had not been slowed and homogenized, I think it'd be closer for me.
 
Winners or Errors said:
Murray would smoke Hewitt on slower courts. The only way Hewitt could beat Murray is if he got him to come to net. I don't see how their games match up at all. One was a counter-puncher whose game was tailored to eat S&V players for breakfast. The other was a baseliner who at his best could cat & mouse opponents in a way that made them look silly, even doing it to Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic on occasion. Murray's passing shots could never touch Hewitt's, but he didn't face many net-rushers when it would have mattered, anyway. If the courts had not been slowed and homogenized, I think it'd be closer for me.
Click to expand...

Hewitt beat baseliners young Nadal, Nalby and Roddick in AO 05 (apart from Blake, Chela) and played a pretty good final vs baseliner Safin.
Hewitt also has 2 Indian Wells titles to zero for Murray. While it is the reverse at Miami.
Just unlucky to meet a beasting El Ayanoui in 4R at AO 03 and fed in 4R at AO 04 - else would've definitely gone deeper in both.

Hewitt was a little better on clay before Murray in 15-16 (and maybe RG 17). That 15-16 timeframe is where Murray gets the clear edge overall and peak to peak.
 
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...
More slam finals, more masters 1000 titles, so yeah My countryman is better than Hewitt for sure. I see no big difference in talents though, Hewitt was slightly better talent wise; but his stature and body limited him.
However, Murrsy surely wasn't the mental giant the Australian was.
That's basically @JustMy2Cents , friend.
 
Rafa4LifeEver said:
More slam finals, more masters 1000 titles, so yeah My countryman is better than Hewitt for sure. I see no big difference in talents though, Hewitt was slightly better talent wise; but his stature and body limited him.
However, Murrsy surely wasn't the mental giant the Australian was.
That's basically @JustMy2Cents , friend.
Click to expand...
Indeed! I think you probably @ed me by mistake :laughing:but I do agree with your post and I'll add Murray gets bonus points for doing it all in the era of Big 3, in fact being a legitimate member of the BIG 4
 
RS said:
Both were athletic and very quick but lacked power on the FH side which is why Djokovic and Federer kept rolling over both when they peaked.
Click to expand...
Murray doesn't lack power in an athletic sense, he just has technical limitations on the forehand and doesn't tend to focus on a power game.

He has more raw power than either Federer or Djokovic, due to his extra size, which is why his 1st serve can be faster than both. E.g. in the AO 2012 SF, Murray was hitting his forehand bigger than Djokovic for stretches.

I also think athleticism is sometimes misunderstood in tennis. It's not just being fast. Murray at his peak was an equivalent or likely better mover than Hewitt, sure, but he also has more reach from his extra height and natural power that Hewitt could never have.

There's a reason why Ferrer/Davydenko are the only small players since Hewitt to be in the top 5 and why neither got particularly close to winning a slam title against the Big 3. Tennis is now dominated by 6ft+ athletes who have power/reach/movement.
 
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...

For a moment I thought you were joking. Murray hands down. It is not even a contest. Murray gave the big 3 a run for their money. He's a legend. And I'm not even a Murray fan.

Hewitt is one of the lucky ones to grab the weak era. If Hurkasz is a "pusher", he would be called one of the "super pushers". Sorry I don't mean it but I just want to set the record straight. No one on pro tour is a pusher except Santoro I guess.
 
Blahovic said:
Murray doesn't lack power in an athletic sense, he just has technical limitations on the forehand and doesn't tend to focus on a power game.

He has more raw power than either Federer or Djokovic, due to his extra size, which is why his 1st serve can be faster than both. E.g. in the AO 2012 SF, Murray was hitting his forehand bigger than Djokovic for stretches.

I also think athleticism is sometimes misunderstood in tennis. It's not just being fast. Murray at his peak was an equivalent or likely better mover than Hewitt, sure, but he also has more reach from his extra height and natural power that Hewitt could never have.

There's a reason why Ferrer/Davydenko are the only small players since Hewitt to be in the top 5 and why neither got particularly close to winning a slam title against the Big 3. Tennis is now dominated by 6ft+ athletes who have power/reach/movement.
Click to expand...

