Who currently is "greater"? Hewitt or Murray?

[powerangle]

Who has accomplished more in terms of stats and hardware?

Hewitt
2 slams (Wimbledon and US Open)
2 more slam finals
2 WTFs
2 Masters 1000s
2 year end #1s
80 total weeks #1
29 singles titles


Murray
2 slams (Wimbledon and US Open)
5 more slam finals
0 WTFs
9 Masters 1000s
0 year end #1s
peak ranking of #2 briefly
28 singles titles
1 Olympic Gold medal

I bolded/highlighted the areas where they trump each other. I know most will say that Murray will continue adding to his stats while Hewitt likely will not...but what if they both ended their careers today? Who has achieved more at this point??

 

[WhiskeyEE]

edit: nm misinterpreted your post

 

[Sid_Vicious]

Tough question and it was actually debated in a thread just 1-2 months ago.

I really can't decide. I do think Murray is more talented though, but greatness is a different issue.

 

[torpantennis]

Slams and weeks #1 is everything. Murray has never been #1, so Hewitt by a long mile.

 

[Chico]

Murray by a mile.

Hewitt was #1 during the weakest period in open era.
Murray had to compete against arguably the strongest top 3 in history.

BTW The Olympics gold medal is irrelevant here.

 

[stringertom]

Hewitt. The #1 ranking and the WTFs are the difference. Also, a DC win is impressive enough to include, even though it's a team competition. They don't win if he didn't take Fed down in the SFs.

 

[Anti-Fedal]

Even.

10char.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Hewitt won his USO against Sampras. Murray won his slams with wind and a weak grass era. Look at his Wimbledon draw last year. Verdasco in QF who he almost lost to. Janowicz in semis. All courter Novak who looked drunk in the final.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Who has accomplished more in terms of stats and hardware?

Hewitt
2 slams (Wimbledon and US Open)
2 more slam finals
2 WTFs
2 Masters 1000s
2 year end #1s
80 total weeks #1
29 singles titles


Murray
2 slams (Wimbledon and US Open)
5 more slam finals
0 WTFs
9 Masters 1000s
0 year end #1s
peak ranking of #2 briefly
28 singles titles
1 Olympic Gold medal

I bolded/highlighted the areas where they trump each other. I know most will say that Murray will continue adding to his stats while Hewitt likely will not...but what if they both ended their careers today? Who has achieved more at this point??

Let's not forget that Murray, for the entire duration of his career, has played against three of the greatest players of any generation.

Hewitt could only beat up on old Sampras and Agassi and achieve number one status in the WEAK ERA before Fedal and Djoker. Murray is an excellent player that could easily have achieved number one status in many other eras, but squaring off against the likes of Fedalovic in GS after GS is not easy.

And I think Murray can still win 2-4 more slams depending on how healthy Nadal and Djokovic stay. I would put him as co-favorite for Wimbledon with Federer this year.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Murray by a mile.

Hewitt was #1 during the weakest period in open era.
Murray had to compete against arguably the strongest top 3 in history.

BTW The Olympics gold medal is irrelevant here.

I would agree with this, though I would add that the Olympic medal DOES matter, and Murray beat the GOAT and grass co-GOAT to achieve his Olympic Gold. It meant a lot. Federer would have loved that medal, but he was just too worn out from the Del Potro match to put up a fight against Murray.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

Hewitt reigned in the uber carebear era where the only ATGs were cane bound Sampras and Agassi and infantile Fed.

Murray had to wrestle with 3 ATGs at the peak of their powers.

Also. 7 slams finals > 4 slam finals.

 

[ledwix]

Outside of tennis circles, it's Hewitt easily. Being introduced as a former world #1 (for two years) is an instantly recognizable achievement to any sports fan. Meanwhile, Murray has a bunch of masters and the Olympics on Hewitt.

If you want to talk about competition, then you could argue Murray has been greater as a player so far.

 

[SoBad]

It's close because Murray faced much tougher competition except for the Olympic, but at the same time Hewitt won his slams prior to the onset of the 2003 -- 2007 era, so he also had competition to win slams. I vote Murray because 2 Slams + Olympic > clearly > 2 Slams no Olympic.

