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?
 
#69 ·
Hewitt's return, defence and lob were absolutely insane at his best. People forget how good he was at his peak. Injuries/burnout stopped him being competitive at the top longer, while Peakerer's stratospheric level of tennis kept him away from the slam trophies.
 
#75 ·
Reality: One more slam, WTF and World number 1 (Safin is taken to the cleaners by one more slam IMO)

True fans of tennis on MTF: a time machine, a charisma upgrade and a facelift
 
#77 ·
Hewitt had a better career than Safin.
 
#78 ·
achievement wise if he wins tonight he'll pass Safin, however Hewitt is quite a while to go. QUITE a while. over a year at #1, year end championships, etc. those just make quite a big gap.

in favor of Marat, at least Murray will never have anywhere near the talent, and the second post on this thread made me laugh, haha, nor will he have the looks, you sir are quite correct
 
#80 ·
Invent a time machine and travel back to weak era(2004-2007).
 
#83 ·
1. Hewitt and Mugray have nothing in common. Hewitt is a counter-puncher, similar to Djokovic. They both are best controlling the baseline and redirecting the opponents shots DTL. Hewitt was more offensive and Djokovic has become more defensive since his miraculous stamina emerged, but comparing Mugray and Hewitt means you have no clue wtf you're talking about.

2. Mugray is a pusher and junkballer who occasionally is a shotmaker. It's tough to compare because his garbage game cannot exist except in the current era, but if I had to pick someone I would say he's a bit like Mecir (who was much more talented).

3. Mugray has no tennis IQ, that you think it's "debatable" (a word for I can't admit you're right) he's comparable to Hewitt is an insult to the senses.

4. Federer's decline started in 2007, it has nothing to do with results and everything to do with using your eyes to see his game. If you're only source is wikipedia your statements make sense. The only other explanation is Mugray's yellow teeth have blinded you and you're incapable of watching tennis. In that case I applaud the effort you must go through to post on a text-based internet forum.

5. Mugray has no forehand, poor passing shots, a horrible second serve, and a poor slice. It has nothing to do with flashiness and everything to do with consistency, and 9/10 his forehand is erratic or passive, his passing shots are predictable and have no follow up, his second serve gets worse as a match goes on if that's even possible, and his slice is only good if you've never seen a 1 handed player slice.

Hope this helps
 
#90 ·
hewitt for me was best player than murray in his peak....

he destroyed sampras in the USO`s final and he had a much better mentality than murray.

peak rusty was a grean great player but many people don`t remember that or others started to saw tennis with nadal or djokovic.
 
#92 ·
Statistically he probably needs one more major win. He is ahead on most other stats:

(Murray/Hewitt/Safin)

Titles: 25/28/15
GS Titles: 1/2/2
Masters Titles: 8/2/5

Win-Loss: 75.8/72.1/61.2
GS Win-Loss: 79.1/72.5/71.4
Masters win-loss: 70.3/65.6/58.2
Top ten win-loss: 55.9/47.3/49.5


Non-statistically, he will probably never be able to say that at any point in his career he was at that time the best player in the world while Hewitt and Safin could say that.
 
#105 ·
Statistically he probably needs one more major win. He is ahead on most other stats:

(Murray/Hewitt/Safin)

Titles: 25/28/15
GS Titles: 1/2/2
Masters Titles: 8/2/5

Win-Loss: 75.8/72.1/61.2
GS Win-Loss: 79.1/72.5/71.4
Masters win-loss: 70.3/65.6/58.2
Top ten win-loss: 55.9/47.3/49.5


Non-statistically, he will probably never be able to say that at any point in his career he was at that time the best player in the world while Hewitt and Safin could say that.

You keep saying the word "statistically", but you conveniently left out one of top two most important statistics to determine greatness: # of weeks at #1.
 
#94 ·
Marat and Hewitt will both have over Murray something which, for me anyway, is greater than just results: they both came out of the blocks fast and won Majors. And they beat the big player of that era, Sampras who while might have been past his peak was still winning Wimbledons. Unfortunately for Murray he did not have the mentality to beat Federer in his first couple of Major finals and it took him until he was 25, by which time the careers of Safin and Hewitt were about to hit the downward spiral due to injuries and developments in the game passing them by. For me this means that Murray has to get 3 Majors and number one to beat Marat and he needs 3 Majors and to finish a couple of years number one to beat Hewitt in order to make up for his earlier mental weaknesses.
 
