PDA

View Full Version : better player - hewitt or roddick


dragonfire
08-06-2009, 03:42 PM
please, dont judge this on H2H, because that's just idiotic.

If we go by grandslam wins, then hewitt wins. However, the period of which he was #1 was 01 & 02, where quite frankly, the rest of the field were either up and commers, or players going into retirement.

Hewitts wimbledon draw was a gift from god. Anyone in the top 5 would have won with that draw. Nalbandian and henman were the only decent opponents he faced................enough said. His US open triumph was better as he beat kid roddick and ancient sampras and other good players.

Roddick's only slam was well earned, he played henman 1st round, ljubicic, nalbandian (on his bet surface) and #1 ferrero in SS. Probably as impressive as hewitts US open 2001 triumph.

I think on hard courts, hewitt has made 3 HC finals, but got thrashed by federer once and beat by safin in the other. Roddick has made 2, but didn't get humiliated against fed ike hewitt did.

Grass, roddick takes this, i know everyone will say that hewitt won wimbledon and roddick didn't, but roddick got stopped by federer 4 times. On clay, hewitt wins this hands down.

Consistency goes to roddick, top 10 for nearly a decade, and still going strong, hewitt has had injury's though, but would have probably been kO'd fro the top 10 anyway, but you can't predict.

obviously, if we match there games up, roddick has power, hewitt can't generate his own pace, roddick has the better serve and forehand, hewitt better backhand and better touch at the net. Fitness goes to roddick also.

So, who do you think is the better player, roddick with 1 slam in a year where everyone was starting to develop and play around at the same level. Or hewitt who whon his slams in a short space in time when tennis hit a new low???

im gonna probably sit on the fence on this one, too tough to call

dincuss
08-06-2009, 03:43 PM
Roddick :D

JeMar
08-06-2009, 04:02 PM
Roddick's game has held up better, but still gotta give it to Hewitt.

dragonfire
08-06-2009, 04:04 PM
^^^care to elaborate??

diamondgeezer
08-06-2009, 04:09 PM
Hewitt in his prime would absolutely school Roddick. Even take their recent matches on grass. An out of form Hewitt returning from injury against an in form Roddick took him to two tie breaks at Queens and 5 sets at Wimby in which Hewitt was struggling with some sort of niggle.

JeMar
08-06-2009, 04:09 PM
^^^care to elaborate??

Same number of titles, but Hewitt has bigger titles to with his two majors. He also finished number 1 in the world twice in two years.

Breaker
08-06-2009, 04:19 PM
please, dont judge this on H2H, because that's just idiotic.

They're even h2h, so no real argument there, though Hewitt dominated when at his best, Roddick has dominated last few years.


If we go by grandslam wins, then hewitt wins. However, the period of which he was #1 was 01 & 02, where quite frankly, the rest of the field were either up and commers, or players going into retirement.

They're very similar fields.

Hewitt's 2001 top 10: Prime Kuerten, Agassi (back to back Aussie Open winner), Kafelnikov, Ferrero, Grosjean, Rafter, Haas, Henman, Sampras. + Safin at number 11.

^^ That's 6 previous number 1 players, and 1 future number 1 in Ferrero. Only Sampras was past it by that point though still capable of beating anyone as he showed at the US Open where he was only stopped by Hewitt. That's a decently strong field.

Hewitt 2002 top 10: Agassi, Safin, Ferrero, Moya, Federer, Novak, Henman, , RG champion Costa, Up and comer Roddick.

^^ Still a tough field, Federer becoming a very good player as was Roddick, Agassi very consistent throughout the year as were Safin and Ferrero. Moya resurgence that would last a few years, the only filler there really is Novak -- the only one along with Henman to not make a slam final, become number 1, or win a slam. Still a pretty strong field.

2003 Roddick top 10: Federer, Agassi, Ferrero, Coria, Schuettler, Moya, Nalbandian, Phillipoussis, Grosjean.

^^ Pretty strong with Federer coming into his own and Agassi + Ferrero still playing well. Though quite noticably 5 in this top 10 never won a slam, though only Grosjean never making a final.

Hewitts wimbledon draw was a gift from god. Anyone in the top 5 would have won with that draw. Nalbandian and henman were the only decent opponents he faced................enough said. His US open triumph was better as he beat kid roddick and ancient sampras and other good players.

Yeah too bad only 3 of the top 16 could adapt properly (interestingly enough they were also good fast grass players..) to even reach the quarters, and he beat both of them for the title.

Roddick's only slam was well earned, he played henman 1st round, ljubicic, nalbandian (on his bet surface) and #1 ferrero in SS. Probably as impressive as hewitts US open 2001 triumph.

