PDA

View Full Version : Better Career: Roddick or Hewitt


GameSampras
03-28-2009, 08:11 PM
While Roddick is still going I guess you could say "strong." Hes maintaining a top ranking though unable to win the big ones anymore. Hewitt's wheel feell off very fast due to injuries. But he did manage another slam over Roddick. In essence Hewitt accomplished more in less time than Roddick who has maintained a good ranking but hasnt accomplished a whole lot of major tournaments. And Hewitt does have the slight edge over Roddick in the h2h and he only one less Singles title.

Career Review

Hewitt


Singles Record: 493 - 168

slams: 2

Singles Titles: 26

Doubles Record: 74 - 53

Doubles Titles: 2
Prize Money: $17,731,401


Roddick
Singles Record: 482 - 152


Slams 1

Singles Titles: 27

Doubles Record: 53 - 36

Doubles Titles: 4

Prize Money: $15,559,438

WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
03-28-2009, 08:14 PM
I am curious if Roddick ever held the no.1 spot in the world of tennis. I don't think he ever did. Hewitt did so that would distinctly give him the edge. That alone would make his career more outstanding than Roddick's. Just on statistics more than the ones given, Hewitt had some outstanding "firsts".

Otherwise, at this point in time, though both might be considered in the latter days of their career comparatively (Hewitt much more than Roddick), I think Roddick has more titles still left in his game and career. Though I hate to say it, I don't think Hewitt does, although I would love for him to prove me wrong on that point.

gj011
03-28-2009, 08:15 PM
Hewitt of course. How is this even a question.

RoddickAce
03-28-2009, 08:16 PM
I am curious if Roddick ever held the no.1 spot in the world of tennis. I don't think so, although Hewitt did so that would distinctly give Hewitt the edge. Otherwise, at this point in time, though both might be considered in the latter days of their career comparatively (Hewitt much more than Roddick), I think Roddick has more titles still left in his game and career. Though I hate to say it, I don't think Hewitt does, although I would love for him to prove me wrong on that point.

Roddick ended 2003 with the #1 ranking.

MichaelNadal
03-28-2009, 08:17 PM
Lleyton, wish he could be better these days:)

Breaker
03-28-2009, 08:18 PM
Hewitt by a big margin.

80 weeks at number 1 (75 consecutive, top 10 all time)
2 slam singles titles
2 Masters Cups
2 Davis Cups
1 slam doubles title (US Open 2000)
Youngest ever number 1 (not as important, but still something)
Dominant over Roddick at their peaks.

All things Hewitt has over Roddick. He is only behind Federer and Nadal in terms of modern player accomplishments.

veroniquem
03-28-2009, 08:21 PM
Hard to decide: Hewitt has more slams and more weeks at #1. Roddick has more titles overall and more master shields (4 vs 2 for Hewitt). Roddick is also having more longevity at the top. So it depends what you want to prioritize. I would say Hewitt was more precocious and more brilliant at the beginning of his career but he wasn't able to keep it up for very long, Roddick has been more consistent on the long term.

veroniquem
03-28-2009, 08:22 PM
Roddick ended 2003 with the #1 ranking.
Roddick has been #1 for 13 weeks.

Tennis Dunce
03-28-2009, 08:24 PM
This is a ridiculous question.

Hewitt by a ******* MILE!

T1000
03-28-2009, 08:26 PM
Hewitt easily

more slams
more weeks at number one
dominated roddick in their primes

veroniquem
03-28-2009, 08:26 PM
Roddick and Hewitt are close in age but Hewitt hasn't been in the top 10 since 2006 whereas Roddick is still #6 right now.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 08:26 PM
Hard to decide: Hewitt has more slams and more weeks at #1. Roddick has more titles overall and more master shields (4 vs 2 for Hewitt). Roddick is also having more longevity at the top. So it depends what you want to prioritize. I would say Hewitt was more precocious and more brilliant at the beginning of his career but he wasn't able to keep it up for very long, Roddick has been more consistent on the long term.

I dont think people want take the longevity factor between these two into consideration. Its more easy just to say Hewitt hands down considering his results early on.. But it was short lived is the thing.
I think its closer than some care to see it between these two. Which is why I posed the question.

Hot Sauce
03-28-2009, 08:28 PM
Roddick has seen more publicity, and therefore possibly sponsors and endorsements, no?

Joseph L. Barrow
03-28-2009, 08:29 PM
While Roddick is still going I guess you could say "strong." Hes maintaining a top ranking though unable to win the big ones anymore. Hewitt's wheel feell off very fast due to injuries. But he did manage another slam over Roddick. In essence Hewitt accomplished more in less time than Roddick who has maintained a good ranking but hasnt accomplished a whole lot of major tournaments. And Hewitt does have the slight edge over Roddick in the h2h and he only one less Singles title.

Career Review

Hewitt


Singles Record: 493 - 168

slams: 2

Singles Titles: 26

Doubles Record: 74 - 53

Doubles Titles: 2
Prize Money: $17,731,401


Roddick

Singles Record: 482 - 152


Slams 1

Singles Titles: 27

Doubles Record: 53 - 36

Doubles Titles: 4

Prize Money: $15,559,438
How would one only "guess you could say" that Roddick is still going strong? He's made the semifinals or better of every tournament he's played this year, including a Grand Slam and a Masters Series, during which he achieved two wins over the world's number three, has only been bested by three absolute elites thus far this season, has won titles in singles and doubles, and is #2 in the ATP Race. These have been the best first three months of any season in his career. If you don't think that's clearly going strong, then your standards are ludicrous.

As for the question at the top, their careers have been very similar, and I would consider them very close at this stage overall, but I'd have to say that Hewitt's second Slam puts him ahead of Roddick. This is partly a matter of timing, since Hewitt came along a couple years before Roddick and accordingly had a longer run at the top before being eclipsed by Federer, but the record stands nevertheless. Roddick's primary advantages at this stage would be in more year-end top 10 finishes (an extremely impressive seven consecutive seasons), more overall titles, and a better career singles win/loss record, while Hewitt has the longer run at the very top, one more Grand Slam, and a winning record (6-4) against Roddick. I think it is possible for Roddick to overtake Hewitt even if he never comes up with a second Slam if he can further his advantages in other fields, but so far, given that most of their statistics are so closely matched, I think Hewitt's extra Grand Slam has to be the deciding factor.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 08:33 PM
How would one only "guess you could say" that Roddick is still going strong? He's made the semifinals or better of every tournament he's played this year, including a Grand Slam and a Masters Series, during which he achieved two wins over the world's number three, has only been bested by three absolute elites thus far this season, has won titles in singles and doubles, and is #2 in the ATP Race. These have been the best first three months of any season in his career. If you don't think that's clearly going strong, then your standards are ludicrous.

As for the question at the top, their careers have been very similar, and I would consider them very close at this stage overall, but I'd have to say that Hewitt's second Slam puts him ahead of Roddick. This is partly a matter of timing, since Hewitt came along a couple years before Roddick and accordingly had a longer run at the top before being eclipsed by Federer, but the record stands nevertheless. Roddick's primary advantages at this stage would be in more year-end top 10 finishes (an extremely impressive seven consecutive seasons), more overall titles, and a better career singles win/loss record, while Hewitt has the longer run at the very top, one more Grand Slam, and a winning record (6-4) against Roddick. I think it is possible for Roddick to overtake Hewitt even if he never comes up with a second Slam if he can further his advantages in other fields, but so far, given that most of their statistics are so closely matched, I think Hewitt's extra Grand Slam has to be the deciding factor.


