Who Has The Better Career Resume? Hewitt Or Murray?

First topic message reminder :

Hewitt has won 2 slams (Wimbledon and the US Open) and 2 Masters Cups (now known as the WTF). He has 30 singles titles in all. He was ranked number one for 80 weeks (which is the 10th longest period in ATP history). He also won a slam in doubles (US Open) and has been part of a winning Davis Cup team twice.

Murray has won 2 slams (Wimbledon and the US Open). He has won 31 singles titles in all. He was ranked number two for 15 weeks.

If you like to rewrite the history books to put in a better light your own favourite, nobody is stopping you cc. I just hope that you will still be able to understand what are the real facts and achievements that actually happened in the history of the game from what is no more than internet chitchat.....for your own good.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:If you like to rewrite the history books to put in a better light your own favourite, nobody is stopping you cc. I just hope that you will still be able to understand what are the real facts and achievements that actually happened in the history of the game from what is no more than internet chitchat.....for your own good.

Drop the tone jk . After all what you're doing is also just Internet chit chat as well which makes you no better or worse than anybody else here. There's no nasty undertones to the argument, it's an interesting point , how comparable are rankings compared to points?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:In 2002 there weren't the Olympics if I remember correctly?? So in your comparison you  want to include an event  that Hewitt did not have any chance to play and that at that time did not even yield atp points, if I remember well........But do go on it's only internet chitchat afterall.

Yes and that just re-iterates the point I am making here about the reliability of using rankings as the benchmark. The only constant are hardcore results and titles - in my opinion. And merely going on premise of slams then Murray's 2012 was better than Hewitt's 2002 so we know Murray garnered more points from the slams in their comparitive years. Point being that (and since points scale has changed over the course of time) it is pretty fair to see that Murray's 2012 compared very well against Hewitt's 2002 but never got him to No.1 like Hewitt did. Is that down to him having a superior resume of results? No. It may afford Hewitt a better resume (in some people's eyes) but that is what is being debated here.

Clearly the only thing Hewitt has over murray is the number 1 ranking and even that when put into context of comparing their best seasons vis a vis each other shows that Murray wasn't far off Hewitt's form in 2012 than in 2002, so therefore at their best they had very comparable number of tournament wins and match wins with Murray having done better in the slams. Fully agree with you CC Murray gets the nod this is even before you take into consideration the superior competition he has faced.

temporary21 wrote:Drop the tone jk . After all what you're doing is also just Internet chit chat as well which makes you no better or worse than anybody else here. There's no nasty undertones to the argument, it's an interesting point , how comparable are rankings compared to points?

It's an interesting point? really? Strongly disagree....

They're pretty close. Both have stellar careers to be proud of though, that seems clear

Oh! So some are crediting Murray with a virtual number 1? Can Rafa have a few of those too 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2011. (2009, 2012 and 2014 are already "virtual, virtual" number ones as he only lost the number one position through injury )

hawkeye wrote:Oh! So some are crediting Murray with a virtual number 1? Can Rafa have a few of those too 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2011. (2009, 2012 and 2014 are already "virtual, virtual" number ones as he only lost the number one position through injury )

Were not giving or taking number ones here. Its comparison of converted ranking points of both players. Theyre similar numbers, but it doesnt change the fact the Murrays hauls simply wern't enough to reach number one in his time, the same way Nadals wernt enough then either.

I believe Gugliermo Vilas should be delighted that he has finally gained a long awaited n.1 spot, and all that thanks to the revolutionary discoveries of a few brave posters......

hawkeye wrote:Oh! So some are crediting Murray with a virtual number 1?

Where are people doing that ?

That's not what it's about Jk, but if the conversation was about, say Yohan Blake and Justin Gatlin's (ignoring the naughty bits) respective resumes, while some would argue Gatlin has an Olympic gold and Blake doesn't, there would be an element of reality to the fact that Blake is flat out faster. In a similar vein, everyone accepts that Hewitt reached #1 and Murray didn't, but it doesn't make comparisons regarding their best years irrelevant. Murray's best twelve month cycle, from a Slam perspective (winning USO and W) got him to #3, are we to argue that his 2009/10 season was more eye popping to his resume simply because he reached #2 in that year?

