PDA

View Full Version : Better grasscourt player: Hewitt or Roddick ?


Anaconda
04-11-2010, 02:43 AM
I just wondered where people stood on this. Thankyou. I think they are even.

Rhino
04-11-2010, 03:10 AM
When it comes to the "who is better on grass?" question, it's hard to argue with a Wimbledon title.

Obviously if you meant, who is better right now if they played today? Then Roddick would most likely win.

Anaconda
04-11-2010, 03:17 AM
I'm talking in terms of quality. Of course Hewitt has accomplished slightly more, due to his 2002 Wimbledon title. But was his level higher than Roddick's 2004 or 2009 level where it took Federer to stop him. For me it's hard to answer.

NoleDjoko
04-11-2010, 03:50 AM
Wimbledon semi finals Roddick Def Hewwit

Cesc Fabregas
04-11-2010, 04:05 AM
Roddick. Hewitt had the biggest joke draw ever to win Wimbledon, Roddick in 03,04, 05 and 09 would win Wimbledon with that draw.

Anaconda
04-11-2010, 05:17 AM
Roddick. Hewitt had the biggest joke draw ever to win Wimbledon, Roddick in 03,04, 05 and 09 would win Wimbledon with that draw.

But you beat who is over on the other side of the net. Nalbandian and Henman aren't slouches. Come to think of it, there aren't many very good grass court players for a draw at Wimbledon to become really tough.

Anaconda
04-11-2010, 05:19 AM
Wimbledon semi finals Roddick Def Hewwit

Poor argument. Therefore Tipsarevic and Gasquet are better than Roddick on grass. They managed to beat Roddick. (and Roddick performed good against Gasquet and ok against Tipsy)

davey25
04-11-2010, 05:38 AM
But you beat who is over on the other side of the net. Nalbandian and Henman aren't slouches. Come to think of it, there aren't many very good grass court players for a draw at Wimbledon to become really tough.

A totally pre prime Nalbandian on grass is a joke. You forget grass is Nalbandians worst surface by a long ways, and in 2002 he was a virtual unknown as well. His Wimbledon final is one of the flukes of the last 3 decades. It was considered a big upset at the time he beat people like Arthurs and Malisse (who both choked badly against him or would have been in the final instead), and it took him 5 sets to beat someone like Nicolas Lapenti too. Then again given your humourous comments on Safins potential on grass it is clear you just dont get the meaning of surface differences somehow.

Henman was a very good grass courter under the old grass of 2001 and earlier. 2002 was the first year of the current Wimbledon rye grass, basically the current joke grass. Henman was never that good on this new grass. Hewitt could have still beaten him even on the old grass, but it would have been a heck of alot closer. Even in this case Henman still would been Hewitts only decent opponent.

2002 was the weakest year in mens tennis history, and Wimbledon 2002 was bar none the worst Wimbledon in mens tennis history.

Li Ching Yuen
04-11-2010, 05:39 AM
Roddick is by far the better player.

Hewitt is good, quarter-finals good.
Roddick is grass court slam material. Especially now that he's playing some high percentage tennis.

A bit off topic, Hewitt won a slam in that era of tennis that oh so love.

davey25
04-11-2010, 05:41 AM
Poor argument. Therefore Tipsarevic and Gasquet are better than Roddick on grass. They managed to beat Roddick. (and Roddick performed good against Gasquet and ok against Tipsy)

You are comparing guys with vastly different records on grass than Roddick. As Hewitt and Roddick have very comparable records on grass the head to head is something that is more significant if it gives any indications. I actually wouldnt give Roddick any edge based on beating Hewitt at Wimbledon last year though. Hewitt was well past his prime, injured, and still took Roddick to 5 which was a great effort for him. However the one meeting they had on grass both in their primes was 2004 on Queens and Hewitt won in 2 sets. If they had played at Wimbledon in 04 and 05 Roddick probably takes 04 and Hewitt 05, that seems to be the consenus of nearly everyone.