#96 ·
And they beat the big player of that era, Sampras who while might have been past his peak was still winning Wimbledons
They didn't beat him at Wimbledon and Murray had to beat Djokovic for his current major win.

he needs 3 Majors and to finish a couple of years number one to beat Hewitt
Seriously? That's a pretty high benchmark you've set there. I don't see how he could even do that without getting 4 more majors.
 
#98 ·
Murraytards saying he already surpassed them :facepalm:. Some people really started wathcing tennis last year. Hewitt was #1 two years in a row, won 2 slams and 2 TMC.

Safin beat peak Federer in a slam, Murray had to wait untill Federer was 30 to take a set and 31 to beat him. Only player to beat Peakerer in a non-clay slam and also demolished Sampras's in his backyard in a final, being 20 years old. Youngest player to reach #1. Something Murray never did. All of this having his career finished pretty much when he was 25 because of injuries (not to mention all of the injuries he suffered before that).
 
#109 ·
Safin is easily the most talented of the 3.

Murray is easily the most consistent of the 3. 2 slams and 1 OG in a far tougher era. Already the best career of the 3.
 
#110 ·
Agreed :yeah:

I don't buy the Hewitt has weeks at #1 argument. I mean no offense to Hewitt, but he was the textbook transitional champion, while Andy had to win all his titles in a ridiculously competitive era. Even ignoring the era argument, the only records that really matter in tennis are the titles you have at the end of the day and IMHO

Andy's USO + Wimby + 1 OG + 9 Masters > Hewitt's USO + Wimby + 2 WTF + 2 Masters
 
#113 ·
Murray's young career was when Nadal reached his peak early (22ish) and Fed was in his peak. No chance of number 1. These 2 will be the main GOAT contenders alongside Laver once they're done.

Then when Fed started to age, Djokovic emerged with unreal consistency, 5 slams, 3 semis and 4 finals in the last 3 years...amazing consistency and taking the number 1 ranking from a fit and in form Nadal in 2011, something Federer could never regain without Nadal being injured. That's a testament to Djokovic's greatness. He's also the AO goat and a future tier 1 great...very likely to break into double figures for slams.

Being number 1 now is fucking ridiculous. The 2 guys at the top have 12,000 plus points. When was the last time 2 tier 1 greats dominated the game like this? Fed and Nadal 07-09. Would a peak Safin or peak Hewitt have a chance of even being top 2 in times like these? All reasonable fans of the game know the answer.

Hewitt was 80 weeks at number 1. During this 80 week reign. During a consecutive year and a half of being number 1, Hewitt won 2 slams and reached 2 semis. That was his best career period really. Outside of that, he was a losing finalist twice and had a couple of semis. His level of play in 05 was the most consistency he's ever shown...3 GS finals. Murray in the last 2 years alone has 2 GS, 2 losses in GS finals to better quality oppositon+ a semi+ the gold. In Hewitt's era, 100% Murray would have made number 1. Safin is far too inconsistent to even discuss, biggest waste of talent in history. Should have been the one challenging Federer consistently...had the game for it anyway.

One more slam and there's no comparison really, he's already had a better career than Hewitt. Hewitt had 80 weeks at number 1. Djokovic has 100. Nadal has 115. That's close right? What the fuck does that tell you? Djoker and Nadal are tennis legends 17 trillion light years ahead of Hewitt in every way, but their reigsn at number 1 indicate and equal level of dominance...look at what Nadal had to do to get to number 1 first time...beat Federer senseless in the FO, beat the grass goat and his 65 match winning streak on grass and gain Wimbledon, while making 2 hardcourt semis all whilst being 22. In 2010 he won 3 slams to regain it. Djokovic beat Nadal senseless in 2011 and had the greatest year barring Fed's 06 in the last 2 decades...the quality at the very top of tennis has been of a different level since 07-08 onwards. (2010,2009 channel slam being the exceptions)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hensafmurrafter
#115 ·
I'd rather have Murray's career than the other two but it is still close.

As for no.1 there is a chance, if murray remains healthy, in 2/3 years time if Nadal finally declines (perhaps?!) and Djokovic has a off year because the rest of the competition is so weak. Murray needs to put it all together for a year to get to no.1 which he never does, if he combined 2012 and 2011 he might be close, he needs to do better indoors though, and obviously on clay, although 2011 wasn't bad, SF at Rome, Micky Carlo and French which is probably the best he can hope for. Never understood why he never has done better at Madrid though, would have thought that would be his best clay event.

Looking good and healthy from what I've seen, hopefully the increased power following back surgery has enabled him to reduce his bulk. If what he says about the injury is true and it really was hampering him, and he comes back 100% you never know.
 
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