Is Murray really greater than Hewitt?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 748597
  • Start date

Who is really greater?

  • Total voters
    160
RS

RS

Bionic Poster
Peak level is harder but Murray still at least by a small margin. Murray greater clearly.
 
Last edited:
yokied

yokied

Hall of Fame
Say what you like about Hewitt, and my performance as Sabratha's tribute band, but players like Borg, Nadal, Hewitt and others who just tear out of juniors straight to the top of the ATP deserve respeck, no matter how crappy their career might end up being on paper and in practice. Hewitt put down the previous generation of top players, including two ATGs, with the kind of efficiency and effectiveness that Murray could only dream of.

I also remember seeing that Murray admitted to basing his game on Hewitt, so there's that little nugget that can't really be buried by Murrovician muppeteers.
 
The Blond Blur

The Blond Blur

G.O.A.T.
When you’re not getting destroyed in the poll as badly as you were in the 2004 USO F :cool:
giphy.gif
 
N

ND-13

Hall of Fame
In terms of achievements - same
In terms of longevity - Andy
In terms of level of play - Lleyton
In terms of consistency - Andy
In terms of talent - Lleyton


Overall, Lleyton nudges ahead for me.
 
Jaitock1991

Jaitock1991

Hall of Fame
Not in my book. But in terms of pure peak level I think he may just edge Rusty. In terms of greatness I guess it all depends on which achievements are valued the highest, in other words it's all subjective.
 
Fridge

Fridge

Professional
Murray here by a good margin. Murray had harder competition and got many more slam finals/semis/MS1000s than Hewitt
 
B

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
yokied said:
Hewitt put down the previous generation of top players, including two ATGs, with the kind of efficiency and effectiveness that Murray could only dream of.
Click to expand...
When exactly was that? He is 1-1 against Pete in slams and 0-1 against Agassi. Both were past their peak/prime most of the time when Hewitt faced them. Hewitt took advantage of the interim period with no real ATG to win a couple of slams and collect weeks at No.1. Once Fed showed up this **** got cut real quickly. Once Nadal and Novak became adults we never heard again of Hewitt.
 
Maverick13

Maverick13

Semi-Pro
I’ll take Hewitt. Hewitt was the clear number 1 when he was, Murray never was, he was always over shadowed. I think early/mid 2000s Hewitt beats Murray.
 
N

ND-13

Hall of Fame
BorgTheGOAT said:
When exactly was that? He is 1-1 against Pete in slams and 0-1 against Agassi. Both were past their peak/prime most of the time when Hewitt faced them. Hewitt took advantage of the interim period with no real ATG to win a couple of slams and collect weeks at No.1. Once Fed showed up this **** got cut real quickly. Once Nadal and Novak became adults we never heard again of Hewitt.
Click to expand...

Starting 2000 Queens, Hewitt won 5 of the next 6 matches they played each other.

Andy Murray's weeks at No 1 was during a period when Novak fell off the radar, Rafa was glad to get any wins and Roger was off the tour. And even then it was based on a result of a single match.

Hewitt was a clear No 1 for a long period. Andy was not.
 
Mainad

Mainad

Bionic Poster
ND-13 said:
Starting 2000 Queens, Hewitt won 5 of the next 6 matches they played each other.

Andy Murray's weeks at No 1 was during a period when Novak fell off the radar, Rafa was glad to get any wins and Roger was off the tour. And even then it was based on a result of a single match.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. Murray secured the #1 ranking after getting through to the semi-finals of the Paris Masters (which he then won) so he entered the WTF already as the #1 player but if Djokovic got through to the final (which he did quite comfortably) Murray needed to meet him and beat him there in order to hold onto the ranking, which he did (quite comfortably).

ND-13 said:
Hewitt was a clear No 1 for a long period. Andy was not.
Click to expand...

Andy was a clear #1 for 41 weeks after he first secured the ranking because he had amassed so many ranking points it took that long for somebody else to overtake him. Unfortunately, Andy's hip injury kicked in more severely in 2017 and prevented him from playing at his 2016 level. That's all.
 
TTMR

TTMR

Hall of Fame
I'm as big of a fan of the Electric Light Orchestra-ELO as anyone, but I have to go with Hewitt here. Hewitt was the legitimate favourite for slams when he was #1 and carried that #1 ranking like a #1. Murray was never a convincing #1. Hewitt also almost single-handedly took down the serve and volley style of play. As a final point, Hewitt was also a lot better looking.
 
killerboss

killerboss

Professional
A few posters inferring that Hewitt was more dominant than Murray in his prime and more effective or whatever - nonsense!!. Hewitt never even made more than 1 slam final in a year. Back then competition wasn't as skewed at the top so you had players like Moya and Ferrero getting to no 1. Murray would have probably been no 1 for longer if he was in his prime back then.
 
