Marion Bartoli And Andy Murray Reach The Sumit At Wimbledon 2013

First topic message reminder :

Wimbledon 2013 marked the career high of both the men's and women's singles winners. Marion Bartoli as everyone knows followed this triumph with retirement. But what next for the winner of the men's singles? Simon Barnes from the Times speculates...

Why Andy Murray has reached the point of no return

So, Muzza dearest — is that it? Is it all over? Is your life’s work complete? I ask these questions because Andy Murray has just parted from his coach, Ivan Lendl, and that seems to me as significant as Lendl’s appointment two years earlier.

The pair should have parted on Centre Court on that unforgettable afternoon last July. Both had done what they set out to do. For Murray, Wimbledon champion, the world would never be the same again; for Lendl, the job wouldn’t be. Or the relationship.

But they have parted now and it is another sign that Murray is not the player he was last July. The prince has slain the dragon and kissed the princess; he has, it seems, no great appetite to kiss the kitchen-maids and ladies-in-waiting to add to his score. Perhaps he’s ready to live happily ever after.

Extract from The Times... Sorry no link as it's PPV.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Hewitt was not only no 1, he was no 1 for 75 weeks - the tenth highest total in the open era. Andy has been no. 2 for about 20 weeks in total. Got to rate Hewitt higher imo.

Possibly.  It is pretty close for me.  As I say, I probably rate Andy higher but certainly a good argument can be made for Hewitt.

Julius - given the fact that it's a combined list, I assumed it was more of a rankings based on achievements, rather than playing ability. I'd personally have Murray above Hewitt, but it's hardly an opinion I'd get into street fights over

Murray v Hewitt is a tough comparison to make.

On achievement alone, I'd give it to Hewitt. Both have two slams (the same two slams) but I think Hewitt's weeks at number 1 and WTF record trumps Murray's Masters record.

But, although my memory of prime Hewitt is fading somewhat, my impression is that Murray's best level is better than Hewitt's best level.

Overall, I don't think there is much between them at present. Andy of course has the much better chance of winning titles in the future and may well be ahead of Hewitt by the end of his career.

It isn't just done on achievements of course otherwise Willie Renshaw would be much higher on the list. Personally, I think on achievements it's pretty close. I'd probably give a narrow edge to Lleyton even though his seasons which got him to number 1 were really no better than Murray's best two seasons. A slam record of R3, QF, R4, win or R1, R4, win, SF (Lleyton's 2001-02 record) with not even a Masters final in 2001 and one title in 2002 would have got nowhere near number 1 during Murray's career.

In terms of ability, it really isn't close. Lleyton was my favourite player in the early 00s but he was essentially a grafter. He lacked outright power and is probably a more rounded player now than he was when he was number 1. He simply couldn't compete with either Murray's power or range of shots.

I think Hewitt's ahead of Murray right now as he showed greater mental toughness in seizing his No.1 opportunity. I'm not certain, that Andy would have got to No. 1 in any era - he's too contradictory to be a No.1

However, it will only take Andy to get to a dozen Masters / or win a couple more slams, for him to overtake him

In 2002 Lleyton won 4 tournaments, made the final of 2 more and went out before the SF in 9 of the 16 events he entered. He was number 1 for the whole year.

In 2012 Murray won 3 tournaments, made the final of 4 more and went out before the SF in 9 of the 19 events he competed in. His highest ranking was 3.

It's very easy over time to forget how good past players were. I remember digging out a link a while back, written when Hewitt was No .1, about how his overall game was much more rounded and complete than Sampras' serve-based game, and that Hewitt was (at the time) playing tennis at a level higher than anyone in the history of the game.

Of course, you could dismiss this as media hype, but then you'd probably have to dismiss more recent media hype as well

I tend to agree with banbrotam - Murray most likely is not/would not have been No 1 material at any point. Hewitt was.

I think direct comparison between Hewitt/Murray is almost as impossible as Hewitt/Renshaw, given how much the game has moved forwards, even in the relatively short time span between the former two. E.g. if it had taken more to become No 1. maybe Hewitt would have provided more - that's part of what motivates the greats.

Like I said, Id have Murray higher, but it isnt really something Id fight over. I generally just lump everyone using unscientific rounding off.

Big five -
Federer
Sampras
Nadal
Borg
Laver

undefined - Emerson

6-10 Slam club
4-5 Slam club
2-3 slam club
1 slam club....

With that said, I still think Murray just about edges Hewitt, as is. They both won their slams in around the same time period, US-Wimbledon. There's only one title in it, and statistically, Murray's best season doesn't match up too badly with Hewitt's best season. For some, the weeks at #1 gives Hewitt the edge, for me, 9 Masters beats two.