Yes it was deserved, though I'm not sure US Open surface is Nalby's best surface it's the only semi he has made there after all and he's never won an outdoor hard court Masters. Good for Roddick to hold him off though.

I think on hard courts, hewitt has made 3 HC finals, but got thrashed by federer once and beat by safin in the other. Roddick has made 2, but didn't get humiliated against fed ike hewitt did

Yes but that final was the only time Hewitt was really humiliated in a slam by him, Roddick was once as well at the Aussie Open.

Grass, roddick takes this, i know everyone will say that hewitt won wimbledon and roddick didn't, but roddick got stopped by federer 4 times. On clay, hewitt wins this hands down.

Hewitt was stopped by Federer 3 times.

Consistency goes to roddick, top 10 for nearly a decade, and still going strong, hewitt has had injury's though, but would have probably been kO'd fro the top 10 anyway, but you can't predict.

Spot on, Roddick clearly here.

obviously, if we match there games up, roddick has power, hewitt can't generate his own pace, roddick has the better serve and forehand, hewitt better backhand and better touch at the net. Fitness goes to roddick also.

Spot on again though not sure about fitness, Hewitt's 5 set record is one of the best of all time whilst Roddick's is merely mediocre.

So, who do you think is the better player, roddick with 1 slam in a year where everyone was starting to develop and play around at the same level. Or hewitt who whon his slams in a short space in time when tennis hit a new low???

Tennis didn't hit a new low, that is an overexaggeration due to Costa beating favourite Ferrero and Johannson beating favourite Safin in grand slam finals. The fields were quite similar in strength.

Joseph L. Barrow
08-06-2009, 05:29 PM
Hewitt in his prime would absolutely school Roddick. Even take their recent matches on grass. An out of form Hewitt returning from injury against an in form Roddick took him to two tie breaks at Queens and 5 sets at Wimby in which Hewitt was struggling with some sort of niggle.
Come on, now; how long can you keep using the "out-of-form-coming-off-injury" line for one guy? Hewitt was injured last year. He had been consistently active the last several months going into the grass court season, had won an event and competed impressively in a couple of others, and had soundly beaten world's #5 Del Potro in the second round prior to the Wimbledon encounter. Hewitt is past his peak, but he's not "out-of-form-coming-out-of-an-injury-layoff" anymore.

Hewitt compiled his early winning record against a green Roddick, while Roddick has leveled matters out with repeated victories over the somewhat faded Hewitt of the present. Nearly all of their matches, even when one guy was not at his best, have been close and hard-fought.

CountryHillbilly
08-06-2009, 05:32 PM
I'd say Roddick. He was a little younger than Hewitt and so he ran into Fed in his prime years. He would have had maybe 4 majors without Fed.

deltox
08-06-2009, 05:51 PM
Hewitt in his prime would absolutely school Roddick. Even take their recent matches on grass. An out of form Hewitt returning from injury against an in form Roddick took him to two tie breaks at Queens and 5 sets at Wimby in which Hewitt was struggling with some sort of niggle.

i love this stuff. "in their primes" yada yada yada

what the f ever, get over yourself.

Hewitt was struggling (nadal type excuses)
Hewitt took roddick and such and such to 5 set and barely lost (yeah well he lost, call it choking)
Hewitt is out of form (well hell, hes been back on tour for long enough to be back in top physical shape)

guys stop making excuses for hewitt, he was a 1 year wonder, before and since, hes just an average top 20 player.

he had JMDP in a corner tonight judging by the scoreboard as the match progressed, but hewitt choked again

akv89
08-06-2009, 06:11 PM
i love this stuff. "in their primes" yada yada yada

what the f ever, get over yourself.

Hewitt was struggling (nadal type excuses)
Hewitt took roddick and such and such to 5 set and barely lost (yeah well he lost, call it choking)
Hewitt is out of form (well hell, hes been back on tour for long enough to be back in top physical shape)

guys stop making excuses for hewitt, he was a 1 year wonder, before and since, hes just an average top 20 player.

he had JMDP in a corner tonight judging by the scoreboard as the match progressed, but hewitt choked again

Did you even watch the match?

deltox
08-06-2009, 06:35 PM
Did you even watch the match?

seeing as how it wasnt televised, no i cant say i did. but he sure was at 2-2 in the tiebreak and never won another point. even on his serve.

akv89
08-06-2009, 06:36 PM
seeing as how it wasnt televised, no i cant say i did. but he sure was at 2-2 in the tiebreak and never won another point. even on his serve.

Suffice it to say that although he fell short, Hewitt showed exactly how tough he was mentally in the third set. I'm not going to add any spoilers.

clayman2000
08-06-2009, 06:37 PM
i love this stuff. "in their primes" yada yada yada

what the f ever, get over yourself.

