PDA

View Full Version : Peopl forget how good Hewitt was


BeHappy
08-24-2011, 02:05 PM
Look at this match against Federer in 2002.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIiP5Hw_Pq0

Notice how deep he hits the ball compared to other defensive players like Simon, Murray or even Nadal. He was definitely as fast as Nadal in his prime.

Tammo
08-24-2011, 02:09 PM
Hewitt was a great player, but sadly injuries prevented him from going really far. Also having a family takes time away from the game.

bluetrain4
08-24-2011, 02:14 PM
I don't think people generally, at least hardcore tennis fans, have forgotten how good he was. He's just not talked about so much because he's not a top player any more. He was always fun to watch.

NadalAgassi
08-24-2011, 02:15 PM
Look at this match against Federer in 2002.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIiP5Hw_Pq0

Notice how deep he hits the ball compared to other defensive players like Simon, Murray or even Nadal. He was definitely as fast as Nadal in his prime.

Yes Hewitt was better than Nadal which is why still prime Hewitt was destroyed by Federer in 2004-2005, the same Federer who teenage Nadal was regularly beating.

BeHappy
08-24-2011, 02:16 PM
Yes Hewitt was better than Nadal which is why still prime Hewitt was destroyed by Federer in 2004-2005, the same Federer who teenage Nadal was regularly beating.

I didn't say Hewitt was better than Nadal. His best (fast) hard court form was better than Nadal's though. I still don't know how Nadal managed to win a US open.

Nadal's success against Federer in particular has always been about the Nadal forehand to Federer backhand match up. That was the only reason Nadal was getting victories against Federer in 2004-2006 on hard courts. Nadal was consistently losing to hard court journeymen back then that Federer was beating love and love.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-24-2011, 02:19 PM
Prime Hewitt wouldnt stand a chance vs prime Nadal. Period.

Yes, he was good and yes he hit deep shots and yes he was lightning fast.

But, he didnt hit with a lot of topspin therefore his shots were not very heavy and they didnt penetrate the court that good. He was a great counterpuncher who won 2 GS and 2 YEC in a weak era in between Sampras and Federer.

BeHappy
08-24-2011, 02:20 PM
Prime Hewitt wouldnt stand a chance vs prime Nadal. Period.

Yes, he was good and yes he hit deep shots and yes he was lightning fast.

But, he didnt hit with a lot of topspin therefore his shots were not very heavy and they didnt penetrate the court that good. He was a great counterpuncher who won 2 GS and 2 YEC in a weak era in between Sampras and Federer.

Actually it's the opposite, on hard courts Nadal's heavy topspin shots sat up and were attackable leaving him vulnerable to players like Berdych, Blake etc, it was only in mid 2008 he finally learned to hit his forehand flatter to penetrate the hard courts, which has hurt his game on clay slightly in my opinion. Flat balls penetrate fast courts and topspun shots penetrate clay.

Hewitt, whenever he is injury free for a few months, pushes Nadal harder than anyone on clay except Soderling. He pushed Nadal to 4 sets in the french open (4 hour match), and 3 sets in Hamburg (3 hour match).

mellowyellow
08-24-2011, 02:24 PM
Hewitt is not Blake or Berdych, or anyone else with a huge forehand for that matter.

BeHappy
08-24-2011, 02:24 PM
Hewitt is not Blake or Berdych, or anyone else with a huge forehand for that matter.

Yeah, he was much better player than those journeymen.

NadalAgassi
08-24-2011, 02:25 PM
The French Open match was not a tough match despite that Hewitt somehow snuck out a set. Nadal had far more winners, far fewer errors, and dominated all 3 sets he won. As for the Hamburg match that was the round before Federer beat Nadal and gave him a bagel in the final. Are you actually implying Hewitt gives Nadal a tougher time on clay than say Federer, LOL! Mind you even Federer isnt overall tough opponent for Nadal on clay, but he is far more than Hewitt, even both those events which were Hewitt's best performances vs Nadal on clay, Federer still did better vs Nadal than Hewitt did.

