Who is better on clay: Murray vs Hewitt

Who has had better career on clay?

  • Andy Murray

    Votes: 8 44.4%
  • Lleyton Hewitt

    Votes: 8 44.4%
  • Their resumes are approximately equal

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • Safin FTW

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • Total voters
    18
Andy Murray
1. 2x French Open SF (2011: L to Nadal and 2014: L to Nadal)
2. 3X Masters SF (2x Monte Carlo and 1x Rome)

Lleyton Hewitt
1. 2x Titles on clay (Murray has 0 titles)
2. 2x French Open QF (2001: L to JC Ferrero and 2004: L to Gaudio)
3. 4X Masters SF (3x Hamburg SF and 1x Rome)
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Murray has never had a match win on clay like Hewitt beating Kuerten 7-6, 6-3, 7-6, in Florianopolis, Brazil, during the 2001 Davis Cup quarter finals.
 
Murray has never had a match win on clay like Hewitt beating Kuerten 7-6, 6-3, 7-6, in Florianopolis, Brazil, during the 2001 Davis Cup quarter finals.

Good point! I often forget about Davis Cup stats. It's such a chore to research what surface those ties were held on!
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Uh...based on your commentary, wouldn't that mean Hewitt has the superior resume?

That's only one criteria.

Murray has the two FO SF and neither ever beat a top 10 player at the French Open. These days I lean towards Hewitt but Murray has had some impressive performances albeit all losing ones.
 

mccarthy

Banned
Murray is better due to his French Open semis. Were Hewitt's titles on clay 250 or 500 events? Either way a French Open semi is still better than a 500 title IMO.

I also don't see how Hewitt's clay performances on a subjective level make him better. Since he gave Nadal a good match on clay in Hamburg once? Murray gave Nadal a very tough match on clay twice, and came very close to winning in both just like Hewitt did once in Hamburg.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Murray is better due to his French Open semis. Were Hewitt's titles on clay 250 or 500 events? Either way a French Open semi is still better than a 500 title IMO.

I also don't see how Hewitt's clay performances on a subjective level make him better. Since he gave Nadal a good match on clay in Hamburg once? Murray gave Nadal a very tough match on clay twice, and came very close to winning in both just like Hewitt did once in Hamburg.

Hewitt beating peak Kuerten on clay in 3 straight sets, in Kuerten's hometown, count for little? Kuerten was in tears at the end. Hewitt actually didn't drop a set throughout the 3 days of that tie, winning 9 sets.
 
Hewitt beating peak Kuerten on clay in 3 straight sets, in Kuerten's hometown, count for little? Kuerten was in tears at the end. Hewitt actually didn't drop a set throughout the 3 days of that tie, winning 9 sets.

That's impressive. How did Kuerten lose in Davis Cup on clay when he was the world's best on that surface?
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
That's impressive. How did Kuerten lose in Davis Cup on clay when he was the world's best on that surface?

Kuerten would sometimes take a while to get into his groove during matches. However, that wasn't the case against Hewitt in that Davis Cup match, as it was high quality. Hewitt was just very clutch throughout, refusing to buckle before the rowdy Brazilian crowd.
 
Kuerten would sometimes take a while to get into his groove during matches. However, that wasn't the case against Hewitt in that Davis Cup match, as it was high quality. Hewitt was just very clutch throughout, refusing to buckle before the rowdy Brazilian crowd.

Would you say that's more impressive than Hewitt's come-from-2-sets-behind win over Federer in Davis Cup?
 

mccarthy

Banned
Hewitt beating peak Kuerten on clay in 3 straight sets, in Kuerten's hometown, count for little? Kuerten was in tears at the end. Hewitt actually didn't drop a set throughout the 3 days of that tie, winning 9 sets.

I never thought anything much of Davis Cup in general personally. Yes I see your point though, but Kuerten even at his peak was a super inconsistent, even on clay. One of his years as the top clay courter and winning the French, he still won something like only 2 of 9 tournaments he entered on clay, and many of the losses were to the most obscure people you will ever hear of, and much poorer players than Hewitt (or Murray), even on a clay court. Kuerten was never a day in/day out performer even at his best. However his peak level on clay was always the best from 97-2001 (apart form maybe 98 ), and he knew how to peak at the right times generally.
 
