Is Murray really greater than Hewitt?

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

Who is really greater?

  • Total voters
    220
captainbryce said:
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 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 state 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.
Click to expand...
To be fair Murray achieved a significant chunk of his success in the beginning of the CIE as well by winning the WTF and becoming no.1.

Hewitt also became chronically injured beginning with age 25 which explains the discrepancy in slam finals reached by both
 
TMF said:
Hewitt had Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten, Federer, Nadal, Safin,...

You put Murray against these lions, he wins no slam
Click to expand...
muzza played more vs big3 (85 times, 29 wins) than hewitt vs all players you named (73 times, 32 wins)!
and muzza is peer with 2 big3 while hewitt is peer with one, and even fed muzza played 25 times (just 2 less than hewitt), having much more success up to 09 (6-4) than after (5-10)!

1-6 vs nole (muzza 11-25)
9-18 vs fed (muzza 11-14)
4-7 vs rafa (muzza 7-17)
0-1 vs muzza

up to 2009 (hewitt still no22):
4-5 vs rafa (muzza 2-7)
7-16 vs fed (muzza 6-4)
7-7 vs sampras (muzza 0-1)
1-3 vs nole (muzza 3-4)
0-1 vs muzza

19-32 muzza 12-16

muzza spelade inte vs kuerten and agassi
 
Last edited:
RS said:
This is about Murray Hewitt though. :p
Click to expand...

Just remembered this nugget of a thread:

julesb

Thread 'Murray superior to Federer in every aspect of the game apart from the forehand'

Andy Murray is superior to Roger Federer in all aspects of the game apart from the forehand. Lets break it down:

Serve- Murray's is better, more power
Return of Serve- Murray, no contest
Forehand- Federer
Backhand- Murray, again no contest
Volleys- Murray easily
Movement- Murray is quicker

Pretty weak the so called GOAT is inferior to a slamless 1 time slam finalist in almost all aspects of the game, LOL!
  • Like

Murygoat indeed.
 
Racquet_smash said:
We'd have a debate comparing Murray to Safin, but Hewitt has hardly any arguments here. It's not like he had an insane peak and failed to archieve correspondingly.
Click to expand...


Although Hewitt might be superior to Safin, the latter has more of a case to be superior to Murray because of peak level, talent, big wins, etc. You can compare it from that side of the argument and make him win, although in the consistency department, he falls short of both of them. Hewitt was great, but has very little over Murray. Murray has more slam titles, more titles overall, more slam finals, longer time at the top, the Olympic gold, etc and did it facing substantially better competition. They have a similar style of play in some ways (although Murray has more variety) but Murray achieved more facing better opposition.
 
BauerAlmeida said:
Although Hewitt might be superior to Safin, the latter has more of a case to be superior to Murray because of peak level, talent, big wins, etc. You can compare it from that side of the argument and make him win, although in the consistency department, he falls short of both of them. Hewitt was great, but has very little over Murray. Murray has more slam titles, more titles overall, more slam finals, longer time at the top, the Olympic gold, etc and did it facing substantially better competition. They have a similar style of play in some ways (although Murray has more variety) but Murray achieved more facing better opposition.
Click to expand...
Yeah i don't think anyone would question Safin having superior performances on hards and more talent in general. But what arguments does Hewitt have? It's not like he was supposed the next world beater.
 
TMF said:
Hewitt had Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten, Federer, Nadal, Safin,...

You put Murray against these lions, he wins no slam
Click to expand...

Lol..conveniently ommitted Djokovic, the greatest lion of all. Murray won 2 Slams against him, Hewitt won only 1 against Sampras.
 
Racquet_smash said:
We'd have a debate comparing Murray to Safin, but Hewitt has hardly any arguments here. It's not like he had an insane peak and failed to archieve correspondingly.
Click to expand...
Eh? Hewitt was world number 1 for 80 weeks, won 2 majors, 2 masters and 2 YECs, and other events like 4 Queen's Club titles, and beating Federer in the 2010 Halle final. Hewitt's Davis Cup win over Federer in 2003 was the most legendary of all his wins. Hewitt beat peak Kuerten 7-6, 6-3, 7-6, on clay, in Brazil, in 2001 Davis Cup. As I said, Hewitt is very underrated these days. Hewitt, as a teenager, was mentally ready for the tennis elite. There's not many other male players that we can say that about.
 