Hewitt was struggling (nadal type excuses)
Hewitt took roddick and such and such to 5 set and barely lost (yeah well he lost, call it choking)
Hewitt is out of form (well hell, hes been back on tour for long enough to be back in top physical shape)

guys stop making excuses for hewitt, he was a 1 year wonder, before and since, hes just an average top 20 player.

he had JMDP in a corner tonight judging by the scoreboard as the match progressed, but hewitt choked again

Yes HEwitt is a tad overrated in my mind, but this guy has spent 5 years in the top 10, 2 at no 1, 4 seasons in the top 4, 4 slam finals, 2 YEC, 2 Masters. I mean in 05 he finished 4th on tour, playing only 4 tourneys, missing a major and 6 Masters

drwood
08-06-2009, 06:40 PM
Right now...definitely Roddick -- he's won their last 5 meetings.
Early -- Hewitt owned him.

Total careers:
Roddick has been near the top longer, but Hewitt has been AT the top longer.

If both their careers ended today = slight edge Hewitt
Over next 2-3 years -- I expect Roddick to do much better than Hewitt, so I said slight Roddick

dragonfire
08-07-2009, 01:08 AM
They're even h2h, so no real argument there, though Hewitt dominated when at his best, Roddick has dominated last few years.




They're very similar fields.

Hewitt's 2001 top 10: Prime Kuerten, Agassi (back to back Aussie Open winner), Kafelnikov, Ferrero, Grosjean, Rafter, Haas, Henman, Sampras. + Safin at number 11.

^^ That's 6 previous number 1 players, and 1 future number 1 in Ferrero. Only Sampras was past it by that point though still capable of beating anyone as he showed at the US Open where he was only stopped by Hewitt. That's a decently strong field.

Hewitt 2002 top 10: Agassi, Safin, Ferrero, Moya, Federer, Novak, Henman, , RG champion Costa, Up and comer Roddick.

^^ Still a tough field, Federer becoming a very good player as was Roddick, Agassi very consistent throughout the year as were Safin and Ferrero. Moya resurgence that would last a few years, the only filler there really is Novak -- the only one along with Henman to not make a slam final, become number 1, or win a slam. Still a pretty strong field.

2003 Roddick top 10: Federer, Agassi, Ferrero, Coria, Schuettler, Moya, Nalbandian, Phillipoussis, Grosjean.

^^ Pretty strong with Federer coming into his own and Agassi + Ferrero still playing well. Though quite noticably 5 in this top 10 never won a slam, though only Grosjean never making a final.



Yeah too bad only 3 of the top 16 could adapt properly (interestingly enough they were also good fast grass players..) to even reach the quarters, and he beat both of them for the title.



Yes it was deserved, though I'm not sure US Open surface is Nalby's best surface it's the only semi he has made there after all and he's never won an outdoor hard court Masters. Good for Roddick to hold him off though.



Yes but that final was the only time Hewitt was really humiliated in a slam by him, Roddick was once as well at the Aussie Open.



Hewitt was stopped by Federer 3 times.



Spot on, Roddick clearly here.



Spot on again though not sure about fitness, Hewitt's 5 set record is one of the best of all time whilst Roddick's is merely mediocre.



Tennis didn't hit a new low, that is an overexaggeration due to Costa beating favourite Ferrero and Johannson beating favourite Safin in grand slam finals. The fields were quite similar in strength.

hewitt might have been stopped by federer 3 times, but he's only won 1 set against federer, and the scoreline was never in doubt, roddick really should have beaten federer twice at wimbledon.

roddick does have better fitness as he rarely gets injured - 5th setters are simply the lottery. You obviously have to be fit, but maybe hewitt's 5th set record is good down to playing weakened opponents.

Please, hewitt might have dominated the game when roddick was 18 or 19, but he was never going to hold his game up was he. Hewitt relies on grit and i dont consider him to be talented at all - at least roddick has real weapons in his game.

Ask anyone, the worst two years were 2001 and 2002, no doubt. A grinder won on grass FFS, how bad could it be. Johansson won AO, which was horrible.

GameSampras
08-07-2009, 09:08 AM
At their best talent wise? Hewitt is miles better than Roddick.. How is this even a question? Roddick just isnt that good. Hewitt was the far superior all around game.. Wasnt around that long and accomplished EVER MORE than Roddick who has been moping around in the top 10 for a decade.


Pretty sad

dragonfire
08-07-2009, 09:12 AM
At their best talent wise? Hewitt is miles better than Roddick.. How is this even a question? Roddick just isnt that good. Hewitt was the far superior all around game.. Wasnt around that long and accomplished EVER MORE than Roddick who has been moping around in the top 10 for a decade.


