I think Lleyton Hewitt is a superstar

First topic message reminder :

Here he is, way past it, ravaged by injury, his game no longer suited to the modern equipment, and he's giving the 2012 #1 a run for his money, taking a set.

Can all the people who knock both him, his achievements, and the era in which he was in his pomp please take note and get some perspective?

What a guy, never bowed even if he's beaten, a true successor to Jimmy Connors.

Tenez wrote:We have answered the question about talent many times. In tennis, it is essentially being a step ahead of the opponent. And for that it helps to see the ball quicker and take time from yuor opponent.

McEnroe, Mecir, Federer etc... are prime example. Or we coudl say Djoko is more talented than Nadal cause he takes the ball earlier and dictate. Nadal says he needs to take teh ball earlier too...but his talent prevents him from doing so...especially against players who take the ball earlier and hit harder.

Murray and Hewitt were both retrievers, grinders relying heavily on their court coverage. So discussing about how one was vastly more talented than the other is absurd.

This event, I've seen about 5 exquisite wrong footing touches from the Murray raquet, that only Federer - in today's game supasses. Gentle carressing of the ball so it drops dead on the other side, whislt rushing into the net at full speed, that make a person pleased to be a fan of the sport. Done so routinely, that you know that here is a rare talent

Yet Tenez continues to insult Murray by insuating that he (and Hewitt) have no talent. Otherwise why would it be absurd to compare them?

Delicously ironic, in Tenez's quest to castigate all things 'talent Murray', they succeed in giving Hewitt the biggest insult in this discussion and of course giving more evidence to the opinion that 2002/3 was a relatively poor Tennis time, skills wise. i.e. if Hewittt is basically a grinder -then how on earth did he win Slams in an era that Tenez thinks is stronger than now

I love Tenez!! Get's tied up in knots so tight it must hurt every time they try to sleep

banbrotam wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:So Roddick and Murray are 1-1 at the most important tournament. In 2009 it was Murray's to lose and he did. 2003 was just a year like any other. The players out there all wanted to win the same as they do this year.

Let's say your rather puzzling ignorance of their other matches is valid.

So Murray is 1-1, at Slams, with a player that has been a No.1 and won a Slam, with Murray's matches being when he still getting better and Roddick in his mid-20's?

Well if it is valid then Murray won when he hadn't reached his peak and Roddick one when past his. So we can't conclude anything from that. As for the other matches well... I wasn't trying to argue he wasn't good. I'm losing track of where this points came from something like me trying to respond to Roddick being No1 defining the strength of an era or at least a year.

This debate is going nowhere fast so here's a link to what the atp website thinks about Hewitt.

Thankfully it's just a touch pleasanter to Lleyton than some of the contributors here -

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/DEUCE-Tennis/DEUCE-Australian-Open-2012/Lleyton-Hewitt.aspx

it's entitled "street figher" and those who believe Andy's a better player just because they're comparing him to the 2012 Hewitt should take a look. You never know you might learn something!

Chazfazzer wrote:Hewitt was a good player in his prime, but Murray is better (and this is coming from someone who dislikes Murray). Hewitt's weapons were his consistency and court coverage, and Murray beats him in both of these categories. In addition, Murray has more power, a better first serve, and more court craft than Hewitt. Hewitt wouldn't have the weight of shot to hurt Murray; he would push him reasonably close, but would fall short.

The weight of Hewitt's shot relative to his day is probably about the same as Murray's as was his court coverage.

newballs wrote:those who believe Andy's a better player just because they're comparing him to the 2012 Hewitt should take a look. You never know you might learn something!

Who's assuming Andy's better because we're comparing him to the Hewitt of today. I'm not. I think Murray is slightly better than peak Hewitt, simply because he's got a better touch (IMO)

But then again I'd argue with anyone who thought that Leconte was worse than Stich. Mecir than Chang. In evaluating players we must look at who they beat and under what circumstances - not just their Slams

Nadal and Nole's Slams have umpteen times more worth, than Hewitt's, simpy because they had to beat an, at worst, slightly off peak GOAT to get them

However, this doesn't damage Hewitt's standing in the game any more than if the Top 3 suddenly retire and Andy wins the next 17 Slams (I wish )

I think people are getting carried away and reading things into what hasn't been said.

