PDA

View Full Version : Hewitt vs. Blake at their best


PascalMariaFan
06-10-2008, 01:44 AM
Do discuss.

my_forehand
06-10-2008, 01:46 AM
Hewitt is a former No. 1, with 2 Grand Slams.

PascalMariaFan
06-10-2008, 01:54 AM
Hewitt is a former No. 1, with 2 Grand Slams.If Nalbandian and Hewitt played at their peak, Nalbandian would beat him 1 & 1, yet he has no grand slams.

This debate has nothing to do with achievement.

my_forehand
06-10-2008, 02:07 AM
If Nalbandian and Hewitt played at their peak, Nalbandian would beat him 1 & 1, yet he has no grand slams.

This debate has nothing to do with achievement.

Yeh? Then why didn't Nalbanidna 1 & 1 & 1 him when he had the chance? Didn't watch Wimby 2002, but shouldn't Nalbandian be playing pretty well to beat 6 other people ina Grand Slam? He won 6 games...:? Or was it because he was too tired to finish off Malisse quickly enough (got breadsticked)?

helloworld
06-10-2008, 02:12 AM
Hewitt is one of the toughest opponent in his prime. Nobody wants to play him. Only Roger has a clear edge against him.

westside
06-10-2008, 02:37 AM
Definately Hewitt.

Blake would get too impatient against Hewitt

zagor
06-10-2008, 02:44 AM
Hewitt in his prime(2001-2005) would beat Blake on any surface IMO and thier head-to-head record proves this.

Not fulltime player
06-10-2008, 03:42 AM
Hewitt, no doubt. When was Blake prime?, or is still to come?.

boredone3456
06-10-2008, 03:45 AM
I am a James Blake fan, but Hewitt in his prime would run James around the court. I think Blake would be able to maybe get a set off of him, but win, that would be pushing it.

beedlejuice22
06-10-2008, 03:47 AM
Blake's prime was probably around the 2006 season. Hewitt definetely would have beaten him in his prime when he was winning slams. No contest.

h7hugo
06-10-2008, 03:52 AM
Blake is no one compared to Hewitt...

daddy
06-10-2008, 05:24 AM
Hewitt vs Blake ? Lol

Out of form injured Hewitt can take out in form in prime Blake few times in 10 matches. In form in peak Hewitt ? Who is James Blake ?

Banger
06-10-2008, 07:10 AM
I think you guys are underestimating Blakes game at its best. I do agree that Hewitt would probably win if they played each other with their A games, but only because he is mentally superior to Blake. By no means would it be easy as some are suggesting.

sillymonkey
06-10-2008, 07:15 AM
I've always been a fan of Hewitt. He gets such a bad rap, but he's got alot of soul.
For me, Blake is boring.

crazylevity
06-10-2008, 07:16 AM
Blake and Hewitt at their best.....





















were both OWNED by Federer.

Arafel
06-10-2008, 07:17 AM
Hewitt no question. Hewitt was one of the best counterpunchers I've ever seen. Put the two against each other in their primes, watch Blake wind up and crush the ball as hard as he can and Hewitt take that pace and ram it right back down James' throat. It'd be funny.

TheTruth
06-10-2008, 07:39 AM
Federer and Blake were both owned by Hewitt when Hewitt was in his prime and winning grand slams from 1999 to 2003.
Hewitt still owns Blake 7-1, and was 7-2 against Roger until Roger's breakthrough. As a matter of fact Roger said it was the match with Hewitt where he was up two sets to one with a match point and Hewitt came back to beat him that helped him get his head together.

2007 ATP Masters Series Canada
Canada Hard R32 Hewitt W/O
2006 London / Queen's Club
England Grass F Hewitt 6-4 6-4
Stats
2006 Las Vegas
NV, U.S.A. Hard F Blake 7-5 2-6 6-3
Stats
2005 Australian Open
Australia Hard R64 Hewitt 4-6 7-6(8) 6-0 6-3
Stats
2003 World Team Championship
Dusseldorf, Germany Clay RR Hewitt 6-3 6-3
Stats
2002 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard R32 Hewitt 6-7(5) 6-3 6-4 3-6 6-3
Stats
2002 Miami TMS
FL, U.S.A. Hard R16 Hewitt 6-4 6-1
Stats
2001 Tokyo
Japan Hard S Hewitt 6-4 6-0
Stats
2001 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard R64 Hewitt 6-4 3-6 2-6 6-3 6-0