Pretty sad


forehand - roddick
serve - roddick
power - roddick
fitness - roddick
backhand - hewitt
touch/net - hewitt
speed - hewitt.

just to generalise, hewitt is not talented, he's a grinder - a type of player who is known for not being talented. He hasn't got any big weapons either, the guy just has a great work ethic and determination

GameSampras
08-07-2009, 09:14 AM
forehand - roddick
serve - roddick
power - roddick
fitness - roddick
backhand - hewitt
touch/net - hewitt
speed - hewitt.

just to generalise, hewitt is not talented, he's a grinder - a type of player who is known for not being talented. He hasn't got any big weapons either, the guy just has a great work ethic and determination



When comparing Hewitt at his best, obviously he was the better player than Roddick. There are some aspects of his game Roddick does better but again.. How much success did he see with it..

What I find funny is Hewitt has had a more successful career, for having a very very short prime only the span of 2-3 years whiile Roddick has been on top for just about a decade now.

dragonfire
08-07-2009, 09:17 AM
When comparing Hewitt at his best, obviously he was the better player than Roddick. There are some aspects of his game Roddick does better but again.. How much success did he see with it..

What I find funny is Hewitt has had a more successful career, for having a very very short prime only the span of 2-3 years whiile Roddick has been on top for just about a decade now.

he was successful in a horrible 2 year period of wastepeople, flip, even johansson won a slam in that age, WTF. He had the easiest draw in wimbledon - even a clay courter would win with that kind of a draw

Breaker
08-07-2009, 01:38 PM
hewitt might have been stopped by federer 3 times, but he's only won 1 set against federer, and the scoreline was never in doubt, roddick really should have beaten federer twice at wimbledon.

roddick does have better fitness as he rarely gets injured - 5th setters are simply the lottery. You obviously have to be fit, but maybe hewitt's 5th set record is good down to playing weakened opponents.

Please, hewitt might have dominated the game when roddick was 18 or 19, but he was never going to hold his game up was he. Hewitt relies on grit and i dont consider him to be talented at all - at least roddick has real weapons in his game.

Ask anyone, the worst two years were 2001 and 2002, no doubt. A grinder won on grass FFS, how bad could it be. Johansson won AO, which was horrible.

I see you decided to ignore 99% of what I said that disproves the weak era theory, oh well.

1.) Roddick couldn't even beat Federer BEFORE Fed's prime like Hewitt could Roddick was straight setted twice by Federer as well, and the only one Roddick maybe should have won was this year but he choked on the volley and Federer took it from there, coming close to winning does not mean that he should have won. After the second set in 2004 Federer took control and was able to play the bigger points better -- not to mention even still in his prime as you say he lost to Tipsarevic, 18 year old not even top 50 Murray, and Gasquet after being up two sets and a break, now THERE was a match he should have won and get another shot at Federer.

2.) "Maybe Hewitt's 5 set record is down to playing weakened opponents".

Yeah that explains why he won something like 10 5 set matches in a row and is known for having great fitness, what is Roddick's relatively poor 5 set record due to.his opponents being fitter in the 5th?

3.) Ok whatever he isn't talented, he won a doubles slam and the two fastest slams without being talented that makes sense.

4.) Yeah a grinder who has a winning record against just about every serve and volley player he ever played and has had consistently good results on grass, fast or slow beating grass courters Sampras, Ivanisevic, Henman, and many others on the surface as well as fast hard courts. Yeah Johannson won the Aussie Open, so what? It was one of the few times in tennis history where a massive underdog upset the heavy favourite in Safin, it's not like there were two nobodies in the final. The 90's had a Washington/Krajicek final and a Korda/Rios final, I guess the 90's was a weak era as well.

17 year olds were winning slams in the 80's, weak era. Soderling/Baghdatis/Puerta have been in slam finals and could have potentially won slams, weak era.

Your argument is that an unfit, talentless, played in weak era grinder was able to win two slams, a doubles slam, two Masters Cups, 27 titles, be world number one for 75 consecutive weeks (8th all time), led his team to a Davis Cup, winning two.

Not to mention when playing in the "strong era" he was able to get back to number 2, finish at number 4 in '05 playing only EIGHT tournaments.What a hack.

clayman2000
08-07-2009, 02:11 PM
I see you decided to ignore 99% of what I said that disproves the weak era theory, oh well.