 

[bigred1910]

It's close because Murray faced much tougher competition except for the Olympic, but at the same time Hewitt won his slams prior to the onset of the 2003 -- 2007 era, so he also had competition to win slams. I vote Murray because 2 Slams + Olympic > clearly > 2 Slams no Olympic.

yeh but hewitt has dc 2 wtfs and youngest no 1.

i personally think currently hewitt is better but in the end it will probably be murray depending on the rest of his career.

 

[SoBad]

yeh but hewitt has dc 2 wtfs and youngest no 1.

i personally think currently hewitt is better but in the end it will probably be murray depending on the rest of his career.

I don’t think being an early bloomer should factor into the equation. Neither does WTF – players get together at the end of the year to celebrate the holidays, break out the champagne, connect with the family, hit and giggle, entertain the spectators, etc.

 

[Max G.]

Hewitt, for now.

For two years, he was clearly the best player around. That's not an achievement to discard lightly. Yes, it was against a weak field, but so what? You play the opponents you have.

And of course, the argument can be turned on its side - Hewitt spent much of the later part of his career with Prime Federer around. If we're playing the "what if eras were different" game, you go down a useless rabbit hole, arguing for what if so-and-so was not there. I don't think there's any use to that, so I don't really consider it.

Murray's career isn't over, so he's got a shot to overtake him. I'd say he'd be a clear winner, in my mind if both of the following things happened:
1) He wins one more GS, to be ahead.
2) He gets to #1 in the rankings for at least a week.
OR
1) He gets two more GS.

 

[stringertom]

Hewitt, for now.

For two years, he was clearly the best player around. That's not an achievement to discard lightly. Yes, it was against a weak field, but so what? You play the opponents you have.

And of course, the argument can be turned on its side - Hewitt spent much of the later part of his career with Prime Federer around. If we're playing the "what if eras were different" game, you go down a useless rabbit hole, arguing for what if so-and-so was not there. I don't think there's any use to that, so I don't really consider it.

Murray's career isn't over, so he's got a shot to overtake him. I'd say he'd be a clear winner, in my mind if both of the following things happened:
1) He wins one more GS, to be ahead.
2) He gets to #1 in the rankings for at least a week.
OR
1) He gets two more GS.

Stop trying to make sense around here...it's not allowed!

 

[cronus]

I don’t think being an early bloomer should factor into the equation. Neither does WTF – players get together at the end of the year to celebrate the holidays, break out the champagne, connect with the family, hit and giggle, entertain the spectators, etc.

Still better than the clay make believe bore fest GS designed around a single player trying to make it popular, although it draws the least amount of crowd i have to agree that it is more or less equivalent to WTF.

Hewitt is greater than Murray, Murray is winning slams during this weak era where a player like **** who is playing like a total mug and still is world no.1, Murray loses in a useless clay masters tournament against this same player after giving him a bread stick,This is the state of the current era and Murray's level of play.

If Hewitt was fortunate enough to have career which was not injury ridden and if Roger had not been in the scene he would have dominated the likes of **** and Murray had they faced him during his prime.

 

[NatF]

Hewitt for me is slightly greater, his 2 YE #1's plus the WTF's seal it. He lost 13 times to the eventual champion of a slam, 7 times in a row including 5 to Federer.

In terms of weak era, I think Hewitt's 2001 USO is easily equal in difficulty to Murray's 2012 USO. Neither their Wimbledon titles were too impressive IMO but Murray's edges that. So I don't think there's much difference in their slam titles.

 

[Wynter]

I'll stay out of this one, we know I'll be anything but objective

 

[Strobe Lights]

I don’t think being an early bloomer should factor into the equation. Neither does WTF – players get together at the end of the year to celebrate the holidays, break out the champagne, connect with the family, hit and giggle, entertain the spectators, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s43qzeZkbiE#t=16m54s
That definitely looks like players that don't care. Or maybe I am gullible and being duped by the con.