So very close really.

Anaconda
04-11-2010, 05:41 AM
A totally pre prime Nalbandian on grass is a joke. You forget grass is Nalbandians worst surface by a long ways, and in 2002 he was a virtual unknown as well. His Wimbledon final is one of the flukes of the last 3 decades. It was considered a big upset at the time he beat people like Arthurs and Malisse (who both choked badly against him or would have been in the final instead), and it took him 5 sets to beat someone like Nicolas Lapenti too. Then again given your humourous comments on Safins potential on grass it is clear you just dont get the meaning of surface differences somehow.

Henman was a very good grass courter under the old grass of 2001 and earlier. 2002 was the first year of the current Wimbledon rye grass, basically the current joke grass. Henman was never that good on this new grass. Hewitt could have still beaten him even on the old grass, but it would have been a heck of alot closer. Even in this case Henman still would been Hewitts only decent opponent.

2002 was the weakest year in mens tennis history, and Wimbledon 2002 was bar none the worst Wimbledon in mens tennis history.


Seeing as Safin 2008 (2008 was seen as a very strong year) made the semi finals. There is no doubt he could have done better. If you disagree you're nothing but a fool.

davey25
04-11-2010, 05:43 AM
Seeing as Safin 2008 (2008 was seen as a very strong year) made the semi finals. There is no doubt he could have done better. If you disagree you're nothing but a fool.

You are the fool if you are really basing that opinion on one fluke result like that. A 33 year old Schuettler was in the semis that same year, obviously way past his prime at that age, just imagine what he could done on grass in his prime by that logic, LOL! A guy who actually argued Safin had potential to be better than Nadal on both clay and grass is in no position to call anyone a fool.

Anaconda
04-11-2010, 05:43 AM
You are comparing guys with vastly different records on grass than Roddick. As Hewitt and Roddick have very comparable records on grass the head to head is something that is more significant if it gives any indications. I actually wouldnt give Roddick any edge based on beating Hewitt at Wimbledon last year though. Hewitt was well past his prime, injured, and still took Roddick to 5 which was a great effort for him. However the one meeting they had on grass both in their primes was 2004 on Queens and Hewitt won in 2 sets. If they had played at Wimbledon in 04 and 05 Roddick probably takes 04 and Hewitt 05, that seems to be the consenus of nearly everyone.

So very close really.



It's a myth that Hewitt is a tough match for Roddick. IMO it's a tough match for both. Remember Hewitt played his best tennis in 2001 US open and nearly lost to Roddick in his first year on the tour. Hewitt nearly beat Roddick in Wimbledon 2009.

PS: Roddick won 7-6 6-4 at queens 2004 :)

Agree with the last part. Hewitt would win 2005 but Roddick would win in 2004.

Anaconda
04-11-2010, 05:45 AM
You are the fool if you are basing that opinion on one fluke result like that. A 33 year old Schuettler was in the semis that same year, obviously way past his prime at that age, just imagine what he could done on grass in his prime by that logic, LOL! A guy who actually argued Safin had potential to be better than Nadal on both clay and grass is in no position to call anyone a fool.

Actually you are twisting my words, again! I said Safin had the ability of winning the French Open once at least. No doubt on this slow grass Safin could have won.

rovex
04-11-2010, 05:56 AM
A guy who actually argued Safin had potential to be better than Nadal on both clay and grass is in no position to call anyone a fool.

And he called me ignorant in another thread. What a moron!

anantak2k
04-11-2010, 05:56 AM
I'm talking in terms of quality. Of course Hewitt has accomplished slightly more, due to his 2002 Wimbledon title. But was his level higher than Roddick's 2004 or 2009 level where it took Federer to stop him. For me it's hard to answer.