Mainad said:
Lol..conveniently ommitted Djokovic, the greatest lion of all. Murray won 2 Slams against him, Hewitt won only 1 against Sampras.
Click to expand...
muzza won also vs fed in OG final in best of 5 with 3-0 at W GC that is feds favorit and in the same season that fed won W on the same court. as nole won his OG on the same court that raz won RG. muzza won vs rafa in masters (madrid) final, rafa lost only 7 big clay finals vs only 3 players. once to muzza, twice to fed and 4 times to nole!
 
This? The day before a slam, too, things must be bad.
The answer is no. Hewitt peaked young and was fearless. That kind of career is superior to the Murray type of waiting for a weak era to pounce,
 
Tennfan123 said:
This? The day before a slam, too, things must be bad.
The answer is no. Hewitt peaked young and was fearless. That kind of career is superior to the Murray type of waiting for a weak era to pounce,
Click to expand...
hewitt played in the weakest era ever while muzza never lived through that weak era, everything he won he won in the strongest era of all time.

top8elo.jpg
 
zagor said:
Just remembered this nugget of a thread:

julesb

Thread 'Murray superior to Federer in every aspect of the game apart from the forehand'

Andy Murray is superior to Roger Federer in all aspects of the game apart from the forehand. Lets break it down:

Serve- Murray's is better, more power
Return of Serve- Murray, no contest
Forehand- Federer
Backhand- Murray, again no contest
Volleys- Murray easily
Movement- Murray is quicker

Pretty weak the so called GOAT is inferior to a slamless 1 time slam finalist in almost all aspects of the game, LOL!
  • Like

Murygoat indeed.
Click to expand...
Good stuff.
 
Mustard said:
Eh? Hewitt was world number 1 for 80 weeks, won 2 majors, 2 masters and 2 YECs, and other events like 4 Queen's Club titles, and beating Federer in the 2010 Halle final. Hewitt's Davis Cup win over Federer in 2003 was the most legendary of all his wins. Hewitt beat peak Kuerten 7-6, 6-3, 7-6, on clay, in Brazil, in 2001 Davis Cup. As I said, Hewitt is very underrated these days. Hewitt, as a teenager, was mentally ready for the tennis elite. There's not many other male players that we can say that about.
Click to expand...
Hewitt wasn't a nobody, but it's even hard to argue he has a better peak than Murray, so given how much more successful Murray's career was, how can this even be a debate?
 
Racquet_smash said:
Hewitt wasn't a nobody, but it's even hard to argue he has a better peak than Murray, so given how much more successful Murray's career was, how can this even be a debate?
Click to expand...
Hewitt was mentally ready for the tennis elite as a teenager. Murray wasn't.
Hewitt was "the man" in the tennis world for a longer period than Murray was.
 
Mustard said:
Hewitt was mentally ready for the tennis elite as a teenager. Murray wasn't.
Hewitt was "the man" in the tennis world for a longer period than Murray was.
Click to expand...
That's down to lucky timing more than anything else. Not saying Hewitt doesn't have notable wins or his slams are undeserved, but once Federer arose he got crushed every time. His "main thing" moment only happened in a transitional time, he wasn't the protagonist of an era. In fact Murray did a lot better against Djokovic than Hewitt did against Federer.
 
Racquet_smash said:
That's down to lucky timing more than anything else. Not saying Hewitt doesn't have notable wins or his slams are undeserved, but once Federer arose he got crushed every time. His "main thing" moment only happened in a transitional time, he wasn't the protagonist of an era. In fact Murray did a lot better against Djokovic than Hewitt did against Federer.
Click to expand...
Hewitt was 7-2 up on Federer in their head-to-head at the end of 2003.
 
Mustard said:
Hewitt was 7-2 up on Federer in their head-to-head at the end of 2003.
Click to expand...
Yeah which as i said is lucky timing and nothing more. Hewitt was playing some the best tennis of his life in the early 2000s while Federer was still blossoming in the player he'd eventually become. In 2004, when Fed hit his prime (and Hewitt far from declining), Hewitt would lose 6 matches that year alone, and 14 consecutively for the rest of the decade.