Hewitt has the better high-end accomplishments with being world #1 and 2 YECs. Murray has more consistency with more Major finals and Masters and will surely pass him in overall titles soon.

Murray has had Rafa, Novak and Fed to compete with but Hewitt did have prime Fed in his way. In 2004-05, he played 7 Majors and lost to the winner at each (Fed x5; Fed-conquering Safin; Gaudio at RG).

If Murray gets his top level back, he should win at least another Major and has a good chance at a YEC. It is probably too close to call right now, but it should be Murray in the end.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

I must laugh at the member's statement that this era features the "strongest top 3" in history. Some will say anything to lift one player.

 

[Goosehead]

this weak era with broken rafa, elderly Federer, and choker ferrer in the top 5 means murrays wins mean less now than when Hewitt was winning stuff in a stronger era. :neutral:

 

[oberyn]

Hewitt, for now.

For two years, he was clearly the best player around. That's not an achievement to discard lightly. Yes, it was against a weak field, but so what? You play the opponents you have.

And of course, the argument can be turned on its side - Hewitt spent much of the later part of his career with Prime Federer around. If we're playing the "what if eras were different" game, you go down a useless rabbit hole, arguing for what if so-and-so was not there. I don't think there's any use to that, so I don't really consider it.

Murray's career isn't over, so he's got a shot to overtake him. I'd say he'd be a clear winner, in my mind if both of the following things happened:
1) He wins one more GS, to be ahead.
2) He gets to #1 in the rankings for at least a week.
OR
1) He gets two more GS.

That about sums it up. Great post.

 

[mike danny]

Hewitt reigned in the uber carebear era where the only ATGs were cane bound Sampras and Agassi and infantile Fed.

Murray had to wrestle with 3 ATGs at the peak of their powers.

Also. 7 slams finals > 4 slam finals.

Federer was still good but during 2008-2012 you can't really say he was at the peak of his powers.

Agree with the rest of your post.

 

[NatF]

Federer was still good but during 2008-2012 you can't really say he was at the peak of his powers.

Agree with the rest of your post.

There was nothing cane bound about Agassi in the era Hewitt dominated...

 

[Supertegwyn]

Hewitt by a smidgen.

 

[Graf=GOAT]

Murray. Hewitt is the very definition of transitional champion.

 

[zam88]

Hewitt by a hair, but I would imagine that situation changes within 2 years.

 

[mike danny]

To be fair, Murray could have also been no.1 during the time Hewitt stood at the top. And i actually think he would have won more than 2 majors during this period. I mean they have the same counterpunching style, but Murray has more power IMO, so he would win more than Hewitt did.

Murray won 2 majors vs the world no.1 at that time: Djokovic. I mean i think he is the first and only player to win his first 2 majors beating the no.1 ranked player both times. Compared that to Hewitt, who has never beaten a reigning world number 1 in his career.

Add to that Andy's victories against Federer an Nadal in majors (despite not winning those majors) and you have a pretty successful career. In one of the strongest eras of all time.

 

[Graf=GOAT]

People underrating Murray should consider who he had to face. Federer and Nadal, obviously legendary players. Djokovic, who's an all time great as well. Hewitt faced joke competition.

 

[Gonzalito17]

Hewitt better, mentally tougher, quicker, youngest ATP number one of all time. New book coming out this summer too "Facing Hewitt."

 

[NatF]

To be fair, Murray could have also been no.1 during the time Hewitt stood at the top. And i actually think he would have won more than 2 majors during this period. I mean they have the same counterpunching style, but Murray has more power IMO, so he would win more than Hewitt did.

Murray won 2 majors vs the world no.1 at that time: Djokovic. I mean i think he is the first and only player to win his first 2 majors beating the no.1 ranked player both times. Compared that to Hewitt, who has never beaten a reigning world number 1 in his career.

Add to that Andy's victories against Federer an Nadal in majors (despite not winning those majors) and you have a pretty successful career. In one of the strongest eras of all time.