1.) Roddick couldn't even beat Federer BEFORE Fed's prime like Hewitt could Roddick was straight setted twice by Federer as well, and the only one Roddick maybe should have won was this year but he choked on the volley and Federer took it from there, coming close to winning does not mean that he should have won. After the second set in 2004 Federer took control and was able to play the bigger points better -- not to mention even still in his prime as you say he lost to Tipsarevic, 18 year old not even top 50 Murray, and Gasquet after being up two sets and a break, now THERE was a match he should have won and get another shot at Federer.

2.) "Maybe Hewitt's 5 set record is down to playing weakened opponents".

Yeah that explains why he won something like 10 5 set matches in a row and is known for having great fitness, what is Roddick's relatively poor 5 set record due to.his opponents being fitter in the 5th?

3.) Ok whatever he isn't talented, he won a doubles slam and the two fastest slams without being talented that makes sense.

4.) Yeah a grinder who has a winning record against just about every serve and volley player he ever played and has had consistently good results on grass, fast or slow beating grass courters Sampras, Ivanisevic, Henman, and many others on the surface as well as fast hard courts. Yeah Johannson won the Aussie Open, so what? It was one of the few times in tennis history where a massive underdog upset the heavy favourite in Safin, it's not like there were two nobodies in the final. The 90's had a Washington/Krajicek final and a Korda/Rios final, I guess the 90's was a weak era as well.

17 year olds were winning slams in the 80's, weak era. Soderling/Baghdatis/Puerta have been in slam finals and could have potentially won slams, weak era.

Your argument is that an unfit, talentless, played in weak era grinder was able to win two slams, a doubles slam, two Masters Cups, 27 titles, be world number one for 75 consecutive weeks (8th all time), led his team to a Davis Cup, winning two.

Not to mention when playing in the "strong era" he was able to get back to number 2, finish at number 4 in '05 playing only EIGHT tournaments.What a hack.

He ended 04 at no 3, not no 2. And in 05 he played 10 tourneys, not 8.

tintin
08-07-2009, 02:18 PM
serve:Roddick
forehand:Roddick
backhand:Hewitt
return of serve=Hewitt by a thread.They are not in the league of the Federer's,Nadal and Murray
net game:Hewitt-Roddick(neither is great)
variety=neither has great variety cause it doesn't come easily for either one of them.
speed=both
footwork=Hewitt
speed=Hewitt.Back in the day he was pretty fast.Not Federer fast even at his absolute best but he was fast.

all-surface=Hewitt.He did make a couple quarterfinals in Paris while Roddick's 4th round this year is his best result in the French capital

Breaker
08-07-2009, 05:04 PM
He ended 04 at no 3, not no 2. And in 05 he played 10 tourneys, not 8.

He was number 2 for most of 2005, and I should've said he only finished 8 tournaments, yes he did enter 10 you're correct.

Bilbo
08-07-2009, 06:10 PM
please, dont judge this on H2H, because that's just idiotic.

If we go by grandslam wins, then hewitt wins. However, the period of which he was #1 was 01 & 02, where quite frankly, the rest of the field were either up and commers, or players going into retirement.

Hewitts wimbledon draw was a gift from god. Anyone in the top 5 would have won with that draw. Nalbandian and henman were the only decent opponents he faced................enough said. His US open triumph was better as he beat kid roddick and ancient sampras and other good players.

Roddick's only slam was well earned, he played henman 1st round, ljubicic, nalbandian (on his bet surface) and #1 ferrero in SS. Probably as impressive as hewitts US open 2001 triumph.

I think on hard courts, hewitt has made 3 HC finals, but got thrashed by federer once and beat by safin in the other. Roddick has made 2, but didn't get humiliated against fed ike hewitt did.

Grass, roddick takes this, i know everyone will say that hewitt won wimbledon and roddick didn't, but roddick got stopped by federer 4 times. On clay, hewitt wins this hands down.

Consistency goes to roddick, top 10 for nearly a decade, and still going strong, hewitt has had injury's though, but would have probably been kO'd fro the top 10 anyway, but you can't predict.

obviously, if we match there games up, roddick has power, hewitt can't generate his own pace, roddick has the better serve and forehand, hewitt better backhand and better touch at the net. Fitness goes to roddick also.

So, who do you think is the better player, roddick with 1 slam in a year where everyone was starting to develop and play around at the same level. Or hewitt who whon his slams in a short space in time when tennis hit a new low???

im gonna probably sit on the fence on this one, too tough to call
waaiiiitttt a minute... i thought Ljubicic sucked:roll:? U cant have ur cake and eat it too:?...

My vote goes to Orant...errr:oops:... Hewitt. He won more grand slams, was number 1, won more masters cups (2 to 0) and two masters titles. Although he's a bigot and i dont like him, Hewitt has the edge here.

GameSampras
08-07-2009, 09:33 PM
Roddick slam well earned?? He played a couple of clowns for god sakes. Henman?? Solid on grass, nothing special at all on Hardcourts


Ljubicic and Nalbandian? LOL...


