Murray and Hewitt are both multiple slam winners, Hewitt was number one twice as long as Murray was.
Tennis 2018
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Murray and Hewitt are both multiple slam winners, Hewitt was number one twice as long as Murray was.
What has Sampras and Agassi being dominant in 1998 and Federer turning pro then has got to do with this argument? Sampras only played him once and lost in 2001. Agassi's only slam win vs Federer was in 1999 or something. So how did these two being dominant in 1998 stopped Federer? Was he beating everyone else in slams immediately after turning pro only to lose to these two?
And murray has made 3x as many grandslam finals, 5x as many semi finals. The fact that lleyton Hewitt ever was a world number 1, gives away a lot about that era.
They are in the same category and will be remembered as such. Putting Murray in the same echelon as Federer/Nadal/Djokovic - players who have each won 12 ore more slams is beyond laughable. Murray isn't even in the Lendl/McEnroe/Becker/Edberg category, which would put him two entire level below the Fed/Rafa/Novak category.
It shows that the Tennis world wasn't in a vacuous, talentless free fall just because Nadal wasn't there to play Federer. There were very good and great players whose careers overlapped one another in much of the early part of Federer's career. And even when Federer won his first slam in 2003, Nadal because he was a fast burner at an early age, was right there with him a year or two later.
Having watched both play, Hewitt is nowhere as good. He won't have got into top 5, never mind being top or winning a slam had he played in last decade. I mean the guy is born in same year as Federer and is a has been since 13-14 years. Compared to Murray who won 3 slams in toughest era. Hewitt has total 15 appearances in QF or higher. Murray has 31 and reached 14 consecutive QF. That's consistency and when field was toughest.
Hewitt winning two slams in fact is prime example of how mediocre the field was
Nadal was a clay court specialist at start of career. He got better everywhere as career progressed.
Career overlapping is pointless unless players are playing each other. Federer never played Sampras in 90s for it to have any impact.
@Raoul you really should read the england had an easy group narrative thread, will find some kindred souls in there.
Having watched both play, Hewitt is nowhere as good. He won't have got into top 5, never mind being top or winning a slam had he played in last decade. I mean the guy is born in same year as Federer and is a has been since 13-14 years. Compared to Murray who won 3 slams in toughest era. Hewitt has total 15 appearances in QF or higher. Murray has 31 and reached 14 consecutive QF. That's consistency and when field was toughest.
Hewitt winning two slams in fact is prime example of how mediocre the field was
History only cares about results and accomplishments, not "the field was weak when x player played". No one remembers the so called weakness of fields in generations past and this won't be any different. If a player generates slams, overall ATP wins, number one rankings, etc that is something tangible that can will be remembered.
Everybody who really has interest in a sport considers all aspects than blindly shouting something ignoring evidences to contrary.
Keeping aside the mediocre field of early 2000s which elevated likes of Hewitt and Roddick, do tell me facts which make both same level of players. Murray, 15 more ATP titles. One more slam. 16 more QF or more appearances in slams and we are not yet done with Murray. From 2006 onwards, Hewitt reached one QF. His age then: 25. We can safely say he found his level when field became tough.
In some cases you do and the Hewitt vs Murray comparison is a good one. You ignore the context and the picture is misleading.
I hope this Isner - Anderson match drags on so I can get home to see most of the Nadal Djokovic match.
They aren't going to have the identical stats, but they will be remembered in a similar category. Hewitt was number one for twice as long as Murray which should offset any concerns regarding having won one less slam. Looking at the broader picture - Murray is clearly not good enough to be regarded as in the McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Agassi, Edberg, Wilander category, much less laughably get included into the Federer/Nadal/Djokovic one.
This is going to be an Isner Mahut repeat. At least the final won't clash with the world cup final
Yeah like how many times a player beat another, number of grand slams won. Not intangibles like number of weeks a player was ahead of the likes of roddick,etc.
BREAKING NEWS: We have a break in these breaking news!
I wrote up an entire list of stats that are relevant in the goat debate on the previous page. Head to heads is one of many.
He's not in the same bracket as these guys. The big four title is simply a title that has been used for quite a while, because more often than not he was the closest to these guys consistently and has beaten each of them in big events. His consistency on tour also adds to that.
I think a bigger reason why he's not been at no.1 for such a big period of time is because he was competing against three all time greats
This is shaping up to be a repeat of the US Open final
Anderson. Serving for the set in a moment.
Well, now he has.
Think he's at around 110.
Think he's at around 110.
I'll be damned.
We have a second break. This is the day that will be sang about. Unreal.
We have a second break. This is the day that will be sang about. Unreal.
and ofc, Isner breaks too. this torture is going to last forever. feck off!
He is not at level of other 3 but his achievements and consistency in era of these 3 show how he is certainly lot better player than likes of Hewitt. Nobody has put him ahead of Agassi or McEnroe either. The big 4 term is about the consistency and dominance of these 4 together for extended period. Murray of course was at level below these three and hence so many finals losses. Why the great Hewitt couldn't reach those QF and higher stages? Why at no stage he had consistency that Murray had? Answer is simple. Because he was never that good.
They should have started this match yesterday.
Anderson the first person to break Federer's serve too.
As a Nadal fan, I'm not sure who I'd prefer. Isner has the better serve but Anderson has the experience of a grand slam final. I think maybe Nadal will fare better vs Anderson.
That's not something that will be remembered in time. The only thing that will be remembered are the actual accomplishments, not the era they played in and why random fan x things player y had more or less competition during a particular period. We don't for example look back at Laver's career and wonder if he wouldn't have won 11 majors and 2 single year grandslams if he had the likes of Nadal, Djokovic and Murray playing alongside him at the time. We instead look back at Laver as being one of the all time greats.
Because Laver was one of the greats. Hewitt on the other hand is inconsistent one-dimension player who found his level as stats show. Murray will be remembered as a consistent and v.good player below the top level. Hewitt, a level below Murray.
They really arent, most people wont be concerned with that at all.
That's correct - most people are interested in slams alone. But if you want a more comprehensive deep dive then you have to consider how good they were on all surfaces, how many tournaments they won throughout their careers, and for how long they were at number one.
I'd prefer Anderson and I think Djokovic would be the same, but they both pose the same threat, so I'm not sure it matters too much.
Murray will have to do considerably more be remembered a clear level above Hewitt, as he's clearly not done enough to be regarded in the McEnroe, Connors, Lendl et al level.
He has already done enough.
Yeah, their serves are a big threat.
Clearly not. Let him win 5 slams then we can have the beginnings of a discussion to include him in that group.
I am not including him in any group. I am putting him above Hewitt. You by default are assuming that it means Murray is at level of McEnroe, Agassi, Lendl etc.
I think he done enough to be above Hewitt. His consistency in slams and also in Masters 1000 titles.
He has 14 Masters 1000 titles, (no.5 of all time) whereas Hewitt has 2.
When judging Murray, you can't just ignore the fact he's played alongside 3 all time great.
ffs this match can go on for eternity. Nadal Djokovic can also carry on for long time and there is slight risk that it may not finish today, especially if this match goes into 5 sets.
- Status