Is Murray really greater than Hewitt?

[Dane_is_Finnish_OJ]

I doesn't matter, all it matters is who has more talent.

Talent scale:
Bahrami > Kyrgios > Santoro > Fognini > Safin > Brown > Murray/Hewitt

Talent is not the same as being able to do silly trickshots. It's hitting that perfect forehand day in, day out and winning tournaments. Bahrami and Brown are not "talented" tennis players (Bahrami was somewhat average in doubles, though). And how is Kyrgios more talented than Murray? Because he can serve undehand or do tweeners when he shouldn't?

 

[lucky13]

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.

if you only look at what you have written so hewitt but if you look at the whole picture, 0 vs 2 OG and 2 vs 14 masters, it's muzza and it's not even close!

 

[tex123]

In his prime, Hewitt competed only with Federer. In his prime, Murray competed with all B3; he has a 11-14 record against Fed, defeated Djokovic twice in Slam finals! So not even close!

Exactly!
Men's tennis was so bad in Hewitt's days. He just dominated those weaklings with his pushing or counter punching whatever. He had no weapons whatsoever. He just had an amazing ability to celebrate when opponents made errors.
Probably even de-motivated Sampras thought - I'd better retire than play this pusher for another two years.

 

[-snake-]

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.

Yeah, right



I'm sure Hewitt would barely win a couple of games against him.

 

[Dane_is_Finnish_OJ]

I can't imagine how anyone would think that prime Hewitt would win against prime Murray. Did Hewitt do anything better than Murray?

 

[tex123]

I can't imagine how anyone would think that prime Hewitt would win against prime Murray. Did Hewitt do anything better than Murray?

Yes. He celebrated wildly when his opponent made unforced errors. The only skill he mastered well!

 

[SonnyT]

You can think of Murray as new and improved Hewitt!

 

[Dane_is_Finnish_OJ]

Yes. He celebrated wildly when his opponent made unforced errors. The only skill he mastered well!

That's true.

 

[mike danny]

I can't imagine how anyone would think that prime Hewitt would win against prime Murray. Did Hewitt do anything better than Murray?

Why wouldn't he win against prime Murray? It's not like prime Murray was this indestructible force that could not be touched.

Hewitt was better at taking the ball early and his net play was arguably better. Passing shots too.

 

[mike danny]

Yes. He celebrated wildly when his opponent made unforced errors. The only skill he mastered well!

Isn't that how Medvedev wins too?

 

[Dane_is_Finnish_OJ]

Why wouldn't he win against prime Murray? It's not like prime Murray was this indestructible force that could not be touched.

Hewitt was better at taking the ball early and his net play was arguably better. Passing shots too.

I can't see Hewitt destroy Federer like Murray did in the Olympic final. Murray is better at cranking up his game.

 

[mike danny]

I can't see Hewitt destroy Federer like Murray did in the Olympic final. Murray is better at cranking up his game.

Maybe not destroy him, but he'd still beat that Federer who was exhausted after his epic semi with Delpo.

 

[bluetrain4]

They actually really remind of of each other - the attitude, the grinding games. the moments of greatness but overall second-tier position behind the top players of the time.

 

[NatF]

I can't see Hewitt destroy Federer like Murray did in the Olympic final. Murray is better at cranking up his game.

Hewitt destroyed Sampras in a slam final...

 

[Third Serve]

I can't see Hewitt destroy Federer like Murray did in the Olympic final. Murray is better at cranking up his game.

Nah but he can crush Sampras in a Slam final.

 

[bluetrain4]

I'd pick Murray, but there's always the issue of how "deep" you need to or want to go in answering that question. For example, do you care about accomplishments short of winning. Murray was a MUCH more consistent presence/contender for a longer time.

I like to look at the Slam timeline grids on Wiki and see how many "deep runs" (QF or better) a player had at Slams and Murray with 3 W, 8 F, 10 SF, 9 QF, far eclipses Hewitt with 2 W, 2F, 4 SF, 7 QF.

Granted, there's obviously a strong case for Murray without going that deep.

 

[tex123]

Isn't that how Medvedev wins too?

Apples and Oranges.

Hewitt was known for riling his opponents with his antics. The come ons and celebrations when opponents made unforced errors were not in the spirit of the game. Chela once spat in his direction. Medvedev is one of the humble guys on tour. He may go off sometimes but in general. Hewitt was obnoxious. No way you can compare the two.

 

[mike danny]

Apples and Oranges.