Come on now man.. Youre going to have prove a little better than that for Roddick's defense..


And lets discuss Roddick's conquests at Wimbeldon shall we? Yeahhh.. less than desirable opposition he conquered there as well.. How many high profile wins off legit grass courters does Roddick have at Wimby?


Hewitt before he went down with injuries which ruined his career, was the more solid player PERIOD!!


Especially a more solid grass courter.. I mean hell.. Hewitt who hasnt been significant in 4 years.. Wayyy passed his best, took Roddick playing arguably his best slam to date to 5 SETS at this past wimbeldon

GameSampras
08-07-2009, 09:47 PM
Roddick is a ******** loser. He isnt even a top 100 player today. Anyone with any shread of objectivity not blinded by hatred or trolling will agree.


Well i dunno if Roddick is ********, but certainly has been quite the loser in his career. I agree

julesb
08-07-2009, 09:49 PM
Well i dunno if Roddick is ********, but certainly has been quite the loser in his career. I agree

If it wasnt for his serve and the U.S rigging all the draws for him and helping him win with blatant cheating he wouldnt even be in the top 100 rankings no matter what the fresh green trolls say.

akv89
08-07-2009, 10:40 PM
Roddick is a ******** loser. He isnt even a top 100 player today. Anyone with any shread of objectivity not blinded by hatred or trolling will agree.

The loser who doesn't deserve to be in the top 10 leads Novak Djokovic 3-2 in their H2H...

Well i dunno if Roddick is ********, but certainly has been quite the loser in his career. I agree

...and has a 2-1 H2H against Sampras :D

FD3S
08-07-2009, 10:42 PM
Roddick is a ******** loser. He isnt even a top 100 player today. Anyone with any shread of objectivity not blinded by hatred or trolling will agree.

... and yet he's somehow been top ten for a good seven/eight years running, this year included. Care to explain this little fallacy?

goyeji
08-07-2009, 10:48 PM
... and yet he's somehow been top ten for a good seven/eight years running, this year included. Care to explain this little fallacy?

Did you bother to read julesb's post No. 29 in this thread? It answers your question very clearly.

julesb
08-07-2009, 10:49 PM
Did you bother to read julesb's post No. 29 in this thread? It answers your question very clearly.

Yes, just look at the draws he gets for nearly every event, especialy those in the U.S (which make up 70% of the tour). Are those somehow coincidence, LOL! Then the unfair and biased scheduling as well. Plus the unfortunate excessive part of the game with the racquet and playing styles today the serve alone plays. I will give Roddick credit for that one thing, he does have an excellent serve, and very lucky for him, and lucky for him in many other ways as I mentioned.

FD3S
08-07-2009, 10:52 PM
Did you bother to read julesb's post No. 29 in this thread? It answers your question very clearly.

Well, such a well reasoned and logical response can't be wrong :)

Especially with the wealth of evidence for draw-rigging and the fact that one-weapon players always stay top ten for that long...

goyeji
08-07-2009, 10:57 PM
Well, such a well reasoned and logical response can't be wrong :)

Especially with the wealth of evidence for draw-rigging and the fact that one-weapon players always stay top ten for that long...

This just shows that you STILL have read (or understood) julesb's post No. 29, or any other of her posts. You might wish to try and read and understand her posts. It will widen your horizons and enhance your understanding of the pro tour quite a bit.

akv89
08-07-2009, 10:59 PM
Yes, just look at the draws he gets for nearly every event, especialy those in the U.S (which make up 70% of the tour). Are those somehow coincidence, LOL! Then the unfair and biased scheduling as well. Plus the unfortunate excessive part of the game with the racquet and playing styles today the serve alone plays. I will give Roddick credit for that one thing, he does have an excellent serve, and very lucky for him, and lucky for him in many other ways as I mentioned.

Firstly, going by the number of tournaments, the U.S. makes up about 18% of the tour.

Secondly, what are these rigged draws you mention?

Thirdly, if the serve alone plays is important in today's game, how come Karlovic isn't even in the top 10.

And lastly, do you agree that Djokovic also doesn't deserve to be in the top 100 after losing to Roddick in 3 of their 5 matches?

dragonfire
08-07-2009, 11:38 PM
Roddick slam well earned?? He played a couple of clowns for god sakes. Henman?? Solid on grass, nothing special at all on Hardcourts


Ljubicic and Nalbandian? LOL...


Come on now man.. Youre going to have prove a little better than that for Roddick's defense..


And lets discuss Roddick's conquests at Wimbeldon shall we? Yeahhh.. less than desirable opposition he conquered there as well.. How many high profile wins off legit grass courters does Roddick have at Wimby?