No. My amusement at this article was BB's strange admiration for Hewitt a poster who occassionally has a good word for Murray at best, rarely for Nole and never for Rafa!! Nothing against Hewitt, who I've always liked and was delighted when he beat the much over-hyped Raonic

Chazfazzer wrote:Hewitt wouldn't have the weight of shot to hurt Murray; he would push him reasonably close, but would fall short.

But Hewitt took a set off Djoko having played only 20 matches last year! Murray could not even take a set of Djoko in their final last year so I am not sure how you can say he "woudl run him close" yet know which side this macth woudl fall.

We can't even say who is going to win between Delpo v Federer tonight, let alone same age Hewitt v Murray trained under exactly teh same circumstances.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:The weight of Hewitt's shot relative to his day is probably about the same as Murray's as was his court coverage.

Indeed!

Tenez wrote:But Hewitt took a set off Djoko having played only 20 matches last year! Murray could not even take a set of Djoko in their final last year so I am not sure how you can say he "woudl run him close" yet know which side this macth woudl fall

So Hewitt's fresh then. Still I suppose it supports your physicality theory

banbrotam wrote:

No. My amusement at this article was BB's strange admiration for Hewitt a poster who occassionally has a good word for Murray at best, rarely for Nole and never for Rafa!! Nothing against Hewitt, who I've always liked and was delighted when he beat the much over-hyped Raonic

I'm a long standing admirer of Hewitts spirit and underrated game. A while back I said Djokovic was a new, improved Hewitt and social (another one enraptured by this Golden Era cr@p) went off into a fit over it. I still think it brought on his Fognini incident.

When Hewitt won those grandslams he did look untouchable and invincible for few months like how Djoko is now, I do remember the USO where he played a stunner and near perfect tennis to win everything and everybody on sight.

Sad part is that game didnt last and Hewitt have to run into Fedex in prime. Injuries , emotional trauma with Kim cjlisters all spoiled what otherwise would have been a golden career.

I see people have wanted to turn this into a Murray V Hewitt debate. The fact that some people go for Murray and some go for Hewitt is interesting and shows that it must be pretty close. Therefore, Hewitt in his prime in the early to mid-2000's won slams. Murray in the here and now has won no slams - a testament to the superior strength in depth of the comparitive years. Many other things demonstrate this to be the case as well. For example as I said in the early 2000's a wildcard won Wimbledon in his 30's (ship into a time machine and are Fed fans or anyone else saying he'd achieve the same now? There is no one from the early 2000's who predominantly dominated or went on to be highly competitive in the Fedal age. Why?

This is no slight on the players of that age as tennis is like any other sport as in players can't help the age they play in. However, their destiny is in their hands and not one player in that window of opportunity had the command, total brilliance call it what you will to take tennis by storm and dominate or even compete consistently at slam level beyond say 2006/07. Greats/legends/GOAT candidates do that. They dominate and carve their name in tennis history and for me there is no one that did that from 2000-2005. That does not mean to say I didn't enjoy tennis any less at that time just that I don't think the quality and quantity was as it is today.

CaledonianCraig wrote:That does not mean to say I didn't enjoy tennis any less at that time just that I don't think the quality and quantity was as it is today.

And the fact that Murray was not part of the picture then has little to do with it? I'd be curious to know when you started posting at 606.

Tenez don't just take my word for it - listen to the experts. Ask them who were the GOAT candidates from 2000 to 2005. What this has to do with Murray I will never know or my posting history on 606.

CC, you aren't allowing for relatively short-lived, but mercurial players. Hewitt, Safin, Roddick (have I missed anyone from 2000-2005 - Sampras, Agassi and Fed, I guess) may not be considered GOAT candidates, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their standard of tennis during their 2 or 3 years at the top wasn't 'worthy' of being No 1/winning slams etc. when compared to other players from other 'eras'.
Commentators/pundits were in raptures about Hewitt and Safin at the time, expecting them, from their level of play, to win many slams.
I remember when Hewitt won Wimby one TV commentator saying he could win 10 Wimbys. Not - oh, actually he's not that good, and he's playing in a 'weak era', I'm sure some really good players will come along soon.

