PDA

View Full Version : Let's explode a tennis myth about Roger vs Hewitt


MuseFan
12-02-2009, 05:51 PM
Myth: "Hewitt is lucky he won what he did in 01 to 03 before Roger started pwning him"

Fact: Hewitt was simply a much better player in their early years, and it was certain devastating defeats that prompted Roger to get better. I'll point to 2 in particular. 2002 YEC Semis

2003 Davis Cup semis: L 7-5, 6-2, 6-7(4), 5-7, 1-6
2002 YEC Semis: L 5-7, 7-5, 5-7

Without these defeats Roger would not have had the impetus to improve his game and eventually start dominating Hewitt in 2004. So Hewitt earned everything he won before that point. it's interesting to note that just a couple of months after the Davis Cup debacle, Roger dominated his first Masters Cup.

bertrevert
12-02-2009, 06:07 PM
Yeah I agree, Hewitt back then had this human-backboard stance and quality that drove everyone ... up the wall.

And as a wall Hewitt could break down someone mentally. Time and again a racehorse would get out in front and then slowly Hewitt would rein him back. If you couldn't keep up your winners then slowly he'd grind you down.

Fed back then was mentally more fragile. There would be these key moments in matches where Fed would miss by inches and Hewitt would win from there. (Fed would get down on himself.)

As Fed toughened up he also ensured he didn't miss and his spectacular winners continued to flow. Then he would smash through Hewitt and run away with it.

the little dasher
12-02-2009, 06:14 PM
^ & ^. Thats exactly how it happened.

MuseFan
12-02-2009, 06:16 PM
Then Rafa came along and was Hewitt 2.0 on clay courts and drove Roger up the wall... again. But this time he never was going to really figure out this human backboard.

crackbillionair
12-02-2009, 06:20 PM
Myth: "Hewitt is lucky he won what he did in 01 to 03 before Roger started pwning him"

Fact: Hewitt was simply a much better player in their early years, and it was certain devastating defeats that prompted Roger to get better. I'll point to 2 in particular. 2002 YEC Semis

2003 Davis Cup semis: L 7-5, 6-2, 6-7(4), 5-7, 1-6
2002 YEC Semis: L 5-7, 7-5, 5-7

Without these defeats Roger would not have had the impetus to improve his game and eventually start dominating Hewitt in 2004. So Hewitt earned everything he won before that point. it's interesting to note that just a couple of months after the Davis Cup debacle, Roger dominated his first Masters Cup.


Roger made a tactical change in his approach to playing Hewitt. Hewitt likes having a target and was always very good on the pass. See Hewitt playing an old and tired Pete Sampras, towards the end for the Pistol.

Roger was way more aggressive in his younger days and came forward a lot. As less guys came in, Hewitt had less success. Hewitt has no power. How's the guy gonna end a point? Well, he's pretty good at it when he's forced to come up with a pass.

So Roger, having a complete repertoire, said "I don't need to come in against this guy. I can flat out embarrass him from the baseline, at will."

And then Roger didn't lose to the guy for about 6 years.

MuseFan
12-02-2009, 06:22 PM
^^^
Roger still hasn't lost to Hewitt in over 6 years. 14 victories in a row.

Datacipher
12-02-2009, 06:37 PM
Myth: "Hewitt is lucky he won what he did in 01 to 03 before Roger started pwning him"

Fact: Hewitt was simply a much better player in their early years, and it was certain devastating defeats that prompted Roger to get better. I'll point to 2 in particular. 2002 YEC Semis

2003 Davis Cup semis: L 7-5, 6-2, 6-7(4), 5-7, 1-6
2002 YEC Semis: L 5-7, 7-5, 5-7

Without these defeats Roger would not have had the impetus to improve his game and eventually start dominating Hewitt in 2004. So Hewitt earned everything he won before that point. it's interesting to note that just a couple of months after the Davis Cup debacle, Roger dominated his first Masters Cup.

These posts are so poorly articulated that it is impossible to even identify what you are saying. Nothing in your "myth" is incompatible with your "fact".

MuseFan
12-02-2009, 06:43 PM
^^^
I think I was pretty clear. Once Federer upped his game Hewitt was toast, but it wouldn't have happened without those defeats in 02-03.

svijk
12-02-2009, 07:23 PM
^^^
I think I was pretty clear. Once Federer upped his game Hewitt was toast, but it wouldn't have happened without those defeats in 02-03.

Thats a very subjective statement unless Roger told you in person.....