2003 AUS v. SUI WG SF
Melbourne, Australia Hard RR Hewitt 5-7 2-6 7-6(4) 7-5 6-1
2002 Tennis Masters Cup
Shanghai, China Hard S Hewitt 7-5 5-7 7-5
Stats
2002 Paris TMS
France Carpet Q Hewitt 6-4 6-4
Stats
2002 Miami TMS
FL, U.S.A. Hard S Federer 6-3 6-4
Stats
2001 's-Hertogenbosch
The Netherlands Grass S Hewitt 6-4 6-2
Stats
2000 Basel
Switzerland Carpet S Federer 6-4 5-7 7-6(6)
Stats
2000 Montreal / Toronto
Toronto, Canada Hard R64 Hewitt 3-6 6-3 6-2
Stats
2000 AUS V SUI 1RD
Zurich, Switzerland Carpet RR Hewitt 6-2 3-6 7-6(2) 6-1
1999 Lyon
France Carpet R32 Hewitt 7-6(4) 2-6 6-4

zagor
06-10-2008, 07:59 AM
Federer and Blake were both owned by Hewitt when Hewitt was in his prime and winning grand slams from 1999 to 2003

Disagree with that,Hewitt had most consistant results in slams in 2004 and 2005,if you take Federer out of the equation those would have been Hewitt's best years.The problem Hewitt had was that Federer entered his prime in 2004 and Hewitt couldn't beat prime Fed(prime Fed Vs prime Hewitt isn't even a close match IMO).

TheTruth
06-10-2008, 08:16 AM
Disagree with that,Hewitt had most consistant results in slams in 2004 and 2005,if you take Federer out of the equation those would have been Hewitt's best years.The problem Hewitt had was that Federer entered his prime in 2004 and Hewitt couldn't beat prime Fed(prime Fed Vs prime Hewitt isn't even a close match IMO).

Hewitt was winning and making strides in the beginning of his career. He was an early bloomer winning Adelaide at 16, and being the tour's youngest winner. He won the US Open at 20, or 21. He was an early bloomer and in his prime he had a 7-2 edge against Roger. 2003, or 2004 Hewitt was off the tour early in the year with chicken pox and missed a few slams. He has not been the same since. But, his prime didn't start when Federer reached his prime, his prime was before.

zagor
06-10-2008, 08:35 AM
Hewitt was winning and making strides in the beginning of his career. He was an early bloomer winning Adelaide at 16, and being the tour's youngest winner. He won the US Open at 20, or 21. He was an early bloomer and in his prime he had a 7-2 edge against Roger. 2003, or 2004 Hewitt was off the tour early in the year with chicken pox and missed a few slams. He has not been the same since. But, his prime didn't start when Federer reached his prime, his prime was before.

IMO Hewitt was still in his prime in 2004,it's just that he lost to an eventual champion in each of the 4 slams with Federer beating him in 3 of them(AO,Wimbledon,USO).He was having a great year but he couldn't beat Federer(because Federer reached his prime),for example in the summer before USO he won 2 tournaments,got to the final in Cinncinati,got to the USO final without losing a SINGLE set(he straightsetted Pim Pim in the semis who was coming off of a great win against a defending champion Roddick) but again couldn't handle Federer in the final(got double bageled).How many players can reach a slam final without losing a set(something Hewitt never did before or after in his career)while not being in their prime? My opinion is that Hewitt was still in his prime in 2004 but couldn't beat a prime Federer.

TheTruth
06-10-2008, 08:40 AM
IMO Hewitt was still in his prime in 2004,it's just that he lost to an eventual champion in each of the 4 slams with Federer beating him in 3 of them(AO,Wimbledon,USO).He was having a great year but he couldn't beat Federer(because Federer reached his prime),for example in the summer before USO he won 2 tournaments,got to the final in Cinncinati,got to the USO final without losing a SINGLE set(he straightsetted Pim Pim in the semis who was coming off of a great win against a defending champion Roddick) but again couldn't handle Federer in the final(got double bageled).How many players can reach a slam final without losing a set(something Hewitt never did before or after in his career)while not being in their prime? My opinion is that Hewitt was still in his prime in 2004 but couldn't beat a prime Federer.

OK. We'll have to agree to disagree. I think Hewitt was an early bloomer, and Roger a late bloomer.

helloworld
06-10-2008, 09:06 AM
Although I agree that Roger's prime is greater than Hewitt's prime, but I can assure you that Federer wouldn't win so easily if Hewitt could display his prime tennis. Hewitt at his best has given Federer a lot of problems time and time again. Believe it or not, Federer was playing better tennis when he played prime Hewitt in 2000-2003 than he is playing right now. Yes, Federer 2008 is that bad.

FlamEnemY
06-10-2008, 09:19 AM
A hard hitter versus a great counterpuncher. Even today Hewitt (injured and slowed down) will win versus Blake at his best.

TheKingOfClay
06-10-2008, 04:37 PM
wow a lot of Blake haters out here... I think we forget what he went through to be where he is today... I only wish I had half the heart and strength he does...

Breaker
06-10-2008, 04:54 PM
wow a lot of Blake haters out here... I think we forget what he went through to be where he is today... I only wish I had half the heart and strength he does...

That doesn't have anything to do with how Hewitt is better than Blake in nearly every way when comparing their primes.

daddy
06-10-2008, 04:55 PM
wow a lot of Blake haters out here... I think we forget what he went through to be where he is today... I only wish I had half the heart and strength he does...

