Who has had the better career so far - Hewitt or Murray?

[HewittAlwaysDisappoints]

It seems like a weird question, and I don't think anyone has talked about it, but I think it's a fair comparison.

Similarities:

• Both have won 2 Grand Slam titles - 1 WImbledon and 1 US Open.
• Hewitt has 30 ATP titles, Murray has 31.

Key Differences:

• Hewitt has a career-high ranking of 1, which he held for 80 weeks.
• Murray's is 2, which he held briefly.
• Murray has been a runner-up at Grand Slams 5 times, Hewitt has been 2 times.
• Murray has 9 Masters 1000 titles and been runner-up 3 times. Hewitt has won them 2 times and been runner-up once.
• Hewitt has 2 Year-End Championships and been runner-up once.
• Hewitt has a doubles Grand Slam title.
• Prior to 2015, Hewitt had a win-loss record of 611-252 (70.8%) whereas Murray's record is 481-151 (76.11%).

I think it's pretty even and worth a discussion. Thoughts?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

They are equal, in terms of playing level and success (in my opinion).

But this will open up a whole new can of worms (namely Zeppy who will argue Murray is vastly superior and that Hewitt is equal to freakin' Ferrer).

 

[JRAJ1988]

I believe equal is the answer but I know Hewitt is better on Clay than Murray.

Will Murray win titles in his 30s?
Will Murray beat an equivalent of Kuerten on Clay?
Will Murray win a Clay court title?
Will Hewitt win Olympic Gold in Singles competition?
Will Murray be number 1 for 80 weeks?

 

[Wynter]

80 weeks at #1 clinched it for me.

In regards to win percentage it's pretty interesting to see that he's been a journeyman for the better part of 5-6 years and still has a percentage like that.

 

[counterloop]

Murray by far. He played in a much tougher era.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

80 weeks at #1 clinched it for me.

In regards to win percentage it's pretty interesting to see that he's been a journeyman for the better part of 5-6 years and still has a percentage like that.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=506785&highlight=Murray

 

[Tennisknowledge99]

Currently I will pick Hewitt.

 

[mike danny]

This has actually been debated before many times.

I call them equal so far.

Murray has the 9 masters in his favor. He won 7 more than Hewitt. And he also has a gold medal at the Olympics

But Hewitt has the weeks at no.1 and the WTF titles.

Of course if Murray wins 1 more slam the debate is over.

 

[Sysyphus]

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=506785&highlight=Murray

So Murray had comparatively more points at #2 than Hewitt had at #1?

So what? That only says something about the relative spread of points within those fields. #1 is a big achievement in itself, regardless of how many points one has in total. It's about being the best of one's field.

 

[NatF]

So Murray had comparatively more points at #2 than Hewitt had at #1?

So what? That only says something about the relative spread of points within those fields. #1 is a big achievement in itself, regardless of how many points one has in total. It's about being the best of one's field.

This, switching their positions would they have won the exact same number of points? Unlikely. Not to mention Hewitt was 20-21 years old when he reached #1, not enough credit is given for that. His level of play peaked in 04-05, unfortunately he was stopped by Federer 5x in GS during that period.

 

[D.Nalby12]

This has been discussed up to death here in multiple threads in General section.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Slight edge to Hewitt but Murray has achieved more given the era in which he's had to play.

 

[heninfan99]

Slight edge to Hewitt.

 

[Boom-Boom]

This has actually been debated before many times.

I call them equal so far.

Murray has the 9 masters in his favor. He won 7 more than Hewitt. And he also has a gold medal at the Olympics

But Hewitt has the weeks at no.1 and the WTF titles.

Of course if Murray wins 1 more slam the debate is over.

80 weeks #1 and 2 WTF is far far superior to 9 masters and gold... No discussion here. Hewitt of course.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

This, switching their positions would they have won the exact same number of points? Unlikely. Not to mention Hewitt was 20-21 years old when he reached #1, not enough credit is given for that. His level of play peaked in 04-05, unfortunately he was stopped by Federer 5x in GS during that period.

If Federer wasn't around in '04-'05 Hewitt would have had 5K+ points and would have been #1.

Not to mention in 2002, after Wimbledon, he even had as many points as Sampras had during his prime..

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Another Murray vs Hewitt thread. Great.

 

[Winners or Errors]

Hewitt dominated, albeit for a brief period. It is that which separates them for me. You knew, when Hewitt was #1 with all the then annoying screams of "Come on!" that his victories were foregone conclusions. Murray needs to have a period of dominance, when all fear him, for me to rank them on the same level. It's not enough to win a few titles.

 

[tenisdecente]

Hewitt for me, it was a shame he lasted very little since Fed exploded

 

[AllPlayersAreGood]

Not a fair question. Hewitt had his time and is done. Andy's time is still rolling strong.

 

[BVSlam]

Not a fair question. Hewitt had his time and is done. Andy's time is still rolling strong.

"...so far".

So far, Hewitt, because of the #1 ranking and 2 YEC. However, I'm positive Murray will probably end with a more successful career, at least in slams and Masters 1000 (which is already a given).

 

[zep]

Murray is a far superior player. When he is in form, he can play at an elite level. Hewitt was mediocre at best, overachieved due to an weak transitional period. There is a reason why he did not even win a masters title after 2003. He was a fighter, I give him that but game wise he was a tier below Murray.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Hewitt > Murray.

Andy not having been #1 is the main problem here.

 

[westside]

Hewitt at the moment.

