Yeah, Murray played prime Federer as well. The difference is that he actually earned a few wins, despite being a shadow of the player he is now.
Let's be clear. Federer's decline has been overstated. People were arguing that he was past his peak by the age of 25, simply because he started to lose because the top players improved.
And don't even get me started on how overrated Safin is.
I think Andy is an evolved version of Hewitt. Similar strengths, but he is more athletic and has more weapons.
The issue of surfaces is the one thing that prevents a proper comparison of the two eras.
Definitely can't agree on IQ. I think you'd be in the minority on that one. Mentality, yes. Passing shots? Maybe. That's very close, though. Second serve? That's the only major thing Hewitt has over Murray.
Murray is a better mover. Backhand is debatable, unless you're only talking about it as an offensive shot. The same goes for the forehand. There are far too many elements to consider when judging individual strokes.
For example, did Safin have a better slice, did he have a better defensive forehand, and so on? The issue of his consistency makes it almost impossible to compare him to other players, since we're talking about a player who was close to unplayable at his peak, but he so rarely hit that peak.
Fuck, missing UFC because of this discussion.
You've been hiding all this time as the #1 fangirl. Sadly you'll get away with this because most people here didn't watch Hewitt/Safin or even Federer in their primes, but a quick reality check. You're truly delusional.