In those days Masters weren't quite as important. When Fed/Rafa started setting the records, and TV companies started showing more of them, players and the public took more notice and they became more prestigious. Sampras won more slams than Masters - mainly because that's what he concentrated on. He wasn't that bothered about Masters. That's not so true of current players.

I fully accept and understand that. But Sampras still had 11 Masters, about five times the amount Hewitt has. Agassi had fourteen, Safin had five, Roddick had five, Juan Carlos Ferrero had three. So even in an era where holding multiple Masters in a year was uncommon, Hewitt was still at the lower end of the spectrum.

JuliusHMarx wrote:In those days Masters weren't quite as important. When Fed/Rafa started setting the records, and TV companies started showing more of them, players and the public took more notice and they became more prestigious. Sampras won more slams than Masters - mainly because that's what he concentrated on. He wasn't that bothered about Masters. That's not so true of current players.

This is a very good point. The players with the most Masters wins are:

Nadal: 26
Lendl: 22
Federer: 21
McEnroe: 19
Connors/Agassi/Djokovic: 17

It's not inconceivable that Nadal/Federer/Djokovic could be the top three by the time they are done.

I think this shows how difficult comparisons across eras are. For all we know, had Sampras gone seriously after Masters titles, the physical demands of doing so may have made him less effective in the slams.

I tend to think in a similar way to Kingraf about all time standing. 6 or more slams is enough to consider a player a "great". Within that, I would view the top tier of greatness as starting at 10 slams.

You wanna street-fight kr?   
Maybe we can flip a coin instead?

Id most likely duff you up in a street fight, and IO have appalling multiple choice skills... So a street fight sounds more up my alley....  

kingraf wrote:Id most likely duff you up in a street fight, and IO have appalling multiple choice skills... So a street fight sounds more up my alley....  

You're almost certainly right.
Heads or tails?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

kingraf wrote:Id most likely duff you up in a street fight, and I have appalling multiple choice skills... So a street fight sounds more up my alley....  

You're almost certainly right.
Heads or tails?

Depends on many variables, the side currently facing upwards, the wind direction, wind speed. Whether or not I have enough time to calculate the most likely outcome, how many rotations will the coin do in the air, will you toss it up straight up, or will it have an angke of curvature... Hardly fair to ask me this question before I have had the time to study these and other variables.

If it's heads I'll go to Tennessee, tails I'll buy a drink. If it lands on the edge I'll keep talking to you.    

Surely the normal position is to look back with rose-tinted glasses, which seems to be what is happening here. Hewitt was a very good player but I viewed him as a lesser version of Agassi in 2002 based on his results at that time. At the time, it wasn't clear how he would kick on as he was only 20/21. Possibly had it not been for the injuries he might have developed further but at his peak level of 2001/02 he was very much a transitional champion who held number 1 due to Sampras/Agassi dialling down their commitment and the lack of any other consistent challengers. How anyone could say that Murray wouldn't have been utterly dominant in a period tailor-made for his counter-punching tennis is beyond me. Conversely, Lleyton clearly lacks the power and genius to match up to peak Fed or Nadal. He would not have been number 1 at all if born 5 years later.

I also quite like the diminishing of the Masters. Yes the likes of Agassi and Sampras picked and choose which ones to compete in but that should have made it easier for Hewitt, who did play the majority, to clean up. In fact, the event which should be asterisked is the WTF at that time. It was little more than a glorified exhibition in the early 00s with players dropping out left right and centre. Whilst Hewitt did well to win it twice, I would only rank that achievement equal to Murray's win in the Olympics.

Born Slippy wrote: In fact, the event which should be asterisked is the WTF at that time. It was little more than a glorified exhibition in the early 00s with players dropping out left right and centre. Whilst Hewitt did well to win it twice, I would only rank that achievement equal to Murray's win in the Olympics.

This is worse than Hawkeye style wumming in my book. But were you older than 5 yrs in the 00" btw?

I go back to this "I think direct comparison between Hewitt/Murray is almost as impossible as Hewitt/Renshaw"

Has HE left the forum?

Not that I'm aware of.

Well this is for her:

  I just called to say, I love you   

  And this is for you too as I am feeling festive

Well, I quite like HE too   

I feel like a Christmas number one coming on from the posters of V2 declaring their love for HE.

It'll be lonely this Christmas
Without HE to hold   

As for the Hewitt v Murray arguments. I have to say Hewitt. Yes we could rank it based on title victories, but for me Hewitt just has that courage and guts that Murray lacks at gutcheck moments. Hewitt left everything on the court. Plus he was number 1 in the world and for a period was the man to beat on tour.

I think Hewitt gets nowhere near the credit he deserves from a lot of fans and forums. He was the man to beat for a period of time and might have clocked up more impressive numbers had it not been for injury. I love his spikiiness and competetive edge. Mrs 1982 is a fan too. Possibly her favourite on the tour.