Sampras and Agassi were in their prime in the 1990's I would say - that was their time. Commentators/pundits would be in raptures about Hewitt and Safin as they were the players of that time but like I say you don't here them mentioned in GOAT debates or potential GOAT lists. I have never said the likes of Hewitt were/are no good just that in his prime his achievements don't match up with the very best. A superstar - yes as the topic is called but amongst the top ten or twenty players of all-time then I'd doubt very much you'd find one player predominanty from the early 2000's at their peak in that list. That tells you it's strength compared to others.

Just because there were no GOAT candidates doesn't mean they didn't play GOAT tennis when their time came.

Potential GOAT's play tennis that stick in your mind and engrain themselves into people's memory banks and the true candidates do it over a number of years with consistency. That is why when GOAT debates come up you have the likes of Federer, Nadal, Borg, McEnroe, Sampras, Connors and Laver in it. Of course that is in my opinion but if others believe Safin and Ivanisevic etc are all-time greats of the game then that is their opinion but I know what the experts would say that they were great champions of their time and leave it at that.

Safin played good enough tennis to beat Federer at his best. Who cares if he didn't do it often as long as there was someone else to then its still tough. The closest I've seen Murray come to anything memorable was his USO semi in 2008.

Edited my previous post, I meant to say "just because there were no GOAT candidates..." instead of "just because there were..."

Longevity is an important GOAT consideration, but that doesn't (theoretically at least) mean 2 players in, say, 2001 can't play the best tennis ever played, split the slams 2 each and then fade quickly away through injury.
Which would leave 2001 with no GOAT candidate but an unbelievably high standard of tennis.
Personally I would judge year/era/whatever on how good the players were playing at the time, not whether they could play that well over 6 or 7 years.
Of course, it's different for judging the players themselves, in terms of their overall legacy.

Yes Julius but like I said if players do play lights out/GOAT tennis it sticks in people's minds for an eternity and I cannot recall anyone doing that at that time. Also players don't play GOAT-type tennis out of the blue then disappear off the radar in my opinion.

Nalbandian has disappeared off the radar.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes Julius but like I said if players do play lights out/GOAT tennis it sticks in people's minds for an eternity and I cannot recall anyone doing that at that time. Also players don't play GOAT-type tennis out of the blue then disappear off the radar in my opinion.

Hewitt and Safin do stick in my mind, some of the matches they played - more than say, Pat Rafter, winning the USO.

Goran played Wimby-winning tennis out of the blue (he was truly awful at Queen's the week before) and then disappeared after he won it.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Safin played good enough tennis to beat Federer at his best. Who cares if he didn't do it often as long as there was someone else to then its still tough. The closest I've seen Murray come to anything memorable was his USO semi in 2008.

Hear, hear. The Mad Russian was immense at his best, one of very few players to challenge the Fed in straight up hitting.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Nalbandian has disappeared off the radar.

And was he playing GOAT-type tennis? If so where are or were his slam wins? Like I said I have watched tennis for many many years and I cannot recall him playing GOAT-type tennis. Did Safin ever play GOAT-like tennis? Not that I recall.

Many people remember Safin's matches with Federer and Sampras. People even remember Hewitt's match. The only reason most of the recent GS finals are memorable is because they are recent.

It is not recalled in the same esteem or class as say Fed V Nadal Wimbledon 2008 Final for example and many encounters between McEnroe and Connors and Borg in my opinion and others I would say.

So Hewitts not worth rating above Murray because he doesn't match up to McEnroe and Borg?

How good do you think Andy is?