Hewitt was known for riling his opponents with his antics. The come ons and celebrations when opponents made unforced errors were not in the spirit of the game. Chela once spat in his direction. Medvedev is one of the humble guys on tour. He may go off sometimes but in general. Hewitt was obnoxious. No way you can compare the two.

I meant in terms of winning by drawing errors.

 

[tex123]

Hewitt destroyed Sampras in a slam final...

Sure. End of career looking forward to retirement Sampras is how you want to glorify Hewitt.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

I have voted Murray.

 

[tex123]

I meant in terms of winning by drawing errors.

How so? Hewitt's tactics was to make his opponents miss shots. Federer said this himself.

I don't see Med doing that? He's looking for a winner or an aggressive controlled point. His serve is much bigger. Accept it. Hewitt was a "pusher" - not my definition but by the standards of this forum.

 

[mike danny]

Sure. End of career looking forward to retirement Sampras is how you want to glorify Hewitt.

Murray also won 2 of his slams against a zombie Djokovic and Raonic.

 

[tex123]

I have voted Murray.

You don't get a vote. You started the thread!

 

[mike danny]

How so? Hewitt's tactics was to make his opponents miss shots. Federer said this himself.

I don't see Med doing that? He's looking for a winner or an aggressive controlled point. His serve is much bigger. Accept it. Hewitt was a "pusher" - not my definition but by the standards of this forum.

Hewitt wasn't a pusher though. Even if he was looking to extract errors from his opponents.

Medvedev had no answers to Djokovic so he doesn't really have many gameplans.

 

[D.Nalby12]

If Hewitt was 6 ft 3 tall like Murray - he would give tough fight to Federer. Apart from limitations of short frame - he had very complete game. He is far better and more talented player in my view.

 

[Third Serve]

Sure. End of career looking forward to retirement Sampras is how you want to glorify Hewitt.

Sure, and fatigued Federer after playing the longest three-set match of all time is how you want to glorify Murray.

Cmon, at least make the act a little bit interesting.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

You don't get a vote. You started the thread!

Well, the thread wasn't meant to be that serious. Murray is greater than Hewitt. The peak level is something else, of course.

 

[bluetrain4]

If Hewitt was 6 ft 3 tall like Murray - he would give tough fight to Federer. Apart from limitations of short frame - he had very complete game. He is far better and more talented player in my view.

But is he greater? People can be better and more talented and not achieve as much. And, IMO, greatness is about actual achievement.

 

[mike danny]

If Hewitt was 6 ft 3 tall like Murray - he would give tough fight to Federer. Apart from limitations of short frame - he had very complete game. He is far better and more talented player in my view.

He would give tough fight, but I still don't see Fed losing slam matches to him just like with Murray.

 

[tex123]

Murray also won 2 of his slams against a zombie Djokovic and Raonic.

Murray played in the big 3 era - greatest players in the history of the game and still notched 3 Slams and 14 Masters 1000. Hewitt claim to fame is becoming no 1 in the worst period of men's tennis.

 

[mike danny]

Murray played in the big 3 era - greatest players in the history of the game and still notched 3 Slams and 14 Masters 1000. Hewitt claim to fame is becoming no 1 in the worst period of men's tennis.

Nah, you're just exaggerating.

Murray won 2 of his slams against a zombie Djokovic and Raonic. Who cares that they came in the Big 3 era when those were some pretty weak slam wins no better than Hewitt's. His no.1 ranking also came when the Big 3 all collapsed simultaneously.

I could also say that Hewitt played alongside Sampras, Agassi and Federer so in no way was that the worst period in the men's game, albeit 2002 was a pretty weak year indeed.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Sure. End of career looking forward to retirement Sampras is how you want to glorify Hewitt.

Sampras had just defeated the past three US Open champs in successive matches (Rafter, Agassi, Safin). He may have been near the end of his career, but he was in great form going into that final vs. Hewitt.

 

[Winners or Errors]

Yeah, right



I'm sure Hewitt would barely win a couple of games against him.

Very different players. I didn't say a couple of games, either. Nice exaggeration. I just think Murray would win the vast majority of the time on homogenized courts, and that Hewitt's strengths aren't things that would generally hurt Murray.

 

[-snake-]

Very different players. I didn't say a couple of games, either. Nice exaggeration. I just think Murray would win the vast majority of the time on homogenized courts, and that Hewitt's strengths aren't things that would generally hurt Murray.

Then explain how Mury lost to Ferrer at RG 2012 when he was at the peak of his powers. Yeah, he isn't a clay player but still, that was telling. The match they had at Wimbly wasn't a blowout either. What makes you think that if he struggled vs a guy who wasn't even a natural grass player, he would blow Hewitt off the court? Don't forget Daveed was well known for bending over vs the guys ranked higher than him. Lleyton wasn't like that.