Right now, I'd say Hewitt edges it over Murray because of the weeks at number 1. But if Murray clocks up another slam or two then I'll probably change my mind.

I think Hewitt deserves high praise. You know by watching him that he leaves absolutely everything on the court. I don't feel you can feel short changed by a Hewitt match. Similar with watching Connors. Left it all out on the court.

It would be an interesting debate if Andy was to add a few more Slams to his name without claiming the number 1 ranking.

Just for the record..I am also a massive Hewitt fan. For all the reasons people have already mentioned.

When individuals talk of his downward spiral in terms of performance I wonder if his injuries are ever factored in? Goodness knows how many different ones he's had or operations to boot (I may be viewing him with rose tinted spectacles here though..he might have had none. Can't think off top of my head - I have it in my mind he's had lots but happy to be proved wrong). Saying that I don't have too much sympathy with him nor do you suspect he seeks/wants it. His playing style was one of baseline attrition much like many of today's top players. I suspect he to wrote many cheques that his body ultimately couldn't handle in the long term.

Still..love the guy and watching his matches.

Also for the record..there is a frightening and alarming amount of guff on page 1 of this thread! Still..it has somehow generated a reasonable conversation at the end! So all's well.

HE's service to  V2 community in publishing and informing Murray related new and articles should be one of the greatest dedication in any online forum.

Not sure whether HE is a GOAT in dedication but certainly will feature in my top 10.  

My recollection is that Lleyton started to struggle to maintain his game in 2003. I don't recall him having any particular injury problems at that time but I may be wrong. He then embarked on a regime to make himself stronger and tried to change his game slightly to add more power and be more aggressive. However, he became a bit less consistent as a result and still couldn't compete with the likes of Fed or Safin when they were on form. I can't see how he could have competed with Nadal or Djokovic either.

Again, I may be wrong but the surgeries were a bit later - probably when he was about 28/29 onwards to fix his hip initially? Personally I think the injuries stopped him from being a top 10 player from 2007 onwards but I don't see that they stopped him winning any slams or masters. From 2003 onwards there was always likely to be someone that bit bigger, stronger, quicker or more skilful to stop him.

 Months away (been busy at work and studying), I come back and HE is still on the AM warpath with faux innocent nonsense. Almost comforting in it's familiarity   

As for the other, more sensible, debate it has to be Hewitt for me at the moment. The No. 1 record swings it in his favour. Not really fair to judge until both have retired though.

What would be more worth it, 4-5 GS and no weeks at no:1, or weeks at no:1 and a couple of GS?

Jahu wrote:What would be more worth it, 4-5 GS and no weeks at no:1, or weeks at no:1 and a couple of GS?

Would have to go with the slam count. If Murray bags a couple of more slams before he retires then he wins it in my opinion. At the moment, with the slam count tied, it goes to Hewitt.

Jahu wrote:What would be more worth it, 4-5 GS and no weeks at no:1, or weeks at no:1 and a couple of GS?

I would say 4 or 5 GS and no weeks at No.1 beats the latter. As someone said earlier Murray has had stronger years than Hewitt and not reached No.1 (winning more tournies and stronger slam showings) than Hewitt managed to reach No.1.

Agree, thought i respect Hewitt, i think Andy has kicked @ss a lot more with stronger players, thought he's been left on the floor a lot too.

Of course if you were to end both their careers now then Hewitt would edge it on the strength of those years at No.1 I would say.

carrieg4 wrote: Months away (been busy at work and studying), I come back and HE is still on the AM warpath with faux innocent nonsense.  Almost comforting in it's familiarity   

Welcome back!   

Silver wrote:

carrieg4 wrote: Months away (been busy at work and studying), I come back and HE is still on the AM warpath with faux innocent nonsense.  Almost comforting in it's familiarity   

Welcome back!   

Thanks Silver   

I'd think every player in world tennis would rather have a slam, poor C-Woz looked like she carrying an albatross on her neck as the Slamless one-der.

That said, I'm not sure anything beats the achievement of being widely accepted as the best in your field. I think it was Nadal who said his Masters streaks were harder achievements than his slams. I think that's about right - the slam is what every player dreams of, and is the ultimate achievement. But the #1 is an incredibly difficult achievement, and the ascent is harder than winning a slam, or even slams. Think athletics - if Bolt had gone scorched earth over the field for the last seven years, but had failed for whatever reason to snatch the Olympic gold... I'd still say his achievements (2x world champ, record holder, undisputed #1) were harder to realise than winning an OG, even if the OG is every sprinters dream

Surely though using that sort of analogy Hewitt is more a Kim Collins to Murray's Tyson Gay?

kingraf wrote:I'd think every player in world tennis would rather have a slam, poor C-Woz looked like she carrying an albatross on her neck as the Slamless one-der.