Alright... Roddick is going strong. But hes been on top for years with not much to account for it in the slam counts for being a consistent top 10 player.

But I get sick of the "He had to deal with Roger" excuse every time Roddick is mentioned when it comes to slams. Thats not all Federer. Its part Roddick's fault too for never developing a better overall game outside his serve and actually having a FH thats gotten WORSE instead of BETTER

veroniquem
03-28-2009, 08:35 PM
I dont think people want take the longevity factor between these two into consideration. Its more easy just to say Hewitt hands down considering his results early on.. But it was short lived is the thing.
I think its closer than some care to see it between these two. Which is why I posed the question.
The short lived part is disappointing, it's a bit like Courier. True greats last more than 3 or 5 years, and yes even Borg because he may have retired at 25 but he was already winning plenty at 18 (so that's an 8 year long prestigious career...)

WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
03-28-2009, 08:46 PM
Roddick ended 2003 with the #1 ranking.

That was my question, which I why I posed it as such. I didn't remember either way. But still for the "firsts"....Hewitt. Yet as I said, Roddick has the capacity and ability to continue to add to his titles and wins now in a way that Hewitt, overall, has lost.

babolat15
03-28-2009, 09:19 PM
we have to keep in mind that hewitt has been married and has had kids and plenty of injuries

JeMar
03-28-2009, 09:27 PM
Hewitt.

By far.

paterson
03-28-2009, 10:40 PM
Based on career accomplishments, Hewitt wins out because he won a second major title. Today, Roddick is the better player because Hewitt has lost some of speed.

During their prime years, here's is how I would break down their games:

Serve - Roddick (no brainer)

Return of serve - Hewitt (no brainer)

Forehand - Roddick - Roddick hits more winners and with more pace while Hewitt's forehand is more consistent and finds better angles is also better at full stretch and on the run.

Backhand - Hewitt - Hewitt's backhand was hard to breakdown.

Passing shots/lobs - Hewitt (no brainer)

court coverage - Hewitt he defended all areas of the court
better.

Volleys - Hewitt (Roddick looks lost up at net)

Mental toughness - Hewitt

devila
03-28-2009, 11:53 PM
Hewitt was handed free rides in Wimbledon '02 and US Open (umpire robbed Roddick
at the end of the 5th set). Roddick was injured in the French Open they played;
withdrew from
the '02 Aus Open
and after he gained 3 kilograms of fat, he totally tanked his matches in 2004 Masters Cup and 2005 Aus Open. Obviously, he denied that he did little to improve in this time
after he hired that loser Dean Goldfine.

He was also crippled with tendinitis and exhausted after
the linesman stole the 2003 Aus Open quarterfinal 3rd set. Time was really wasted.

grafrules
03-28-2009, 11:56 PM
Hewitt was handed free rides in Wimbledon '02 and US Open (umpire robbed Roddick
at the end of the 5th set). Roddick was injured in the French Open they played;
withdrew from
the '02 Aus Open
and after he gained 3 kilograms of fat, he totally tanked his matches in 2004 Masters Cup and 2005 Aus Open. Obviously, he denied that he did little to improve in this time
after he hired that loser Dean Goldfine.

He was also crippled with tendinitis and exhausted after
the linesman stole the 2003 Aus Open quarterfinal 3rd set. Time was really wasted.

A parade of excuses which could rival a Serena Williams's press conference.
:rolleyes:

devila
03-29-2009, 01:51 AM
Why would this be Serena-like? She and Hewitt have something in common. When Roddick beat him in 2004, Hewitt claimed, "I was in control of the match." Serena kept calling herself the #1 player, even after Henin beat her repeatedly. I mentioned the matches I've witnessed, unlike you. I mentioned his bad fitness when he won a match, so how is that just an excuse?
I'm not one of the fake Fed fans who cried, "mono and bad weather!!" excuses.

tahiti
03-29-2009, 02:09 AM
I would say Roddick. He's still a consistent tough player to beat for many on the tour (hardcourt & grass) though perhaps if Hewitt hadn't become a father and had other priorities he might still be really competitive. Tough call.

TheNatural
03-29-2009, 04:43 AM
Hewiit narrowly over Roddick unless Roddick can grab another slam or 2.

shadows
03-29-2009, 04:52 AM
Hewitt has up till now, I 'aint ruling Roddick out of being considered to have had a better career when the dust settles after both have retired. Right now Andy is still a threat and has a good chance to be back in the top 5 again once Miami is over, still a legit contender on his day for another slam imo as well. Also his recent work on fitness may well end up giving him a bit more longevity (barring injury)

Gorecki
03-29-2009, 05:00 AM
I would say Roddick. He's still a consistent tough player to beat for many on the tour (hardcourt & grass) though perhaps if Hewitt hadn't become a father and had other priorities he might still be really competitive. Tough call.

what does father hood have to do with his hip injury?...

Gizo
03-29-2009, 06:03 AM
Hewitt easily.
Both of these players have come 2 sets away from achieving pretty much everything they dreamt of within tennis. Had Roddick beaten Federer in the Wimbledon 2004 final, and Hewitt beaten Safin the 2005 Australian Open final, then they both would have had no major regrets from their careers.

featherlight
03-29-2009, 07:13 AM
Roddick has seen more publicity, and therefore possibly sponsors and endorsements, no?

That's cos Roddick is american, so it doesnt really count.

tintin
03-29-2009, 08:14 AM
2 slams>>>1 slam

2 DC's>>>>1

about the same in terms of titles won.Hewitt was world #1 for 2 straight yearsso...;)
Hewitt has made the Quarters or better in all 4 majors ;)

Joseph L. Barrow
03-29-2009, 08:45 AM
Alright... Roddick is going strong. But hes been on top for years with not much to account for it in the slam counts for being a consistent top 10 player.
Perhaps being a Sampras fan distorts your perception here, as it seems as though you can barely think about anything other than Slam counts with regards to accomplishments. For 99.9% of the field, just winning even one Slam at all is a dream, and this era in particular has been harder than any other in the history of the open era for anyone other than the absolute top two to be able to win any Grand Slam. If Roddick never wins a second Grand Slam title, he'll probably be the most accomplished player ever to finish his career with only one.



But I get sick of the "He had to deal with Roger" excuse every time Roddick is mentioned when it comes to slams. Thats not all Federer. Its part Roddick's fault too for never developing a better overall game outside his serve and actually having a FH thats gotten WORSE instead of BETTER
There has just about never been a more legitimate "excuse." Federer has beaten Roddick in Slams seven times, six of those in the semifinals or higher, three in the actual finals. In '03-05, three seasons in a row, Roddick literally only lost to Federer on grass. All three years, he won Queens and made the final weekend at Wimbledon only to lose to Federer. In '04, he even seriously pushed Federer in the final. He was by far the best grass court player in the world after Federer. The odds that, in a world without Federer, Roddick would have won at least one Wimbledon title are overwhelming. What's more, I think it's also very plausible Roddick would have won one of the '06 US Open, '07 Australian Open, '07 US Open, and '09 Australian Opens without Federer there standing in his way. There is not one player on the tour who has been beaten as many times by Federer in semifinals or finals of Slams as Roddick has.
Let's imagine, for a moment, that Roddick and Hewitt's ages are reversed, so that Roddick comes to the top in '01-02, while Hewitt doesn't get there until '03-04. In this scenario, I'd say the chances are overwhelming that Roddick would have won more than one Grand Slam, and Hewitt would probably have been limited to only one by Federer. This isn't to say that their factual records shouldn't stand- as I've said, when assessing who has had the better career, the first and foremost criteria should still stand firmly in the facts, and as such, Hewitt's repeat Grand Slam title still edges out anything Roddick has done thus far, in my opinion.

gj011
03-29-2009, 08:48 AM
This thread is a clear proof how much overrated Roddick is on this board. It is unbelievable.