For the last time when did I ever say this was about Murray V Hewitt? I am still waiting for people to point to a player from 2000 to say 2005 who were at the peak of their game and who can be called true GOAT contenders. I mean it is like anything in life such as music some people will say the 60's were unparalleled with The Beatles, The Stones, The Beach Boys etc and others love the 70's for all its glam rock etc. People have preferences in everything and beliefs in who or what they think are the best. Tennis is the same - offer me a video tape of today's top tennis players or the top tennis players of circa 2000 to 2005 and there is only one winner for me if others choose differently that is their choice.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I am still waiting for people to point to a player from 2000 to say 2005 who were at the peak of their game and who can be called true GOAT contenders.

But as has been pointed out, just because they are not GOAT contenders - because they lack longevity - doesn't mean they weren't playing tennis at GOAT contender level for a shorter period of time. Hewitt was hailed as the future of tennis at one point. Safin at his best was awesome. The only thing they don't have is longevity.

So let us presume then (eeven though they didn't in my mind) play temporary spells of GOAT-type tennis then who else took up the baton to play sporadic GOAT-type tennis to fill in the gaps in that period.

Well it is easy to see that for CC tennis started with Murray. What's bizarre he that he cannot see the talent the previous eras had. I have said it many times, their talent was more obvious then than now. Now we certainly see an amazing phycal advance compared to the previous times but that maes talent much harder to see, if not close to irrelevant.

I just don't understand why it's so difficult for some people to admit Hewitt may just have won his GS titles in a more fortuitous window of opportunity than is available for Murray. I don't know why it's so difficult to admit he just may not have achieved what he did if he came through in Murray's circumstances.

In an attempt to play down the weak era theory, many overplay the invalidity of these comparisons a little to vehemently. And no one has yet answered my question about the Hewitt-Murray comparison: so you think Murray couldn't have beaten Nalbandian at Wimbledon or a horribly inconsistent, declining Sampras at the US Open.

Tenez you need to quit making assumptions about me and my tennis viewing. I have watched tennis from way back when Borg, McEnroe and Connors were locked in combat and all the periods since then and have seen many amazing talents (always had a soft spot for Jimmy Connors). I suppose for you tennis began when 606 opened up - well not for me.

mthierry wrote:so you think Murray couldn't have beaten Nalbandian at Wimbledon or a horribly inconsistent, declining Sampras at the US Open.

That's right - that is what I think. I'd love Murray to win a slam, and have been hoping he would for years and will rejoice if he ever does. But so far, he has simply lacked what takes, mentally more than anything, and I think that would have been the case whenever he played. I hope it changes this week!

And for those talking about Safin, I do think he was an overrated player. In raw ability and style, he's little different from a Berdych. I think people were a little too enamoured with his personality and volatile temperament and overcompensated with exaggerated views of his talent.

He's another player I believe is no better than Murray and I see Murray having a superior h2h.

I don't think there's anything real to admit. I'll admit he might have and then might not have but that goes for everything.

As for the question, I was hoping someone else would answer it... Sampras so horribly inconsistent that he was still making finals? He had a chance to beat a similarly horribly inconsistent Fed at Wimbledon in 2009 but didn't take it. If he made it to meet Sampras then it really depends which Murray shows up. Has he shown up to all 3 of his finals? Same goes with Nalbandian, depends which Nalby shows up. With Murray's talent he could have beaten Djokovic in his last slam final but he didn't.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Tenez you need to quit masking assumptions about me and my tennis viewing. I have watched tennis from way back when Borg, McEnroe and Connors were locked in combat and all the periods since then and have seen many amazing talents (always had a soft spot for Jimmy Connors). I suppose for you tennis began when 606 opened up - well not for me.

Have you seen Nadal's shots? Those loopy short balls? That won him 10 slams...cause his stamina and moving is amazing. If that is what you call a superior era, then fine but I can tell you you are missing on the immense shotmaking talents of the previous era. People who relied on amazing timing to make the game look easy like Safin, Nalbandian and Davydenko could.

And we can see that 90% of your posts are on Murray so I stand by what I say.

I post on various tennis forum thanks Tenez and I am here today discussing other tennis with Murray not in action. The fact I prefer to talk about Murray means what? After all a vast body of your stuff are concentrated and blitzkrieg tirades against Nadal. That sort of player bashing is not my scene thanks.