I never thought anything much of Davis Cup in general personally. Yes I see your point though, but Kuerten even at his peak was a super inconsistent, even on clay. One of his years as the top clay courter and winning the French, he still won something like only 2 of 9 tournaments he entered on clay, and many of the losses were to the most obscure people you will ever hear of, and much poorer players than Hewitt (or Murray), even on a clay court. Kuerten was never a day in/day out performer even at his best. However his peak level on clay was always the best from 97-2001 (apart form maybe 98 ), and he knew how to peak at the right times generally.

In other words, Kuerten was the Anti-Muster :razz:
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Would you say that's more impressive than Hewitt's come-from-2-sets-behind win over Federer in Davis Cup?

Hard to say. The win over Federer was an amazing comeback from the dead, and certainly better from a pure adrenalin standpoint. The win over Kuerten was high quality from both players throughout the match, with Hewitt staying firm when it mattered most, enough to win in 3 straight sets. Hewitt was relatively quiet and mentally focused a lot in that match against Kuerten, unlike him being animated or openly rowdy as he was during that home tie against Federer. The moment when Hewitt beat Kuerten, he then rushed to celebrate with his team-mates, while Kuerten was distraught.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
In other words, Kuerten was the Anti-Muster :razz:

Kuerten was the kind of player who liked to play his way into a groove during his matches. Sometimes, he would be doing well from the start, but he would sometimes lose in a very flat fashion after failing to find his groove at all. This nearly happened at the 2001 French Open, when Michael Russell had a match point against Kuerten for a straight sets victory, until a 26 stroke rally and Kuerten winning the tiebreak, changed the momentum. In the final against Corretja, Kuerten lost the first set and the second set was a close one. Once Kuerten won the second set, he just accelerated away to victory.

Against Hewitt in the 2001 Davis Cup match, though, it was a case of two players playing very well, and looking for those small openings to win the sets.
 

mccarthy

Banned
I did not see that Davis Cup match, but I have never heard it being said Kuerten played very well. In fact anyone I have talked to felt just the opposite. Not that it wasn't still a huge win for Hewitt though.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
However his peak level on clay was always the best from 97-2001 (apart form maybe 98 ), and he knew how to peak at the right times generally.

2001 was a very good year on clay for Kuerten, though, despite a strong challenge from Ferrero for his clay crown. Kuerten was 36-3 on clay in 2001, winning 5 clay titles that year.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
I did not see that Davis Cup match, but I have never heard it being said Kuerten played very well. In fact anyone I have talked to felt just the opposite. Not that it wasn't still a huge win for Hewitt though.

I've got the match on DVD. Kuerten played well. I'd be most interested to know who said otherwise.
 
2001 was a very good year on clay for Kuerten, though, despite a strong challenge from Ferrero for his clay crown. Kuerten was 36-3 on clay in 2001, winning 5 clay titles that year.

Didn't Kuerten play Yevgeny Kafelnikov in the QF every year he won the FO? Reminds me of how Nadal always played Almagro the QF during every one of his 3 most dominant FO title runs (2008, 2010, 2012).
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Didn't Kuerten play Yevgeny Kafelnikov in the QF every year he won the FO? Reminds me of how Nadal always played Almagro the QF during every one of his 3 most dominant FO title runs (2008, 2010, 2012).

Yes. Kafelnikov thinks he could have been a 4-time French Open champion if it hadn't had been for Kuerten.

1997 French Open QF: Gustavo Kuerten def. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (6-2, 5-7, 2-6, 6-0, 6-4)
2000 French Open QF: Gustavo Kuerten def. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (6-3, 3-6, 4-6, 6-4, 6-2)
2001 French Open QF: Gustavo Kuerten def. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (6-1, 3-6, 7-6, 6-4)
 

mccarthy

Banned
Yes. Kafelnikov thinks he could have been a 4-time French Open champion if it hadn't had been for Kuerten.

