How can you compare Safin and even Hewitt to Murray?
Firstly, Safin and Hewitt were during their primes when surfaces were diverse, but becoming homogenised. Murray plays in an era where everything suits him. You can say Murray plays his best tennis on faster surfaces, but it's not as simple as that. If there were varied surfaces, Murray would have to face a tour of varied styles, on top of being more prone to being blasted off the court by a hot player. And this is without having to adjust to the surface itself.
Then we have the fact that Safin was genetically predisposed to being someone who wouldn't challenge consistently for Grand Slams. No man before or after Safin of his stature has achieved what he has in the game. To avoid writing an essay on the subject, try coming to your own conclusions from this. Then we have countless injuries. In 2001, Safin suffered elbow and primarily back problems that hampered him through most of the season and when he was fully fit, had no rhythm nor confidence. In 2003 he suffered a wrist injury which ruined his entire season. In 2005 he suffered the injury which made him a mediocre player. The Australian Open was his last title, just turning 25 years old.
To achieve what he did during the matter of 4 seasons says it all.
And in my opinion, Murray has a massive physical advantage over Hewitt which is the only reason he can even be considered in the same breath as him.
If we're talking about achievements here, then you wouldn't need to start a thread about it. But if we're talking ability, then these variables need to be considered and are very much valid.
This is funny. So we're penalizing players for being athletically gifted? Should we start handicapping our judgements based on natural talent, too?
We could take this to its logical conclusion and discredit players entirely based on the fact of determinism.