Think you're overlooking the fact that Murray got to number 2 during that "best twelve month cycle" as well as during his 2009/10 season.

It all comes down to how much influence you put on reaching No.1. Hewitt made World No.1 and to date the best Murray has reached is No.2. Does this singular stat totally outweigh the fact that Murray has reached more slam finals, more slam semis, equal slam quarters, won more titles, more Masters titles and better win percentage rates at slams than Hewitt among other things. Added caveat for Hewitt is his two WTF wins compared to none for Murray whilst Murray has an Olympic Gold.

Had a look at it, yeah, you're right he was #2 post Wimbledon. Had a look at his points tally as well. 9360.

I would agree with CC with the exception of the Olympics. I don't get the fuss and emphasis on Olympic gold. Tennis has never belonged there in my view. If I were a pro, I would take world tour finals over Olympic gold any day of the week. ATF draw is loaded with all matches against top 8 players, Olympics is just over rated to me from a tennis perspective

There's no question, Olympics is a sideline.

#1 is gigantic, I can't understand the dispute. Think about it, does anyone do lists of people who made a lot of Slam semis? Even Murrays #2 was a blip, Hewitt was a solid #1.

Well we are talking career resume here so everything has to be considered. Also I can't see how you can call Murray reaching No.2 as a blip when he has reached the mark twice I do believe and also seems too much hypocrisy. I mean if we are to put so much stock in rankings then it is grossly unfair to laud Hewitt for reaching No.1 but downplay or call Murray's No.2 a blip.

Murray's 15 week 'blip' at number 2 in 2013, was not just post-Wimbledon.
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of downplaying Murray's achievements.

Tennisfan wrote:Murray's 15 week 'blip' at number 2 in 2013, was not just post-Wimbledon.
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of downplaying Murray's achievements.

Well if his 2013 15 weeks at No.2 was a blip I wonder how BB would describe his 4 weeks at No.2 in 2009?

Lleyton Hewitt was #1 for 80 weeks. That's the 10th longest period at the top, longer than Edberg or Becker managed.

18 weeks at #2 is very brief in comparison. Blip isn't unfair.

bogbrush wrote:Lleyton Hewitt was #1 for 80 weeks. That's the 10th longest period at the top, longer than Edberg or Becker managed.

18 weeks at #2 is very brief in comparison. Blip isn't unfair.

Blip is unfair if we are going by dictionary definition here:-

An unexpected, minor, and typically temporary deviation from a general trend:

As the spell in 2013 at No.2 followed such a strong run in slams and other big tournies it was certainly not unexpected and as he had been at No.2 before in 2009 it wasn't a temporary deviation either.

Poor choice of word if you ask me.

I did start off on this thread with me saying it was very close to call but thought Murray just edges it and of course people have their own opinion. But since this is 'CAREER' resume we presumably look at everything in the career as it all goes in to make up their careers. Sure Hewitt has an impressive spell at No.1, two slams and two WTF's wins - those are all things that Murray cannot better at present (but is equal with slam wins). Since we are counting slam wins as part of a resume then obviously they mean a lot so lets not lessen the fact that Murray has reached more finals and semis than Hewitt, has more Masters titles and higher total of ATP titles yet has not reached No.1. What does that tell us about the importance or significance of rankings? Well it tells me you cannot judge rankings from different eras as Murray has been more solid in slams and Masters than Hewitt yet never made No.1 whilst Hewitt (without ever being a dominant force a la Federer and Nadal) has 80 weeks at No.1.

Hewitt played in an era when all the courts where pretty different. US Open was a fast court. Wimbledon was a lot faster. 

Whereas Murray had it easy on all the courts being slowed down. 

Hewitt won 2 x WTFs on supremely fast courts, could Murray ever do this? Hell no,

Wimbledon was slowed down big time in 02, the year hewitt won it. But it was faster back then.