1997 French Open QF: Gustavo Kuerten def. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (6-2, 5-7, 2-6, 6-0, 6-4)
2000 French Open QF: Gustavo Kuerten def. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (6-3, 3-6, 4-6, 6-4, 6-2)
2001 French Open QF: Gustavo Kuerten def. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (6-1, 3-6, 7-6, 6-4)

Kafelnikov is smoking some strong stuff. Ferrero would have beaten him easily in 2001 (and yes I know Kuerten had an easier time with Ferrero than Kafelnikov in the quarters, it wouldn't matter). Ferrero or Norman would have beaten him in 2000. 1997 is the only year he might have won without Kuerten.

Kafelnikov should be happy with his 1 RG title anyway, which was a gift from his buddy Michael Stich. Twice actually, by taking out Muster (who would have ripped Kafelnikov) for him, then playing an abysmal final and still having chances which he all promptly choked away in typical Stich fashion. A guy with ZERO masters titles, should be ecstastic with 2 majors somehow. I wonder if hundreds of years from now he will still be the only guy with 2 majors who didn't even win a freaking Masters.
 
Kafelnikov is smoking some strong stuff. Ferrero would have beaten him easily in 2001 (and yes I know Kuerten had an easier time with Ferrero than Kafelnikov in the quarters, it wouldn't matter). Ferrero or Norman would have beaten him in 2000. 1997 is the only year he might have won without Kuerten.

Kafelnikov should be happy with his 1 RG title anyway, which was a gift from his buddy Michael Stich. Twice actually, by taking out Muster (who would have ripped Kafelnikov) for him, then playing an abysmal final and still having chances which he all promptly choked away in typical Stich fashion. A guy with ZERO masters titles, should be ecstastic with 2 majors somehow. I wonder if hundreds of years from now he will still be the only guy with 2 majors who didn't even win a freaking Masters.

Kafelnikov managed to win an Olympic Gold Medal too. How many Masters do you reckon that's worth? :p
 

mccarthy

Banned
Kafelnikov managed to win an Olympic Gold Medal too. How many Masters do you reckon that's worth? :p

Back then? 1 at most, and that is probably being generous. Olympics are much bigger today than they were then, and even today they are just seen as something between a Masters (above) and WTF (below).

It also still doesn't change the fact he didn't even win a Masters title, which for a 2 slam winner is shocking (and suggests it was an amazing fluke of sorts he somehow won 2 slams, since as I said I expect it will be hundreds of years before we see another 2 slam winner/Master-less player).
 

90's Clay

Banned
Kuerten was always susceptible to upsets though.. His peak was crazy good, but his average level was up and down.. So... its tough to say
 

mccarthy

Banned
Surprised Hewitt is winning this poll. It is worth noting not only did he only ever reach 2 French quarterfinals, but he was badly beaten in both. Once by Gaudio, and once by Ferrero. This spells things out even more clearly to me. I highly doubt Murray would have beaten either of those, but he would have been more competitive (in his best years at RG) and against Gaudio atleast gotten a set.

Murray was actually competitive in his 2011 semifinal with Nadal, despite it being straight sets. 2014 he was blitzed, however this is Nadal, not Ferrero or freaking Gaudio. Neither had any actual "good" wins at Roland Garros, so no difference there, other than the fact Murray was in the semis twice.

Other than his small titles on clay (Murray never plays small clay court tournaments or would have some too) the only argument I could see for Hewitt is their matches vs Ferrer. A past his prime Hewitt took Ferrer to 5 sets at Roland Garros once. Prime Murray is owned by Ferrer on clay (while owning their personal rivalry on every other surface), and clearly been the inferior clay courter. However I am not sure if this says much. Hewitt might just be an uncomfortable matchup for Ferrer, and it is only 1 match anyway.
 
Last edited:

Wynter

Legend
Surprised Hewitt is winning this poll. It is worth noting not only did he only ever reach 2 French quarterfinals, but he was badly beaten in both. Once by Gaudio, and once by Ferrero. This spells things out even more clearly to me. I highly doubt Murray would have beaten either of those, but he would have been more competitive (in his best years at RG) and against Gaudio atleast gotten a set.

