Who Has The Better Career Resume? Hewitt Or Murray?

Hewitt has won 2 slams (Wimbledon and the US Open) and 2 Masters Cups (now known as the WTF). He has 30 singles titles in all. He was ranked number one for 80 weeks (which is the 10th longest period in ATP history). He also won a slam in doubles (US Open) and has been part of a winning Davis Cup team twice.

Murray has won 2 slams (Wimbledon and the US Open). He has won 31 singles titles in all. He was ranked number two for 15 weeks.

Murray has 9 masters titles to Hewitts 2. Murray also has an olympic gold and his home grand slam. He also made more slam finals. Hewitt burned brightly for 2-3 years but then dropped off. Murray has stayed more consistent but not as peaked. They both have an impressive resume, and trophy's the other one cant claim to.

Not sure, Murrays wins, because of where they are, are probably more memorable than Hewitts

Hewitt's 2x WTF wins and World No.1 status should over shadow the rest of the Murray's achievement, so at this point of time Hewitt wins hands down, so Murray has to do one more slam to release himself out of this 2 slam club.

But Murray could well be the only Multi Slam winning champion to have never tasted the world no.1 status, LF did any body else had such recognition?

Did Brugera ever reach number 1?

temporary21 wrote:Did Brugera ever reach number 1?

I opened a separate topic for it.

Murray. Next question.

Murray edges this.

He has more slam finals.

He has more Masters Titles.

He has an Olympic Gold Medal.

He is in the rather exclusive club of reaching at least the semi of each slam in a calendar year (unlike Hewitt).

He has stitched together a much longer stretch of slam semi/quarters on the bounce than Hewitt has managed.

For Hewitt you can say:-

He has won WTF twice to Murray's none.

He has been World No.1 unlike Murray.

That is about it.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Murray edges this.

He has more slam finals.

He has more Masters Titles.

He has an Olympic Gold Medal.

He is in the rather exclusive club of reaching at least the semi of each slam in a calendar year (unlike Hewitt).

He has stitched together a much longer stretch of slam semi/quarters on the bounce than Hewitt has managed.

For Hewitt you can say:-

He has won WTF twice to Murray's none.

He has been World No.1 unlike Murray.

That is about it.

Slam finalists are forgotten. Stringing together semi appearances or even quarters can't compare with being the best over a period of time. Borg only managed to be the best for 29 weeks more than Hewitt and Agassi for only 21 more weeks. You are being very dismissive of Hewitt.

hawkeye wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Murray edges this.

He has more slam finals.

He has more Masters Titles.

He has an Olympic Gold Medal.

He is in the rather exclusive club of reaching at least the semi of each slam in a calendar year (unlike Hewitt).

He has stitched together a much longer stretch of slam semi/quarters on the bounce than Hewitt has managed.

For Hewitt you can say:-

He has won WTF twice to Murray's none.

He has been World No.1 unlike Murray.

That is about it.

You are being very dismissive of Hewitt.

I said Murray edges this - how do you define that as me being very dismissive?

Also since you created this topic I have to think you must think it is very close as well otherwise why do it?

Being #1 is hugely, massively important. It means you're the best player on the planet. There's nobody above you.

I can't see how Andy tops Lleyton considering that, it's gigantic.

I'm actually surprised to see how close they are, I never would've guessed that Hewitt has won 30 titles - he's had a better career than I remembered.

Jury's still out for me. Murray has been more consistent and with tougher competition, but BB is right in that #1 is huge. If Andy reached the peak for even one week, it'd easily be enough to give him the nod.

Instinctively I might give it to Murray, though Hewitt was a brilliant player at his best.

bogbrush wrote:Being #1 is hugely, massively important. It means you're the best player on the planet. There's nobody above you.

I can't see how Andy tops Lleyton considering that, it's gigantic.