Comparatively, Murray has Masters finals wins, a YEC final win, a US Open final and a Wimbledon final win over Djokovic. The level of success against their biggest rival isn't even comparable.
 
Racquet_smash said:
Yeah which as i said is lucky timing and nothing more. Hewitt was playing some the best tennis of his life in the early 2000s while Federer was still blossoming in the player he'd eventually become. In 2004, when Fed hit his prime (and Hewitt far from declining), Hewitt would lose 6 matches that year alone, and 14 consecutively for the rest of the decade.

Comparatively, Murray has Masters finals wins, a YEC final win, a US Open final and a Wimbledon final win over Djokovic. The level of success against their biggest rival isn't even comparable.
Click to expand...
Then again, Djokovic is worse at dealing with lesser players than Fed. Murray would hardly be more successful over 2004-2005 Fed than Hewitt was.

And besides, wasn’t Hewitt only 20-21 when he rose to fame? How many times have we heard people say about other players how they’re only 20-21 and they should be given time, but completely change their tune when it comes to Hewitt?

He still lost to a prime Sampras and a prime Agassi in major semis as a 19 and 21 year old so he didn’t have it easy all the time.
 
My nan and I were very impressed by Hewitt even in the late 1990s, like when he pushed Sampras to the limit at 1999 Queen's Club. Hewitt was 18 then. His mental attitude was spot on, being very up for a scrap and loving the competing.

In January 2000, while still 18, Hewitt started the year by winning Adelaide and Sydney, and was seriously talked about as a possible Australian Open champion that year. That's when he got together with Kim Clijsters. Kim went up to Lleyton for an autograph for her sister Elke initally.
 
Mustard said:
My nan and I were very impressed by Hewitt even in the late 1990s, like when he pushed Sampras to the limit at 1999 Queen's Club. Hewitt was 18 then. His mental attitude was spot on, being very up for a scrap and loving the competing.

In January 2000, while still 18, Hewitt started the year by winning Adelaide and Sydney, and was seriously talked about as a possible Australian Open champion that year. That's when he got together with Kim Clijsters. Kim went up to Lleyton for an autograph for her sister Elke initally.
Click to expand...

Never liked how he broke up with Kim (cheated on her with his present wife apparently). :unsure:
 
Mainad said:
Never liked how he broke up with Kim (cheated on her with his present wife apparently). :unsure:
Click to expand...
I don't think so. It was in October 2004, and it was Kim who broke it off, by telephone, when Lleyton was on the other side of the world. He reconnected with Rebecca Cartwright in December 2004, after first meeting her in 1999 (before he met Kim). Bec had her Kim Clijsters equivalent in Beau Brady, her Home and Away co-star.
 
mike danny said:
Then again, Djokovic is worse at dealing with lesser players than Fed. Murray would hardly be more successful over 2004-2005 Fed than Hewitt was.

And besides, wasn’t Hewitt only 20-21 when he rose to fame? How many times have we heard people say about other players how they’re only 20-21 and they should be given time, but completely change their tune when it comes to Hewitt?

He still lost to a prime Sampras and a prime Agassi in major semis as a 19 and 21 year old so he didn’t have it easy all the time.
Click to expand...
Murray in 2001-2003? I think he could definitely win more than 2 slams, those years were weaker than the late 2000s and the late 90s.

Hewitt doing as much in Muzz's place seems extremely unlikely. It's not like Fed was just better than him, he oitright crushed him as soon as he hit his prime even worse than he did with Roddick. His h2h against Nadal and Djokovic doesn't make me think he'd be super competitive, even 18 years old Nadal on his worst surface had him on the ropes in 2005.
 
Racquet_smash said:
I'm talking about prime versions of both players, not necessarily age equalized. Obviously Hewitt is better in his early 20s while Murray was better in his late 20s.
Click to expand...
Hewitt later had prime Federer in his way, and later injury issues that affected Hewitt's consistency.
 
hewitt is a good (great?) player but it was more difficult for murray to win titles against the big three
in this perspective, murray should be greater than hewitt (mainly with good performance at USO and won twice against pete over the peak and fed yet to be peak)
 
Racquet_smash said:
That's down to lucky timing more than anything else. Not saying Hewitt doesn't have notable wins or his slams are undeserved, but once Federer arose he got crushed every time. His "main thing" moment only happened in a transitional time, he wasn't the protagonist of an era. In fact Murray did a lot better against Djokovic than Hewitt did against Federer.
Click to expand...