Him winning it on faster courts might offer evidencd that Hewitt was a slightly better faster court player. That doesnt necessarily make him a better tennis player overall, or his resume necessarily automatically better.

Faster does not automatically equal better than anything else. Its a logical fallacy that I dont agree with at all, thats been born out of the sticky G debate more than anything. Tenis on slower courts is just as valid a skill, that requires a different skill set.

temporary21 wrote:Him winning it on faster courts might offer evidencd that Hewitt was a slightly better faster court player. That doesnt necessarily make him a better tennis player overall, or his resume necessarily automatically better.

Faster does not automatically equal better than anything else. Its a logical fallacy that I dont agree with at all, thats been born out of the sticky G debate more than anything. Tenis on slower courts is just as valid a skill, that requires a different skill set.

Hewitt was a defensive counter puncher. On faster courts he showed he had the skills to still win the big titles.

Murray has thrived on slow courts where skill is reduced, just running around like a headless chicken retrieving the ball. Hardly talent.

Hewitt also lead Australia to two Davis Cup titles. He beat Federer in a dramatic come back from two sets down in the semi's in 2003. He also beat Federer in Switzerland in the Davis Cup in 2000. The Swiss tie was played on carpet. No doubt those tricky Swiss thought that this would give Fed the advantage

When I checked Hewitts Davis Cup results I realized that Hewitt is the same age as Federer (both born in 1981). Up until 2004 Hewitt had the better of Federer. This is off topic for this particular thread but I'm wondering where Hewitt stands in terms of talent. Raw talent is often expressed at a precocious young age. It's worth noting that Hewitt was the youngest ever ATP number one. Hewitt's downfall wasn't because he lacked talent his downfall was injury. He has had so many surgeries the commentators just joke about it I'm beginning to think he is perhaps one of the most under rated players on the tour.

Damn it HE why do I keep agreeing with you!?!??!

Just to prove solely going on rankings is flawed do we presume Boris Becker has a less impressive career resume than Lleyton Hewitt? He spent 68 less weeks at No.1 than Hewitt but won four more slams than the Australian and I am positive there are a lot more cases like this as in a player has won more slams than Hewitt though spent a lot less time at No.1.

I never wanted to go down this route but Hewitt was playing at the right time. Former greats Agassi and Sampras were in decline and tennis was awaiting the next generation of tennis greats to blossom. There were no dominant forces around at that time (early 2000s) so it was very manageable to get to No.1 in the rankings by winning a slam per season. Hewitt's big stretch at No.1 came between November 2001 and April 2003 and in that time he won one slam and reached one slam semi and won two Masters titles and two WTF's. If we look at the present day and Nadal had a slightly shorter long streak at No.1 between June 2010 and July 2011 and in that time he won three slams and reached a slam semi and won a Masters title. I wonder what people think was a harder feat - Nadal keeping Djokovic, Federer and Murray at bay to protect No.1 or Hewitt at No.1 keeping Gustavo Kuerten, Marat Safin and Andre Agassi.

My point is that Hewitt's set of results he achieved whilst No.1 may have got him to No.1 for 80 weeks but that same set of results in the here and now would only have got up a top four ranking spot. Take Murray's results in 2012/13 and drop him into the early 2000s and he would have had the No.1 spot. Supposition? Perhaps but it demonstrates that ranking is not the be all and end all in assessing career resumes and even less so when comparing players from two very different eras.

Gerry SA wrote:

temporary21 wrote:Him winning it on faster courts might offer evidencd that Hewitt was a slightly better faster court player. That doesnt necessarily make him a better tennis player overall, or his resume necessarily automatically better.

Faster does not automatically equal better than anything else. Its a logical fallacy that I dont agree with at all, thats been born out of the sticky G debate more than anything. Tenis on slower courts is just as valid a skill, that requires a different skill set.

Hewitt was a defensive counter puncher. On faster courts he showed he had the skills to still win the big titles.

Murray has thrived on slow courts where skill is reduced, just running around like a headless chicken retrieving the ball. Hardly talent.