Don't think Murray was a better mover than Hewitt, particularly in the footwork department.

Power is a little overrated, Murray rarely used his bigger frame to his advantage anyway. Hewitt's ability to take the ball earlier pretty much mitigates that IMO.
 
Tennis_Freak99 said:
No proof of that happening. Unless you can make those versions play somehow can we decide who would've won that day. Eye tests are biased and hypothetical. Live in the real world dude.

There is a difference between 'Greater' and 'Better'. Greatness is measured by achievements period. Murray has achieved slightly more than Hewitt with that extra slam
Click to expand...
Eye test is widely used, deal with it dude. It's not a Fed fan invention.
 
tex123 said:
For a moment I thought you were joking. Murray hands down. It is not even a contest. Murray gave the big 3 a run for their money. He's a legend. And I'm not even a Murray fan.

Hewitt is one of the lucky ones to grab the weak era. If Hurkasz is a "pusher", he would be called one of the "super pushers". Sorry I don't mean it but I just want to set the record straight. No one on pro tour is a pusher except Santoro I guess.
Click to expand...
That's how Murray won 2 of his slams and became no.1.

And I assume another one to be lucky with a weak era is Thiem.
 
mike danny said:
That's how Murray won 2 of his slams and became no.1.

And I assume another one to be lucky with a weak era is Thiem.
Click to expand...
lol, Hewitt beat Sampras and these guys wanna pretend beating Raonic was so much harder. I get the argument here - that Murray was denied by the Big Three. But so too Hewitt was denied by peak Fed. Both players could have won more slams in a different era from the ones they played in though that is hypothetical anyway.
 
Dolgopolov85 said:
lol, Hewitt beat Sampras and these guys wanna pretend beating Raonic was so much harder. I get the argument here - that Murray was denied by the Big Three. But so too Hewitt was denied by peak Fed. Both players could have won more slams in a different era from the ones they played in though that is hypothetical anyway.
Click to expand...
Not just Raonic. People say how Sampras wasn't at his best when Hewitt beat him at the USO, which is absolutely true, but Djokovic also was far far from his best at 2013 Wimb in the final and I don't see how that win is any better than Hewitt's over Pete at the USO. Wimb 2013 was a weak slam even if it came in the supposed strong era.

Hewitt wasn't denied just by peak Fed, he was also denied by Pete and Andre when he was 19-21.
 
mike danny said:
Not just Raonic. People say how Sampras wasn't at his best when Hewitt beat him at the USO, which is absolutely true, but Djokovic also was far far from his best at 2013 Wimb in the final and I don't see how that win is any better than Hewitt's over Pete at the USO. Wimb 2013 was a weak slam even if it came in the supposed strong era.

Hewitt wasn't denied just by peak Fed, he was also denied by Pete and Andre when he was 19-21.
Click to expand...
Yup. Nole was completely drained after the bruising semi with Delpo. He never got going at all. In the 2013 final, Nole was uniformly flat. In the 2001 final, Sampras and Hewitt played out a tough first set but upon losing it, Sampras fell apart. I would give marks to Hewitt for deflating Sampras in a set he didn't play badly in, for standing up to the then GOAT. That dynamic was no longer there in the 2013 final because Murray had beaten Nole at 2012 USO.

USO 2012 was a very worthy triumph. That I would give.
 
Dolgopolov85 said:
Yup. Nole was completely drained after the bruising semi with Delpo. He never got going at all. In the 2013 final, Nole was uniformly flat. In the 2001 final, Sampras and Hewitt played out a tough first set but upon losing it, Sampras fell apart. I would give marks to Hewitt for deflating Sampras in a set he didn't play badly in, for standing up to the then GOAT. That dynamic was no longer there in the 2013 final because Murray had beaten Nole at 2012 USO.

USO 2012 was a very worthy triumph. That I would give.
Click to expand...
Yup.

Murray survived an overall challenging draw at the 2012 USO.
 
I give Murray even to be kind. Reality is he was never as dangerous as Hewitt nor had a dominant Slam run like 01 USO.