Murray was actually competitive in his 2011 semifinal with Nadal, despite it being straight sets. 2014 he was blitzed, however this is Nadal, not Ferrero or freaking Gaudio. Neither had any actual "good" wins at Roland Garros, so no difference there, other than the fact Murray was in the semis twice.

Other than his small titles on clay (Murray never plays small clay court tournaments or would have some too) the only argument I could see for Hewitt is their matches vs Ferrer. A past his prime Hewitt took Ferrer to 5 sets at Roland Garros once. Prime Murray is owned by Ferrer on clay (while owning their personal rivalry on every other surface), and clearly been the inferior clay courter. However I am not sure if this says much. Hewitt might just be an uncomfortable matchup for Ferrer, and it is only 1 match anyway.

Ferrer is essentially a lesser Hewitt, in terms of how he plays nowadays.

Rallying from the Baseline as Ferrer does is what made Hewitt #1 in the world at one point. In terms of Ferrer vs Hewitt, Hewitt is in the rare instance of being better than his Opponent in terms of Serve, FH, BH All-Round Play and combined with his Mentality I'd say he'd be the best player on all surfaces. Prime for Prime. Although Clay would be tight.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Surprised Hewitt is winning this poll. It is worth noting not only did he only ever reach 2 French quarterfinals, but he was badly beaten in both. Once by Gaudio, and once by Ferrero. This spells things out even more clearly to me. I highly doubt Murray would have beaten either of those, but he would have been more competitive (in his best years at RG) and against Gaudio atleast gotten a set.

Murray was actually competitive in his 2011 semifinal with Nadal, despite it being straight sets. 2014 he was blitzed, however this is Nadal, not Ferrero or freaking Gaudio. Neither had any actual "good" wins at Roland Garros, so no difference there, other than the fact Murray was in the semis twice.

Other than his small titles on clay (Murray never plays small clay court tournaments or would have some too) the only argument I could see for Hewitt is their matches vs Ferrer. A past his prime Hewitt took Ferrer to 5 sets at Roland Garros once. Prime Murray is owned by Ferrer on clay (while owning their personal rivalry on every other surface), and clearly been the inferior clay courter. However I am not sure if this says much. Hewitt might just be an uncomfortable matchup for Ferrer, and it is only 1 match anyway.

Past his peak Hewitt got a set from Nadal in 2006.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Maybe Sabratha finally saw the light and realized not every thread has some hidden agenda for bashing Hewitt. It' was getting quite tiring and paranoid on her part. Btw, is Sabratha really a her?
I've pointed out many times that I'm not a her.

I also think Murray is slightly better than Hewitt on clay, due to his SF runs at Roland Garros but it is a close contest between them.
 

mccarthy

Banned
Past his peak Hewitt got a set from Nadal in 2006.

Still was only a 3rd round match, and it is not like he was ever in the match with a chance (despite sneaking a set out). He still got destroyed the two times he made the quarters (thus his 2 best performances, and likely the best ever tennis he played at the French) by a non peak Ferrero and Gaudio. Murray made the semis two times and had a tough match with Nadal in one, being destroyed in the other. So edge Murray, atleast at RG.

Like I said neither had what I would consider a "good" win at Roland Garros anyway, unless anyone can suggest one for either.
 

mccarthy

Banned
Ferrer is essentially a lesser Hewitt, in terms of how he plays nowadays.

Rallying from the Baseline as Ferrer does is what made Hewitt #1 in the world at one point. In terms of Ferrer vs Hewitt, Hewitt is in the rare instance of being better than his Opponent in terms of Serve, FH, BH All-Round Play and combined with his Mentality I'd say he'd be the best player on all surfaces. Prime for Prime. Although Clay would be tight.

There is no basis to believe Hewitt is better than Ferrer on clay (of course he is a better player on all other surfaces and overall). His results are SO much poorer than Ferrer on clay, that it would just be impossible to be better, unless you are going to argue things like competition level being drastically different. Of course we know Murray is also a weaker clay courter than Ferrer too.
 
Top