I would say the current generations are owed more respect than that. You only need to watch them closely to see how skilled they really are

It's hardly talent, being athletically gifted and having the motor control, and core strength to play some of the shots Murray's played on the run.

hawkeye wrote:Hewitt also lead Australia to two Davis Cup titles. He beat Federer in a dramatic come back from two sets down in the semi's in 2003. He also beat Federer in Switzerland in the Davis Cup in 2000. The Swiss tie was played on carpet. No doubt those tricky Swiss thought that this would give Fed the advantage

When I checked Hewitts Davis Cup results I realized that Hewitt is the same age as Federer (both born in 1981). Up until 2004 Hewitt had the better of Federer. This is off topic for this particular thread but I'm wondering where Hewitt stands in terms of talent. Raw talent is often expressed at a precocious young age. It's worth noting that Hewitt was the youngest ever ATP number one. Hewitt's downfall wasn't because he lacked talent his downfall was injury. He has had so many surgeries the commentators just joke about it I'm beginning to think he is perhaps one of the most under rated players on the tour.

2 you say? If your referring to 1999 I think Rafter might have something to say about that. IIRC didn't Hewitt lose both rubbers in the final??

A losing leader

What talent!

You can't just take an athlete and keep control of the ball the way these guys do. If that's all you think tennis players are then I would wonder why it holds such interest

legendkillarV2 wrote:



2 you say? If your referring to 1999 I think Rafter might have something to say about that. IIRC didn't Hewitt lose both rubbers in the final??

A losing leader

What talent!

Yes two Davis Cup trophies. Perhaps the 1999 one is the most impressive for Hewitt.

Hewitt turned pro in 1998 however his play was restricted to futures and challengers but his ranking quickly rose from 550 to 113. As an 18 year old 1999 was Hewitt's first year on the ATP tour. In the Davis Cup quarter finals he won both his rubbers in an away match against the USA including a win against Todd Martin (no. 8 in the world). In the semi's he again won both his rubbers against Russia beating Kafelnikov (no. 2 in the world) and Marit Safin. You are correct that in the final played in France he relied on his team mates for the win. By that time baby Hewitt was no doubt a little tired having surely played one of the most impressive first years on the tour including playing his part in Australia's well deserved win. He was now ranked 22

By the end of 2000 Hewitt was ranked 7. By the end of 2001 Hewitt was the best player in the world with a US Open trophy and a WTF trophy as part of his winnings. I can only agree... What talent!

hawkeye wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:



2 you say? If your referring to 1999 I think Rafter might have something to say about that. IIRC didn't Hewitt lose both rubbers in the final??

A losing leader

What talent!

Yes two Davis Cup trophies. Perhaps the 1999 one is the most impressive for Hewitt.

Hewitt turned pro in 1998 however his play was restricted to futures and challengers but his ranking quickly rose from 550 to 113. As an 18 year old 1999 was Hewitt's first year on the ATP tour. In the Davis Cup quarter finals he won both his rubbers in an away match against the USA including a win against Todd Martin (no. 8 in the world). In the semi's he again won both his rubbers against Russia beating Kafelnikov (no. 2 in the world) and Marit Safin. You are correct that in the final played in France he relied on his team mates for the win. By that time baby Hewitt was no doubt a little tired having surely played one of the most impressive first years on the tour including playing his part in Australia's well deserved win. He was now ranked 22

By the end of 2000 Hewitt was ranked 7. By the end of 2001 Hewitt was the best player in the world with a US Open trophy and a WTF trophy as part of his winnings. I can only agree... What talent!

Yes it would be impressive if it was actually his performances alone that won the cup in 1999. Which I proved he didn't. So the term you used "lead" is overblown.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:



2 you say? If your referring to 1999 I think Rafter might have something to say about that. IIRC didn't Hewitt lose both rubbers in the final??

A losing leader

What talent!

Yes two Davis Cup trophies. Perhaps the 1999 one is the most impressive for Hewitt.