But even on paper you just gotta give in to Masters hype and Golden Era nonsense to think Murray is better.

Hewitt had the 80 weeks at #1 and unquestionably so not like Murray having to play every tournament with a burned out Novak his only competition. And I'm sorry but Hewitt had the hip injury and still competed deep being ultimately tossed away by Peak Fed.\

So even steven I guess.
 
BGod said:
I give Murray even to be kind. Reality is he was never as dangerous as Hewitt nor had a dominant Slam run like 01 USO.

But even on paper you just gotta give in to Masters hype and Golden Era nonsense to think Murray is better.

Hewitt had the 80 weeks at #1 and unquestionably so not like Murray having to play every tournament with a burned out Novak his only competition. And I'm sorry but Hewitt had the hip injury and still competed deep being ultimately tossed away by Peak Fed.\

So even steven I guess.
Click to expand...

Hewitt was the guy Murray beat in the final to win his maiden ATP title (2006 San José). It was their only ever encounter in a singles match.
 
761966.jpg
 
Mainad said:
Hewitt was the guy Murray beat in the final to win his maiden ATP title (2006 San José). It was their only ever encounter in a singles match.
Click to expand...

Passing of the torch I guess as English speaking countries with heavy tennis development programs but far fewer Slams to show for it. I mean damn there have only been five players from English speaking nations to win a Slam in the 21st century and only one in the second decade.
 
One unfortunate similarity between the two is their hip injuries! An athlete with hopes of longevity, in any sports, has to be light on his feet! Neither of them, was!
 
Keizer said:
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.
Click to expand...

I consider Safin as the apex predator who has the highest game outside the big 3.

Stanimal has winning H2H over Murray and has tamed Djokovic, something which Murray could never do, Murray was busy getting whooped by the big 3.

So Safin and Stanimal are ahead of Murray for sure.

Hewitt can be considered on par with Murray .
 
Sunny014 said:
I consider Safin as the apex predator who has the highest game outside the big 3.

Stanimal has winning H2H over Murray and has tamed Djokovic, something which Murray could never do, Murray was busy getting whooped by the big 3.

So Safin and Stanimal are ahead of Murray for sure.

Hewitt can be considered on par with Murray .
Click to expand...

Since you’re only considering Slam H2H and record vs Djokovic in slams in saying Stan > Murray, would you also say Nadal > Federer because of H2H and better record against Djokovic?
 
Good god! Debate still going on? Look at the poll. It's not even a contest.

Murray can be a touch artist and plays jaw dropping tennis when he's on fire. Hewitt the "pusher" (as everyone seems to call that type of player) lacked any weapons. Federer was once asked about his match against Hewitt and his compliment was - "Hewitt makes me miss my shots so much". That's not the type of compliment anyone wants to get. Hewitt was just someone who grabbed the weak era titles. That was the period of men's tennis so bad that I'd like to erase it from my memory.

Look at these two play. Made for each other!

 
Keizer said:
Since you’re only considering Slam H2H and record vs Djokovic in slams in saying Stan > Murray, would you also say Nadal > Federer because of H2H and better record against Djokovic?
Click to expand...

I would have if they were both of same age, but cannot take H2Hs serious for 2 different generation athletes.

5 years is 1 gen and 10 years is 1 era in Tennis.
 
Sunny014 said:
I would have if they were both of same age, but cannot take H2Hs serious for 2 different generation athletes.

5 years is 1 gen and 10 years is 1 era in Tennis.
Click to expand...

Except the H2H was even more skewed between 2005 and 2010, when Federer was only 29 years old (6-2 in majors). If anything, he has pulled the H2H back in recent years. Fact is Nadal was beating Federer at his peak, and did so on hard, grass, and clay in the slams. If you’re going to bring in the H2H narrative for Wawrinka and Murray, even though Murray is far superior to Wawrinka than Nadal is to Federer (or vice versa) in terms of every other conceivable metric (M1000s, titles, WTF, win %, H2H against top 10 players), apply that same standard to Federer and Nadal. Or are you going to tell me that Nadal beating Federer at Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009 was completely justified by this generation difference and shouldn’t count for anything?
 
