Murray reminds me a lot of Hewitt in his prime [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Murray reminds me a lot of Hewitt in his prime

abraxas21
01-29-2010, 12:37 PM
I guess it can be argued that Murray has more variety in his game but his overall kind-of-pushing style and intelligent tactical mindset are pretty similar to what Lleyton used to be, imo.

Even his "come on" are getting kind of similar although I've got to admit that Hewitt's come on was far more annoying.

Action Jackson
01-29-2010, 12:39 PM
Not close in the way they play. Murray can hit a backhand down the line and Hewitt in his prime faced big servers on faster surfaces and loved using their pace against them.

Murray has more variation than Hewitt.

brithater
01-29-2010, 12:48 PM
I see some similaritiesas well when murray is counterpunching. Murray has more weopondry though and hence can change tactics a little better. Murray may be a little smarter. That one is hard to say. Hewitt had more alot heart and fight and probably a better counterpuncher overall. Hewitt was a more disciplined player. Hewitt had a lot more intensity as well. I would be suprised if Andy did not look up to Hewitt as a child wether he admits it or not. Both players at heart are defensive minded.

Jōris
01-29-2010, 01:43 PM
The biggest difference is that Murray takes the pace of the ball then counterattacks while Hewitt tries to play offensive and stays closer to the baseline. Another one Murray's court awareness and groundgame is better than Hewitt's.

brithater
01-29-2010, 01:51 PM
The biggest difference is that Murray takes the pace of the ball then counterattacks while Hewitt tries to play offensive and stays closer to the baseline. Another one Murray's court awareness and groundgame is better than Hewitt's.

It is very important that when you compare these two players you are not thinking in the now. Hewitt was a bloodthirsty terror in his prime. He made Nadal look tame as far as intensity goes. Nadal will get pumped up but Hewitt wound go into these Rage modes. You could see fire in his eyes. He was like some kind of Autralian Devil. The Hewitt we see now is like a comatose victim compared to the Hewitt of old. I miss those days. Everybody hated Leyton. Even the Aussies. He ate it up. Hewitt fed off hatred.

FairWeatherFan
01-29-2010, 01:57 PM
They are not alike, Hewitt is as pure a counterpuncher as they come whilst Murray is a complete player with more weaponry. Hewitt would like to have a game closer to Murray's now, that way he would have a chance to be competitive with Federer.

brithater
01-29-2010, 02:14 PM
They are not alike, Hewitt is as pure a counterpuncher as they come whilst Murray is a complete player with more weaponry. Hewitt would like to have a game closer to Murray's now, that way he would have a chance to be competitive with Federer.

Thats a little to simple. Hewitt had the ability to come forward and would do so often. He has exceptional volleys and his transition it good. The problem is the game has move forward into the courts more and become more powerful. Its a faster game. When leyton was in his prime was 10 years ago. Its a very different game now. Much, much faster. Its not as much a power thing as it it players all taking it early. Leyton has also lost a step due to age, injury, and getting married and having kids. This is one of the kisses of death for any professional athlete. Especially in tennis. Haveing kids usually signals the end of your career. Or at least the decline.

Andi-M
01-29-2010, 02:20 PM
Not a bad comparison. Hewitt is like a 'No frills' version of Murray. Same basic style, without the extra's.

Haelfix
01-29-2010, 02:21 PM
Hewitt was a more offensive counterpuncher. He'd stay neutral in a rally and really wait for the opponent to put something on a groundstroke or volley and then send it back with something extra on it (usually with pinpoint accuracy). That would produce a lot of winners for him.

Murray plays at times like that, but is little more passive, and is content to retrieve more and mix it up with some off pace junk balls.

Otoh, Murray has the capability (which Hewitt did not) to create his own pace and to actually hit offensive shots, (read he has more natural weaponry).

brithater
01-29-2010, 02:32 PM
One more thing I will say that Hewitt has over Murray is percentages. Hewitt is probably the greatest percentage player of all time. I have watched entire tournaments where Leyton does not make an error in shot selection. This is where I think his game is more disciplined. To beat Hewitt you had two options. Blow him off the court with insane power (safin like) or use angles and close (Rafter like). Hewitt never beat himself. Andy can let matches go sometimes.