Hewitt turned pro in 1998 however his play was restricted to futures and challengers but his ranking quickly rose from 550 to 113. As an 18 year old 1999 was Hewitt's first year on the ATP tour. In the Davis Cup quarter finals he won both his rubbers in an away match against the USA including a win against Todd Martin (no. 8 in the world). In the semi's he again won both his rubbers against Russia beating Kafelnikov (no. 2 in the world) and Marit Safin. You are correct that in the final played in France he relied on his team mates for the win. By that time baby Hewitt was no doubt a little tired having surely played one of the most impressive first years on the tour including playing his part in Australia's well deserved win. He was now ranked 22

By the end of 2000 Hewitt was ranked 7. By the end of 2001 Hewitt was the best player in the world with a US Open trophy and a WTF trophy as part of his winnings. I can only agree... What talent!

Yes it would be impressive if it was actually his performances alone that won the cup in 1999. Which I proved he didn't. So the term you used "lead" is overblown.

Probably for the first time in my life I have to agree with Hawkeye here.....I didn't remember Hewitt davis cup matches and to get such high profile wins at such a young age is surely an impressive feat. Re your post, nobody wins a davis cups alone, not even Federer or Nadal, should we ignore and discount those wins for this reason alone? Do you think cc and co. would have forgotten to mention those trophies if murray had won them?

I didn't mention th because I had completely forgotten he won them. Davis cup is AGAIN a tricky thing to compare because it's a team event. Murrats never had the team or indeed a team in the world group to do it

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:



2 you say? If your referring to 1999 I think Rafter might have something to say about that. IIRC didn't Hewitt lose both rubbers in the final??

A losing leader

What talent!

Yes two Davis Cup trophies. Perhaps the 1999 one is the most impressive for Hewitt.

Hewitt turned pro in 1998 however his play was restricted to futures and challengers but his ranking quickly rose from 550 to 113. As an 18 year old 1999 was Hewitt's first year on the ATP tour. In the Davis Cup quarter finals he won both his rubbers in an away match against the USA including a win against Todd Martin (no. 8 in the world). In the semi's he again won both his rubbers against Russia beating Kafelnikov (no. 2 in the world) and Marit Safin. You are correct that in the final played in France he relied on his team mates for the win. By that time baby Hewitt was no doubt a little tired having surely played one of the most impressive first years on the tour including playing his part in Australia's well deserved win. He was now ranked 22

By the end of 2000 Hewitt was ranked 7. By the end of 2001 Hewitt was the best player in the world with a US Open trophy and a WTF trophy as part of his winnings. I can only agree... What talent!

Yes it would be impressive if it was actually his performances alone that won the cup in 1999. Which I proved he didn't. So the term you used "lead" is overblown.

Probably for the first time in my life I have to agree with Hawkeye here.....I didn't remember Hewitt davis cup matches and to get such high profile wins at such a young age is surely an impressive feat. Re your post, nobody wins a davis cups alone, not even Federer or Nadal, should we ignore and discount those wins for this reason alone? Do you think cc and co. would have forgotten to mention those trophies if murray had won them?

I am not discounting the achievement.

I am discounting the term "lead"

You negate your own point if you agree with HE that he led them.

Obviously you are referring to year 1999 where Hewitt, as I understand, lost both his singles rubbers to France and  Australia managed to win the cup in the end. I agree in that case the term "lead" to victory is inappropriate. And I am very happy to get back to disagree as usual with HE on that. The point that is relevant for this debate though is that Hewitt won two Davis cups, in both occasions providing an extrordinary contribution to those wins and in year 2003 he did lead his team to the victory winning 5 out of 5 rubbers played, scoring victories against among others; Federer and Ferrero former n.1 in the world.
Ignoring these  victories on his career resume to me is total madness.

Indeed he made a contribution to these victories. I agree that they shouldn't be discounted from his CV. There have been cases that certain titles merits on this thread have been discussed in terms of relevance like the OG which is why I believe some countering has been made in reference to the DC victories. Like you said no-one would say that Nadal or Federer "led" teams to victories in their respective DC exploits. Hewitt very impressive CV none the less.