Datacipher
12-02-2009, 07:35 PM
Thats a very subjective statement unless Roger told you in person.....

and again, it is both non-sequitur and not incompatible with his "myth". Complete drivel.

veroniquem
12-02-2009, 07:39 PM
It's no big secret that painful defeats motivate you to try and improve your game. It's not true just for Fed. It's true for all players. It's just that sometimes WANTING to improve to overcome an obstacle doesn't mean you CAN do it (see Roddick!)

akv89
12-02-2009, 07:41 PM
Hewitt's records against players not named Federer from 2001 to 2005:

2001: 79-18 (81.4%)
2002: 59-14 (80.8%)
2003: 36-10 (78.3%)
2004: 68-12 (85%)
2005: 37-6 (86%)

It seems like the H2H shifting towards Federer has more to do with Federer improving his quality of play than Hewitt's quality of play declining.

Datacipher
12-03-2009, 02:56 AM
Hewitt's records against players not named Federer from 2001 to 2005:

2001: 79-18 (81.4%)
2002: 59-14 (80.8%)
2003: 36-10 (78.3%)
2004: 68-12 (85%)
2005: 37-6 (86%)

It seems like the H2H shifting towards Federer has more to do with Federer improving his quality of play than Hewitt's quality of play declining.

I think both aspects played a part. There is no doubt in my mind that Hewitt lost half a step and confidence over that time period. Bear in mind that you cannot draw your conclusion from those statistics. First, 2 of those seasons have limited play, and second, Hewitt's record against other players is not necessarily indicative of his absolute level of play. The fact is, even Hewitt at 90 percent may still beat the other players, but not Federer.

roysid
12-03-2009, 03:44 AM
Roger has said that
- in initial years, he thought hewitt was unbeatable. He also felt that other players might be feeling the same about him. AFter AO final, 2007.

- he got a lot a confidence after pushing hewitt to 5 sets in Davis cup

GustafsonFanatic
12-03-2009, 05:11 AM
It's no big secret that painful defeats motivate you to try and improve your game. It's not true just for Fed. It's true for all players. It's just that sometimes WANTING to improve to overcome an obstacle doesn't mean you CAN do it (see Roddick!)

see Davydenko

TheNatural
12-03-2009, 08:38 AM
The new modern strings(and racket he used to compliment the strings) benefited Federer's inconsistent game a lot more than it benefited Hewitt's already consistent, precise but underpowered game. Fed was able to use his movement advantage once the equipment helped give him consistency.His movement wasn't so much of an advantage before when he was struggling with consistency with the older equipment.

Hewitt lost his biggest advantage over the field once everyone else was able to be a lot more precise and consistent with the modern strings. Then his lack of power was exposed more after his consistency was no longer much of a relative advantage v the rest.

lambielspins
12-03-2009, 08:47 AM
LOL at Hewitt's so called consistent game. One year in his loss at the French Open to Canas while ranked #1 he hit over 100 unforced errors in the loss. Roger is atleast as consistent as Hewitt. In their matches he has no more unforced errors usually combined with many more winners.

BigServer1
12-03-2009, 09:16 AM
The new modern strings(and racket he used to compliment the strings) benefited Federer's inconsistent game a lot more than it benefited Hewitt's already consistent, precise but underpowered game. Fed was able to use his movement advantage once the equipment helped give him consistency.His movement wasn't so much of an advantage before when he was struggling with consistency with the older equipment.

Hewitt lost his biggest advantage over the field once everyone else was able to be a lot more precise and consistent with the modern strings. Then his lack of power was exposed more after his consistency was no longer much of a relative advantage v the rest.

Are you kidding me? Hewitt, a guy with not a ton of power when compared to the big hitters of this era was HURT by the new technology? I disagree with that...I mean, holy crap, Fed was using the PS 85 with natural gut until 2002, then he switched to a 90 and has never used full polyester.

Federer is the one guy on tour that is hardly taking advantage of new technology. He uses a heavy, small, thin beamed frame with natural gut mains. The only modern thing about that frame is the polyester cross.

You can knock Fed for a lot of things (and I know you love to do so), but trying to say that the racquet and strings is what gave him an advantage over Hewitt is laughable. Federer improved his game and mental toughness, plain and simple.