 

[captainbryce]

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.

I don’t care about “weeks at number one” because that’s not a stat that indicates greatness of play in a vacuum. Weeks at number 1 is influenced by many things unrelated to how good a player is, including how often they play, how far they go in lesser tournaments, who else plays those weeks, who is injured and unable to play, etc. Finishing as the year end number one reflects slightly better on the player’s ability since that often requires earning enough points at the biggest tournaments (including the YEC). But it’s still not a perfect indicator.

More to the point, title wins in my opinion count more towards someone’s legacy than their rankings. And when we look at those stats, Murray dominates Hewitt in every respect. Murray won more slams, more Masters 1000s, more Olympic gold medals, and more titles overall than Hewitt. And he did so while competing in the era of the Big 3 in their prime, whereas Hewitt achieved most of his success in the transitional period between Sampras/Agassi and Federer/Nadal/Djokovic.

Murray made it to 11 grand slam finals versus Hewitt’s 4. That stat alone puts Murray in a different echelon in my opinion. But it’s Murray’s 14 Masters 1000s compared to Hewitt’s 2 that really seals the deal. That’s too huge of a disparity for them to be compared to each other realistically.

 

[timnz]

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.

Slam runner ups are an achievement in of themselves (1300 points) . Hewitt had two slam runnerups , Murray had 8 slam runner-ups. Murray won 14 masters 1000, Hewitt won 2

Having said that Hewitt is chronically underrated on this forum. Federer rated him very highly.

 

[RS]

Murray destroys Hewitt. Debate over.

 

[NatF]

If you reversed their ages Murray probably never recovers from his back troubles and Hewitt is forever greater.

 

[zagor]

Murray destroys Hewitt. Debate over.

On TTW Murray would destroy Agassi as well.

Doesn't say much.

 

[Dominic & Andrey]

Murray is greater and I give him the highest peak level as well.

 

[RS]

On TTW Murray would destroy Agassi as well.

Doesn't say much.

Agassi is another topic. But yeah I would disagree with that since you bring it up.

 

[zagor]

Agassi is another topic. But yeah I would disagree with that since you bring it up.

I've seen posters here routinely put him over Agassi.

Heck I've seen people claim that Murray is the 4th best player of the Open Era and would have dominated 2004-2007 to the same degree Fed did if he was in his place.

It's like we've been reading two different forums here. Murray is rated very, very highly on TTW and in the tennis media.

 

[RS]

I've seen posters here routinely put him over Agassi.

Heck I've seen people claim that Murray is the 4th best player of the Open Era and would have dominated 2004-2007 to the same degree Fed did if he was in his place.

It's like we've been reading two different forums here. Murray is rated very, very highly on TTW and in the tennis media.

This is about Murray Hewitt though.

 

[NatF]

This is about Murray Hewitt though.

Hewitt is the better ballstriker, with better footwork.

 

[GoatNo1]

muzza by big margin.
2 OG, 14 vs 2 masters!

but also h2h: 1-0 for muzza (ranked 60 vs no11 hewitt) and even better if we look vs fed!

hewitt - fed: 9-18
muzza - fed: 11-14

up to 2013 while both played vs fed:
hewitt: 8-18
muzza: 11-9

in feds era 04-09:
hewitt: 0-14
muzza: 6-4

 

[thrust]

It's not all about the Slams, guys. We have to look at the whole career.

Hewitt

2 YECs
2 YE #1
80 weeks at number one

Murray

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

Hewitt = Murray x 2
Hewitt >> Murray

Hewitt won in a transitional period between the end of the Sampras era and the beginning of th Federer era. Murray had to cope with the big 3 during his entire career.

 

[Maddamhussein]

I've seen posters here routinely put him over Agassi.

Heck I've seen people claim that Murray is the 4th best player of the Open Era and would have dominated 2004-2007 to the same degree Fed did if he was in his place.

I know I’ve gone to bat for Murray quite passionately on here, but I’d never make such a claim on either score.

And while I’m sure you’ve seen someone say this, I am yet to see someone say anything close this just yet.

Murray is rated very, very highly on TTW

And I’m sorry but this is bollocks. Straight up.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

I think in peak or prime level play they are relatively close either way. Murray crushes Hewitt in longevity though and also beats him in overall consistency even in their primes. So overall Murray.

 

[TMF]

Hewitt faced tougher competition

 

[Mainad]

Hewitt faced tougher competition

Tougher than the 3 greatest players of all time?