It Must Be Love wrote:OK question-

To those you think ranking points are important, and forget any era comparisons in this question (we can save those discussions for later):
Let's say Hewitt was number 1 in 2002 but he had less ranking points (even if you adjust for the way ranking points have changed) than Murray in 2012.
So then, what is more impressive; Hewitt's 2002 or Murray's 2012 ?
Forget competition or anything of the like; but if the year is more impressive than results- what difference in terms of something of actual substance does it make if the other points which you didn't win were shared differently ?

It is impossible to say just based on that.  It could be - and I am inclined to think to some extent it is so - that with the homogenization of surfaces it became easier for top players to amass more points, thus compromising comparisons made just based on the point totals.  Of course, it could also be that competition in 2002 was easier (and I do think that was also true to some extent).

I also think that seeing that there is someone ahead of you at 14,000 points makes it easier to give yourself a target and aim for that, while if the number #1 player is say at 8,000 points, you might become more complacent at 9,000.  In that sense I think getting to #1 does have some added difficulty no matter what.

Resume comparisons are a summary of a number of factors and I think slam wins and #1 ranking are among the two most important ones.

I do not think #1 ranking trumps everything - if Andy wins a couple of more slams he will - I think - be clearly ahead of Hewitt even if he never gets to #1, but at this point it is fairly clearly Hewitt for me.

summerblues wrote:

I also think that seeing that there is someone ahead of you at 14,000 points makes it easier to give yourself a target and aim for that, while if the number #1 player is say at 8,000 points, you might become more complacent at 9,000.  In that sense I think getting to #1 does have some added difficulty no matter what.

If you ignore external factors such as competition and homogenisation (btw I also agree with you that homogenisation made it easier for Murray, while competition was easier for Hewitt); and just look at being number 1 in a year vs having more points in a certain year; your point above is the only one I can really think of as to why having less points but having higher ranking is better. Obviously the ranking is symbolic, but in substance you can't influence the breakdown between other players in points you did not pick up.
I can see why it may be of some importance, but it doesn't strike me as too convincing as a reason why Hewitt would be a better, that the fact Murray had a 'target to aim at' while Hewitt may have got complacent. There are many factors I would put much above 'having targets' and assuming 'complacency' when judging two players.

That is probably one of the reasons why we disagree. I think "having targets" can be quite an important factor.

summerblues wrote:That is probably one of the reasons why we disagree.  I think "having targets" can be quite an important factor.

Also, would it not be reasonable for me to then argue that Murray had harder targets than Hewitt, in this case ? (i.e. not referring to competition... which is another relevant issue; but simply that point wise his target would mean having to pick up a greater proportion of wins and tournament wins).

Murray has often said he doesn't give a rats ass about being number 1. He just wants to do well in and win the slams. That's absolutely fine, but it will affect how he is judged.

It is a close comparison with Hewitt, and whilst I'm sure the records will show Murray has done consistently better in slams overall (in terms of finals, semis, etc) and will end up with quite a few more overall tournament wins, he will never reach no.1 and that means unless he gets another slam Hewitt wins the comparison.

It may have been an easier time to get to no.1, and Murray may pound for pound be a better player, but reaching world number 1 is huge. It has to sway it in Hewitt's direction in my opinion.

He remained top of the world rankings for 75 weeks from November 2001 to April 2003, the longest unbroken reign since Pete Sampras's 102-week run from April 1996, and bettered only by Federer since (not Rafael Nadal, not Andre Agassi, not Gustavo Kuerten, even Novak Djokovic is a good 20 weeks short right now).

He was that dominant.

"The kid is so quick it's unbelievable. I wish I had some of those legs for this old guy.

"I lost to a great champion. You're going to see this Lleyton Hewitt guy for the next 10 years like you saw me." Pete Sampras '01

I'm a big Murray fan but I think its hard to compare, I would say Murray has had the better career so I suppose the better resume. However, I was also a fan of Lleytons and at the end of the day he achieved the big ones. Wimbledon, Number 1, Davis cup, WTF, Masters titles. I mean after that what else does Muzz have over him? Consistency, but even the most biased fan can't ignore surgeries played a part in those stats.