That stat is very misleading though. I mean Hewitt's spell at No.1 was before Federer, Nadal and Djokovic all had monstrously dominant spells in the sport when Murray has come to the fore. I do not want this to go down an era avenue but it is an undeniable pertinent point and dilutes the strength of that stat for Hewitt so you need to look at what else he has over Murray and the answer is very precious little. Even if we delve into wins percentage at the slams then  Murray beats Hewitt by 16% at the Australian Open, Murray beats Hewitt by 10% at the French Open, Murray beats Hewitt by 10% at Wimbledon and Murray beats Hewitt by 2.50% at the US Open.

If someone wishes to offer up stats that favour Hewitt then I am all ears.

And before I get chewed up for this post I do think it is very close between the pair indeed and it may very well take another slam win from Murray to convince a lot of posters on here and no amount of more slam wins to convince hawkeye.

Very little between them but I'll say Hewitt.

Murray may actually be the better player but Hewitt made hay before the Federer juggernaut arrived, so his resumé is a little better.

There was a time the number 1 ranked player meant something when the players were all conquering before them.

Then Muster, Rios, Rafter and Moya happened and it lost some prestige and value, until Federer arrived.

Interesting question.

The question being "who has the better career resume?" means I have to side with Hewitt, just. For me, Hewitt had a period where he dominated the sport, to an extent (decent spell at n°1). Yes, arguments can be made re the era, but to me Hewitt's weeks at n°1 outstrip the fact that Murray has had a more consistent (generally) career, and has more Masters (and an OG). For me the measuring stick goes slams -> n°1 for a period -> Masters/WTF -> OG/slam finals/YE n°1 -> other tournaments/general consistency, or something along those lines.

If the question were "who's the better player?" then my answer would be a faily clear "Murray" (reasonably close again, but fairly clear-cut IMO). But that wasn't the question, and to me Hewitt's resume is slightly superior.

Murray of course has time on his side, but I suspect being of the same age as Nadal and Djokovic, and his lack of clay-court prowess (combined with the all-round excellence of the other two), will mean he's unable to reach n°1. Another slam for Murray would tip the balance in his favour...

Hewitt edges it for the moment in my books. Sadly the numerous operations took their toll and he was basically finished by age 25.

I think Hewitt because world no 1 and WTF and Davis Cup.

Hewitt did reach a very high level in winning Wimbledon (which he did easily) and in the Davis Cup a year or two later, but what you can say for Murray is that for a high level over a number of years, like 4-6 years, he is ahead.

However Hewitt for me.

Nice changeup of topic.

Fairly close but I would say Hewitt, with a bit of a margin even. They both have a couple of slams but Hewitt's #1 ranking is a big plus. Andy's advantages are in less important stats.

Andy still has time on his side. If he were to win a couple of more slams, I would have him ahead even if he never gets to #1. With one more slam, I would have them about even.

temporary21 wrote:Not sure, Murrays wins, because of where they are, are probably more memorable than Hewitts

What do you mean?  "Wimbledon and Flushing Meadows" instead of "Wimbledon and Flushing Meadows"?  Or "two years ago" instead of "13 years ago"?  Or something else?

Murray has clearly had the better career than Hewitt. The fact is he has 450 percent more masters wins. Has spent many more weeks in the top 5 and top 10 than Lleyton Hewitt has. Has played in more grandslam finals and probably still has won more tournaments. Clearly the big deciding factor is slams. They both have two slams but Murray has had the much more consistently successful career and has had more success in other tournaments. I don't value Hewitt's number 1 ranking all that much as he accomplished it at the height of the weak era where even clowns like Roddick managed a few weeks at number one.

The world #1 swing is an interesting one. From previous discussions about this exact topic, it's been pressed that back then (2001 ish) Masters Series titles weren't exactly wanted with any particular gusto, with players really just peaking for Slams. Indeed this was used to explain the disparity in Masters titles between Hewitt and Muzza. The take away then, surely, is that reaching the world #1 would by extension be something of an incidental achievement? Looking at Murray's best twelve month rolling period (probably Week after Wimbledon 2012-Wimbledon 2013), it yielded two slams, an OG, a Slam final, and a Masters. Ignoring all other achievements, by my reckoning thats already 7000 points. I would be a little surprised if (obviously tweaking the points system to fit the generational change) that swing wouldn't have gotten him very close to #1 at some point between 2000-2003

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Being #1 is hugely, massively important. It means you're the best player on the planet. There's nobody above you.