I am not sure if people remember but Roddick beat Hewitt in a close 5 setter last year at Wimbledon, didn't he?
So it was a pretty close match. You can't just count Hewitt out. Hewitt in his peak was very fast and can hit great passing shots. If Roddick was at his best in 09 Wimbledon and it took him 5 sets to beat Hewitt who obviously isn't the same after the hip surgeries and stuff... then you can't just go and say Roddick is better just because he is having better results at the moment.

I think that Hewitt was a great fast court player at his peak.

Joseph L. Barrow
04-11-2010, 07:43 PM
I am not sure if people remember but Roddick beat Hewitt in a close 5 setter last year at Wimbledon, didn't he?
So it was a pretty close match. You can't just count Hewitt out. Hewitt in his peak was very fast and can hit great passing shots. If Roddick was at his best in 09 Wimbledon and it took him 5 sets to beat Hewitt who obviously isn't the same after the hip surgeries and stuff... then you can't just go and say Roddick is better just because he is having better results at the moment.

I think that Hewitt was a great fast court player at his peak.
Roddick wasn't at his best for all of '09 Wimbledon; his form improved as the tournament progressed. He actually had pretty shaky performances in his first three matches, which each saw him drop a set to an opponent one would normally expect him to obliterate. He looked better in his matches against Berdych and Hewitt midway through the tourney, but the great form people remember from him in the event didn't really fully kick in until the semis and final. If Roddick had played against Murray the way he did against Hewitt, I'd say he almost certainly wouldn't have won, nor would he have taken Federer to 16-14 in the fifth in such form.

Jimmyk459
04-11-2010, 10:14 PM
stupid question.

Roddick

jamesblakefan#1
04-11-2010, 10:59 PM
I still say Hewitt. People always bring up Roddick losing to Fed at Wimby, but Hewitt also lost to Fed in 04 and 05. So he just as easily could have more Wimby titles if not for Fed being so great. It's not like Hewitt's 02 title was some complete fluke - he's a very good GC player before and after that, so using the weak draw argument is worthless - someone had to win it, and Lleyton got his in before the Fed run of dominance. Good on him.

Of course it's going to be skewed now b/c people have seen the best of Roddick while Hewitt's now on the downside and people tend to forget how good he was back 02-05. It's close but I give the edge to Hewitt. But it could go either way TBH.

Li Ching Yuen
04-12-2010, 12:07 AM
Roddick wasn't at his best for all of '09 Wimbledon; his form improved as the tournament progressed. He actually had pretty shaky performances in his first three matches, which each saw him drop a set to an opponent one would normally expect him to obliterate. He looked better in his matches against Berdych and Hewitt midway through the tourney, but the great form people remember from him in the event didn't really fully kick in until the semis and final. If Roddick had played against Murray the way he did against Hewitt, I'd say he almost certainly wouldn't have won, nor would he have taken Federer to 16-14 in the fifth in such form.

The Berdych match was probably Roddick's best. His match against Murray was also of very high-quality. In fact throughout Wimbledon last year, Roddick showed some glimpses of great grass court tennis.

Mustard
04-12-2010, 06:38 AM
Hewitt. He's won 6 grass-court titles, including a Wimbledon title, and it's only because of prime-Federer that Hewitt doesn't have 2 or 3 Wimbledon titles. Roddick is very good as well and has been more consistent over a longer period of time, but Hewitt is better.

forzamilan90
04-12-2010, 06:41 AM
i say equal, hewitt does have that wimbledon title, but roddick has been to several wimbledon finals

Mustard
04-12-2010, 06:43 AM
I'm still annoyed by how then world number 4, Roddick, was given the number 2 seed at 2005 Wimbledon over then world number 2, Hewitt. It prevented a Federer vs. Hewitt final. The Wimbledon champion of just 3 years earlier did not deserve to be demoted in the seedings like that.

forzamilan90
04-12-2010, 06:47 AM
I'm still annoyed by how then world number 4, Roddick, was given the number 2 seed at 2005 Wimbledon over then world number 2, Hewitt. It prevented a Federer vs. Hewitt final. The Wimbledon champion of just 3 years earlier did not deserve to be demoted in the seedings like that.

that's a good point, i always felt bad for hewitt for not making any other finals (expect the australian open) as he always got beat by fed, every single damn time in every single draw. think about it, they always play in round of 16, quarters, etc.