GameSampras
03-29-2009, 08:48 AM
Perhaps being a Sampras fan distorts your perception here, as it seems as though you can barely think about anything other than Slam counts with regards to accomplishments. For 99.9% of the field, just winning even one Slam at all is a dream, and this era in particular has been harder than any other in the history of the open era for anyone other than the absolute top two to be able to win any Grand Slam. If Roddick never wins a second Grand Slam title, he'll probably be the most accomplished player ever to finish his career with only one.


There has just about never been a more legitimate "excuse." Federer has beaten Roddick in Slams seven times, six of those in the semifinals or higher, three in the actual finals. In '03-05, three seasons in a row, Roddick literally only lost to Federer on grass. All three years, he won Queens and made the final weekend at Wimbledon only to lose to Federer. In '04, he even seriously pushed Federer in the final. He was by far the best grass court player in the world after Federer. The odds that, in a world without Federer, Roddick would have won at least one Wimbledon title are overwhelming. What's more, I think it's also very plausible Roddick would have won one of the '06 US Open, '07 Australian Open, '07 US Open, and '09 Australian Opens without Federer there standing in his way. There is not one player on the tour who has been beaten as many times by Federer in semifinals or finals of Slams as Roddick has.
Let's imagine, for a moment, that Roddick and Hewitt's ages are reversed, so that Roddick comes to the top in '01-02, while Hewitt doesn't get there until '03-04. In this scenario, I'd say the chances are overwhelming that Roddick would have won more than one Grand Slam, and Hewitt would probably have been limited to only one by Federer. This isn't to say that their factual records shouldn't stand- as I've said, when assessing who has had the better career, the first and foremost criteria should still stand firmly in the facts, and as such, Hewitt's repeat Grand Slam title still edges out anything Roddick has done thus far, in my opinion.



Hewitt at that time had more game than Roddick had or has currently IMO. While Hewitt never possessed a big weapon such as the serve he was a deadly counterpuncher in his prime and had a pretty solid overrall game. While Roddick has always had gaping holes in his. Roddick doesnt win the USO 2001 IMO. Maybe a Wimbeldon. But its debatable.

NotSoSuper
03-29-2009, 08:54 AM
hewitt. No question

vmosrafa08
03-29-2009, 08:57 AM
I am curious if Roddick ever held the no.1 spot in the world of tennis. I don't think he ever did. Hewitt did so that would distinctly give him the edge. That alone would make his career more outstanding than Roddick's. Just on statistics more than the ones given, Hewitt had some outstanding "firsts".

Otherwise, at this point in time, though both might be considered in the latter days of their career comparatively (Hewitt much more than Roddick), I think Roddick has more titles still left in his game and career. Though I hate to say it, I don't think Hewitt does, although I would love for him to prove me wrong on that point.

Yes, he was no. 1 for a while... I'd say Roddick, definitely.

Joseph L. Barrow
03-29-2009, 09:11 AM
Hewitt at that time had more game than Roddick had or has currently IMO. While Hewitt never possessed a big weapon such as the serve he was a deadly counterpuncher in his prime and had a pretty solid overrall game. While Roddick has always had gaping holes in his. Roddick doesnt win the USO 2001 IMO. Maybe a Wimbeldon. But its debatable.
They don't have to be the exact same tournaments Hewitt won; it only need be more than one Slam- and keep in mind that this is a time period in which guys like an old wildcard Ivanisevic and Thomas Johansson were winning Grand Slam titles. Can you even imagine that happening in the last four years?:shock: Since we're talking about a Roddick here who is as good on grass as he was in '03-05 (good enough that only Federer beat him on the surface, that coming in the final weekend of Wimbledon for three consecutive seasons), the likelihood that he wins at least one Wimbledon in this period in which the Wimbledon title was "up in the air" is outstanding. The US Open was similarly changing hands year by year, and it is also plausible Roddick still wins the '03 title if he's a couple years older. I don't think an Australian Open can be ruled out, either, in a time period when an old Agassi and Johansson were trading titles there.
And, just as it isn't a given that Roddick wins the same Slams as Hewitt in his position, it isn't necessarily a given Hewitt pulls off the '03 US Open. I think Hewitt would still have managed a Slam regardless, but it is a thought. All of this is speculation, of course, and who has actually had the better career is not dependent on who hypothetically "would" have had the better career in a given scenario- I'm largely defending the fairness of the "Federer excuse" in this tangent.

deltox
03-29-2009, 09:12 AM
hewwitt still to date, but with roddick, its still not quite over, maybe no slams but more masters titles should fall for him.

people disregard longevity??? really, did you guys disregarding career longevity forget all about a rebel gone bald named Andre?

he won a slam LATE in his career after hanging around the top for a few years with nothing to scream about. although roddick lacks alot of his game the possiblity still exists.

deltox
03-29-2009, 09:14 AM
This thread is a clear proof how much overrated Roddick is on this board. It is unbelievable.

itsa hard to overrate someone who has been a top 10 players for literally years. hes past his prime but , my god, at least try to hold back the bias a little

gj011
03-29-2009, 09:24 AM
itsa hard to overrate someone who has been a top 10 players for literally years. hes past his prime but , my god, at least try to hold back the bias a little

Oh come on. To everyone who is not biased or blinded, it is clear that Hewitt's career is far superior and better than Roddick's. Ever attempting to compare their careers and argue that there is anything to talk about on this subject is overrating Roddick and actually quite laughable.
Unfortunately this board has been overrrun with Roddick fanboys with unrealistic and false expectations and silly evaluations of his acheivements.

It is getting ridiculous.

PERL
03-29-2009, 09:24 AM
Let's imagine, for a moment, that Roddick and Hewitt's ages are reversed, so that Roddick comes to the top in '01-02, while Hewitt doesn't get there until '03-04. In this scenario, I'd say the chances are overwhelming that Roddick would have won more than one Grand Slam, and Hewitt would probably have been limited to only one by Federer. This isn't to say that their factual records shouldn't stand- as I've said, when assessing who has had the better career, the first and foremost criteria should still stand firmly in the facts, and as such, Hewitt's repeat Grand Slam title still edges out anything Roddick has done thus far, in my opinion.

Also Hewitt has peaked earlier as grinders often do. Heís now playing at a professional level for more than 10 years. Roddick peaked a bit later but he has been very consistent over the years. He started to breakthrough at age 18 which is not bad at all for a power player.
By the way I have never seen Hewitt play better than the first set of the AO Ď05 final vs Safin. He could not have hit the ball nor served better and he was not able to maintain this the whole match, it was impossible. Same thing goes with Roddick and the Wimbledon final í04 which he finally lost. These matches showed the very best of both players and the limits they would never overcome. These finals were turning points in their career, both Hewitt and Roddick, thatís at least what I felt at the time as a spectator.

