D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Hewitt had a positive record VS Federer until he hit his peak in 2004.
Rafael Nadal on clay - Utter dominance or a weak era for clay court players?
- Thread starter Down_the_line
- Start date
forehand fan
Rookie
murray has won the same no of slams as hewitt but has reached more finals and multiple semis at every slam. i can't see how hewitt was more of a threat for winning slams than murray. and murray has beaten nadal and djokovic twice in their prime. i don't think hewitt ever beat a player of that callibre in his prime in slams.. one might argue that sampras was still in his prime in 2001. but i don't think so
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Hewitt has beaten Nadal in slams.. taken sets off peak Nadal on clay.. and has beaten Federer and Sampras in finals on grass (Queens and Halle). If Federer was 32 in 2005, Hewitt could have beaten him at the US Open or maybe Wimbledon.. similar to Murray. Murray is more consistent, less injury prone but I would not say "better" by any means.
forehand fan
Rookie
none of your points contradict mine. hewitt beat nadal in 2004 and 2005 ao.. they were not prime nadal. queens and halle are not slams. as for the part about hewitt not getting the chance to beat 32 year old fed.. i am not giving murray credit for beating fed in ao. my point was murray beat nadal and djokovic twice right in their primes in slams. hewitt has never done so against a player of similar callibre in their primes. that along with murrays more consistent results at the slams are enough to prove that he is more of a threat to win slams than hewitt was
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Except Sampras >> Djokovic, especially at the USO.. and Hewitt annihilated him in that one final. 2005 Nadal was good on hardcourts and clay.. clearly not a player to be underestimated and Hewitt pulled through there too (on Hewitt's worse surface).
Murray beat Djokovic at the USO, that's true, but Hewitt beat Sampras at the USO who was still consistently making finals there at that point. Murray also thumped Djokovic at Wimbledon but Djokovic isn't a great grass courter anyways and Hewitt has more than made up for his Wimbledon draw with his beatings of both Sampras and Federer on grass... Even though it's not a slam it's a final and it counts towards his legacy.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
And Hewitt would have more than enough chances against past-his-prime Federer in slams, or even Djokovic and Nadal. He's taken sets off peak Nadal on clay, took a set off Djokovic on his best surface, on Hewitt's worst and being 7 or 8 years out of his prime with a broken toe.. He could beat them peak for peak in majors (besides Nadal at Roland Garros, but he could push him there for sure).
forehand fan
Rookie
yes sampras is greater than djokovic.. but hewitt beat sampras in 2001.. when his win loss record was 35-16.. while djokovic was beaten by murray in 2013 and 2012.. in both years djokovic's win
5 was close to 90. and do you truly think sampras was in his prime in 2001?
5 was close to 90. and do you truly think sampras was in his prime in 2001?
forehand fan
Rookie
if he can push peak nadal on clay then he should be able to beat peak fed in slams.. as peak nadal on clay is better than fed's peak anywhere . why didn't he do so? also, if we count wins in other tournaments murray has his his faie share of wins over djoker, fed and nadal there also. and why do you always bring up past his prime fed? i have already said for this discussion i am not bringing up murray's win over fed in ao
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Because he is/was a vital member of the Big 4. And he did not beat peak Federer in slams because he was too good. Hewitt and Nadal's playing style matches up better than Hewitt and Federer too... but make no mistake, he did play him close a few times even at their peaks. 4 tight sets at the US Open in 2005.. probably Federer's toughest opponent all of the tournament.. Yes, Murray has more wins against them but he is closer in age and prime level with both Djokovic and Nadal... and he partly is taking advantage of a Federer who has declined a lot, while he's playing his best tennis..
Last edited by a moderator:
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Hewitt's worst surface was clay, not the RA that was used in AO04 and AO05.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Hewitt had made 2 QFs at Roland Garros before 2005, and he had never progressed past the 4th round at the Australian Open. When he beat Nadal, Rebound Ace was Hewitt's worst surface.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Hewitt did have the luxury of facing a declining Pete at US01. That's if you want to call Federer declining in 2012 Olympics.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Sampras wasn't in his prime but he certainly left his best tennis for the US Open. He had consistently been making finals there since he missed the US Open in '99. He was no pusher over and was younger than Federer was when he won Wimbledon, he had declined.. but he could still play at his best on a few occasions.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Pete had declined but he left his best tennis for the US Open.. not missing a final since he skipped it in '99.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Doesn't matter. Hewitt's poor results at AO were most likely due to feeling more pressure than the surface.