Prime Hewitt was outplayed and lucky to win vs baby Nadal at the 2005 Australian Open on HARD courts. If Nadal hadnt cramped up and choked a bit in the 4th set he would have taken Hewitt out, and Hewitt went on to make the final. By contrast matches between prime Nadal and past prime Hewitt on hard courts see Nadal spanking Hewitt, like at the Olympics when Hewitt got 3 games. Prime Hewitt wouldnt even have the edge on prime Nadal on hard courts.

Lastly Hewitt is very fast but he is definitely not faster or even as fast as Nadal. Chang is even faster than prime Hewitt. Federer was even moving atleast as fast (and overall more effeciently) than Hewitt in their 04-05 matches when Hewitt was still at his best.

Tammo
08-24-2011, 02:26 PM
Prime Hewitt wouldnt stand a chance vs prime Nadal. Period.

Yes, he was good and yes he hit deep shots and yes he was lightning fast.

But, he didnt hit with a lot of topspin therefore his shots were not very heavy and they didnt penetrate the court that good. He was a great counterpuncher who won 2 GS and 2 YEC in a weak era in between Sampras and Federer.

+1 Except I don't think Hewitt would be crushed by Nadal. If they played in a slam (both prime) I think Hewitt could push it to four sets, and take the first set 7-5 or 7-6.

BeHappy
08-24-2011, 02:30 PM
The French Open match was not a tough match despite that Hewitt somehow snuck out a set. Nadal had far more winners, far fewer errors, and dominated all 3 sets he won.

There you are again, running to wikipedia and youtube. Well I actually watched the match and I can tell you that it was a very very close and long match.


As for the Hamburg match that was the round before Federer beat Nadal and gave him a bagel in the final.

Because Nadal was exhausted after playing Hewitt for 3 hours, same thing happened with a semi final against Moya resulting in a drubbing in the final by Youzhney a few years later.

Are you actually implying Hewitt gives Nadal a tougher time on clay than say Federer, LOL! Mind you even Federer isnt overall tough opponent for Nadal on clay, but he is far more than Hewitt, even both those events which were Hewitt's best performances vs Nadal on clay, Federer still did better vs Nadal than Hewitt did.

That year Hewitt gave Nadal a far tougher test than Federer ever did in my opinion. Nadal was absolutely physically shattered after that match. Nadal only ever lost sets to Federer out of a lack of concentration at key times, whenever he needed to step up a gear against Federer and close the match out he did it easily.


Lastly Hewitt is very fast but he is definitely not faster or even as fast as Nadal. Chang is even faster than prime Hewitt.

Nonsense. If you'd actually watched tennis back then you'd know how fast Hewitt was before all those injuries.

Kaz00
08-24-2011, 02:30 PM
Prime Hewitt vs Prime Nadal on a fast surface Hewitt wins. If I remember right Hewitt was complaining surfaces were too slow that he couldn't end points.

rdis10093
08-24-2011, 02:34 PM
Hewitt took out Nadal in 2005 AUS Open

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-24-2011, 02:36 PM
+1 Except I don't think Hewitt would be crushed by Nadal. If they played in a slam (both prime) I think Hewitt could push it to four sets, and take the first set 7-5 or 7-6.

You might be right, but that would be either in USO or AO, in Wimby (with todays grass) or in FO. I dont think Hewitt would take a set.

mellowyellow
08-24-2011, 02:40 PM
Prime Hewitt vs Prime Nadal on a fast surface Hewitt wins. If I remember right Hewitt was complaining surfaces were too slow that he couldn't end points.
That seems a bit odd, he could only win Queens the slower grass tourney, and Wimby the year they started slowing it down and making it bounce higher. Hewitt was a stop gap .

Tammo
08-24-2011, 02:41 PM
Hewitt took out Nadal in 2005 AUS Open

Yes in his own country and before Nadal won his first slam. This is Prime Nadal vs. Prime Hewitt.

BeHappy
08-24-2011, 02:42 PM
You might be right, but that would be either in USO or AO, in Wimby (with todays grass) or in FO. I dont think Hewitt would take a set.