Hewitt beat Blake, Haas, Roddick, Kafelnikov and Sampras to win his USO. No way was Murray's USO tougher than that. I'm unconvinced about Murray winning more than a couple of majors in 2001-2002 (assuming his form from 12-13).

In 2002 he might of won the AO and Wimbledon. In 2001 I don't know what slam he would have won, would be tough. I expect he'd have around 3 majors, so hardly much better.

As for Murray's victories against Federer in majors, you mean when Federer was 31 years old and off the back of a 5 setter? Hewitt would have loved to play that Federer.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

Tough to say.

They've won equal number of Majors, which is considered as the measure of greatness, at least in their eras.

Hewitt was number one for two consecutive years, Murray has never reached it. He's also won two WTFs; Murray has yet to reach the final.

Murray played more Major finals and won more Masters.

There are obviously arguments for both of them.

 

[Mainad]

Lol...didn't we have a similar thread on this not so long ago? :wink:

I'll repeat what I said in that other thread:

It's close in most aspects. Both have won 2 Slams, in each case, US Open and Wimbledon. Murray won his home Slam and made 1 other final there, Hewitt only made 1 final at his home Slam which he lost. Murray has been in a total of 7 Grand Slam finals, Hewitt has been in 4. Hewitt has 2 WTFs and 2 Masters 1000 titles, Murray has 9 Masters 1000 titles. Hewitt has won 29 titles, Murray has won 28 titles.

Hewitt however was world #1 and finished a season as such. Murray has never been higher than world #2. The higher ranking currently gives Hewitt the edge in comparisons between their achievements.

 

[Jam]

at the moment Hewitt just edges it with weeks at number 1. Murray though in my opinion is the better player and should comfortably surpass him. 1 more slam and it's all over. Weeks at number one are just a function of concentrated domination and more importantly your competition. Some people in my opinion overrate it. I'd rather win slams that do a Wozniacki. Masters, he's far ahead too. I think Murray will end with 4 slams, 13 masters and maybe 10 weeks or so at world number 1. But unless he sorts out out clay performance the last point will likely elude him. Hewitt was and still is a great competitor and a real credit to our sport.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

People underrating Murray should consider who he had to face. Federer and Nadal, obviously legendary players. Djokovic, who's an all time great as well. Hewitt faced joke competition.

If you want to play this game, fine.
Hewitt had to play peak Federer in his best years (2004-2005) and he'd lost to him five times in Majors during that period. Murray has never faced peak Federer in Majors - and he still lost to him four times (including three finals), beating him once (after five sets).

Also, Murray haven't beaten Federer nor Nadal in Majors he won, so how his wins are more impressive than Hewitt's?

So, instead of arguing about something which isn't measurable (toughness of competition), we should compare their careers: number of titles (Majors, Masters, WTFs...), rankings etc.

 

[mike danny]

Hewitt beat Blake, Haas, Roddick, Kafelnikov and Sampras to win his USO. No way was Murray's USO tougher than that. I'm unconvinced about Murray winning more than a couple of majors in 2001-2002 (assuming his form from 12-13).

In 2002 he might of won the AO and Wimbledon. In 2001 I don't know what slam he would have won, would be tough. I expect he'd have around 3 majors, so hardly much better.

As for Murray's victories against Federer in majors, you mean when Federer was 31 years old and off the back of a 5 setter? Hewitt would have loved to play that Federer.

I just think Murray is a better and more complete player than Hewitt.

 

[Mainad]

Also, Murray haven't beaten Federer nor Nadal in Majors he won, so how his wins are more impressive than Hewitt's?

Here, I must disagree with you. Murray beat the reigning world #1 to win Wimbledon and the world #2 (soon to be #1) at the US Open. In each case that was Djokovic. Hewitt beat a declining Sampras, then barely ranked #10, to win the US open and Nalbandian, a player ranked only #28, to win Wimbledon.

So, instead of arguing about something which isn't measurable (toughness of competition), we should compare their careers: number of titles (Majors, Masters, WTFs...), rankings etc.

Here, I completely agree with you.