Hewitt before he went down with injuries which ruined his career, was the more solid player PERIOD!!


Especially a more solid grass courter.. I mean hell.. Hewitt who hasnt been significant in 4 years.. Wayyy passed his best, took Roddick playing arguably his best slam to date to 5 SETS at this past wimbeldon

so are you saying that roddick played as well against murray and federer when he played hewitt? even roddick said he played average. roddick really should have won in straight sets anyway, he was in control of the match

Bilbo
08-08-2009, 05:50 AM
Roddick slam well earned?? He played a couple of clowns for god sakes. Henman?? Solid on grass, nothing special at all on Hardcourts


Ljubicic and Nalbandian? LOL...


Come on now man.. Youre going to have prove a little better than that for Roddick's defense..


And lets discuss Roddick's conquests at Wimbeldon shall we? Yeahhh.. less than desirable opposition he conquered there as well.. How many high profile wins off legit grass courters does Roddick have at Wimby?


Hewitt before he went down with injuries which ruined his career, was the more solid player PERIOD!!


Especially a more solid grass courter.. I mean hell.. Hewitt who hasnt been significant in 4 years.. Wayyy passed his best, took Roddick playing arguably his best slam to date to 5 SETS at this past wimbeldon
I disagree that Ljubicic and Nalbandian are jokes. However, A-Rod got EXTREMELY lucky against both of them. Nalby laid down like a wussy, and my man Ljubu had a set point in the 4th set on HIS serve (widely renowned as one of the biggest serves in the game) and blew it.

If u look at Roddick's other draws in grand slams, they are ALL pretty weak. I mean, he played Scheng Schalken and Ayounes El-Ayouni like 5 times each in grand slams that he went deep in. Who are these guys?

FlamEnemY
08-08-2009, 05:55 AM
Logic says they are equal. Even their H2H is even.
Heart says Hewitt :)

Also, if I had to pickk strokes...
Serve - Roddick
FH - Roddick
BH - Hewitt
Net play - Hewitt
Speed - Hewitt
Endurance - toughy, Roddick is in great shape atm, Hewitt not so much, but it all evens out, I guess.
Return of serve - Def. Hewitt, one of the best for years.

It's kind of funny how their careers turned out; Roddick peaked later and probably had the ability to win another Slam (evidence - Wimbledon), Hewitt on the other hand would have thrived in a S&V oriented era, e.g. 90s.
Still, both are great players.

dragonfire
08-08-2009, 05:56 AM
Logic says they are equal. Even their H2H is even.
Heart says Hewitt :)

we all know head>>>>>>heart

FlamEnemY
08-08-2009, 06:02 AM
we all know head>>>>>>heart

This is why one has to separate them.
Head doesn't always win though :)

clayman2000
08-08-2009, 06:41 AM
Roddick slam well earned?? He played a couple of clowns for god sakes. Henman?? Solid on grass, nothing special at all on Hardcourts


Ljubicic and Nalbandian? LOL...


Come on now man.. Youre going to have prove a little better than that for Roddick's defense..


And lets discuss Roddick's conquests at Wimbeldon shall we? Yeahhh.. less than desirable opposition he conquered there as well.. How many high profile wins off legit grass courters does Roddick have at Wimby?


Hewitt before he went down with injuries which ruined his career, was the more solid player PERIOD!!


Especially a more solid grass courter.. I mean hell.. Hewitt who hasnt been significant in 4 years.. Wayyy passed his best, took Roddick playing arguably his best slam to date to 5 SETS at this past wimbeldon

Ya Hewitt sucks. He just beat Nadal in straights, same with Del Potro. But of course he is a clown right :)

deltox
08-08-2009, 07:11 AM
Roddick is a ******** loser. He isnt even a top 100 player today. Anyone with any shread of objectivity not blinded by hatred or trolling will agree.

out for another s"troll" today o great and knowledgable lame one?

T1000
08-08-2009, 07:27 AM
Hewitt By Far
Most slams and harder draws
More time at number one
More year end championships
Dominated h2h in primes

JeMar
08-08-2009, 07:35 AM
Roddick is a ******** loser. He isnt even a top 100 player today. Anyone with any shread of objectivity not blinded by hatred or trolling will agree.

Holy crap!

A post by Julesb that doesn't talk about Graf!

clayman2000
08-08-2009, 08:01 AM
Hewitt By Far
Most slams and harder draws
More time at number one
More year end championships
Dominated h2h in primes

More slams by 1. And his 02 Wimby draw was such a joke. It was easier than Roddicks 05 Wimby draw.