Anaconda
04-12-2010, 06:48 AM
I'm still annoyed by how then world number 4, Roddick, was given the number 2 seed at 2005 Wimbledon over then world number 2, Hewitt. It prevented a Federer vs. Hewitt final. The Wimbledon champion of just 3 years earlier did not deserve to be demoted in the seedings like that.

Grasscourt results did favour Roddick.


It matters little. As Federer played better in the Wimbledon final than he did against Hewitt in the Semi's.

Mustard
04-12-2010, 06:55 AM
that's a good point, i always felt bad for hewitt for not making any other finals (expect the australian open) as he always got beat by fed, every single damn time in every single draw. think about it, they always play in round of 16, quarters, etc.

Hewitt's 2003 year is to blame for that when his ranking slipped down to 17 by the end of the year. It meant he was bumping into Federer earlier in tournaments in 2004 than Roddick was.

Grasscourt results did favour Roddick.

The fact that Roddick had won Queen's Club 2 years in a row at that point or the fact that Roddick had lost to Federer in the 2004 Wimbledon final? Hewitt already had 3 Queen's Club titles by that point, was also stopped by Federer at 2004 Wimbledon, and unlike Roddick, is a former Wimbledon champion.

It matters little. As Federer played better in the Wimbledon final than he did against Hewitt in the Semi's.

Federer played very well in both.

Anaconda
04-12-2010, 07:01 AM
Hewitt's 2003 year is to blame for that when his ranking slipped down to 17 by the end of the year. It meant he was bumping into Federer earlier in tournaments in 2004 than Roddick was.



The fact that Roddick had won Queen's Club 2 years in a row at that point or the fact that Roddick had lost to Federer in the 2004 Wimbledon final? Hewitt already had 3 Queen's Club titles by that point, was also stopped by Federer at 2004 Wimbledon, and unlike Roddick, is a former Wimbledon champion.



Federer played very well in both.


At that point in 2003 Hewitt was still fit. He won Indian wells that year but he lost against that player with 1 shot Karlovic.

Mustard
04-12-2010, 07:10 AM
At that point in 2003 Hewitt was still fit. He won Indian wells that year but he lost against that player with 1 shot Karlovic.

That loss finished off a very bad month for him where he blew a 2 set lead against Robredo at the French Open, saw his coach Jason Stoltenberg resign, struggled through a couple of matches at Queen's Club before being beaten by Grosjean and then got beaten by a man ranked 203 in the world in the first round of his Wimbledon defence. Hewitt also didn't play any singles tournaments after the US Open that year because of his battles with the ATP and because he wanted to concentrate on winning the Davis Cup.

Rhino
04-12-2010, 02:03 PM
Hewiitt has beaten Federer twice on grass.

He beat Federer in 2003 on grass (the year of Federers first Wimbledon), which was arguably Roddicks best year, and Roddick still couldn't do it.

NamRanger
04-12-2010, 02:07 PM
I don't see why everyone is trying to compare their H2Hs with Federer. You should be looking at their achievements and looking at how they match-up against the field as a whole. Roddick has longer longevity, but Hewitt had one year where he was able to win the tournament. It depends on what you prefer, a guy that year in and year out is a contender, and has only been stopped by one of the greatest grasscourt players of all time during his deep runs, or Hewitt, who also had a period of consistency, and had one great year.



At this point it currently favors Hewitt slightly due to his Wimbledon title and H2H, however, if Roddick won Wimbledon last year, it does a full 180 and heavily favors him.