No haters here, Blake is my favourite person on ATP but let's just say his prime is abysmal to Hewitt's. His achievements also. Thats reality, OP got it wrong.

jmsx521
06-10-2008, 06:27 PM
Assuming they are playing their best -- Blake goes for a winner on the second shot of each rally and makes it: Case closed.

superman1
06-10-2008, 06:56 PM
Hewitt at his best would absorb all of Blake's power and make Blake hit errors. Even Blake at his very best can't sustain a rally for too long. It's not fair to say that Blake at his best hits everything in with huge pace. It's just not possible.

Would be an amazing match though.

crazylevity
06-11-2008, 12:19 AM
Hewitt was winning and making strides in the beginning of his career. He was an early bloomer winning Adelaide at 16, and being the tour's youngest winner. He won the US Open at 20, or 21. He was an early bloomer and in his prime he had a 7-2 edge against Roger. 2003, or 2004 Hewitt was off the tour early in the year with chicken pox and missed a few slams. He has not been the same since. But, his prime didn't start when Federer reached his prime, his prime was before.

Hewitt himself said in interviews that he was a better player in 2004 and early 2005, before he had a spate of injuries.

Ocean Drive
06-11-2008, 04:22 AM
If Nalbandian and Hewitt played at their peak, Nalbandian would beat him 1 & 1, yet he has no grand slams.

This debate has nothing to do with achievement.

Very funny.

TheTruth
06-11-2008, 10:05 AM
Hewitt himself said in interviews that he was a better player in 2004 and early 2005, before he had a spate of injuries.

Moya said he was playing better later in his career than when he won the French and got to #1, but his playing better did not come with better results. Hewitt may have felt he was playing better, but his best results came earlier in his career!

iamke55
06-11-2008, 10:57 AM
Moya said he was playing better later in his career than when he won the French and got to #1, but his playing better did not come with better results. Hewitt may have felt he was playing better, but his best results came earlier in his career!

Because the level of play of the entire tour increases, so although Hewitt improved, the rest of the tour improved more than he did, especially Federer.

superman1
06-11-2008, 06:29 PM
Yeah, it was mainly Federer. I thought Hewitt looked tremendous in late '04/'05, back when he could actually pull off those muscle shirts, but he ran into a red-hot Safin at the Aussie and a prime Federer one too many times. It took its toll on him. He did well against everyone else, though.

mrDamien
06-11-2008, 09:34 PM
Hewitt no doubt. He could play aggresively and defensively on court. A win for him.

Nadal_Freak
06-11-2008, 09:42 PM
Hewitt easily. Hewitt is the ultimate counter-puncher.

lambielspins
06-11-2008, 09:55 PM
Although I agree that Roger's prime is greater than Hewitt's prime, but I can assure you that Federer wouldn't win so easily if Hewitt could display his prime tennis. Hewitt at his best has given Federer a lot of problems time and time again. Believe it or not, Federer was playing better tennis when he played prime Hewitt in 2000-2003 than he is playing right now. Yes, Federer 2008 is that bad.

As usual a classic bowl of turd from you. Hewitt was most definitely in his prime with Roger for a period. Of course Hewitt in 2004 and 2005 was in his prime when he lost to the eventual champion of all SEVEN slams he played, FIVE of those times to Federer. Do you really think an only 2-time slam winner would be capable of this outside of his prime. If it werent for Federer, Hewitt's 2004 and 2005 would have eclipsed his 2001 and 2002 probably. Of course he wasnt winning anything anymore, Federer was there to kick his butt over and over.

Even more amusing you even count 2000 and 2003 as "prime" years for Hewitt and not 2004 and 2005? ROTFL! No 2008 Federer is not worse then 2000, 2001, or 2002 either. It is kind of better to be at absolute worst the dominant #3, then to be not even a top 50 player (Federer 2000), not even a top 10 player (Federer 2001), or not even a top 5 player (Federer 2002).

lambielspins
06-11-2008, 09:58 PM
To answer the question, Hewitt easily.

Serve- not much difference
Return of serve- Hewitt by a long shot
Forehand- Blake
Backhand- Hewitt
Volleys- Hewitt
Movement- Hewitt by a smidge
overall defence- easily Hewitt
Mental game- Hewitt by a mile

No contest. Any talk of prime Hewitt getting close to prime Federer is proposterous, but likewise Hewitt at his best is clearly superior to Blake at his best. Blake is a fine player himself, he has done well to spend a couple years in the top 10 late in his career. However Hewitt is the one with 2 slams who was at #1 at one point in his career, and not Blake, for good reason.

TheTruth
06-12-2008, 11:19 AM
Because the level of play of the entire tour increases, so although Hewitt improved, the rest of the tour improved more than he did, especially Federer.

Exactly, which is why Hewitt probably, and rightly so, feels the same way. But, since I consider him an early bloomer, winning at 16 and all, his earlier results were better. Grand slams, no.1, more consistent and speedier around the court!