Keizer said:
Except the H2H was even more skewed between 2005 and 2010, when Federer was only 29 years old (6-2 in majors). If anything, he has pulled the H2H back in recent years. Fact is Nadal was beating Federer at his peak, and did so on hard, grass, and clay in the slams. If you’re going to bring in the H2H narrative for Wawrinka and Murray, even though Murray is far superior to Wawrinka than Nadal is to Federer (or vice versa) in terms of every other conceivable metric (M1000s, titles, WTF, win %, H2H against top 10 players), apply that same standard to Federer and Nadal. Or are you going to tell me that Nadal beating Federer at Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009 was completely justified by this generation difference and shouldn’t count for anything?
Click to expand...

What beating peak ? Even Soderling has beaten Nadal at his peak, 1 fluke win doesn't matter.

A 8 time champ is a 8 time champ and a 2 timer remains a lucky guy, on most occasions he would lose.
 
tex123 said:
Good god! Debate still going on? Look at the poll. It's not even a contest.

Murray can be a touch artist and plays jaw dropping tennis when he's on fire. Hewitt the "pusher" (as everyone seems to call that type of player) lacked any weapons. Federer was once asked about his match against Hewitt and his compliment was - "Hewitt makes me miss my shots so much". That's not the type of compliment anyone wants to get. Hewitt was just someone who grabbed the weak era titles. That was the period of men's tennis so bad that I'd like to erase it from my memory.

Look at these two play. Made for each other!

Click to expand...

Great match and tournaments from Hewitt (y)

Beating Gonzalez, Johansson, Schüttler, Henman and Ferrero in a row. More impressive than most masters.
 
Sunny014 said:
What beating peak ? Even Soderling has beaten Nadal at his peak, 1 fluke win doesn't matter.

A 8 time champ is a 8 time champ and a 2 timer remains a lucky guy, on most occasions he would lose.
Click to expand...

Fluke win? He could’ve won Wimbledon 2007 vs Federer in the final. Which brings me back to my whole point — H2H against one player is meaningless in deciding whether a player has had a greater career. I could pick any other player - say Federer. What is Stan’s record against Federer and what is Murray’s?

Anyway, you deride peak level in your post here and then tell me that Safin is a tier above Murray, when Safin is 2-10 against Federer (not to mention 2-7 vs Santoro) and only showed his highest level for about 10 matches in his career. Be consistent. You literally rate Stan and Safin above Murray because of peak level, which they only displayed in a few matches. If you want to say Safin is better than Murray, say he had a higher peak but a worse career. Del Potro also likely had a higher peak than Murray in any given slam, doesn’t mean he had a better career.
 
Keizer said:
Fluke win? He could’ve won Wimbledon 2007 vs Federer in the final. Which brings me back to my whole point — H2H against one player is meaningless in deciding whether a player has had a greater career. I could pick any other player - say Federer. What is Stan’s record against Federer and what is Murray’s?

Anyway, you deride peak level in your post here and then tell me that Safin is a tier above Murray, when Safin is 2-10 against Federer (not to mention 2-7 vs Santoro) and only showed his highest level for about 10 matches in his career. Be consistent. You literally rate Stan and Safin above Murray because of peak level, which they only displayed in a few matches. If you want to say Safin is better than Murray, say he had a higher peak but a worse career. Del Potro also likely had a higher peak than Murray in any given slam, doesn’t mean he had a better career.
Click to expand...

Yes Murray had a greater than anyone save the big 3 in the last 20 years, thats for sure.

But not necessary that he is better than some of those names....
 
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
27K
Deleted member 748597
D
D
The Wawrinka and Hewitt
2 3
Replies
107
Views
3K
Poisoned Slice
Poisoned Slice
D
  • Poll Poll
Nadal vs Sampras
2 3
Replies
115
Views
5K
GhostofPetros
GhostofPetros
D
  • Poll Poll
Murray should donate his achievements to Djokovic
Replies
12
Views
775
Bender
Bender
D
Djokovic vs Nadal
Replies
15
Views
580
Rago
Rago
Back
Top