Mustard
04-12-2010, 02:15 PM
Hewiitt has beaten Federer twice on grass.

He beat Federer in 2003 on grass (the year of Federers first Wimbledon), which was arguably Roddicks best year, and Roddick still couldn't do it.

When did Hewitt beat Federer on grass in 2003?

Hewitt beat Federer on grass in 2001, in the semi finals at 's-Hertogenbosch. Hewitt won 6-4, 6-2. That's their only grass-court meeting on the ATP Tour that Hewitt won.

Rhino
04-12-2010, 03:05 PM
When did Hewitt beat Federer on grass in 2003?

Hewitt beat Federer on grass in 2001, in the semi finals at 's-Hertogenbosch. Hewitt won 6-4, 6-2. That's their only grass-court meeting on the ATP Tour that Hewitt won.

My bad. I always thought that 2003 davis cup match was on grass.

Mustard
04-12-2010, 03:11 PM
My bad. I always thought that 2003 davis cup match was on grass.

Ah, I see. That semi final against Switzerland was on Rebound Ace. They changed it to grass-courts for the final against Spain.

Rhino
04-12-2010, 03:17 PM
Ah, I see. That semi final against Switzerland was on Rebound Ace. They changed it to grass-courts for the final against Spain.

Yeah i seem to have a lot of memories of the Davis Cup in Australia at that time being on grass. The clash with Argentina especially, those matches Hewitt played against Coria and Nalbandian.

Still, a good effort by Hewitt.

T1000
04-12-2010, 05:59 PM
Hewitt has 6 grass court titles (including Wimbledon) probably would have had more if Federer wasn't around since he owned Roddick in his prime. Roddick only has 4 grass court titles. He has more Wimbledon finals but never had Federer on the same side, like Hewitt did 3-4 times

edmondsm
04-13-2010, 09:37 AM
Hewitt peaked at the right time to steal a Wimbledon trophy. Take nothing away from him, he still had to win it, but a peak Andy would have walked through that draw and destroyed Nalbandian in that final as well.

Roddick by a mile.

edmondsm
04-13-2010, 09:48 AM
Hewitt has 6 grass court titles (including Wimbledon) probably would have had more if Federer wasn't around since he owned Roddick in his prime. Roddick only has 4 grass court titles. He has more Wimbledon finals but never had Federer on the same side, like Hewitt did 3-4 times

He didn't own Roddick on grass. Check the records. Roddick won all 3 meetings. And Roddick did meet Fed in the semis in 03'. I don't see how Hewitt having a low ranking and therefore running into Federer early in the tournament somehow ends up making him a better player then Roddick. It's a backwards argument.

Breaker
04-13-2010, 09:55 AM
I don't see why everyone is trying to compare their H2Hs with Federer. You should be looking at their achievements and looking at how they match-up against the field as a whole. Roddick has longer longevity, but Hewitt had one year where he was able to win the tournament. It depends on what you prefer, a guy that year in and year out is a contender, and has only been stopped by one of the greatest grasscourt players of all time during his deep runs, or Hewitt, who also had a period of consistency, and had one great year.



At this point it currently favors Hewitt slightly due to his Wimbledon title and H2H, however, if Roddick won Wimbledon last year, it does a full 180 and heavily favors him.

'04 and '05 Hewitt had very realistic shots to win the title if not for Federer. Though it's already been said that taking form into account Roddick would've taken '04 and Hewitt would've taken '05.

Roddick had mediocre grass results from '06-'08 so realistically he only had one more shot at the title than Hewitt did so far.

benmarks1984
04-13-2010, 11:43 AM
it was disgrace that Roddick was seeded number 2 above Hewitt at wimbledon 2005.
At the time Hewitt was number 2 in the world (depsite missing the whole clay court season with an injury that year) while Roddick was number 4 in the world. I no Roddick had reached the final the year before compared to LLeyton's Q/final, but Hewitt had won Wimbledon unlike Andy.