That said, I'm not sure anything beats the achievement of being widely accepted as the best in your field. I think it was Nadal who said his Masters streaks were harder achievements than his slams. I think that's about right - the slam is what every player dreams of, and is the ultimate achievement. But the #1 is an incredibly difficult achievement, and the ascent is harder than winning a slam, or even slams. Think athletics - if Bolt had gone scorched earth over the field for the last seven years, but had failed for whatever reason to snatch the Olympic gold... I'd still say his achievements (2x world champ, record holder, undisputed #1) were harder to realise than winning an OG, even if the OG is every sprinters dream

That is all very well though but as has been pointed out Murray has more Masters wins than Hewitt but never reached No.1. He has had better years (than Hewitt) and not reached No.1 and that is all down to the make-up of this era. Nadal is widely accepted as clay court greatest of all-time so hoovers up clay points, Federer is widely regarded as greatest grass courter of all-time and has hoovered up grass court points and plus you have the monstrous consistency of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic that has stood in Murray's way. Now Hewitt had an era to get to No.1 where there was no dominant forces on any surface and no monstrously consistent players hence No.1 was far more obtainable.

since 1973 there have been 23 different #1s. since 1990, 36 different slam winners. I have Murray higher than Hewitt because of the masters differential, and statistical symmetry, so you're preaching to the choir. I was just replying to Jahu's question.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

kingraf wrote:I'd think every player in world tennis would rather have a slam, poor C-Woz looked like she carrying an albatross on her neck as the Slamless one-der.

That said, I'm not sure anything beats the achievement of being widely accepted as the best in your field. I think it was Nadal who said his Masters streaks were harder achievements than his slams. I think that's about right - the slam is what every player dreams of, and is the ultimate achievement. But the #1 is an incredibly difficult achievement, and the ascent is harder than winning a slam, or even slams. Think athletics - if Bolt had gone scorched earth over the field for the last seven years, but had failed for whatever reason to snatch the Olympic gold... I'd still say his achievements (2x world champ, record holder, undisputed #1) were harder to realise than winning an OG, even if the OG is every sprinters dream

That is all very well though but as has been pointed out Murray has more Masters wins than Hewitt but never reached No.1. He has had better years (than Hewitt) and not reached No.1 and that is all down to the make-up of this era. Nadal is widely accepted as clay court greatest of all-time so hoovers up clay points, Federer is widely regarded as greatest grass courter of all-time and has hoovered up grass court points and plus you have the monstrous consistency of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic that has stood in Murray's way. Now Hewitt had an era to get to No.1 where there was no dominant forces on any surface and no monstrously consistent players hence No.1 was far more obtainable.

Coupled with the fact that Andy probably has another few years to win more tournaments I would agree you are spot on.

Having said that i am a big fan of Lleyton who's career unfortunately has been hampered with injuries!

kingraf wrote:since 1973 there have been 23 different #1s. since 1990, 36 different slam winners. I have Murray higher than Hewitt because of the masters differential, and statistical symmetry, so you're preaching to the choir. I was just replying to Jahu's question.

Sorry kingraf to sound if I was preaching. My basic point being people shouldn't read too much into reaching No.1 as that can be misleading.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

kingraf wrote:since 1973 there have been 23 different #1s. since 1990, 36 different slam winners. I have Murray higher than Hewitt because of the masters differential, and statistical symmetry, so you're preaching to the choir. I was just replying to Jahu's question.

Sorry kingraf to sound if I was preaching. My basic point being people shouldn't read too much into reaching No.1 as that can be misleading.

Similairly, if we're talking statistics, you could argue that getting to No.1 could be perceived as being a bigger achievement because there have been fewer inidividuals who have reached No.1 than have won slams. Slams require you being better than your peers for 2 weeks over 7 matches. Getting to No.1 involves being superior than your peers for a rolling 12 period.

I don't have a side in this debate but I think that point should be made. I think it's incredibly difficult to choose between the two and I wish them both well (Murray has grown on me more since he's cut the teneage tantrums out).

I did say earlier that at the moment Hewitt just holds the edge but I have a feeling Murray has more in him to come so that could very well change.

Marcus Buckland praised the Simon Barnes article. What a knob jockey!!

Andy is much better than Hewitt ever was. Shot by shot I can't think of a shot of Hewitt's I would rather have over murray's. Murray has the better serve, forehand, backhand, return, and they are about equal in volleys. And in terms of speed Murray is just as fast but he is six foot three and Hewitt is five ten. If Murray reached his prime in the dark ages of tennis where cromagnons like Roddick where winning slams and attaining the world #1 he would have 300 weeks at number one.

It saddens me to read people who say they understand the game who can't acknowledge the strength of Hewitt. It shows complete ignorance of the changes in the game from 1999 to 2008.

On second thoughts, I don't think it's possible to reach that conclusion without ulterior motives.