Mens Tennis Forums banner

What Murray needs to surpass Safin and Hewitt?

7K views 116 replies 49 participants last post by  Johnny Groove 
#1 ·
Will he surpass Marat if he wins tomorrow? And what he needs to achieve in order to surpass Hewitt?
 
This post has been deleted
#2 · (Edited)
Safin? a FH? a BH? being handsome? charisma? born again :rolleyes:
 
#9 ·
Career-wise, he needs just one more Slam to surpass Safin:
-Both will have 2 Slams
-Murray's 6 (or more) finals > Safin's 4
-No world tour finals wins/Finals
-Murray is way more accomplished in Masters and smaller tournaments
-Olympic Champion
Safin has #1 ranking over him, which is clearly not enough.

Against Hewitt it will be a closer fight career-wise once Murray wins another Slam. Murray has more Slam finals and Olympic gold, but Hewitt is a 2 time Masters Cup champion, world #1, and has more titles (but most of them from small tourneys).

Doesn't matter though, because it's pretty NID that Murray will be better than both of them in a couple of years.
 
#16 ·
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.
 
#28 ·
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.
 
#17 ·
Yeh he'll definately surpass Safin if he wins tommorow.

IMO Andy's 8 MS titles >> Hewitts 2 MS and 2 Masters cups.
I think to clearly surpass Hewitt he needs 1 week at #1.
 
#21 ·
But Safins no 1 alone isnt enough. It was only 9 weeks ( i think) in total. Thats hardly sustained even that was only a few weeks at a time.

HE won less masters than Andy 5 vs 8
No Masters cup
No olympic medal
4 GS final to Andys 6
7 GS semis to Andys 12
15 titles to Andys 26 (if he wins tommorow)

Whereas Hewitt was #1 for 80 weeks, and won 28 titles, 2 Masters cups
Andy needs 1 WTF and number 1 ranking to surpass him.
 
#19 ·
Based purely on achievement: Provided Murray's career continues on it's current trajectory (i.e consistently reaching slam finals and occasionally triumphing, whilst winning at least 1 WTF and spending some time at No.1), over the next 3-4 years, then he'll easily surpass both Safin and Hewitt. Discussing talent and ability, and comparing era's for example, is another matter entirely.
 
#22 ·
Safin is so overrated on this forum as much as any Grand Slam champion. The way many people talk is as if he achieved what he could have achieved what he had achieved. Not taking anything away from him though as he had a great career regardless but from some comments you would think the guy won at least 5 slams.
 
#23 ·
He's better than both. Unfortunately, he's playing against much more difficult top players than either Hewitt or Safin had to deal with.

Players are judged relative to how they fared in their own era, so that works against Murray at this point.
 
#27 ·
If by "better than both" you were judging their peak game, Murray can't touch Safin. Safin and Hewitt had to deal with prime Fed. Hewitt was clealy hurt by that, if not he would have a few more slams or TMC. They also played when surfaces were different.
 
#33 ·
Safin and Hewitt had their success in times where there were less dominant players yes, but you have to take into account that conditions and diversity of surfaces were totally different at that point. If today's players played on surfaces like that there might have been a few more upsets the last couple of years, whereas Safin and Hewitt themselves would be hampered playing on today's surfaces.

At the end of the day comparing eras is tough. This era makes it harder to win a slam, but far easier to dominate if you CAN win due to the lack of diversity there used to be.

A second slam and #1 for Murray will take him past Safin and Hewitt. Hewitt is probably the most similar past player to Andy I can recall.
 
#35 ·
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.
 
#37 ·
I have said it before, but I think in 20 years we are going to look back and realise that the top players of the post-Federer era have won a lot more slams than the top players of the pre-Federer era. Therefore comparing number of titles is going to be a lot less effective way of comparing players.

Surface homogenisation is a big deal. Being a genuine contender at 3 or 4 slams a year is hugely different to being a genuine contender at 2, and it's going to start being reflected in the slam count.
 
#43 ·
Federer's decline began around 2010. Anything before that can be attributed to form fluctuation.

Safin and Hewitt peaked in conditions where upsets were much more prone to occur. Nowadays it's extremely difficult to beat a top 5 player even on a "hot" day because the conditions are simply too slow and conducive to defense.
 
#45 ·
Federer's decline began around 2010. Anything before that can be attributed to form fluctuation.
I'd agree with that. Although, I don't think his ability has fallen off the proverbial cliff, unlike some.

Half a step slower, struggles a bit more physically, few back problems, too.
 
#44 ·
The courts are very different now, they are slower. Murray wouldn't play the way he does now if he was playing back then. I still think he would have been successful, but his gamestyle isnt so suited to lightening quick courts. why? because big serving, S+V, and 1-2 punch tennis is not something that is natural for Andy and it certainly isnt unique, loads of guys in 90/s early 2000's played that way.

So it truly is difficult to say just HOW successful Andy would have been in another era.
 
#46 ·
The courts are very different now, they are slower. Murray wouldn't play the way he does now if he was playing back then. I still think he would have been successful, but his gamestyle isnt so suited to lightening quick courts. why? because big serving, S+V, and 1-2 punch tennis is not something that is unique to Andy, loads of guys in 90/s early 2000's played that way.

So it truly is difficult to say just HOW successful Andy would have been in another era.
Actually, most of Murray's best results have come on the fastest courts. People think his best surface is slow hard courts, but it really isn't.

The truth is that it's very difficult to compare even the two most recent eras, given the surface changes. Even trying to compare them qualitatively is a problem, since they thrived in different conditions.
 
#51 ·
Safin was very unlucky with injuries- missing 2003 season when he was probably favourite for the AO or a top contender, and then the injury in 2005 after Wimbledon. Despite his inconsistencies rotten luck robbed him of his chances to win more slams.

He ought to have won 2002 AO for sure. Johansson was a solid player but he wouldn't have won if Safin had turned up.
 
#52 ·
Hewitt had better tennis IQ, mentality, passing shots/lob and a better second serve.

Safin didn't have better volleys than Murray that's for sure. He arguably surpassed Murray in every other aspect except defense and return of serve.
 
#60 ·
I don't get this argument that the early-to-mid noughties was a harder time to win slams than the present. Yes, Federer was bloody good back then, but who else was actually comparable to Djokovic, Nadal & Murray and their respective levels presently? There were a bunch of bit-part slam champions back then such as Hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero, Gaudio, Johansson and Safin. Doesn't that just illustrate that it was not too difficult to sneak a slam or two in despite Federer's dominance?
 
#67 ·
You have a point but as has been illustrated before countless times in this thread, due to the court surfaces not being homogenized yet the aforementioned players were extremely dangerous on their favourite surface (eg - Roddick at Wimbledon, Ferrero at RG, etc). You still had to play at a remarkably high level to snatch a slam, relative to the era, racquet technology and surface prowess of the top players.

As for the thread question, Murray has to win another slam and spend some time as world number one. Will he do that? I think it's a resounding yes...
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top