I can't see how Andy tops Lleyton considering that, it's gigantic.

That stat is very misleading though. I mean Hewitt's spell at No.1 was before Federer, Nadal and Djokovic all had monstrously dominant spells in the sport when Murray has come to the fore. I do not want this to go down an era avenue but it is an undeniable pertinent point and dilutes the strength of that stat for Hewitt so you need to look at what else he has over Murray and the answer is very precious little. Even if we delve into wins percentage at the slams then  Murray beats Hewitt by 16% at the Australian Open, Murray beats Hewitt by 10% at the French Open, Murray beats Hewitt by 10% at Wimbledon and Murray beats Hewitt by 2.50% at the US Open.

If someone wishes to offer up stats that favour Hewitt then I am all ears.

And before I get chewed up for this post I do think it is very close between the pair indeed and it may very well take another slam win from Murray to convince a lot of posters on here and no amount of more slam wins to convince hawkeye.

The history books aren't interested in the weak era garbage, Hewitt was the best player on the planet for a period.

That's that.

bogbrush wrote:
The history books aren't interested in the weak era garbage, Hewitt was the best player on the planet for a period.

That's that.

Hi Bogbrush,

I noted one of your posts earlier, you might find it interesting:

bogbrush wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:

I agree, I don't think Nadal is anywhere near the player he was 4 or 5 years ago. Neither does Lydian when last he addressed the subject.

I find this strange as it was in 2013 that Rafa came back to No 1 . Making a comeback from a layoff over 7mth which was recognised to be the come-back of all time .. how many tournaments did he win ???so he must have been pretty good 4 or 5 years ago

Yeah but by 2013 Federer was non-existent. Being #1 then can't compare, and in any case I'm going with my eyes. Nadal was clearly better back then.

It Must Be Love wrote:Hi Bogbrush,

I noted one of your posts earlier, you might find it interesting:

I can almost taste the smugness!  

But it's a good point you make. It does lead a risky era debate, though...

It's a false point. Not for the first time your logic deserts you Amrit.

The question here isn't "who is better?", it's "who has the better resume?".

The #1 point is decisive on this second matter, and weak era crap doesn't apply.
In deciding whether Rafa was better then than now it's perfectly logical to assess situation.

Ok?

You really don't deserve me, but treasure it while you have it.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Being #1 is hugely, massively important. It means you're the best player on the planet. There's nobody above you.

I can't see how Andy tops Lleyton considering that, it's gigantic.

That stat is very misleading though. I mean Hewitt's spell at No.1 was before Federer, Nadal and Djokovic all had monstrously dominant spells in the sport when Murray has come to the fore. I do not want this to go down an era avenue but it is an undeniable pertinent point and dilutes the strength of that stat for Hewitt so you need to look at what else he has over Murray and the answer is very precious little. Even if we delve into wins percentage at the slams then  Murray beats Hewitt by 16% at the Australian Open, Murray beats Hewitt by 10% at the French Open, Murray beats Hewitt by 10% at Wimbledon and Murray beats Hewitt by 2.50% at the US Open.

If someone wishes to offer up stats that favour Hewitt then I am all ears.

And before I get chewed up for this post I do think it is very close between the pair indeed and it may very well take another slam win from Murray to convince a lot of posters on here and no amount of more slam wins to convince hawkeye.

The history books aren't interested in the weak era garbage, Hewitt was the best player on the planet for a period.

That's that.

Fair enough but as we are talking resume here I say make a list of each player's achievements in the sport, their records, their stats and present a complete picture of the two players and Hewitt is below Murray on most. Of course this is all just opinion-based but if we had a pack of Top Trumps cards then I'd take Murray's over Hewitt's.

