Is Murray really greater than Hewitt?

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

Who is really greater?

  • Total voters
    220
Murray has accomplished more than Hewitt or anyone else in this century outside Big 3 but his peak levels are not greater than Safin/Roddick/Soderling on their respective surfaces. I would say Hewitt and Murray are tied, you are free to vote for Murray, I have also voted for Hewitt but in general they are similar players tbh. Lets not forget that Hewitt was the youngest world number 1 and he was also a 2 time winner of ATP Finals which in that era was the 5th biggest tournament.
 
mike danny said:
Only first half 2002 was weak, the other years were decent, nowhere near as bad as people make them out to be
Click to expand...
Absolutely. People have tried to retcon tennis history to pretend the early 2000s were weak...they weren't. In 2001, you had Agassi in top form, Guga in top form (until that damn hip injury at the US Open), Sampras still capable of great tennis, Hewitt, Juan Carlos Ferrero, and Roddick coming on strong for the next Gen of players, etc. First half of '02 was weird indeed, but 2003 had Roddick, Agassi, JCF, Hewitt...Fed breaking through (winning Wimby and the ATP Finals), etc. Late 2000s was deeper, but '01-'03 wasn't some boneyard of easy pickings
 
Murray is greater than Hewitt. Hewitt got everything outta his game and smaller frame, no doubt. Fantastic backhand return of serve (just look at how he steamrolled Sampras in the USO Finals). I just think Murray was better. Way more M1000 titles (on all surfaces), more overall titles, and hit his peak in a tougher era. Murray's game was just "uglier", so people rush to discredit it
 
mike danny said:
Only first half 2002 was weak, the other years were decent, nowhere near as bad as people make them out to be
Click to expand...
I loved 2002, including the first half, although Wimbledon was a bit strange at times that year, and the Australian Open was a seeds bloodbath.

Hewitt vs. Agassi in the 2002 San Jose final was fabulous. One of the best matches for clean ball hitting:

 
MissileBackHand99 said:
Absolutely. People have tried to retcon tennis history to pretend the early 2000s were weak...they weren't. In 2001, you had Agassi in top form, Guga in top form (until that damn hip injury at the US Open), Sampras still capable of great tennis, Hewitt, Juan Carlos Ferrero, and Roddick coming on strong for the next Gen of players, etc. First half of '02 was weird indeed, but 2003 had Roddick, Agassi, JCF, Hewitt...Fed breaking through (winning Wimby and the ATP Finals), etc. Late 2000s was deeper, but '01-'03 wasn't some boneyard of easy pickings
Click to expand...
The first half of 2002 had that San Jose final where Hewitt beat Agassi (Agassi had a new coach, Cahill, who was Hewitt's old coach), Hewitt looking dominant in Indian Wells, Federer getting his first win over a world number 1 (against Hewitt) in the semi final of Key Biscayne before Agassi won the final (Agassi's last match win over Federer), an interesting clay season where Ferrero finally seemed to be the best on clay with Kuerten's decline and Ferrero winning Monte Carlo, but where Agassi won Rome (and without losing a set) using new poly strings, and Federer dominating in a Hamburg title win (flashes of the future there). Costa upset Ferrero in the French Open final in a big upset, but the best match of the tournament was again Canas vs. Hewitt just like the year before. Hewitt won Queen's for the third year in a row, and I'll admit that Wimbledon was a bit odd with baseliners doing well and serve and volleyers struggling more. Malisse beating Rusedski was the biggest surprise, because Rusedski had one of his career best matches when taking Roddick's game apart piece by piece.
 
mike danny said:
Only first half 2002 was weak, the other years were decent, nowhere near as bad as people make them out to be
Click to expand...
I said weaker than late 90s and 2000s and i don't think anyone will ever go against that statement. Can't see why Murray couldn't bear gassed Sampras or Nalbandian in a Wimbledon final and then get one extra slam in those years, assuming he comes in top form.
 
Murray greater. Hewitt a better player pre injuries with a better peak. Hewitt didn't really get much of a run at the top. And of course got saddled into playing peak Fed right before injuries destroyed his career. If Hewitt doesn't get hurt and keeps plugging away, who knows he may steal an extra slam or two. Its not really fair to compare as Hewitt was basically done by 24 years old
 
Racquet_smash said:
I said weaker than late 90s and 2000s and i don't think anyone will ever go against that statement. Can't see why Murray couldn't bear gassed Sampras or Nalbandian in a Wimbledon final and then get one extra slam in those years, assuming he comes in top form.
Click to expand...