VivalaVida
03-29-2009, 09:26 AM
Hewitt for sure.

GameSampras
03-29-2009, 09:59 AM
They don't have to be the exact same tournaments Hewitt won; it only need be more than one Slam- and keep in mind that this is a time period in which guys like an old wildcard Ivanisevic and Thomas Johansson were winning Grand Slam titles. Can you even imagine that happening in the last four years?:shock: Since we're talking about a Roddick here who is as good on grass as he was in '03-05 (good enough that only Federer beat him on the surface, that coming in the final weekend of Wimbledon for three consecutive seasons), the likelihood that he wins at least one Wimbledon in this period in which the Wimbledon title was "up in the air" is outstanding. The US Open was similarly changing hands year by year, and it is also plausible Roddick still wins the '03 title if he's a couple years older. I don't think an Australian Open can be ruled out, either, in a time period when an old Agassi and Johansson were trading titles there.
And, just as it isn't a given that Roddick wins the same Slams as Hewitt in his position, it isn't necessarily a given Hewitt pulls off the '03 US Open. I think Hewitt would still have managed a Slam regardless, but it is a thought. All of this is speculation, of course, and who has actually had the better career is not dependent on who hypothetically "would" have had the better career in a given scenario- I'm largely defending the fairness of the "Federer excuse" in this tangent.

No.. The australian Open is ruled out. :). Roddick cannot and could not handle Agassi. Agassi figured Roddick's game out pretty quick even before Fed was doing so. Even with Andre riddened with back injuries later in his career I would still give Andre the edge over the Rod. Andre was taking Fed to five sets and four sets in the USO final after playing 3 straight 5 set matches at the USO. So Andre was clearly good enough at the time to take Roddick. No question about it.

Nalbandian was screwed over at the USO in 03 as far as Im concerned. That match should have went to him. Not Roddick.

Breaker
03-29-2009, 10:26 AM
They don't have to be the exact same tournaments Hewitt won; it only need be more than one Slam- and keep in mind that this is a time period in which guys like an old wildcard Ivanisevic and Thomas Johansson were winning Grand Slam titles. Can you even imagine that happening in the last four years?:shock: Since we're talking about a Roddick here who is as good on grass as he was in '03-05 (good enough that only Federer beat him on the surface, that coming in the final weekend of Wimbledon for three consecutive seasons), the likelihood that he wins at least one Wimbledon in this period in which the Wimbledon title was "up in the air" is outstanding. The US Open was similarly changing hands year by year, and it is also plausible Roddick still wins the '03 title if he's a couple years older. I don't think an Australian Open can be ruled out, either, in a time period when an old Agassi and Johansson were trading titles there.
And, just as it isn't a given that Roddick wins the same Slams as Hewitt in his position, it isn't necessarily a given Hewitt pulls off the '03 US Open. I think Hewitt would still have managed a Slam regardless, but it is a thought. All of this is speculation, of course, and who has actually had the better career is not dependent on who hypothetically "would" have had the better career in a given scenario- I'm largely defending the fairness of the "Federer excuse" in this tangent.

The only thing is, Roddick already lost to nearly everyone who was making slam finals at that time, and even in his best years was handled fairly comfortably by Hewitt and Agassi (best players of those '00-'02 years).

-He lost at Wimbledon to Goran who already was ranked almost 100 places lower, with how Goran was playing in that tournament it is difficult to see him getting through either he or Rafter anyway.

-He lost the US Open to Hewitt, who even at their bests was fairly dominant over Roddick, 6-2 at the end of 2005. Making Hewitt a year younger than him I doubt would change that.

-Agassi would not have lost the '01 or '03 Aussie Opens to Roddick. In '04 Safin was the one to beat number 1 Roddick in the Australian Open, so it is entirely plausible the the '02 finalist Safin would have beaten Roddick.

-Wimbledon '02 best oppourtunity, and even then it's possible that winner Hewitt could have beaten him along with a prime Henman.

-US Open '02 he was destroyed by Sampras, it is almost certain that another year of experience would not change that result.

I think you're underating the difficulty of the field from '01 and '02 just because Johansson and Costa won Slams in that period. It was still a deep field with a lot of very good players at the top challenging for Slams, the only thing is all of these guys were better than a prime Roddick as shown when they played big matches.

grafselesfan
03-29-2009, 11:33 AM
Roddick's peak coming in 2001 and 2002 instead of 2003 and 2004? He would have had a good shot at the 2002 Australian Open title IMO. He nearly beat Hewitt at the 2001 U.S Open despite being a shadow of the player he was in 2003-2004 so he has a great shot there. It is possible he has a shot at the 2002 U.S Open vs an old Sampras and Agassi if he were in his 2003-2004 form.

Roddick wasnt handled "comfortably" by an older Agassi once he began to mature as a player. In 2001 and 2002 he wasnt a mature player and had a poor record in slams with only two quarterfinals. In 2003 and 2004 they played 3 times. Agassi won a tough 3 setter after being a set and a break down on clay, and Roddick sucks on clay. Roddick won a close match on grass. Agassi then won I think in a 3rd set tiebreak on hard courts in 2004. So a peak Roddick was pretty equal to an aging Agassi by that point. Again just pointing this out in the hypothetical of his chances in 2001 and 2002.

GameSampras
03-29-2009, 11:44 AM
Roddick's peak coming in 2001 and 2002 instead of 2003 and 2004? He would have had a good shot at the 2002 Australian Open title IMO. He nearly beat Hewitt at the 2001 U.S Open despite being a shadow of the player he was in 2003-2004 so he has a great shot there. It is possible he has a shot at the 2002 U.S Open vs an old Sampras and Agassi if he were in his 2003-2004 form.

Roddick wasnt handled "comfortably" by an older Agassi once he began to mature as a player. In 2001 and 2002 he wasnt a mature player and had a poor record in slams with only two quarterfinals. In 2003 and 2004 they played 3 times. Agassi won a tough 3 setter after being a set and a break down on clay, and Roddick sucks on clay. Roddick won a close match on grass. Agassi then won I think in a 3rd set tiebreak on hard courts in 2004. So a peak Roddick was pretty equal to an aging Agassi by that point. Again just pointing this out in the hypothetical of his chances in 2001 and 2002.


I dunno. Roddick was whiped off the court by Pete at the 02 USO. He didnt improve by leaps and bounds the following year at the 03 USO as say Fed did from 03-04. Nalbandian had Roddick there if not for some questionable calls.

grafselesfan
03-29-2009, 11:54 AM
I dunno. Roddick was whiped off the court by Pete at the 02 USO. He didnt improve by leaps and bounds the following year at the 03 USO as say Fed did from 03-04. Nalbandian had Roddick there if not for some questionable calls.

Roddick DID improve by leaps and bounds from 2002 to 2003. In 2002 he ended the year ranked #9 in the world, in 2003 he was #1 at years end vs a stronger field. In 2002 he couldnt even get a set off Greg Rusedski at Wimbledon, but in 2003 it was Rusedski who couldnt get a set off Roddick when they played at Wimbledon. How can you say Federer improved by leaps and bounds and Roddick didnt it, when Federer in fact ended 2002 ranked ahead of Roddick, and yet ended 2003 ranked just behind, despite that Federer yes did improve a great deal too. Of course after 2003 Roddick's improvement would never again match up to Federer's but from 2002 to 2003 he improved more than anyone, including even Federer.