Olympic Gold raised in profile recently but I will never get on board with its significance, athletes train for 4 years for that competition, I respect Lendl but when he called it a slam he had to be saying that to raise Murrays confidence because its just not the same at all.

I think you also have to point out Murray didn't have Nadal around for both his slam wins, (I hate bringing that up as he's one of my favourite players) but if people are saying Lleyton didn't have Federer around yet and Lleyton was in the right place at the right time...the planets did line up for Muzz too, Federer in his 30s, Nadal out and lets be honest Novak went walkabouts for a spell after his crazy 2011 season.

I would say I'm 60/40 to Hewitt but Murray is still going, if all due respect Cilic can win a slam in this era I think Murray still has a great shot of getting more slams and ending the conversation. Peak to Peak its damn close IMO, Hewitts body gave in quicker. I think Murray would give up over half his Masters victories to tell his grandkids he was Number 1 in the world.

I think Andy's consistency at the top of the game is a big factor that doesn't get a lot of consideration. Yes Hewitt had injuries but even when healthy he wasn't able to get back to near the top of the game. Murray has been in the top 5 for so many years now and has won so many big events and made many finals. Hewitt had a run at number 1 and that is basically the only area he bests Murray in. That being said he simply didn't have a Nadal or Djokovic of the same age to compete with. He is similar in age to Federer and once federer lifted the bar Hewitt and the other contemporaries were simply blown out of the water and could never compete. Plus Murray is still going he will finish his career with more tournament wins and probably more slams. The fact that Murray about 60 percent of through his career should be well withing striking range of a Hewitt who is 98 percent done with his career tells you clearly who is the superior player and talent.

socal1976 wrote:I think Andy's consistency at the top of the game is a big factor that doesn't get a lot of consideration. Yes Hewitt had injuries but even when healthy he wasn't able to get back to near the top of the game. Murray has been in the top 5 for so many years now and has won so many big events and made many finals. Hewitt had a run at number 1 and that is basically the only area he bests Murray in. That being said he simply didn't have a Nadal or Djokovic of the same age to compete with. He is similar in age to Federer and once federer lifted the bar Hewitt and the other contemporaries were simply blown out of the water and could never compete. Plus Murray is still going he will finish his career with more tournament wins and probably more slams. The fact that Murray about 60 percent of through his career should be well withing striking range of a Hewitt who is 98 percent done with his career tells you clearly who is the superior player and talent.

I like to see you playing tennis after having all the surgeries Hewitt's had. For most people just walking would be an achievement...

Gerry SA wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I think Andy's consistency at the top of the game is a big factor that doesn't get a lot of consideration. Yes Hewitt had injuries but even when healthy he wasn't able to get back to near the top of the game. Murray has been in the top 5 for so many years now and has won so many big events and made many finals. Hewitt had a run at number 1 and that is basically the only area he bests Murray in. That being said he simply didn't have a Nadal or Djokovic of the same age to compete with. He is similar in age to Federer and once federer lifted the bar Hewitt and the other contemporaries were simply blown out of the water and could never compete. Plus Murray is still going he will finish his career with more tournament wins and probably more slams. The fact that Murray about 60 percent of through his career should be well withing striking range of a Hewitt who is 98 percent done with his career tells you clearly who is the superior player and talent.

I like to see you playing tennis after having all the surgeries Hewitt's had. For most people just walking would be an achievement...

Oh dont I have to agree with that one.. how the man is still up there and an opponent that can cause huge problems wow !! at his age, plus to artificial hips not to mention all the other problems.. what a competitor he is.. I hope he continues whilst he still thinks he can.

Yes Hewitt is a great competitor. Maybe it comes from being thrown on the big stage at a young age against seasoned pro's? His 5/6 year old son looks like he could be following in his fathers footsteps. A bit tough to face a 17 times slam champion in your first match. Federer was taking no chances and sneakily quick served him  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqD4sYmxcwo