Silver wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Hi Bogbrush,

I noted one of your posts earlier, you might find it interesting:

I can almost taste the smugness!  

But it's a good point you make. It does lead a risky era debate, though...

No technically Bogbrush is actually right, but I wanted him to say what he just said.

Talking of which...

bogbrush wrote:It's a false point. Not for the first time your logic deserts you Amrit.

The question here isn't "who is better?", it's "who has the better resume?".

The #1 point is decisive on this second matter, and weak era crap doesn't apply.
In deciding whether Rafa was better then than now it's perfectly logical to assess situation.

Ok?

You really don't deserve me, but treasure it while you have it.

Yes you're correct; this thread is about who has a better resume.
So comparisons of how hard it was to get to number 1, in terms of a resume, does not actually make a difference.

But the fact you astutely noted that it was easier to get to number 1 in 2013 than 4-5 years ago shows that your sharp mind has analysed different time periods and made a judgement (on the issue of Nadal getting better with time or not).
So therefore comparing different time periods, and analysing the competition at the top (whether in terms of slams, or getting to number 1); is as you point out ok when comparing quality of player, but not resume.
Not only do I deserve you Bogbrush, but I hugely treasure and value your points.

A pertinent point here as well was Hewitt claimed No.1 spot with 4,345 (or thereabouts in November 2001) whereas Murray had amassed 8,560 points on winning Wimbledon and that was only good enough for a No2 ranking. Presumably, there was a whole set of different ranking points available in 2001 compared to 2013?

Well titles speak volume on resumes and Murray has more. Case closed.

CaledonianCraig wrote:A pertinent point here as well was Hewitt claimed No.1 spot with 4,345 (or thereabouts in November 2001) whereas Murray had amassed 8,560 points on winning Wimbledon and that was only good enough for a No2 ranking. Presumably, there was a whole set of different ranking points available in 2001 compared to 2013?

This is the key point. Murray and Hewitt gathered similar points over the years. For Hewitt this was good enough to be number 1 for so long because there wasnt an all dominating force making 10,000 points. For Muzz it therefore wasnt enough. The number one weeks is a bit of a false stat in that regard. Hewittts 2 wtf wins are the most significant difference

Can someone do a ranking points conversion ?
Ie adjusted for the ranking points today, how many points did Hewitt get when he was number 1 ?

Its an interesting one, would hewitts best 2 years, that is 2001 and 2002 when he won slams have been enough to likely clinch the number 1 if that year happened in say 2009 or 2010?

Ok soo Hewitt has 4485 in 2002, that was his best I think. 1 slam win, 1 sf, 1 4rd and one 1st round loss for the slams

1 win and 2 ru in the masters, other stats I cant see yet.

Hed be top 3 I reckon easy, I dunno if he would have been above Nadal with his clay haul or Roger though.

Edit: Ok soo the best time would have been after Wimby 2002. He would have had 1 Masters win, 2 slam wins and a WTF with one masters RU too, and a 1st rnd and 4th rnd in the other 2 slams.

Thats similar what Murray had in 2013, and that didnt get him number 1. I reckon it would have been close, but Nadals freaky clay haul might have stopped him

CaledonianCraig wrote:A pertinent point here as well was Hewitt claimed No.1 spot with 4,345 (or thereabouts in November 2001) whereas Murray had amassed 8,560 points on winning Wimbledon and that was only good enough for a No2 ranking. Presumably, there was a whole set of different ranking points available in 2001 compared to 2013?

Yes, youre right. There was a fundamentally different points system.

I'm not sure how it converts but again the discussion is veering away from resume and into who was the better.

I think that doubling up points is reasonable for estimating? In which case, it would be 8,690 vs 8,560, less than a slam R16 between them.

In truth Hewitt may not have gotten to #1. Very few years recently have been won without one player dominating - 2012 and 2014 are good examples, partly due to different slam winners for each, but aside from that it's been one guy hogging the points at the top.