GrafisGOAT
12-03-2009, 09:19 AM
Myth: "Hewitt is lucky he won what he did in 01 to 03 before Roger started pwning him"

Fact: Hewitt was simply a much better player in their early years, and it was certain devastating defeats that prompted Roger to get better. I'll point to 2 in particular. 2002 YEC Semis

2003 Davis Cup semis: L 7-5, 6-2, 6-7(4), 5-7, 1-6
2002 YEC Semis: L 5-7, 7-5, 5-7

Without these defeats Roger would not have had the impetus to improve his game and eventually start dominating Hewitt in 2004. So Hewitt earned everything he won before that point. it's interesting to note that just a couple of months after the Davis Cup debacle, Roger dominated his first Masters Cup.

Dream on. Hewitt had no improvement in Roger coming into his own. Roger didnt begin the transformation of coming into his own until mid 2003 so your theory about the 2002 YEC match is already thrown out the window. Then it took Roger half a year of the process until he had fully arrived in early 2004. Hewitt was irrelevant to the process. Whatever helps you sleep at night though.

TheChosenOne
12-03-2009, 09:59 AM
Hewitt is lucky IMO. Maybe not to win 2 slams as he was definitely a force at his peak and drive attackers nuts. But would he even of managed these if were apart of either the Sampras or Federer era? Roger is probably the worst matchup for Hewitt. And a younger at his best Sampras in his early to mid 20s would be a nightmare for Hewitt was well on grass and hardcourts back then I think. 01-03 was definitely more of a transitional era

akv89
12-03-2009, 10:20 AM
I think both aspects played a part. There is no doubt in my mind that Hewitt lost half a step and confidence over that time period. Bear in mind that you cannot draw your conclusion from those statistics. First, 2 of those seasons have limited play, and second, Hewitt's record against other players is not necessarily indicative of his absolute level of play. The fact is, even Hewitt at 90 percent may still beat the other players, but not Federer.

Your first point is valid. On your second point, if Hewitt's level drops a little, he would be more prone to losing a match against a lower ranked player and that would be reflected in his winning % when looking at a large set of matches.

For example, Federer's level was not at 100% in 2008, but he was still usually good enough to beat guys he would normally beat. However, because he was more prone to lose to guys ranked low than he was before, there were a few more abnormal losses (Fish, Karlovic, etc).

crackbillionair
12-04-2009, 08:00 PM
It's no big secret that painful defeats motivate you to try and improve your game. It's not true just for Fed. It's true for all players. It's just that sometimes WANTING to improve to overcome an obstacle doesn't mean you CAN do it (see Roddick!)


For a 2-hander, I like Roddick. I've been on a lot of boards where they have left this guy for dead countless times. Horrible losses, temper outbursts, blown volleys BADLY, matches where he didn't try to hit a winner on his forehand or backhand at all...

But he's not looking so bad these days. Some moron on **********.com pledged that Andy would never win 3 matches in a row on clay again...

He did that.

For the Connors coaching period and for quite some time before he was just an awful returner, probably the worst in the game's upper echelon, statistically.

He improved that.

Andy was horrible at thinking through matches, keeping to plans, all the stuff concerning the strategy side. He improved that greatly.

Stefankie has taken Roddick and frankly, improved every part of his game...conditioning, physical, mental, technical...he actually lets the forehand and backhand fly now, when the time is right, and his stone hands have really softened.

Roddick, depending on how you look at it, could be considered a greater threat at 3 out of 4 slams than Murray and Djokovic, other media darlings.

I'd put Roddick way ahead of DP on grass. I'd put Roddick way ahead of Nadal at the USO.

And he has played much better against Federer, pushing him on all surfaces, including clay. Give Roddick his respect. He is nothing like Davydenko, who has kept his brother as his primary coach since childhood. Roddick is a MAN, and I don't think ANYBODY in the top ten wants him in their bracket anymore, at any slam but RG, including Federer.

Tennis_Monk
12-05-2009, 10:44 PM
Hewitt is lucky IMO. Maybe not to win 2 slams as he was definitely a force at his peak and drive attackers nuts. But would he even of managed these if were apart of either the Sampras or Federer era? Roger is probably the worst matchup for Hewitt. And a younger at his best Sampras in his early to mid 20s would be a nightmare for Hewitt was well on grass and hardcourts back then I think. 01-03 was definitely more of a transitional era

Disagree. Hewitt at his best matches up very well with Sampras. Hewitt beat Sampras plain and square and federer beat Hewitt plain and square.

"If" scenarios are speculative and rarely definitive and there is never end to the "if's". For example, what "If" Hewitt played well against Marat in the AO final?

There is always an element of luck involved in any game but a player has to put himself in the position where luck can favor him.