As for more time at no 1. What was the competition. Sampras showed up for 2 weeks in the whole year. Guga was one of the tours top players. Safin couldnt put back-to-bakc years in the top 10. Andre missed a lot of tournaments. Heck, when Thomas Johansen and Albert Costa are winning slams you know its a weak era.

Is it Roddicks fault that Hewitts prime was 3 years, and that his prime is still going on? Also remember that Hewitt is a year and a half older than Roddick. and these guys were playing alot in their low 20's. At that age, the 1.5 years means a lot.

NamRanger
08-08-2009, 08:19 AM
More slams by 1. And his 02 Wimby draw was such a joke. It was easier than Roddicks 05 Wimby draw.

As for more time at no 1. What was the competition. Sampras showed up for 2 weeks in the whole year. Guga was one of the tours top players. Safin couldnt put back-to-bakc years in the top 10. Andre missed a lot of tournaments. Heck, when Thomas Johansen and Albert Costa are winning slams you know its a weak era.

Is it Roddicks fault that Hewitts prime was 3 years, and that his prime is still going on? Also remember that Hewitt is a year and a half older than Roddick. and these guys were playing alot in their low 20's. At that age, the 1.5 years means a lot.


Schalken almost beat Hewitt actually and was serving for the match.

clayman2000
08-08-2009, 08:26 AM
Schalken almost beat Hewitt actually and was serving for the match.

Ya.... but why then do people makes jokes about Schalken when Roddick beats him. Cause in 3 slam matches vs Schalken, Roddick has never dropped a set.

As for Hewitt, his match against Schalken should have been a quick 3 setter, but he blew his lead.

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 09:53 AM
I disagree that Ljubicic and Nalbandian are jokes. However, A-Rod got EXTREMELY lucky against both of them. Nalby laid down like a wussy, and my man Ljubu had a set point in the 4th set on HIS serve (widely renowned as one of the biggest serves in the game) and blew it.

If u look at Roddick's other draws in grand slams, they are ALL pretty weak. I mean, he played Scheng Schalken and Ayounes El-Ayouni like 5 times each in grand slams that he went deep in. Who are these guys?

Nalbandian is not a joker persay, and Ljubcic was decent.. However, SLAM WISE, I think we can all agree Nalbandian was pretty much an overrall joke his whole career in this category. Nalbandian never performed up to par at slams.


In short, winning a slam match over Nalbandian is not that big of an achievement based on his track record

ubermeyer
08-08-2009, 11:33 AM
"Roddick is a ******** loser. He isnt even a top 100 player today. Anyone with any shread of objectivity not blinded by hatred or trolling will agree."

you're ********, julesb. you just hate him and you are being a troll.

by the way: it's shred

Joseph L. Barrow
08-08-2009, 01:01 PM
Nalbandian is not a joker persay, and Ljubcic was decent.. However, SLAM WISE, I think we can all agree Nalbandian was pretty much an overrall joke his whole career in this category. Nalbandian never performed up to par at slams.


In short, winning a slam match over Nalbandian is not that big of an achievement based on his track record
Nalbandian was not a "joke" in the Slams. He's one of the few modern players to have reached at least the semifinals of all four Slams at least once during his career, including a Wimbledon final (and you evidently don't believe the fact that he won it over Nalbandian discredits Hewitt's Wimbledon title). He beat Federer at the '03 US Open prior to facing Roddick- the man was in top form, and we know that Nalbandian in top form is a match for anyone.

diamondgeezer
08-08-2009, 01:23 PM
[QUOTE]on grit and i dont consider him to be talented at all - at least roddick has real weapons in his game/QUOTE]

Are you off your friggin mind. For a start Hewitt has won two grand slams- how can he not be talented. All professional tennis players are talented other wise they wouldn't be making a living from tennis.

Just because Hewitt's biggest strength is his grit and heart doesn't make him any less talented. Same with Becker- would you say he wasn't talented because he played with his heart on his sleeve?

Bilbo
08-08-2009, 03:59 PM
Ya.... but why then do people makes jokes about Schalken when Roddick beats him. Cause in 3 slam matches vs Schalken, Roddick has never dropped a set.

As for Hewitt, his match against Schalken should have been a quick 3 setter, but he blew his lead.

the point is that roddick played him 3 times. He sucks! the guy is a freakin joke. Hewitt did him in the won time he played him, yeah, it went 5 sets, but a win is a win. Roddick got the luxury of playing this fool 3 times... and in grand slam Quarterfinals!

The_Punisher
08-09-2009, 04:24 AM
the only thing that hewitt has that roddick doesn't is one extra slam, and more weeks at number one.

hewitt peaked and then fell. roddick has been consistent throughout the years, by staying in the top ten for so long.