But yeah. I guess it isn't too pertinent to the raw stats as we look at them now.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:A pertinent point here as well was Hewitt claimed No.1 spot with 4,345 (or thereabouts in November 2001) whereas Murray had amassed 8,560 points on winning Wimbledon and that was only good enough for a No2 ranking. Presumably, there was a whole set of different ranking points available in 2001 compared to 2013?

Yes, youre right. There was a fundamentally different points system.

I'm not sure how it converts but again the discussion is veering away from resume and into who was the better.

Yes but also not fair in comparing No.1 ranking then as with different points system/scale it is impossible to judge one with the other as points earned then and now are so different so a different set of results then could get you to No.1 but not now. Slam wins have remained a constant, Masters events have remained a constant and WTF's have remained a constant so surely those stats are the really pertinent ones here.

OK question-

To those you think ranking points are important, and forget any era comparisons in this question (we can save those discussions for later):
Let's say Hewitt was number 1 in 2002 but he had less ranking points (even if you adjust for the way ranking points have changed) than Murray in 2012.
So then, what is more impressive; Hewitt's 2002 or Murray's 2012 ?
Forget competition or anything of the like; but if the year is more impressive than results- what difference in terms of something of actual substance does it make if the other points which you didn't win were shared differently ?

Well It Must Be Love lets look at their years:-

Hewitt in 2002:-

Australian Open Lost 1st Round

French Open Lost 4th Round

Wimbledon WON

US Open Semi-Finalist

1 Masters Title

Murray in 2012:-

Australian Open Semi-Finalist

French Open Quarter-Finalist

Wimbledon Finalist

US Open WON

0 Masters Titles

kingraf wrote:The world #1 swing is an interesting one. From previous discussions about this exact topic, it's been pressed that back then (2001 ish) Masters Series titles weren't exactly wanted with any particular gusto, with players really just peaking for Slams. Indeed this was used to explain the disparity in Masters titles between Hewitt and Muzza. The take away then, surely, is that reaching the world #1 would by extension be something of an incidental achievement? Looking at Murray's best twelve month rolling period (probably Week after  Wimbledon 2012-Wimbledon 2013), it yielded two slams, an OG, a Slam final, and a Masters. Ignoring all other achievements, by my reckoning thats already 7000 points. I would be a little surprised if (obviously tweaking the points system to fit the generational change) that swing wouldn't have gotten him very close to #1 at some point between 2000-2003

In fact, in Hewitt's best season he didn't crack that point total KR, and excellent post. You look at Hewitt's best season and it was 1 slam and 2 masters, six tournament wins and 61 match wins. From the period after the rise of Roger, Rafa, and Novak that kind of season if you were lucky would get you the #3 ranking.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well It Must Be Love lets look at their years:-

Hewitt in 2002:-

Australian Open Lost 1st Round

French Open Lost 4th Round

Wimbledon WON

US Open Semi-Finalist

1 Masters Title

Murray in 2012:-

Australian Open Semi-Finalist

French Open Quarter-Finalist

Wimbledon Finalist

US Open WON

0 Masters Titles

In 2002 Hewitt won 1 Master and 1 WTF. Try your best next time........

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well It Must Be Love lets look at their years:-

Hewitt in 2002:-

Australian Open Lost 1st Round

French Open Lost 4th Round

Wimbledon WON

US Open Semi-Finalist

1 Masters Title

Murray in 2012:-

Australian Open Semi-Finalist

French Open Quarter-Finalist

Wimbledon Finalist

US Open WON

0 Masters Titles

In 2002 Hewitt won 1 Master and 1 WTF. Try your best next time........

Try your best?? Eh? It Must Be Love wanted a comparison of the years Hewitt had in 2002 and Murray had in 2012 and I supplied it. And look closer and Murray reached three out of four slam semis winning one slam and runner-up in another whilst Hewitt won one slam and only had one other slam semi and a rather disastrous 1st Round defeat in Australia,

Jeremy Kyle, you don't need to be so rude with that tone.