 

[Jam]

If you want to play this game, fine.
Hewitt had to play peak Federer in his best years (2004-2005) and he'd lost to him five times in Majors during that period. Murray has never faced peak Federer in Majors - and he still lost to him four times (including three finals), beating him once (after five sets).

he played him in 2008 US Open. Fed was 27 and not an early bloomer like Nadal. It's Fed's peak period and Murray faced him (and was comfortably beaten I may add). But Murray was only 21. He faced him when he was 29 at the Australian too and Fed was still close enough to peak. It was after that his level dropped. Or do you think a nearly 29 year old Wawrinka wasn't peaking when he won the Oz open? It's close enough to his peak period. The year after it Fed won 2 slams and made 2 finals. It was his peak.

I agree with the overall assessment that murray has been poor in major finals against Fed and Djokovic (2011). 2014 Oz is a bit of an outlier as Murray was returning from surgery. Main performances where Murray should have done better were Oz 2010 and Wimbledon 2012 against Fed but didn't which does raise legitimate questions about his ability.

 

[NatF]

Here, I must disagree with you. Murray beat the reigning world #1 to win Wimbledon and the world #2 (soon to be #1) at the US Open. In each case that was Djokovic. Hewitt beat a declining Sampras, then barely ranked #10, to win the US open and Nalbandian, a player ranked only #28, to win Wimbledon.

Why do only the finals matter?

Hewitt beat Blake, Haas, Kafelnikov, Roddick and Sampras in his USO run. Djokovic didn't exactly play his best stuff in the finals he lost to Murray either.

In terms of impressive Hewitt's USO was probably the most impressive of the 4 slams in contention IMO. Murray's take spots 2 and 3 with Hewitt's Wimbledon coming in last.

 

[NatF]

I agree with the overall assessment that murray has been poor in major finals against Fed and Djokovic (2011). 2014 Oz is a bit of an outlier as Murray was returning from surgery. Main performances where Murray should have done better were Oz 2010 and Wimbledon 2012 against Fed but didn't which does raise legitimate questions about his ability.

Murray played his best against Federer in Wimbledon 2012. He was simply outplayed. His whole tournament was more impressive in 2012 compared to 2013.

 

[mike danny]

he played him in 2008 US Open. Fed was 27 and not an early bloomer like Nadal. It's Fed's peak period and Murray faced him (and was comfortably beaten I may add). But Murray was only 21. He faced him when he was 29 at the Australian too and Fed was still close enough to peak. It was after that his level dropped. Or do you think a nearly 29 year old Wawrinka wasn't peaking when he won the Oz open? It's close enough to his peak period. The year after it Fed won 2 slams and made 2 finals. It was his peak.

I agree with the overall assessment that murray has been poor in major finals against Fed and Djokovic (2011). 2014 Oz is a bit of an outlier as Murray was returning from surgery. Main performances where Murray should have done better were Oz 2010 and Wimbledon 2012 against Fed but didn't which does raise legitimate questions about his ability.

2008 was not really peak Federer. He had 15 losses that year. In the previous years he lost less than 10 matches.

 

[Mainad]

I agree with the overall assessment that murray has been poor in major finals against Fed and Djokovic (2011). 2014 Oz is a bit of an outlier as Murray was returning from surgery. Main performances where Murray should have done better were Oz 2010 and Wimbledon 2012 against Fed but didn't which does raise legitimate questions about his ability.

Come on now, Murray has beaten Djokovic TWICE in Slam finals and ran him pretty close in one other. 2011 was very much the exception when Djokovic took everybody by surprise, including Murray, and suddenly started peaking!

You are right about Federer, though. Fed seems to be a bad match-up for Murray in Slam finals which is curious considering that Murray still leads their overall H2H.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

Here, I must disagree with you. Murray beat the reigning world #1 to win Wimbledon and the world #2 (soon to be #1) at the US Open. In each case that was Djokovic. Hewitt beat a declining Sampras, then barely ranked #10, to win the US open and Nalbandian, a player ranked only #28, to win Wimbledon.