Murray cannot beat Gassed Sampras and Nalbandian in Slam finals IF born in 1981 because Murray was not an early bloomer like Hewitt/Safin who peaked before Federer hit his peak. So if you put Murray there then he does not have the game as a 20 year old to beat Sampras or Nalbandian. Peak version of Murray of the early 2010s can beat them but by that time his age was 25+ ... age gaps are a very real thing in tennis, our fortunes can change by being born a few years earlier or later, sadly 1981 born Murray wins 0 slams but then good for him that he is not born in 1981, thats why we respect him for his 3 slams and various other feats. ATG level players will win slams in any era but cant say the same for non atgs.
 
Racquet_smash said:
I said weaker than late 90s and 2000s and i don't think anyone will ever go against that statement. Can't see why Murray couldn't bear gassed Sampras or Nalbandian in a Wimbledon final and then get one extra slam in those years, assuming he comes in top form.
Click to expand...
murray would definitely win Wim 02 in Hewitt's place.

But USO 01, murray would have to beat blake, haas, roddick and kafelnikov just to get to the final. Hardly a given.
 
abmk said:
murray would definitely win Wim 02 in Hewitt's place.

But USO 01, murray would have to beat blake, haas, roddick and kafelnikov just to get to the final. Hardly a given.
Click to expand...

Murray lost in straight sets to Nadal at 08 W, no guarantee he will the Final if born in 1981.
 
abmk said:
murray would definitely win Wim 02 in Hewitt's place.

But USO 01, murray would have to beat blake, haas, roddick and kafelnikov just to get to the final. Hardly a given.
Click to expand...
Not a guarantee, but he could definitely do it. His 2012 path to win wasn't an easy one.
 
Racquet_smash said:
This is not a comparison about them at the same age. Obviously, Hewitt was better than him in his early 20s, Muzz peaked in his mid 20s.
Click to expand...

Comparisons should always be at the same age as it is in the real scenario, otherwise it makes no sense.

Hewitt born in 1981 was 21 yrs old in 2002.

If you are saying Murray would be 25 in 2002 then it means he is born in 1977, no guarantee that he would even be the same player that he was in 2012, he would be a very different player who grew up in the 80s and turned pro in the 1990s, with courts being re-laid in 2001 there is no way Murray can win 2002 W, it was for a reason that wimbledon had its first all baseliners final in 2002 with 2 youngsters competing in it.
 
Razer said:
Comparisons should always be at the same age as it is in the real scenario, otherwise it makes no sense.

Hewitt born in 1981 was 21 yrs old in 2002.

If you are saying Murray would be 25 in 2002 then it means he is born in 1977, no guarantee that he would even be the same player that he was in 2012, he would be a very different player who grew up in the 80s and turned pro in the 1990s, with courts being re-laid in 2001 there is no way Murray can win 2002 W, it was for a reason that wimbledon had its first all baseliners final in 2002 with 2 youngsters competing in it.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with you if this was a thread about them at equal age. Instead, this is a thread about who the better player is, and the only way to tell who had the better prime would be comparing them at the peak of their abilities, otherwise it wouldn't be a fair debate. Like, i could say Murray at 29 was much better than Hewitt was at 29, but that would add little to nothing to this discussion since Hewitt was nowhere near his best in 2010.
 
Mustard said:
The first half of 2002 had that San Jose final where Hewitt beat Agassi (Agassi had a new coach, Cahill, who was Hewitt's old coach), Hewitt looking dominant in Indian Wells, Federer getting his first win over a world number 1 (against Hewitt) in the semi final of Key Biscayne before Agassi won the final (Agassi's last match win over Federer), an interesting clay season where Ferrero finally seemed to be the best on clay with Kuerten's decline and Ferrero winning Monte Carlo, but where Agassi won Rome (and without losing a set) using new poly strings, and Federer dominating in a Hamburg title win (flashes of the future there). Costa upset Ferrero in the French Open final in a big upset, but the best match of the tournament was again Canas vs. Hewitt just like the year before. Hewitt won Queen's for the third year in a row, and I'll admit that Wimbledon was a bit odd with baseliners doing well and serve and volleyers struggling more. Malisse beating Rusedski was the biggest surprise, because Rusedski had one of his career best matches when taking Roddick's game apart piece by piece.
Click to expand...
That San Jose final is a masterpiece. In those days, I referred to Hewitt as "Agassi 2.0" due to his great returning, clean ball striking, and great movement. The Aussie Open that year was a MESS (Agassi WD'ing, Hewitt knocked out in Rd 1, seeds going down left and right), and nobody saw Al Costa having a revival at the French. Everyone assumed JCF was the heir apparent to Guga, yet Costa not only won..but steamrolled JCF the first 2 sets. The first big Final I remember seeing Fed in was the '02 Miami Finals vs Agassi...great memories. '02 Wimbledon was one of the biggest car crashes of seeds I've ever seen (other than 2013). Hewitt avoided the big upset, and nobody was surprised to see him in the Finals. Nalbandian was definitely a surprise, but would show he had big time game the following years
 