80 weeks at #1 and a couple of WTF's puts him in front of Murray, for now.

 

[Magic Player]

ATP titles, GS finals, Masters1000 titles, Olympic Gold Medal >>> No1 ranking in weak era

 

[Terenigma]

I swear this topic comes up every other week but whatever, The main reasons i think Murray's is better:

- Olympic Gold
- More titles (Especially Master's)
- Murray has 7 slam finals compared to Hewitt's 4
- Played in a MUCH harder era of tennis
- Much more consistant slam results in all 4 slams. He made QF or better 4 years in a row. In comparison, Hewitt's results are random

I also generally think if they both played each other in prime form, Murray would win. Thats obviously just speculation but i dont think Hewitt was ever as good as Murray is.

 

[Peters]

Yeah, Murray is/was simply a much better tennis player. If they'd both been around at the same time Andy would have been permanently ahead of Hewitt in the rankings IMO.

Sure, Hewitt took advantage of the field being weaker and could put a no1 ranking in his resume, but that's far too simplistic and naive way of judging them.

As soon as you start analysing their game and then start looking at the players they were up against, it swings massively towards Andy.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

This, switching their positions would they have won the exact same number of points? Unlikely. Not to mention Hewitt was 20-21 years old when he reached #1, not enough credit is given for that. His level of play peaked in 04-05, unfortunately he was stopped by Federer 5x in GS during that period.

The fact that he reached #1 at that age and then never won another slam is a testament to the weakness of the era in which he played. From 2000-2003 no one managed to win multiple slams in a year and we saw a preponderance of 1 slam wonders. Hewitt lost 5 times to Federer in slams? How many times has Murray lost to Fed/Nadal/Djok? Not to mention actually having to beat prime Djok to win his slams, whereas Hewitt beat Sampras on the way out and Nalbo in his only finals appearance.

And Hewitt has 2 Masters titles and 2 other slam finals appearances to Murray's 9 masters titles and 5 slam finals appearances, so its not like Murray doesn't have some huge points in his favor even without considering era. Someone has to finish #1 every year.

If Hewitt was Murray's age, his 01/02 years would correspond to 07/08, the height of the Fedal rivalry, and his 04/05 years would correspond to 10/11, Nadal's 3 slam season and Djokovic's 3 slam season. From his 06 season on (corresponding to 2012+), he was irrelevant. Hewitt would not win a single slam, WTF, or ever reach #1 if put in Murray's position.

If Federer wasn't around in '04-'05 Hewitt would have had 5K+ points and would have been #1.

Not to mention in 2002, after Wimbledon, he even had as many points as Sampras had during his prime..

Hewitt would have been #1 in 04 and 05 without Fed? Funny because he did not finish #2 in EITHER of those years.

And lol @ picking 1 arbitrary mark that corresponds exactly to when Hewitt had the most points of his career. How about 2 months after that after USO 2002?

Not to mention Hewitt played almost every Masters tournament and Sampras skipped a bunch each year and this isn't even looking at the times Sampras had carry over majors (like you are doing with Hewitt's overlapping USO/Wimb from different years). Compare it to Sampras post-AO 1994 then or better yet Murray post-Wimb 2013 (guaranteed thats higher than anything Hewitt did).

 

[zep]

The fact that he reached #1 at that age and then never won another slam is a testament to the weakness of the era in which he played. From 2000-2003 no one managed to win multiple slams in a year and we saw a preponderance of 1 slam wonders. Hewitt lost 5 times to Federer in slams? How many times has Murray lost to Fed/Nadal/Djok? Not to mention actually having to beat prime Djok to win his slams, whereas Hewitt beat Sampras on the way out and Nalbo in his only finals appearance.

And Hewitt has 2 Masters titles and 2 other slam finals appearances to Murray's 9 masters titles and 5 slam finals appearances, so its not like Murray doesn't have some huge points in his favor even without considering era. Someone has to finish #1 every year.

If Hewitt was Murray's age, his 01/02 years would correspond to 07/08, the height of the Fedal rivalry, and his 04/05 years would correspond to 10/11, Nadal's 3 slam season and Djokovic's 3 slam season. From his 06 season on (corresponding to 2012+), he was irrelevant. Hewitt would not win a single slam, WTF, or ever reach #1 if put in Murray's position.



Hewitt would have been #1 in 04 and 05 without Fed? Funny because he did not finish #2 in EITHER of those years.

And lol @ picking 1 arbitrary mark that corresponds exactly to when Hewitt had the most points of his career. How about 2 months after that after USO 2002?

Not to mention Hewitt played almost every Masters tournament and Sampras skipped a bunch each year and this isn't even looking at the times Sampras had carry over majors (like you are doing with Hewitt's overlapping USO/Wimb from different years). Compare it to Sampras post-AO 1994 then or better yet Murray post-Wimb 2013 (guaranteed thats higher than anything Hewitt did).

Excellent post!

Anyone who does not have an agenda (Hewitt fanboy or some Fed fans trying to talk his "competition" up) would agree to everything you wrote.

If you analyze their games, there is absolutely nothing Hewitt does or did better than Murray. I repeat, nothing!

 

[killerboi2]

I consider Murray comfortably the better player, but career wise i'd say about equal.

Equal number of slams
Hewitt more WTFs
Murray more Masters
Hewitt was number 1 for a good while
Murray more slam finals and generally a better slam performer.

Maybe the time Hewitt spent at number 1 might just swing it in his favor, but yeah it's pretty close.