CC- thank you; makes for interesting reading.

It Must Be Love wrote:Jeremy Kyle, you don't need to be so rude with that tone.

CC- thank you; makes for interesting reading.

Cheers IMBL.

What can we deduce from using rankings? Well transfer Hewitt's 2002 resume into 2012 and I would predict confidently he would not have reached No.1 and conversely Murray's 2012 resume transferred to 2002 and I'd say it would have got him to No.1. However, that is all supposition and is why No.1 ranking is not as reliable a stat as pure hard core results and titles.

Even if we forget the different competition they faced (which as Bogbrush pointed out earlier is key to analysing level/quality of a player), and look at the stats itself, I'm still not sure how we can defend having less points but higher rank is necessarily better.

If under the same ranking points system, Murray has more ranking points in 2012 than Hewitt did in 2002; but Murray's rank was lower simply because the rest of the points which he didn't win were distributed differently (something not really in his control)- does that really make Murray's 2012 worse ?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well It Must Be Love lets look at their years:-

Hewitt in 2002:-

Australian Open Lost 1st Round

French Open Lost 4th Round

Wimbledon WON

US Open Semi-Finalist

1 Masters Title

Murray in 2012:-

Australian Open Semi-Finalist

French Open Quarter-Finalist

Wimbledon Finalist

US Open WON

0 Masters Titles

In 2002 Hewitt won 1 Master and 1 WTF. Try your best next time........

Try your best?? Eh? It Must Be Love wanted a comparison of the years Hewitt had in 2002 and Murray had in 2012 and I supplied it. And look closer and Murray reached three out of four slam semis winning one slam and runner-up in another whilst Hewitt won one slam and only had one other slam semi and a rather disastrous 1st Round defeat in Australia,

I think you didn't get it....So I'll try again: in your comperison you din't include one of Hewitt's highlight for year 2002 which was his win in the Masters finals. So please get your facts right!!

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well It Must Be Love lets look at their years:-

Hewitt in 2002:-

Australian Open Lost 1st Round

French Open Lost 4th Round

Wimbledon WON

US Open Semi-Finalist

1 Masters Title

Murray in 2012:-

Australian Open Semi-Finalist

French Open Quarter-Finalist

Wimbledon Finalist

US Open WON

0 Masters Titles

In 2002 Hewitt won 1 Master and 1 WTF. Try your best next time........

Try your best?? Eh? It Must Be Love wanted a comparison of the years Hewitt had in 2002 and Murray had in 2012 and I supplied it. And look closer and Murray reached three out of four slam semis winning one slam and runner-up in another whilst Hewitt won one slam and only had one other slam semi and a rather disastrous 1st Round defeat in Australia,

I think you didn't get it....So I'll try again: in your comperison you din't include one of Hewitt's highlight for year 2002 which was his win in the Masters finals. So please get your facts right!!

Oh sorry that is correct and I note you do not point out I omitted Murray's Olympic Gold Medal .....I wonder why??

In 2002 there weren't the Olympics if I remember correctly?? So in your comparison you want to include an event that Hewitt did not have any chance to play and that at that time did not even yield atp points, if I remember well........But do go on it's only internet chitchat afterall.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:In 2002 there weren't the Olympics if I remember correctly?? So in your comparison you  want to include an event  that Hewitt did not have any chance to play and that at that time did not even yield atp points, if I remember well........But do go on it's only internet chitchat afterall.

Yes and that just re-iterates the point I am making here about the reliability of using rankings as the benchmark. The only constant are hardcore results and titles - in my opinion. And merely going on premise of slams then Murray's 2012 was better than Hewitt's 2002 so we know Murray garnered more points from the slams in their comparitive years. Point being that (and since points scale has changed over the course of time) it is pretty fair to see that Murray's 2012 compared very well against Hewitt's 2002 but never got him to No.1 like Hewitt did. Is that down to him having a superior resume of results? No. It may afford Hewitt a better resume (in some people's eyes) but that is what is being debated here.