At the 2002 U.S Open young Roddick who had a bit of an injury played a very poor quarterfinal with Sampras and Sampras played unbelievable tennis that day which would have beaten even a prime Federer or Agassi probably, despite that he was fast his prime. A champion like Sampras can do those things, that is why he is such a great player. Sampras was probably charged up considering he had lost twice in a row to Roddick, and he was probably also annoyed at how he was being written off by people, and how overhyped Roddick was at the time so I wasnt at all surprised he came out fired up and crushed him. A young pre-prime Roddick went 2-1 vs an aging Sampras in 2001-2002, pretty good considering he will never be anywhere near the player Sampras is.

I am far from a Roddick fan and he will never be a legend of tennis, but he is still a much better player than many seem willing to give him credit for. The 2001-2002 was weaker and yes he would have more chances to win multiple majors then 2003-2004 is all someone was saying and perfectly reasonable IMO. Granted there are few years in the history of tennis as weak as 2001
-2002 so Roddick would have really lucked out in this case somewhat.

GameSampras
03-29-2009, 11:57 AM
Roddick DID improve by leaps and bounds from 2002 to 2003. In 2002 he ended the year ranked #9 in the world, in 2003 he was #1 at years end vs a stronger field. In 2002 he couldnt even get a set off Greg Rusedski at Wimbledon, but in 2003 it was Rusedski who couldnt get a set off Roddick when they played at Wimbledon. How can you say Federer improved by leaps and bounds and Roddick didnt it, when Federer in fact ended 2002 ranked ahead of Roddick, and yet ended 2003 ranked just behind, despite that Federer yes did improve a great deal too. Of course after 2003 Roddick's improvement would never again match up to Federer's but from 2002 to 2003 he improved more than anyone, including even Federer.

Maybe I was watching a different Roddick. LOL. I just didnt notice THAT MUCH of a difference in Roddick aside from his rise in the rankings. . He still had trouble beating way passed his prime Andre during that period. Hes always been the same old roddick to me. Gaping holes in his game exploited by the great players. Great players will always find a way to exploit a player like Roddick. Hes always been average off the ground. Certainly no marvel when it comes to baseline play, net game, movement etc. BH has never been anything to write home about. And a FH that has decreased in power.

I always looked a Roddick as solid enough to maintain a high level of consistency and solid ranking. But not good enough to dominate the entire field. There would always been 1-2 players around who could figure Roddick out and exploit his weaknesses.

grafselesfan
03-29-2009, 12:03 PM
Maybe I was watching a different Roddick. LOL. I just didnt notice THAT MUCH of a difference in Roddick aside from his rise in the rankings. . He still had trouble beating way passed his prime Andre during that period. Hes always been the same old roddick to me. Gaping holes in his game exploited by the great players. Great players will always find a way to exploit a player like Roddick. Hes always been average off the ground. Certainly no marvel when it comes to baseline play, net game, movement etc. BH has never been anything to write home about. And a FH that has decreased in power.

I always looked a Roddick as solid enough to maintain a high level of consistency and solid ranking. But not good enough to dominate the entire field

Yes you are right in a way. Roddick has always had gaping holes in his game. He was never going to be an all time great as the American media potrayed him as having the potential to be. He did play his best tennis ever in 2003-2004 though by far. The forehand was a killer those two years, much more than any other year. His strategy was better since he was working with Gilbert, one of the genuises of tennis, and his confidence was higher.

Yeah he had trouble beating a past his prime Agassi, but in 2001-2002 even a past his prime Agassi had no trouble beating a young Roddick, whereas in 2003-2004 when they played they atleast were evenly matched and both having trouble. Again so it shows his improvement which is my only point. I am not trying to compare him to a prime Federer, prime Agassi, or prime Sampras and saying he is in the same league.

Yes Roddick would never be a dominant player in any year or era, we agree on that. He doesnt have the talent or ability for that. Even in 2001-2002 he wouldnt have been. He could have battled Hewitt and an aging Agassi for the #1 ranking and maybe won more than 1 slam, but never would have dominated, and 2001-2002 were two of the weakest years ever so whatever he would do those years would be pretty much his max anytime. In a pretty strong field like we had this year and last year he has to work hard to not get buried altogether. I admire him for atleast continuing to fight, but yeah I see what you are saying. There are many eras Roddick may have won 0 slams, depending on various forms of luck and how they played out (eg- draws, injuries).

dincuss
03-29-2009, 12:09 PM
More money = better career
Hewitt

hewittboy
03-29-2009, 12:19 PM
By far Hewitt. One more year end #1, one more slam, the year end Championships twice, the winning head to head. What is there to even discuss.

GameSampras
03-29-2009, 12:22 PM
Yes you are right in a way. Roddick has always had gaping holes in his game. He was never going to be an all time great as the American media potrayed him as having the potential to be. He did play his best tennis ever in 2003-2004 though by far. The forehand was a killer those two years, much more than any other year. His strategy was better since he was working with Gilbert, one of the genuises of tennis, and his confidence was higher.

Yeah he had trouble beating a past his prime Agassi, but in 2001-2002 even a past his prime Agassi had no trouble beating a young Roddick, whereas in 2003-2004 when they played they atleast were evenly matched and both having trouble. Again so it shows his improvement which is my only point. I am not trying to compare him to a prime Federer, prime Agassi, or prime Sampras and saying he is in the same league.

Yes Roddick would never be a dominant player in any year or era, we agree on that. He doesnt have the talent or ability for that. Even in 2001-2002 he wouldnt have been. He could have battled Hewitt and an aging Agassi for the #1 ranking and maybe won more than 1 slam, but never would have dominated, and 2001-2002 were two of the weakest years ever so whatever he would do those years would be pretty much his max anytime. In a pretty strong field like we had this year and last year he has to work hard to not get buried altogether. I admire him for atleast continuing to fight, but yeah I see what you are saying. There are many eras Roddick may have won 0 slams, depending on various forms of luck and how they played out (eg- draws, injuries).


Do you really believe the field was that strong this past year? Not say you are wrong..

See I disagree with alot of people on this. I would say its STRONGER in the sense that it certainly is stronger than 02-07. But I wouldnt say its one of the strongest.

Again... The depth of the field right now is on HC's at this point in time. The depth of the field on clay and grass IMO is extremely abysmal.

Hopfully we see a few new faces finally step up and be competitors on these surfaces. Djoker was. But hes falling fast. Certainly a level below what he was this time last year.

I think the competition today is getting stronger with the likes of Murray, prime Nadal, Djoker, in the mix. But I dont feel the depth of the field is prosperous by any means.

The rest of the pack is extremely far behind IMO. And I seriously do not see any other Grandslam winners on the horizon.. At least any time soon

grafselesfan
03-29-2009, 12:28 PM
Again... The depth of the field right now is on HC's at this point in time. The depth of the field on clay and grass IMO is extremely abysmal.


Well yeah but when 70% of the tour seemingly is on hard courts then how strong the field is on hard courts sort of is what matters most right. It is kind of like in the 60s and 70s if the field was very tough on grass then it was very tough since 70% of the tour then was on grass. Of course Nadal is happy about this as he is piling up achievements on grass and clay, but even on his worst surface of hard courts vs stronger competition by far than grass and clay
he is proving himself now.