not really. fed vs hewitt in AO 04, Wim 04 and esp USO 05 were competitive.
USO 04 was of course a crushing and Wim 05 was a straight set win.
 
abmk said:
not really. fed vs hewitt in AO 04, Wim 04 and esp USO 05 were competitive.
USO 04 was of course a crushing and Wim 05 was a straight set win.
Click to expand...
So 2 were completely one sided and 3 were somewhat competitive (not really that much as none of them even went to the decider, only USO 05 was a decently competitive match with every set being not one sided). That's exactly what i call an uncompetitive rivarly, Federer was clearly deatroying Hewitt once he hit his prime, arguably more than he did with Roddick.
 
Racquet_smash said:
Yeah which as i said is lucky timing and nothing more. Hewitt was playing some the best tennis of his life in the early 2000s while Federer was still blossoming in the player he'd eventually become. In 2004, when Fed hit his prime (and Hewitt far from declining), Hewitt would lose 6 matches that year alone, and 14 consecutively for the rest of the decade.

Comparatively, Murray has Masters finals wins, a YEC final win, a US Open final and a Wimbledon final win over Djokovic. The level of success against their biggest rival isn't even comparable.
Click to expand...
That says more about the difference between Federer and Djokovic than Murray and Hewitt...
 
NatF said:
That says more about the difference between Federer and Djokovic than Murray and Hewitt...
Click to expand...
I do agree about prime Federer being better than prime Djokovic, but Hewitt's record against Federer in 2004-2009 is so bad it's very difficult to argue he would have done as good as Murray did in the early 2010s. Murray himself well before his prime years did a lot better against 2000s Federer than Hewitt did.
 
Racquet_smash said:
I do agree about prime Federer being better than prime Djokovic, but Hewitt's record against Federer in 2004-2009 is so bad it's very difficult to argue he would have done as good as Murray did in the early 2010s. Murray himself well before his prime years did a lot better against 2000s Federer than Hewitt did.
Click to expand...

Murray actually did worse against Fed in slams than Hewitt all things considered. In BO3 sure, he did much better but then again since 2008 Fed was very much slowing down in masters and focusing almost exclusively on slams.

I mean 34 year old Fed stomped Murray at Wimbledon.
 
Racquet_smash said:
I do agree about prime Federer being better than prime Djokovic, but Hewitt's record against Federer in 2004-2009 is so bad it's very difficult to argue he would have done as good as Murray did in the early 2010s. Murray himself well before his prime years did a lot better against 2000s Federer than Hewitt did.
Click to expand...
Federer was losing to a lot of different players in masters during that 08-10 window when Murray got him, Roddick and Hewitt both recorded their first wins over Fed in ages during those years despite being far off their peak as well. IMO Fed was just that good and ruthless when he saw Hewitt across the net from him.
 
Mustard said:
Hewitt later had prime Federer in his way, and later injury issues that affected Hewitt's consistency.
Click to expand...

2004/2005 Hewitt was great, just faced very tough competition. He was constantly losing to the eventual champion in slams. After that, injuries ruined him.
 
zagor said:
Murray actually did worse against Fed in slams than Hewitt all things considered. In BO3 sure, he did much better but then again since 2008 Fed was very much slowing down in masters and focusing almost exclusively on slams.

I mean 34 year old Fed stomped Murray at Wimbledon.
Click to expand...
In Bo5 i don't disagree, but again what are even the arguments in favour of Hewitt at this point? That's the thread, basically.
 
Racquet_smash said:
In Bo5 i don't disagree, but again what are even the arguments in favour of Hewitt at this point? That's the thread, basically.
Click to expand...

I mean yeah, Murray's body of work is undeniable at this point compared to 2-3 slam winners.

However Hewitt wasn't chopped liver or a clown as he's presented. He deserves much more respect as a player.

He took the fight to Sampras and Agassi at a very young age and later ran into roadblock that was peak Fed.
 
zagor said:
I mean yeah, Murray's body of work is undeniable at this point compared to 2-3 slam winners.

However Hewitt wasn't chopped liver or a clown as he's presented. He deserves much more respect as a player.