My point was that this approach is simply wrong and it opens the door for speculations.
You see, you said "declining Sampras" (even though he reached the final in 2000 and actually won the title in 2002), trying to diminish Hewitt's success, but completely ignored the fact that Murray actually had a day off before that USO final (Djokovic didn't) and still had to play five sets to beat him.

But I still think it's completely irrelevant how each of them won their titles.

 

[mike danny]

Come on now, Murray has beaten Djokovic TWICE in Slam finals and ran him pretty close in one other. 2011 was very much the exception when Djokovic took everybody by surprise, including Murray, and suddenly started peaking!

You are right about Federer, though. Fed seems to be a bad match-up for Murray in Slam finals which is curious considering that Murray still leads their overall H2H.

Because Fed is a different animal in GS compared to regular matches.

Even Nadal did not beat Federer easily in majors

 

[Deleted member 512391]

he played him in 2008 US Open. Fed was 27 and not an early bloomer like Nadal. It's Fed's peak period and Murray faced him (and was comfortably beaten I may add). But Murray was only 21. He faced him when he was 29 at the Australian too and Fed was still close enough to peak. It was after that his level dropped. Or do you think a nearly 29 year old Wawrinka wasn't peaking when he won the Oz open? It's close enough to his peak period. The year after it Fed won 2 slams and made 2 finals. It was his peak.

Well, I make a difference between prime and peak. Although I agree with you that Federer's prime was between 2004 and 2010 (ended at the AO), his peak years IMHO were 2004, 2005 and 2006.

 

[Mainad]

My point was that this approach is simply wrong and it opens the door for speculations.

And I agree with you so why are you opening it up? I didn't start the 'who faced the better opponents' arguments but you nevertheless weighed in to cast doubt on the quality of Murray's opponents. As always, I reply to redress the balance in the cause of fair play and equal treatment.

You see, you said "declining Sampras" (even though he reached the final in 2000 and actually won the title in 2002), trying to diminish Hewitt's success, but completely ignored the fact that Murray actually had a day off before that USO final (Djokovic didn't) and still had to play five sets to beat him.

Yes, but Djokovic had a fairly routine win against Ferrer after dropping the 1st set the day before because of the conditions. It's not like Ferrer delayed him much when they came back for the second day. In 2008, Murray had to play Nadal over 2 days because of similar conditions and then face a well-rested Federer in the final the following day. Swings and roundabouts!

But I still think it's completely irrelevant how each of them won their titles.

And as I said, I agree so why are we continuing to argue about the merits of who faced whom and in what conditions?

 

[Jam]

Come on now, Murray has beaten Djokovic TWICE in Slam finals and ran him pretty close in one other. 2011 was very much the exception when Djokovic took everybody by surprise, including Murray, and suddenly started peaking!

You are right about Federer, though. Fed seems to be a bad match-up for Murray in Slam finals which is curious considering that Murray still leads their overall H2H.

ehh? I said Djokovic in 2011 not the other ones. That's why I said Djokovic (2011). Against Fed in all slam finals and Djokovic in 2011 Murray has been poor. His best was against Fed 2012 of these 4 slams but he was still comfortably and deservedly beaten. This is a question mark against him and why he's not considered an all time great. Unlike say Djokovic.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

And I agree with you so why are you opening it up? I didn't start the 'who faced the better opponents' arguments but you nevertheless weighed in to cast doubt on the quality of Murray's opponents. As always, I reply to redress the balance in the cause of fair play and equal treatment.

LOL, you didn't start, but you accepted the game. What's the difference? by the way, it was Graf=GOAT who started, not me.

Yes, but Djokovic had a fairly routine win against Ferrer after dropping the 1st set the day before because of the conditions. It's not like Ferrer delayed him much when they came back for the second day. In 2008, Murray had to play Nadal over 2 days because of similar conditions and then face a well-rested Federer in the final the following day. Swings and roundabouts!

Good, so we can put asterisks to Federer's USO win in 2008 and Murray's in 2012.

And as I said, I agree so why are we continuing to argue about the merits of who faced whom and in what conditions?

You are doing the same, so why are you complaining?