Djokovic is definitely having problems right now. I hope he can get himself together again. He seems to be having mental/emotional problems with his play and tennis for awhile now. His confidence has become very fragile. He is very talented though, a very powerful and solid and complete game, but if the mental game isnt right he wont achieve his potential.

Federer needs to step up and start showing some guts when he plays Nadal and Murray, it is pathetic how an all time great crumbles mentally when he plays his tougher opposition. Murray needs to prove himself in the slams. Alot of very impressive tennis from him but not much when it really matters in the slams, right now one impressive U.S Open final run and nothing else pretty much except an unimpressive squeeking into the Wimbledon quarters via a choke from a not that exceptional opponent. Nadal is the only one who really doesnt have work to do among the top 4, the others need to get their acts together somewhat. We have to see how some of the even younger up and comers mature of course in the next few years.

Even in strong eras the top 3 or 4 are much better than the rest. Can you really give me some years the top 10 were all close to equal? Sorry that would be asking too much.

clayman2000
03-29-2009, 01:41 PM
More money = better career
Hewitt

In terms of tennis earnings, roddick is about $1 million behind Hewitt. Considering the tennis both are playing now, roddick should easily pass Hewitt

But in terms of $ earned including sponsorship, and commercials, Roddick should easily beat Hewitt. Roddick is sponsored by Lexus, SAP, Lacoste, American Express. We know about his famous Pong commercial, the 2004 USO buy an extra plane seat commerical. On the flip side, i was in Australia during the 2005 AO, and i saw maybe 1 Hewitt Yonex commercial

betovanbuuren
03-29-2009, 01:55 PM
One more for hewitt

fps
03-29-2009, 02:52 PM
Hewitt has had a better career. Part of the reason for that is natural, unavoidable timing. Roddick came in a little later, at the start of Fed's era.

Hewitt was no.1 for a really long time, but with "only" 2 slams in that time (one might expect more only from a player who's going through such a dominant reign at no.1) it's clear he wasn't dominant so much as the most consistent.

mental midget
03-29-2009, 05:48 PM
hewitt, by a wimbledon.

roysid
03-30-2009, 01:30 AM
Hewitt.
- He had a more solid game.
- He dominated more. One full year being No. 1.
Plus one more slam and 2 year end masters

lawrence
03-30-2009, 01:51 AM
lol @ this thread
anyone who thinks roddick had a better career than hewitt is a fanboy

youngest no1 ever, extra slam, 80 weeks at #1 as opposed to what was it 3?
and all this without a huge *** serve

ace-nelis
03-30-2009, 01:55 AM
Problem is that roddick is still playing top ten and hewitt is kinda embarrising himself by still staying a pro and not playing well.

Josherer
03-30-2009, 04:29 AM
IMO i think Roddick. He has been able to consistently stay in the top 10 which is by no means easy!

deltox
03-30-2009, 10:55 AM
Maybe I was watching a different Roddick. LOL. I just didnt notice THAT MUCH of a difference in Roddick aside from his rise in the rankings. . He still had trouble beating way passed his prime Andre during that period. .

Did anyone pummel a way past prime agassi??? if so, then why did he win a slam at the END of his career?

toning down the abilities of agassi to make roddick look worse?

look roddick has his faults but some of you just hate the guy. hewitt is ranked what atm??

deltox
03-30-2009, 10:57 AM
title of this thread is better career, not better 2 years.. stop comparing 2 years and look at the overall careers..

its much closer than you are giving credit for.

deltox
03-30-2009, 11:15 AM
More money = better career
Hewitt

2 year head start on career = hewitt. money is so close already that in 2 more years roddick will most likely catch and pass his career winnings.. this logic is flawed

Joseph L. Barrow
03-30-2009, 01:17 PM
Roddick DID improve by leaps and bounds from 2002 to 2003. In 2002 he ended the year ranked #9 in the world, in 2003 he was #1 at years end vs a stronger field. In 2002 he couldnt even get a set off Greg Rusedski at Wimbledon, but in 2003 it was Rusedski who couldnt get a set off Roddick when they played at Wimbledon. How can you say Federer improved by leaps and bounds and Roddick didnt it, when Federer in fact ended 2002 ranked ahead of Roddick, and yet ended 2003 ranked just behind, despite that Federer yes did improve a great deal too. Of course after 2003 Roddick's improvement would never again match up to Federer's but from 2002 to 2003 he improved more than anyone, including even Federer.

At the 2002 U.S Open young Roddick who had a bit of an injury played a very poor quarterfinal with Sampras and Sampras played unbelievable tennis that day which would have beaten even a prime Federer or Agassi probably, despite that he was fast his prime. A champion like Sampras can do those things, that is why he is such a great player. Sampras was probably charged up considering he had lost twice in a row to Roddick, and he was probably also annoyed at how he was being written off by people, and how overhyped Roddick was at the time so I wasnt at all surprised he came out fired up and crushed him. A young pre-prime Roddick went 2-1 vs an aging Sampras in 2001-2002, pretty good considering he will never be anywhere near the player Sampras is.

I am far from a Roddick fan and he will never be a legend of tennis, but he is still a much better player than many seem willing to give him credit for. The 2001-2002 was weaker and yes he would have more chances to win multiple majors then 2003-2004 is all someone was saying and perfectly reasonable IMO. Granted there are few years in the history of tennis as weak as 2001
-2002 so Roddick would have really lucked out in this case somewhat.
Good post. I do agree that Roddick would have been fortunate to reach his prime in these years, but since Hewitt actually DID reach his prime and win his Slams in them, the comparison in this context is fair. On the whole, in his actual career, Roddick has been very unlucky Slam-wise to have had most of his prime overshadowed by the most consistent dominance in the history of the game- even in periods like the Sampras/Agassi era, there wasn't a sense that one, then two guys have all the Slams utterly locked up and the rest of the contenders are superfluous- in fact, it was a regular phenomenon for someone relatively surprising to win a Slam on a yearly basis. In an era like that, given the kind of exceptional year-by-year consistency he's shown for seven consecutive seasons, it would be extremely likely Roddick would manage more than one Slam. Already, Roddick is one of only 13 players ever to have finished seven or more seasons in the top 10, and one of 15 to finish three or more seasons in the top three. 11 of the other 12 seven-plus-year top-tenners won more than one Slam (the other single-Slam player being Chang), and all 14 of the other three-plus-year top three finishers won more than one Slam. As I've said, if Roddick never wins a second Grand Slam title, he will probably rank as the most accomplished player ever not to win more than one.

WV_tennis22
03-30-2009, 02:09 PM
Hewitt is/was fantastic, thats no question. The thing that sticks out for me IS the fact that Roddick has been hanging around the top for basically his entire career, once he got there. For those of you arguing for Hewitt because he won a slam and all, look at all the people who have won a slam or two, been a world number 1, and cant even hold a candle to Roddick. They are both in the upper tier of mens tennis of all time, but it HAS to go to roddick. I mean, look at Roddicks davis cup achievements, and again, the fact that he is CONTINUALLY towards the top. the issue is, though, hewitt's injury stricken career. tisk tisk

clayman2000
03-30-2009, 02:09 PM
This is a Roddick fan who says Hewitt has had a better career, but not by that much.