So Hewitt (or for that matter any player) isnt lucky. They used whatever chances they had , with whatever they could and acheived whatever they did.

Hewitt is a great champion (like many others !)

nfor304
12-06-2009, 03:13 AM
that wasn't Roger's first masters cup in 2003. He played in 2002 also

GOATPARERA
12-06-2009, 03:27 AM
Hewitt dominated Federer when Federer serve-volleyed. From the baseline, Federer couldn't lose to Hewitt :D

Datacipher
12-06-2009, 03:38 AM
Your first point is valid. On your second point, if Hewitt's level drops a little, he would be more prone to losing a match against a lower ranked player and that would be reflected in his winning % when looking at a large set of matches.

For example, Federer's level was not at 100% in 2008, but he was still usually good enough to beat guys he would normally beat. However, because he was more prone to lose to guys ranked low than he was before, there were a few more abnormal losses (Fish, Karlovic, etc).

NO. He would not. Are you being purposely obtuse? Tennis is a not an experiment with linear variables. UGH. You can't be serious. This is...frankly....ridiculous, if you can't see the problem with your premise. Nor does your "example" merit any value. Do I need to spell out why? It's ABSURD!

aceX
06-23-2012, 09:56 PM
NO. He would not. Are you being purposely obtuse? Tennis is a not an experiment with linear variables. UGH. You can't be serious. This is...frankly....ridiculous, if you can't see the problem with your premise. Nor does your "example" merit any value. Do I need to spell out why? It's ABSURD!

Sorry, but I don't understand.

Paul Murphy
06-24-2012, 08:22 AM
^^^
Roger still hasn't lost to Hewitt in over 6 years. 14 victories in a row.

Wrong I'm afraid.
You forget Hewitt's win over Fed in the Halle final in 2010 - 3-6 7-6 6-4.

Mustard
06-24-2012, 08:32 AM
Wrong I'm afraid.
You forget Hewitt's win over Fed in the Halle final in 2010 - 3-6 7-6 6-4.

That post was from December 2009 :)

Paul Murphy
06-24-2012, 08:41 AM
That post was from December 2009 :)

Oh I see. Didn't look at the date.
As an Aussie it's nice to mention that win again though, especially in view of Lleyton's recent health issues. :)

forzamilan90
06-24-2012, 08:51 AM
a lot of banned posters in this thread wow

analysis_king
06-24-2012, 08:53 AM
very sharp and astute take.

actually federer applied that principle to pretty much every opponent since 2003.

helloworld
06-24-2012, 08:54 AM
Hewitt is a transitional champion. He took advantage dominating the field when Sampras was old and Federer was still too young. However, I'd still consider him as one of the all time greats for all the achievements he has in his career.

aceX
06-24-2012, 02:53 PM
Hewitt is a transitional champion. He took advantage dominating the field when Sampras was old and Federer was still too young. However, I'd still consider him as one of the all time greats for all the achievements he has in his career.

I think that sums it up quite well.

Mustard
06-24-2012, 03:00 PM
Hewitt never dominated. He was the best player in the world for 80 weeks because he was the most consistent player at that time, when the field was very even. Hewitt wasn't even in his playing prime when he was world number 1. Hewitt's playing prime was 2004-2005, and he had to compete against peak Federer.

Tennis_Hands
06-24-2012, 03:16 PM
The new modern strings(and racket he used to compliment the strings) benefited Federer's inconsistent game a lot more than it benefited Hewitt's already consistent, precise but underpowered game. Fed was able to use his movement advantage once the equipment helped give him consistency.His movement wasn't so much of an advantage before when he was struggling with consistency with the older equipment.

Hewitt lost his biggest advantage over the field once everyone else was able to be a lot more precise and consistent with the modern strings. Then his lack of power was exposed more after his consistency was no longer much of a relative advantage v the rest.

Prime Fed would beat prime Hewitt 7 out of ten times. Irrespective of the equipment. Wood, graphite, frying pan etc.

aceX
06-26-2012, 03:51 PM
Prime Fed would beat prime Hewitt 7 out of ten times. Irrespective of the equipment. Wood, graphite, frying pan etc.

More like 9.5 out of 10 times.

not_federer
06-26-2012, 07:47 PM
^^^
Roger still hasn't lost to Hewitt in over 6 years. 14 victories in a row.

Hewitt beat Fed in the Halle final, 2010.

I hate that I know that off the top of my head, I need to rethink my life : /