Hewitt was more talented and he had mentality of fighter. Murray was taller stronger and powerful guy. But technically and mentality wise he was far worse compared to Hewitt.
 
D.Nalby12 said:
Hewitt was more talented and he had mentality of fighter. Murray was taller stronger and powerful guy. But technically and mentality wise he was far worse compared to Hewitt.
Click to expand...

Lol......yeah coz that Murray never fought for anything which is why he has 2 more Slams than Lleyton and many more titles!!! :rolleyes:
 
Mainad said:
Lol......yeah coz that Murray never fought for anything which is why he has 2 more Slams than Lleyton and many more titles!!! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Just one more.

Let's get real. No one can argue Murray was bigger fighter than Hewitt. It's like saying Djokovic is better at net than Federer.
 
D.Nalby12 said:
Just one more.

Let's get real. No one can argue Murray was bigger fighter than Hewitt. It's like saying Djokovic is better at net than Federer.
Click to expand...

He may not have been bigger but he fought just as well and I doubt anyone can realistically argue with that.
 
Mainad said:
He may not have been bigger but he fought just as well and I doubt anyone can realistically argue with that.
Click to expand...

Murray was fighter in the sense of not giving up Slam hopes and coming back again and again after losses. Hewitt was fighter in the sense - not giving up on court, winning matches with sheer will and determination. Had Murray got Hewitt' mindset - his career would have been much better.
 
D.Nalby12 said:
Murray was fighter in the sense of not giving up Slam hopes and coming back again and again after losses. Hewitt was fighter in the sense - not giving up on court, winning matches with sheer will and determination. Had Murray got Hewitt' mindset - his career would have been much better.
Click to expand...

No, Murray fought on court too and survived many match points against him eg. the semi-final of 2017 Dubai when he survived 7 match points. Of course it didn't always work but he never gave up trying.
 
Murray born in 1981 wins 0 Slams for sure.
Hewitt born in 1987 would also be on 0 most probably.

Both of them lost to the eventual winner in a Slam 13 times each, Hewitt has more 80>40 weeks at 1 edge and 2 yec titles ... Murray has 3>2 slams edge.

They are tied as far as I am concerned.
 
Murray, by far. Lewitt won in the weakest era of the last 30 years, (early 2000s), regardless of what people say. 2002 Wimbledon final, it seems like an Alcaraz-Sinner at 0.5x speed. Murray had to play the Big-3
 
NaDjoFed said:
Murray, by far. Lewitt won in the weakest era of the last 30 years, (early 2000s), regardless of what people say. 2002 Wimbledon final, it seems like an Alcaraz-Sinner at 0.5x speed. Murray had to play the Big-3
Click to expand...
He nevertheless beat Sampras for one of his slams and even though he was gassed he was in good form coming from wins over Rafter, Agassi and Safin. On top, Hewitt was unlucky to face peak Fed and lose to him seven times at slams during/after which also Nadal and Djoko entered the scene. Whatever year of weak competition he had, it was more than made up for by the tough years afterwards.
 
Mainad said:
I think they were both excellent fighters.
Click to expand...

Ok. Who was bigger on court fighter among Fedal? Ain't that obvious to you? There is no shame in accepting the obvious. As a Federer fan I have no shame accepting it. Why Murray fans refuse to see the reality?
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
He nevertheless beat Sampras for one of his slams and even though he was gassed he was in good form coming from wins over Rafter, Agassi and Safin. On top, Hewitt was unlucky to face peak Fed and lose to him seven times at slams during/after which also Nadal and Djoko entered the scene. Whatever year of weak competition he had, it was more than made up for by the tough years afterwards.
Click to expand...
but 2002 was really a weak year, and peak hewitt still won only one slam (and only one masters). sure he won the yec and was clearly the best in tje world, and a great and now sometimes underrated player, but definetely far from outstanding.

murray was also not outstanding, but he won his first 2 slams in a strong era, and also had better slam results at that time than hewitt in 2002.
 