We all know Roddick has been very unfortunate not to have won a second slam. In fact, if Roddick had won a second slam, Roddick would have clearly been the better player. Because if you look at the stats besides GS wins, they are almost even:

Titles: Finals: GS Finals: GS Semis: Masters: Top 10:
Roddick: 27 16 4 9 4 7 year
Hewitt: 26 14 4 8 2 5 year

What is not included there is obviously the extra slam, Hewitt some 60 more weeks at no 1, and his roughly 1 million dollars more in career earnings. Roddick should easily pass the career earnings.

Both have led their country to a Davis cup, both have won a few titles in doubles.

Roddick however is almost 2 years younger than Hewitt, and his 2003 year was better than 2001 and 2002

Tennis_Bum
03-30-2009, 02:18 PM
Hard to decide: Hewitt has more slams and more weeks at #1. Roddick has more titles overall and more master shields (4 vs 2 for Hewitt). Roddick is also having more longevity at the top. So it depends what you want to prioritize. I would say Hewitt was more precocious and more brilliant at the beginning of his career but he wasn't able to keep it up for very long, Roddick has been more consistent on the long term.


It's all about slams and longevity at being #1. No contest. You can't compare them when they are at the tail end, of course Roddick did have the injuries that Hewitt had. Who really cares about masters, when those two have slams to compare between them. You got to be kidding me!

Anyone who picks Roddick over Hewitt doesn't really know anything about tennis. Hewitt was the youngest ATP player to reach #1. Sure, he's pretty much out of it out, but the guy was a fierce fighter on the court. You can beat him, but you better be prepared to leave blood on the court because Hewitt ain't going to roll over and play dead.

I wish Fed had the same fight that Hewitt has. Perhaps he does, but he doing a really good job not showing it lately.

Breaker
03-30-2009, 02:19 PM
Hewitt is/was fantastic, thats no question. The thing that sticks out for me IS the fact that Roddick has been hanging around the top for basically his entire career, once he got there. For those of you arguing for Hewitt because he won a slam and all, look at all the people who have won a slam or two, been a world number 1, and cant even hold a candle to Roddick. They are both in the upper tier of mens tennis of all time, but it HAS to go to roddick. I mean, look at Roddicks davis cup achievements, and again, the fact that he is CONTINUALLY towards the top. the issue is, though, hewitt's injury stricken career. tisk tisk

Hewitt Davis Cup achievements > Roddick Davis Cup achievements.
Hewitt slam titles > Roddick slam titles.
Hewitt number 1 time period > Roddick number 1 time period.
Hewitt Masters Cups > Roddick Masters Cups
Hewitt 1 doubles slam title > Roddick no doubles slam title.
Hewitt prime DOMINANT over Roddick.

The ONLY thing in Roddick's favour is the longevity over Hewitt, in all of those years at the top he has not been able to match what Hewitt has done in his career.

WV_tennis22
03-30-2009, 02:20 PM
I really think everyone is just overlooking the longevity thing here. I mean, look at the quality of tennis Roddick has endured throughout this time that he's been in the top 10. He didnt just come around for a little quickie and then peace.

Breaker
03-30-2009, 02:34 PM
I really think everyone is just overlooking the longevity thing here. I mean, look at the quality of tennis Roddick has endured throughout this time that he's been in the top 10. He didnt just come around for a little quickie and then peace.

Uhh no, that is the only argument that is coming up for Roddick here.

The longevity is an achievement by itself but looking at just about every other category Hewitt does one better than Roddick and has the edge. The gap is pretty significant in achievements in terms of big titles and number 1 status.

clayman2000
03-30-2009, 03:08 PM
When people say say that prime Hewitt H2H beats Roddick, those people are actually taking a knock at Hewitt's lack of ability to sustain his play. Hewitt and Roddick are about 1.5 years apart in age so their H2H should not be based on when they played like a Roddick Agassi H2H would be compared. These two guys are in the same era. Now Roddicks recent domination of the H2H going back to the end of 05, is a testament to Roddick. Now three of Hewitts wins came when Andy Roddick was an 18 year old, and Hewitt had already been in the top 10 for a year.

Anyways, it is fair to say that Hewits decline began at the end of 05. He has fallen every year since. Roddick on the other hand had a great end to 06, a good 07 and a solid 08. 09 is looking to be his best year since 05. Seeing that Andy is not being affected physically by aging, means that he should be able to put another 2 years in the top 10 (at least). He is a workhorse and i think will have a much longer career than most tour players. Keeping this in mind, it is clear that if Andy roddick somehow gets another slam, a la Safin, or a la Ivanisevic, he would clearly be ahead of Hewitt.

It is also key to remember that Andy Roddicks 2004 year was very close to Hewitts no 1 years, and that he was very unlucky that a man named Roger had to break out.

Breaker
03-30-2009, 03:16 PM
When people say say that prime Hewitt H2H beats Roddick, those people are actually taking a knock at Hewitt's lack of ability to sustain his play. Hewitt and Roddick are about 1.5 years apart in age so their H2H should not be based on when they played like a Roddick Agassi H2H would be compared. These two guys are in the same era. Now Roddicks recent domination of the H2H going back to the end of 05, is a testament to Roddick. Now three of Hewitts wins came when Andy Roddick was an 18 year old, and Hewitt had already been in the top 10 for a year.

Anyways, it is fair to say that Hewits decline began at the end of 05. He has fallen every year since. Roddick on the other hand had a great end to 06, a good 07 and a solid 08. 09 is looking to be his best year since 05. Seeing that Andy is not being affected physically by aging, means that he should be able to put another 2 years in the top 10 (at least). He is a workhorse and i think will have a much longer career than most tour players. Keeping this in mind, it is clear that if Andy roddick somehow gets another slam, a la Safin, or a la Ivanisevic, he would clearly be ahead of Hewitt.

It is also key to remember that Andy Roddicks 2004 year was very close to Hewitts no 1 years, and that he was very unlucky that a man named Roger had to break out.

Hewitt's 2004 year was just as good, if not better than Roddick's and he was more affected by Roger, coming up against him in 3/4 slams as well as Masters Cup whilst Roddick only played him in one.

If you say Roddick was affected by Federer, then you have to say the same for Hewitt, 5/7 times knocked out at slams by Roger in '04-'05.

These "if Roddick had another slam..." hypotheticals are exactly the point - he doesn't have another slam title and doesn't have the credentials that Hewitt does, therefore his career, while being a great one, has not been as good as Lleyton's.

Eviscerator
03-30-2009, 06:53 PM
I'd say a slight edge to Hewitt, but the story is still not finished. If Hewitt falls off the map and Roddick goes strong for some time to come, it could change. Also give Roddick credit for all his Davis Cup wins. He is closing in on the all time records.

Joseph L. Barrow
03-30-2009, 10:30 PM
Hewitt's 2004 year was just as good, if not better than Roddick's
The rankings tell a different story.

and he was more affected by Roger, coming up against him in 3/4 slams as well as Masters Cup whilst Roddick only played him in one.