As for players of old I loved watching many players play with an array of talents so why does it pain you that none of them happen to be in the early 2000's. Just like you will find posters who do not like the serve dominated era but it floats other people's boats. It is called opinion which we are all entitled to are we not?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

mthierry wrote:so you think Murray couldn't have beaten Nalbandian at Wimbledon or a horribly inconsistent, declining Sampras at the US Open.

That's right - that is what I think. I'd love Murray to win a slam, and have been hoping he would for years and will rejoice if he ever does. But so far, he has simply lacked what takes, mentally more than anything, and I think that would have been the case whenever he played. I hope it changes this week!

So you believe Nalbandian is mentally stronger than Murray?

His highest level is higher than what Murray has shown.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:His highest level is higher than what Murray has shown.

Clearly!

mthierry wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

mthierry wrote:so you think Murray couldn't have beaten Nalbandian at Wimbledon or a horribly inconsistent, declining Sampras at the US Open.

That's right - that is what I think. I'd love Murray to win a slam, and have been hoping he would for years and will rejoice if he ever does. But so far, he has simply lacked what takes, mentally more than anything, and I think that would have been the case whenever he played. I hope it changes this week!

So you believe Nalbandian is mentally stronger than Murray?

No, I believe Hewitt is mentally stronger than both Murray and Nalbandian. I haven't seen from either Murray or Nalby the total package that is necessary to win a slam. I have seen it from Hewitt.

Tenez wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:His highest level is higher than what Murray has shown.

Clearly!

Nalbandian 5 Slam Semis Murray 8 Slam Semis

Nalbandian 1 Slam Final (Games Won 6) 3 Murray Slam Finals (Games Won 31)

Nalbandian ATP Titles 11 Murray ATP Titles 22

Nalbandian's Highest Ranking 3 Murray's Highest Ranking 2

Hmm...

break_in_the_fifth wrote:His highest level is higher than what Murray has shown.

That's an outrageous claim. When exactly has he shown this level? 1 or 2 Masters defeats of Federer and Nadal which Andy has done severally with some severe thrashings of both players included. Nalbandian is pretty much another Gasquet. So much hype for a pretty backhand.

Can you explain claiming Nalbandian has shown a higher level than Murray?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Tenez wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:His highest level is higher than what Murray has shown.

Clearly!

Nalbandian 5 Slam Semis Murray 8 Slam Semis

Nalbandian 1 Slam Final (Games Won 6) 3 Murray Slam Finals (Games Won 31)

Nalbandian ATP Titles 11 Murray ATP Titles 22

Nalbandian's Highest Ranking 3 Murray's Highest Ranking 2

Hmm...

Oh I see! this is you argument. Right good to know cause....let's go back to the original point of discussion:

Hewitt: 2GS Murray 0

Best ranking number 1...Murray number 2.

WTF 2, Murray 0.

So when it suits you you are comparing semis with finals....but when it doesn't you push it aside? nice logic!

Lol alright then Mthierry, Murray's highest level equals Federer's.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Lol alright then Mthierry, Murray's highest level equals Federer's.

That's an outrageous claim...etc.

Tenez wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Tenez wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:His highest level is higher than what Murray has shown.

Clearly!

Nalbandian 5 Slam Semis Murray 8 Slam Semis

Nalbandian 1 Slam Final (Games Won 6) 3 Murray Slam Finals (Games Won 31)

Nalbandian ATP Titles 11 Murray ATP Titles 22

Nalbandian's Highest Ranking 3 Murray's Highest Ranking 2

Hmm...

Oh I see! this is you argument. Right good to know cause....let's go back to the original point of discussion:

Hewitt: 2GS Murray 0

Best ranking number 1...Murray number 2.

WTF 2, Murray 0.

So when it suits you you are comparing semis with finals....but when it doesn't you push it aside? nice logic!

GSM Tenez

Stop being so insecure about Murray. He could still surpass Hewitt.