He took the fight to Sampras and Agassi at a very young age and later ran into roadblock that was peak Fed.
Click to expand...
I never said he was a clown. Obviously, he was a very good player, it's just very hard to make this a debate since Murray is equal or superior in terms of well, everything.
 
Racquet_smash said:
In Bo5 i don't disagree, but again what are even the arguments in favour of Hewitt at this point? That's the thread, basically.
Click to expand...
Apart from #1 stats and I guess their records at the YEC. Murray's resume is obviously better. He is surely the greater player. Their stats would be closer if Hewitt hadn't become chronically injured at 25 though.
 
NatF said:
Apart from #1 stats and I guess their records at the YEC. Murray's resume is obviously better. He is surely the greater player. Their stats would be closer if Hewitt hadn't become chronically injured at 25 though.
Click to expand...
Murray did have some pretty serious injuries as well to be fair, especially in 2017 which basically killed his career.
 
NatF said:
Apart from #1 stats and I guess their records at the YEC. Murray's resume is obviously better. He is surely the greater player. Their stats would be closer if Hewitt hadn't become chronically injured at 25 though.
Click to expand...
And in fairness to my earlier longevity remark, atleast some of Murray's big edge there is Hewitt's bad luck with injuries. Not saying that should factor into evaluating them as those scenarios would be endless in tennis history, but it was bad luck for Hewitt for sure. Especially that it prevented him from possibly holding out until Federers dominance waned from 2008 onwards as Federer is obviously the one person he has to avoid. He would have a really hard time with Nadal too, but off of clay where he obviously stands no shot still probably has a fighting chance, if near his very best that is. Djokovic did not emerge until 2011, and Murray himself was still only an emerging contender in the late 2000s too.
 
GoatNo1 said:
muzza played more vs big3 (85 times, 29 wins) than hewitt vs all players you named (73 times, 32 wins)!
and muzza is peer with 2 big3 while hewitt is peer with one, and even fed muzza played 25 times (just 2 less than hewitt), having much more success up to 09 (6-4) than after (5-10)!

1-6 vs nole (muzza 11-25)
9-18 vs fed (muzza 11-14)
4-7 vs rafa (muzza 7-17)
0-1 vs muzza

up to 2009 (hewitt still no22):
4-5 vs rafa (muzza 2-7)
7-16 vs fed (muzza 6-4)
7-7 vs sampras (muzza 0-1)
1-3 vs nole (muzza 3-4)
0-1 vs muzza

19-32 muzza 12-16

muzza spelade inte vs kuerten and agassi
Click to expand...
LOL
Hewitt didn't have one great player but many great one in his era.
Like I said, Murray wouldn't win anything against these lions - Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten, Federer, Nadal, Safin,...

Doesn't change my POV that Hewitt faced tougher competition. Hewitt was also unfortunate that he had multiple injuries in his mid-20s who was never the same player after 2005
 
Racquet_smash said:
So 2 were completely one sided and 3 were somewhat competitive (not really that much as none of them even went to the decider, only USO 05 was a decently competitive match with every set being not one sided). That's exactly what i call an uncompetitive rivarly, Federer was clearly deatroying Hewitt once he hit his prime, arguably more than he did with Roddick.
Click to expand...

I mean Murray vs a fed in slams/Bo5 was worse if you look at it in context that fed was clearly worse.

straight set smashing in USO 08 final
straight set loss in AO 10 final
4-setter in WIm 12 final - only real good one
straight set loss in Wim 15 final

yeah, murray got him once in AO 13 when fed was ehh. hewitt got a better fed in DC 03.
 
abmk said:
I mean Murray vs a fed in slams/Bo5 was worse if you look at it in context that fed was clearly worse.

straight set smashing in USO 08 final
straight set loss in AO 10 final
4-setter in WIm 12 final - only real good one
straight set loss in Wim 15 final

yeah, murray got him once in AO 13 when fed was ehh. hewitt got a better fed in DC 03.
Click to expand...
Federer also won their 2014 Australian Open quarter final.

Even the 2013 Australian Open semi final that Murray won, he made heavy work of it, needing 5 sets. Murray's biggest win over Federer was the 2012 Olympic final at Wimbledon, winning 6-2, 6-1, 6-4.
 
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
39K
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
867
Rago
Rago
Back
Top