Z

zep

Hall of Fame
AnOctorokForDinner said:
Ah, the joys of ELOL. 2016 Nishikori is calculated to be a better player than 2000 Sampras, hahahahahahahahahaha!! all 'cause he was more consistent in mugsters and didn't suck on clay, yeahlol.
Click to expand...

Why don't you come up with your own system to improve that? A higher ELO rating doesn't necessarily mean a better player. However 2000-02's absence on that list is not a coincidence either. Hewitt's #1 rank came in the transition era and once real competition arrived he fizzed out. Just because it doesn't suit your narrative, a highly regarded mathematical system is not trash. Is it perfect, probably not? It probably doesn't work as well in tennis as it does in say Chess. But only anti science nutjobs have a mentality of denying a well established system with hahahahas. Next you will be denying climate change.
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
zep said:
Why don't you come up with your own system to improve that? A higher ELO rating doesn't necessarily mean a better player. However 2000-02's absence on that list is not a coincidence either. Hewitt's #1 rank came in the transition era and once real competition arrived he fizzed out. Just because it doesn't suit your narrative, a highly regarded mathematical system is not trash. Is it perfect, probably not? It probably doesn't work as well in tennis as it does in say Chess. But only anti science nutjobs have a mentality of denying a well established system with hahahahas. Next you will be denying climate change.
Click to expand...

Equating elo with climate change?

LOL-Spider-Man.gif
 
Z

zep

Hall of Fame
NatF said:
He thinks Hewitt is just Ferrer with better timing.
Click to expand...

I have always maintained that Hewitt is slightly better than Ferrer. He was lucky with his peak, yes. Without that window he would have remained slamless just like Ferrer. I give Hewitt a lot of credit for peaking so early in his career and grabbing the opportunity that was in front of him. He is not better than Murray.
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
zep said:
It;s the same mentality. ELO is a well known rating formula. It's not an agenda driven tool.
Click to expand...

The pitfalls of ELO have been done to death on here, it was never meant as tool to compare across era's.
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
zep said:
I have always maintained that Hewitt is slightly better than Ferrer. He was lucky with his peak, yes. Without that window he would have remained slamless just like Ferrer. I give Hewitt a lot of credit for peaking so early in his career and grabbing the opportunity that was in front of him. He is not better than Murray.
Click to expand...

I've not said he's better than Murray. He's clearly superior to Ferrer though (y) Anyway we've been down this rabbit hole before.
 
Z

zep

Hall of Fame
killerboss said:
A few posters inferring that Hewitt was more dominant than Murray in his prime and more effective or whatever - nonsense!!. Hewitt never even made more than 1 slam final in a year. Back then competition wasn't as skewed at the top so you had players like Moya and Ferrero getting to no 1. Murray would have probably been no 1 for longer if he was in his prime back then.
Click to expand...

Peak Murray would destroy the 2001-02 field. The only reason Murray doesn't have 6-7 majors is that he played alongside some of the greatest players ever and lost many important matches to them. Murray has played like 10 slam finals and lost many semis to these guys. Hewitt is nowhere close.
 
AnOctorokForDinner

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
zep said:
A higher ELO rating doesn't necessarily mean a better player.
Click to expand...

Ergo, it doesn't work to determine the better player, which is what the "scientists" on this board like to use it for. So it's you acting unscientific by drawing unsupported conclusions.
 
Z

zep

Hall of Fame
NatF said:
The pitfalls of ELO have been done to death on here, it was never meant as tool to compare across era's.
Click to expand...

So are you trying to tell me that it worked well till the late 1990s and then from the Federer Nadal period but somehow missed the mark in 2000-02? lol
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
zep said:
So are you trying to tell me that it worked well till the late 1990s and then from the Federer Nadal period but somehow missed the mark in 2000-02? lol
Click to expand...

Erm...what are you even saying here? Don't see how that's related to my post at all. I'm saying ELO doesn't work, especially when using to try compare players decades apart...

Reading comprehension fail of the day.
 
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
24K
Deleted member 748597
D
D
The Wawrinka and Hewitt
2 3
Replies
107
Views
2K
Poisoned Slice
Poisoned Slice
D
  • Poll
Nadal vs Sampras
2 3
Replies
115
Views
4K
GhostofPetros
GhostofPetros
D
  • Poll
Murray should donate his achievements to Djokovic
Replies
12
Views
698
Bender
Bender
D
Djokovic vs Nadal
Replies
15
Views
469
Rago
Rago
Top