D.Nalby12 said:
Hewitt was more talented and he had mentality of fighter. Murray was taller stronger and powerful guy. But technically and mentality wise he was far worse compared to Hewitt.
Click to expand...
hewitt was very talented, but dont think he was more talented than murrray. i think if their primes would be at the same time, no matter what era, murray would be more successful.
 
JasonZ said:
but 2002 was really a weak year, and peak hewitt still won only one slam (and only one masters). sure he won the yec and was clearly the best in tje world, and a great and now sometimes underrated player, but definetely far from outstanding.

murray was also not outstanding, but he won his first 2 slams in a strong era, and also had better slam results at that time than hewitt in 2002.
Click to expand...
Yeah Murray is greater than Hewitt don't get me wrong but again it is not so light-years as some here write.
 
Last edited:
Hewitt is greater. He had achieved consecutive YE#1s and YECs before the age of 22 (when Sampras and Agassi were still winning slams). He then had the misfortune of peak Federer (clearly a tougher foe than peak Djokovic), who he faced at every slam Federer won from 2004-2005.
 
JasonZ said:
but 2002 was really a weak year, and peak hewitt still won only one slam (and only one masters). sure he won the yec and was clearly the best in tje world, and a great and now sometimes underrated player, but definetely far from outstanding.

murray was also not outstanding, but he won his first 2 slams in a strong era, and also had better slam results at that time than hewitt in 2002.
Click to expand...

its true that 2002 was really weak. But even 2016 was a weak year and Murray also won only one slam
 
Its close. Hewitt by a nose though. He accomplished quite a lot for his career ending by 25. He also had to face Pete/Andre and then a better version of Federer along with Roddick than what Murray faced
 
NaDjoFed said:
Murray, by far. Lewitt won in the weakest era of the last 30 years, (early 2000s), regardless of what people say. 2002 Wimbledon final, it seems like an Alcaraz-Sinner at 0.5x speed. Murray had to play the Big-3
Click to expand...

Weakest era of all time was 2016 second half to 2023 end, there was a true vacuum in Tennis in this period, old guys vultured slams in plenty.
 
Problem is, Murray only managed one more slam in a weaker era than Hewitt. Imagine if Hewitt didn't have to deal with Pete/Agassi/Peak Federer and wasn't done by 25 years old. . Hewitt also got the YEC. 2002 was weaker but the US Open certainly wasn't. By 2004 Fed had already hit his stride and then by 2005 already hit his peak. Murray got like the tail end of prime Federer 2008/2010 etc.. Djoker from 2011-2016 was awesome but nowhere near as deadly as 2004-2007 Fed IMO. That Federer is about as good as you can get outside of 2008/2010 Nadal. 2013-2016 Djoker was beatable. Fed at his best really wasn't. It takes like the one matchup issue with Nadal's lefty topspin in the universe to stop him
 
Last edited:
Interesting quirk of fate that Hewitt in 2002, Murray in 2013, and Murray in 2016 all went to five sets in the QFs but otherwise the only set dropped en route to any of the titles was Murray dropping the first set on a tiebreak against Janowicz in the 2013 semis.
 
RS said:
This Hewitt slander lol.

Murray over Hewitt. Not by miles like some might say but it's very clear.
Click to expand...
Is it? In Hewitt's favour is 80 weeks as world number 1 (and being seen as the main guy), and 2 YECs by age 21. Hewitt was also mentally ready almost straight away, while Murray had to learn and learn about all that.
 
Mustard said:
Is it? In Hewitt's favour is 80 weeks as world number 1 (and being seen as the main guy), and 2 YECs by age 21. Hewitt was also mentally ready almost straight away, while Murray had to learn and learn about all that.
Click to expand...
I would say a extra slam and 12 extra masters and Murray's extra general consistency more than covers for that. But that's why I say it isn't by miles like a lot of people do giving Hewitt has a couple things going for him and maybe some people would say there prime level wasn't that far apart in some conditions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

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