Plus Hewitt had beaten Roddick 3 times in big semi finals the previous 6 months = End of year Masters 04', Australian Open 05', and Indian Wells 05'.

They way both players were playing at the time you would have to favour heavily that Hewitt would have played Federer in the Final if he was seeded 2.

rainingaces
04-13-2010, 11:51 AM
Hewitt at his best beats Roddick at his best that is why I voted Hewitt, but Hewitts best days are long gone so now I would give a the edge to Roddick.

In the H2H on grass Roddick is 3-0 but these were all very close matches.

Mustard
04-13-2010, 12:06 PM
He didn't own Roddick on grass. Check the records. Roddick won all 3 meetings. And Roddick did meet Fed in the semis in 03'. I don't see how Hewitt having a low ranking and therefore running into Federer early in the tournament somehow ends up making him a better player then Roddick. It's a backwards argument.

You don't see how Hewitt missing out on ranking points in 2004 due to starting the year with a world ranking of 17, damaged his chances to go deeper into slams and end that year as world number 2?

tennisplayer1993
04-09-2013, 03:16 PM
You are comparing guys with vastly different records on grass than Roddick. As Hewitt and Roddick have very comparable records on grass the head to head is something that is more significant if it gives any indications. I actually wouldnt give Roddick any edge based on beating Hewitt at Wimbledon last year though. Hewitt was well past his prime, injured, and still took Roddick to 5 which was a great effort for him. However the one meeting they had on grass both in their primes was 2004 on Queens and Hewitt won in 2 sets. If they had played at Wimbledon in 04 and 05 Roddick probably takes 04 and Hewitt 05, that seems to be the consenus of nearly everyone.

So very close really.

Incorrect Roddick won in two sets in Queens 2004

monfed
04-09-2013, 03:36 PM
Roddick even though Hewitt has that lone Wimbledon.

90's Clay
04-09-2013, 03:36 PM
Hewitt has the wimbledon title (yea it was pretty weak but he still won it, something Roddick COULDN'T do despite a million chances to do so).

Hewitt also beat Pete on grass at Queens I believe. . Didn't he even take Roddick to 5 sets at wimbledon when he was a broken down shell of his former self?

Roddick is overrated on grass. Big time

tennisplayer1993
04-09-2013, 03:55 PM
Hewitt has the wimbledon title (yea it was pretty weak but he still won it, something Roddick COULDN'T do despite a million chances to do so).

Hewitt also beat Pete on grass at Queens I believe. . Didn't he even take Roddick to 5 sets at wimbledon when he was a broken down shell of his former self?

Roddick is overrated on grass. Big time

Well Roddick beat Hewitt on each meet up on grass. One time in their primes: Queens 2004

Anaconda
04-09-2013, 04:07 PM
Hewitt has the wimbledon title (yea it was pretty weak but he still won it, something Roddick COULDN'T do despite a million chances to do so).


Right, give Roddick Hewitt's 2002 draw I'm pretty sure Roddick takes that title too.


A million chances? Yep, because Roddick is really winning Wimbledon without a forehand - which pretty much cancels out years 06/07/08 2010, 2011 and 2012. I'm tempted to put 2005 and 2009 in those list of years he was forehand-less, but his serve was on throughout those tournaments.


Hewitt also beat Pete on grass at Queens I believe. . Didn't he even take Roddick to 5 sets at wimbledon when he was a broken down shell of his former self?


So beating Sampras is now criteria in this debate? Here's another fact; Roddick has beaten Hewitt every time they have set foot on a grass court. Doesn't this hold more value than bringing up irrelevant players? Secondly, Roddick was hardly in tip-top form at Wimbledon 2009 either; Conceding sets left, right, centre. Hewitt did better against Roddick than anyone else did until the final.


Roddick is overrated on grass. Big time


Who the hell overrates Roddick? I've been on this forum a lot longer than you, the guy gets more stick than anyone.