I have always thought a good comparison to Murray is something more like Wilander in his prime on hard courts when he won the US Open. Just not as mentally strong. Not anywhere near Mats on clay either.

TennisLurker
01-29-2010, 03:16 PM
Hewitt was a more offensive counterpuncher. He'd stay neutral in a rally and really wait for the opponent to put something on a groundstroke or volley and then send it back with something extra on it (usually with pinpoint accuracy). That would produce a lot of winners for him.

Murray plays at times like that, but is little more passive, and is content to retrieve more and mix it up with some off pace junk balls.

Otoh, Murray has the capability (which Hewitt did not) to create his own pace and to actually hit offensive shots, (read he has more natural weaponry).

This post is right

brithater
01-29-2010, 03:22 PM
one more thing...

Hewitt - Overachieved
Murray - Underachieving...... so far, hes young. Then again so was Hewitt.

TennisLurker
01-29-2010, 03:27 PM
Murray is also bigger and stronger, Hewitt was just too lightweight to beat Fed.

If you look at the retrievers and counterpunchers who have had some success against Fed, Nalbandian, Nadal, Murray, even Guillermo Cañas who beat 2007 Fed two weeks in a row, they are all heavier and stronger than Hewitt. They all belong to the 80kilos+ club.

Quadruple Tree
01-29-2010, 03:29 PM
one more thing...

Hewitt - Overachieved
Murray - Underachieving...... so far, hes young. Then again so was Hewitt.

Is he really underachieving? Who was the last baseliner with such a weak forehand and second serve to win anything of note? I think he is doing pretty well considering those glaring weaknesses.

SaFed2005
01-29-2010, 03:31 PM
Murray is also bigger and stronger, Hewitt was just too lightweight to beat Fed.

If you look at the retrievers and counterpunchers who have had some success against Fed, Nalbandian, Nadal, Murray, even Guillermo Cañas who beat 2007 Fed two weeks in a row, they are all heavier and stronger than Hewitt. They all belong to the 80kilos+ club.

1. Canas and Nalby aren't really much bigger than Hewitt especially Canas.
2. Since when did Nalby become a counterpuncher/retriever?

brithater
01-29-2010, 03:41 PM
Is he really underachieving? Who was the last baseliner with such a weak forehand and second serve to win anything of note? I think he is doing pretty well considering those glaring weaknesses.

I understand where you are coming from. I believe he is smart enough to know how to cover his weak forehand. As long as he can move well and uses it smart hes ok. The second serve is a weakness but....once again the movement covers it. With andy his biggest strength is probably his head. His biggest weakness is also his head. I have always thought his tactics used in matches sometimes overcomplicate his game. Against Nadal it is a clear game plan.....attack and be aggresive useing his shots and movement in a variety of ways. He needs to learn to simplify sometimes when playing other opponents. If he does that watch out. I have seen far weaker forehands and second serves win majors and become #1. You can not however go out there and play second guess tactics if you are a tactical player...which he is, and he does. This tournament he seems to be getting it together.

TennisLurker
01-29-2010, 03:43 PM
Guillermo Cañas is 6 feet 1 and weights 86 kilos

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_0M_KdlZIAtk/SJs0aXg1Y6I/AAAAAAAAJac/ycajcMK5gBk/s400/canas.jpg



And yes, Nalbandian is for sure not a retriever, he is very offensive, but he also does a lot of couterpunching, much of his game is reacting to an attack with a much better shot.

Timariot
01-29-2010, 07:34 PM
Hewitt and Murray have only very superficial similarities. Hewitt uses his backhand to rally and pin his opponent, seldom attacking there. By contrast, he is always very aggressive with his forehand and frequently comes in if he can hit it inside the baseline and he loves nothing more than a short ball on his forehand, with his accurate topspin forehand he has one of the best putaways in the game, perhaps second only to Federer. By contrast, Murray either hits flat both sides, or then takes the speed off the ball. Hewitt seldom does either. Fundamental difference between Hewitt and Murray is that Hewitt always looks for opportunity to attack, whilst Murray is often content to push the ball and wait for opportunity to hit a flat, hard shot or simply wait until opponent gets bored and either makes an error or comes in. The biggest similarity between Hewitt and Murray is that they're both amazingly fast and have great passing shots. But that's the pretty much it.