He looked right at home in AO05 on his way to the final despite having a really tough draw.
He didn't get past 4th round in 04 because he ran into peak Federer.
In 2003 he ran into El Aynaoui who was playing the tennis of his life.
2002 he had chicken pox.
2001 he ran into Moya who was a former finalist there.
Looking at his RG QF runs he didn't have to beat anybody special there. Canas probably his most impressive victory.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
His 2003 and 2001 matches were winnable.. although Moya did have his number for quite a while. He did not play his best tennis there and the fact that he lost shows that.
Who was someone special Murray had to beat to get to the SF this year? It doesn't matter... his results were still better at Roland Garros at that point so it was not his weakest slam.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
But the same can be said about Fed's 2012 grass form, do you not agree?
Hewitt was only 20 in 2001 when he beat Sampras at the USO with a supporting crowd. Murray was at his peak in 25 when he beat Federer at the 2012 Olympics who also had a supporting crowd.(took him so long to beat Fed at the slam).
Last edited:
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Those matches were winnable, but he didn't lose them because of the surface.
In fact, on clay at RG one could argue that Moya would've dealt with him a lot easier than taking 5 sets.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Possibly, but I'm not trying to argue that Hewitt was better than Murray.. I'm trying to say they are equals.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
He lost them because of the pressure and the environment? What about the complaints Hewitt made a couple of years about how the surface didn't suit his game and he wanted it sped up?
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Hewitt was better than he was when he was 25-26 from 2000-2002 for sure, as a teenager and a young man in his early twenties.. Hewitt's best tennis came in 2004-2005 when he was 23-24 and that would be more than enough to push a declining Federer even on grass (judging by his win over Federer in Halle 2010, even over the hill Hewitt could beat Federer).
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
So having said that they're equals, would you agree then that weeks at #1 is not that important given Hewitt had 80 weeks at #1 while Murray is yet to accompish that? And the reason that Murray hasn't accomplished it is because the era from 2008 (when Murray first started to emerge as a top tier tour player) onwards is stronger than say 2000-2007?
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
To an extent, but the same could be said for Hewitt in 2004-2005 with peak Federer around.. he did not get a chance to add to his majors. The fact that Hewitt achieved the #1 ranking is still a milestone for me, despite the era and how "weak" you're trying to make it out to be (Agassi was actually playing his best tennis around this time period and Sampras wasn't half bad). Hewitt still won 2 YECs and has many of his own accolades, but Murray has an Olympic Gold and 9 Master's 1000 titles so it evens out for me. They are equals, yes.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
I'm not trying to make 2000-2007 look weak, just that 2008 onwards it's stronger imo.
When you have 4 guys consistently going deep in every major, getting to #1 and remaining there is so much harder than it was from 2000-2007 imo.
Hewitt did have Federer blocking him from winning more majors, but if Hewitt was in Murray's place he'd have to deal with not only Federer, but Nadal (tough on all surfaces from 2008 onwards), Djokovic and Murray as well. Achieving #1 ranking would be highly unlikely and especially not for 80 weeks. 2 majors would be a really good effort from him as well.
So I'm not trying to say Hewitt was rubbish, certainly not. Just that 2008 onwards it's harder to achieve the things he did in his prime.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
The thing is I don't think Hewitt would have trouble with either Nadal (off clay) or Djokovic in majors. He was second behind Federer before Nadal emerged and he could have held the rank a lot longer than he did if injuries didn't start to sideline him. He's also proven with performances against Djokovic way past his prime (when Djokovic was smack bang in the middle of his and playing his best tennis, AO 2012) that if he was at his peak he could have won. I also believe that he would be a vital part of this era if at his peak, especially in majors.
forehand fan
Rookie
so you agree that murry's level is closer to peak djokovic and peak nadal than hewitt's was to peak fed? thanks, that proves my point of murray being more of a threat to win slams than federer
NatF
Bionic Poster
Murray is closer to peak Djokovic and Nadal then he would be to peak Federer as well though...