If you say Roddick was affected by Federer, then you have to say the same for Hewitt, 5/7 times knocked out at slams by Roger in '04-'05.
For that particular little period, you have a case, but in their overall careers, Roddick has definitely suffered more from Federer's presence than Hewitt has- Roddick has lost to Federer seven times in Slams, only slightly more than Hewitt's six, but the really significant point is that six of Roddick's seven Grand Slam defeats by Federer came in the semifinals or finals, three in the finals themselves, meaning that Roddick is quite possibly in with a very serious chance at winning the title without Federer there blocking him, whereas only three of Hewitt's losses to Federer were in actual Slam semis or finals, only one in an actual final. Federer has much more directly blocked Roddick from Grand Slam titles he was actually very close to winning than he has done to Hewitt.


These "if Roddick had another slam..." hypotheticals are exactly the point - he doesn't have another slam title and doesn't have the credentials that Hewitt does, therefore his career, while being a great one, has not been as good as Lleyton's.
Yes, if you've read my earlier posts in this thread, you'll see that's what I've been saying- this is only a hypothetical for how Roddick's career "could have been," not an argument as to how it actually has been, and since this is a thread about who's actually had the better career, I agree that Hewitt's second Slam in particular gives him the edge. Roddick does have notable advantages to his own credit, particularly in the longevity deparment, finishing seven straight years in the top 10 (he already ranks with the elites of history in this department, and has the chance potentially to improve on it even further) and now holding more overall titles and a better win/loss average than Hewitt, but nothing which would ultimately overrule Hewitt's superior elite-tournament accomplishments. This race isn't over yet, and right now, it looks as though Roddick has much better hopes for still adding significantly to his career accomplishments than Hewitt does, but at this stage I agree that Hewitt must be recognized to hold the lead.

CyberInferno
03-31-2009, 12:44 AM
How would one only "guess you could say" that Roddick is still going strong? He's made the semifinals or better of every tournament he's played this year, including a Grand Slam and a Masters Series, during which he achieved two wins over the world's number three, has only been bested by three absolute elites thus far this season, has won titles in singles and doubles, and is #2 in the ATP Race. These have been the best first three months of any season in his career. If you don't think that's clearly going strong, then your standards are ludicrous.

As for the question at the top, their careers have been very similar, and I would consider them very close at this stage overall, but I'd have to say that Hewitt's second Slam puts him ahead of Roddick. This is partly a matter of timing, since Hewitt came along a couple years before Roddick and accordingly had a longer run at the top before being eclipsed by Federer, but the record stands nevertheless. Roddick's primary advantages at this stage would be in more year-end top 10 finishes (an extremely impressive seven consecutive seasons), more overall titles, and a better career singles win/loss record, while Hewitt has the longer run at the very top, one more Grand Slam, and a winning record (6-4) against Roddick. I think it is possible for Roddick to overtake Hewitt even if he never comes up with a second Slam if he can further his advantages in other fields, but so far, given that most of their statistics are so closely matched, I think Hewitt's extra Grand Slam has to be the deciding factor.
Alright... Roddick is going strong. But hes been on top for years with not much to account for it in the slam counts for being a consistent top 10 player.

But I get sick of the "He had to deal with Roger" excuse every time Roddick is mentioned when it comes to slams. Thats not all Federer. Its part Roddick's fault too for never developing a better overall game outside his serve and actually having a FH thats gotten WORSE instead of BETTER
Agreed about it still being up in the air since Roddick is arguably playing the best tennis he ever has. Though I'll admit that when I read the title, my first inclination was definitely to give the award to Hewitt.

I don't think it's fair to say Roddick's forehand has gotten worse. He's hitting a more consistent shot now. It's more loopy and doesn't penetrate as much. So he's getting fewer winners off the forehand wing but also not making as many mistakes. Clearly it's a trade-off that he is happy with. I think he just needs to figure out how to incorporate the flat shot on balls that float a bit. His backhand is as strong and consistent as it's ever been and his net game, while still not his strength, is improving. I'd really love to see him make a major final this year. I think he has a chance at the USO. Possibly Wimbledon. And I'd be happy to see him make it past the third round in the French ;-)

devila
03-31-2009, 02:08 AM
Roddick hindered himself more than Federer standing in his way. How many times did Roddick correct his bad behavior on and off court? He was always lazy and called himself a loser in 2002 who "hung around the top 20".
He went to #1, but called it "a sneak up the ranking".
If you measure tennis power by Slam number, why don't you call Safin a superior and intellectually better person?
Davis Cup means nothing. Pat McEnroe made an umpire reverse a game point in a tie against Rochus in Belgium. And Roddick won his decisive ties alone, and not with Blake's help. Hewitt had help from Philippoussis.
Hewitt believed in himself and rarely choked. Roddick never had confidence, but he had an unhealthy need to promote the other players and make money for his charities. He will hurt his own ranking by spending time with his new wife and refusing to play European matches. He dipped down 500 points by not defending his Dubai title to support Shahar Peer.

He actually helped Djokovic and Tsonga's rankings.
Another idiotic decision in a long line of arrogant antics.
Don't take him seriously; he certainly can't give a flying crap at his age (even though he's not slowing down talent-wise like Federer).

Cfidave
03-31-2009, 05:37 AM
Its all about slams and being #1. Both go to Hewitt.

gj011
03-31-2009, 05:40 AM
This thread is still going on :shock:

Roddick is really overrated here.

AndrewD
03-31-2009, 05:43 AM
End of the day - for an extended period of time Hewitt was indisputably the best player in the world. Roddick never was.

deltox
03-31-2009, 08:05 AM
so what im gathering from the poster on this thread is, to be a great champion of tennis you only need to be good for 2 years, then you can suck for the rest of your career?

does that about cover the general census here?

lilycolefan
03-31-2009, 08:28 AM
title of this thread is better career, not better 2 years.. stop comparing 2 years and look at the overall careers..

its much closer than you are giving credit for.

The reason Hewitt is low ranked now is a hip injury as well as other injuries that prevented him from playing well after 2005. Either way he has a better career, more weeks at number one, more slams, dominant over Roddick at their peaks etc.

deltox
03-31-2009, 08:39 AM
The reason Hewitt is low ranked now is a hip injury as well as other injuries that prevented him from playing well after 2005. Either way he has a better career, more weeks at number one, more slams, dominant over Roddick at their peaks etc.

your going straight back to that 2 year period. there is no argument that can be made outside those glorified 2 years, point made.

tsongafan
03-31-2009, 09:17 AM
Roddick for sure. And the thing is Hewitt is basically done while Roddick definitely has more years to go.

CyberInferno
03-31-2009, 09:46 AM
This thread is still going on :shock:

Roddick is really overrated here.
The thread is still going on, but it's mostly just people arguing for Hewitt.

lilycolefan
03-31-2009, 12:01 PM
your going straight back to that 2 year period. there is no argument that can be made outside those glorified 2 years, point made.

Well in those to years he accomplished more than Roddick ever did in his career. I don't care how long Roddick has stayed in the top 10 thanks to easy posints from MM tournaments. I care about slams. Also, Hewitt has made the the QF or better in all the slams and has made the finals of 3 different slams.

devila
03-31-2009, 01:13 PM
With awful cheating at the 2001 US Open (and Hewitt's racist remarks about
Blake and the black linesman), you should be so proud.
I bet Hewitt wishes he could "embarrass" Roddick with Roddick's injury withdrawals & mindless umpires again.

He's dreaming of beating
a dumb James Blake in another 5 setter.
How about those Mickey Mouse events against an overrated, one-dimensional Sampras, and a nitwit like Safin?
Talent in abundance from Hewitt. He beat clowns like Canas, who recently beat down Federer twice. LOL