As someone said, intensity of Hewitt when he was at his peak was unreal. He was so competive that every point opponent won was a personal offense to him. He lost much of that after 2002 which is one reason why this current, family-friendly version of Hewitt doesn't win much. Another problem of Hewitt is that lots of people figured him out and simply kept feeding him deep topspin which prevented him unleashing his attacking combinations.

Lots of people use term 'counter-puncher' without understanding what it means. For example, people said that Hingis was 'counter-puncher'. Wrong, Hingis was always an offensive player who wanted to control the points, she would usually lose when forced to defensive. Same is true with Hewitt.

SetSampras
01-29-2010, 07:39 PM
Guillermo Cañas is 6 feet 1 and weights 86 kilos

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_0M_KdlZIAtk/SJs0aXg1Y6I/AAAAAAAAJac/ycajcMK5gBk/s400/canas.jpg



And yes, Nalbandian is for sure not a retriever, he is very offensive, but he also does a lot of couterpunching, much of his game is reacting to an attack with a much better shot.

I see why people were wondering about Canas and the doping issue. :eek:



Well... Murray IMO has the potential to be a much deadlier player than Hewitt. Though Hewitt at his peak or prime when he could move and had a confidence was a big time counterpuncher who could trouble the attackers. But Murray obviously has the potential to be 10 times the matchup problem for Fed than Hewitt ever could be. I expect Murray to have a better career than Hewitt but... who knows. Murray still has to grab his first slam.. Hewitt grabbed two.


And yes Hewitt was a traditional counter puncher and a great one at that. Murray has the ability to be a a great aggressive attacker. He showed this at the USO against Nadal but he seems to want to resort back to his same old defensive style ways alot of the time

bad gambler
01-29-2010, 08:17 PM
Both great movers on the court but agree with most here that Murray has far more variety from the baseline than Hewitt in his prime. Hewitt is better at the net though.

Byrd
01-29-2010, 08:32 PM
Both great movers on the court but agree with most here that Murray has far more variety from the baseline than Hewitt in his prime. Hewitt is better at the net though.

That's debateable to be honest.

Clydey
01-29-2010, 08:36 PM
That's debateable to be honest.

I think it's fair to say that Murray is the English version of Hewitt.

serveandvolley80
01-29-2010, 08:40 PM
If he wins 2 slams like Hewitt, then start the comparison, otherwise, i would take prime Hewitt over Prime Murray.

Bashak
01-29-2010, 08:43 PM
Taylor Dent also said that Murray reminded him of like a Leyton Hewitt at US Open 2009.

it's in the sept 4th press conf here:
http://2009.usopen.org/en_US/interactive/video/index.html?promo=topnav&category=press

Sophocles
01-29-2010, 08:46 PM
I think it's fair to say that Murray is the English version of Hewitt.

English?

Clydey
01-29-2010, 08:48 PM
English?

Just a little callback to something Byrd said earlier. He said something along the lines of: "Come on, Andy, do it for England!" :lol:

Byrd
01-29-2010, 08:50 PM
I think it's fair to say that Murray is the English version of Hewitt.

Alright Hawkeyes, I take it you caught my other post :lol:

Sophocles
01-29-2010, 08:56 PM
Just a little callback to something Byrd said earlier. He said something along the lines of: "Come on, Andy, do it for England!" :lol:

Ah okay. Classic.

As has already been said, Murray has more variety and more ability to generate his own pace. Prime Hewitt thrived off the pace of others, and doing that successfully is completely dependent on your speed & movement, which Hewitt has lost.

Clydey
01-29-2010, 08:56 PM
Alright Hawkeyes, I take it you caught my other post :lol:

I see all.

Murray's Mint
01-30-2010, 12:15 AM
Hewitt in his prime was better relative to his conteporaries than Murray is now. The game has moved on though and Murray in absolute terms is better. There are similarities to their games and the fact that Hewitt wasn't at the time particularly seen as a pusher shows just how much the game has moved on. In the past a few players used to always unleash occasional rockets from the baseline. The new generation like Del Pot and Cilic though are now close to being able to do that every shot. Hewitt got washed away by a new generation and Murray wil have a similar fight. The only thing in Murray's favour is that the current new generation are unlikely to be able to execute their tactics as consistently as Fed and Nadal did.