Hewitt just matched up badly with Federer, he did very well against players like Agassi and Sampras who are both better than Djokovic and even Nadal on hard courts.
None of them.
forehand fan
Rookie
it doesn't matter whether hewitt's level would be close to fed or not. it was never the subject of the debate who had higher level between murray and hewitt. the subject was who was/is more of a threat to win slams. given that murray is at least as consistent as hewitt in slams and his peak is closer to the best players of his thime than hewitt's was of federer's, it's a clear conclusion that murray was more of a threat to win slams than hewitt. on a sidenote i fail to see in a subjective level how can hewitt be a better player than murray. their strengths and weaknesses are almost same, but murray simply has more power than hewitt
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
No, I'm saying that his level is closer to Nadal or Djokovic since he's at his peak and so are they.. if Hewitt was at his peak he'd be equal with Murray and would beat Nadal/Djokovic as much as he does, even in slams. Don't try to troll me, kiddo.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Murray doesn't have more power than Hewitt... he's been known for his lack of power, just like Hewitt. Both have amazing backhands and lackluster forehands. Both are pretty much equal in everything except the serve, where Murray is better. Hewitt has better lobs and volleys though.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Regarding your last comment Hewitt has a better mind than Murray and Hewitt had power when he wanted it anyway - albeit Murray can crush the ball like few others when he wants to.
I could easily say Murray would be as much of a threat to Federer at his peak in the slams as Hewitt was. It's a rather shoddy way to rate their playing level, Murray is more challenging for Djokovic and Nadal than Hewitt was for Federer. So? That doesn't mean that Murray is a better player, maybe it means Federer is just that little bit stronger. Past his best Hewitt has still given Djokovic and Nadal headaches on their best and his worst surfaces. Peak for peak he'd do as well as Murray has against them.
forehand fan
Rookie
once again the subject of the argument was never who was the better player. it was about who is more of a threat between hewitt and murray to win slams. given that murray's level is closer to the best player's of his generation than hewitt's it's a clear conclusion. it might very well be because federer's level was higher than nadal and djokovic's.
regarding the better mind statement . do you mean it as mental strength or tennis iq? i happen to think murray has a great tennis iq
forehand fan
Rookie
if you truly believe murray doesn't have more power than hewitt than i have nothing more to say
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
I do truly believe Murray doesn't have more power than Hewitt. Both are counterpunchers and both have strong backhand wings, Murray's backhand could be slightly stronger... how does that insinuate that Murray is more powerful than Hewitt overall?
NatF
Bionic Poster
Mental strength, although in terms of tennis IQ Agassi called Hewitt one of the best (possibly the best) point selectors he'd ever seen IIRC. Not that Murray isn't great too.
Ok, so Murray is more of a threat in this era than Hewitt was in his. But that alone isn't enough to conclude Murray > Hewitt in playing level.
forehand fan
Rookie
that's all i wanted to prove. playing level is a subjective thing and can' be proved with objective analysis.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Which is why we should look at achievements for the most part. Murray and Hewitt are similar there although I do rate Hewitt above due to his YE #1's. I do contest playing level is similar, I respect there's room to argue Murray a head there.
forehand fan
Rookie
in 2010 ao murray over powered a nadal playing very well. while hewitt was getting over powered by a 17 year old nadal in 2004 ao.and even those things aside.. you can see that none of them have laclustre technique. given murray is a much bigger man than hewitt, it's expected that he is going to have more power than hewitt. it's another thing that murray doesn't always use it
Last edited:
forehand fan
Rookie
NatF
Bionic Poster
true. but subjective analysis is always more fun than numbers on a paper
I'll happily get subjective and discuss the merits of their strokes etc...It seemed like you wanted to try and stay objective though
forehand fan
Rookie
I'll happily get subjective and discuss the merits of their strokes etc...It seemed like you wanted to try and stay objective though
yeah, that particular discussion we were pursuing was more of an objective type, so i tried to remain objective
NatF
Bionic Poster
forehand fan
Rookie
Federer20042006
Banned
Murray has more power than anyone, he just doesn't use it very often. He can hit 100+ MPH off both wings and serves in the mid-130s, but he has a defensive mentality.