Hewitt took Nadal to 4 in the FO in 2006 and to 3 in Hamburg 2007. Both very very tough and close matches.

Tammo
08-24-2011, 02:44 PM
Hewitt took Nadal to 4 in the FO in 2006 and to 3 in Hamburg 2007. Both very very tough and close matches.

Haven't they played 3 times at the FO. Do you have the scores for those matches?

BeHappy
08-24-2011, 02:45 PM
Haven't they played 3 times at the FO. Do you have the scores for those matches?

Hewitt was past his prime in 2006 as it was, Nadal was right in the middle of his and you said Hewitt wouldn't take a set off Nadal in his prime, but if you look at 2006 he did. What more do you want?

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-24-2011, 02:48 PM
Hewitt took Nadal to 4 in the FO in 2006 and to 3 in Hamburg 2007. Both very very tough and close matches.

You are absolutely right, I missed that. Surprising imo. VERY surprising

Pacific3000
08-24-2011, 02:54 PM
Hewitt had serious game.

Tammo
08-24-2011, 02:54 PM
Hewitt was past his prime in 2006 as it was, Nadal was right in the middle of his and you said Hewitt wouldn't take a set off Nadal in his prime, but if you look at 2006 he did. What more do you want?

When did I say that. I said if both played prime Hewitt would probably take a set off Nadal. Nadal's game can change from day to day. Maybe Nadal had a bad day and Hewitt had a good day. But if Nadal played his VERY best and Hewitt played his VERY best Hewitt probably could take a set off Nadal. The point is Nadal's best is Better than Hewitt's best.

BeHappy
08-24-2011, 02:56 PM
When did I say that. I said if both played prime Hewitt would probably take a set off Nadal. Nadal's game can change from day to day. Maybe Nadal had a bad day and Hewitt had a good day. But if Nadal played his VERY best and Hewitt played his VERY best Hewitt probably could take a set off Nadal. The point is Nadal's best is Better than Hewitt's best.

On clay - definitely, absolutely no question. On slow hard courts - 50-50 probably, on fast hard courts like the USO though I think Hewitt would dominate as easily as Nadal would on clay.

pound cat
08-24-2011, 02:58 PM
Look at this match against Federer in 2002.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIiP5Hw_Pq0

Notice how deep he hits the ball compared to other defensive players like Simon, Murray or even Nadal. He was definitely as fast as Nadal in his prime.

When Hewitt was #1 he put fear into the other players that no one would ever be able to beat him. He was the Nadal/Federer/(Djokovic?) of his day.

BeHappy
08-02-2012, 01:54 PM
In light of Hewitt taking Djoker to three this is worth a bump.

veroniquem
08-02-2012, 01:57 PM
Hewitt won Halle 2 years ago and made a grass final this year. Grass is the only surface where he is still in the conversation. To think he was able to stay toe to toe with #2 and last year's Wimbledon champion! Respect.

Max G.
08-02-2012, 02:05 PM
People always seem to forget how good players were, as soon as those players decline.

Roddick, too. And definitely Hewitt.

TMF
08-02-2012, 02:10 PM
Hewitt had mulitple surgeries and still gave Nole fits. A prime Hewitt would have beaten Nole.

Tombers
08-02-2012, 02:22 PM
Though not a huge fan of his style of play, I respected his endeavour. Hewitt filled in that gap between Sampras and the emergence of Federer in 03 quite well. Between 00-02 he was the most determined player among an inconsistent bunch which included post prime Sampras and Agassi, lazy Saifn, pre prime Federer, Rafter, Ferrero and kuerton.
However, Hewitt’s win loss record in 2001 and 2002, when he finished number 1 always troubled me. He was 80-18 in 2001 and 61-15 in 2002 which would indicate that there was a strong field at the time, this was not the case. In 2002 Hewitt lost to Alberto Martin, Federer, Moya, Gaudio, Safin, Canas, Mantilla, Rusedski, Agassi, Srichaphan and Sluiter. 1999-2002 was a dark time for the men's game and pushed me to the wta to watch the hingis/williams sisters encounters.

BigServer1
08-02-2012, 02:39 PM
People always seem to forget how good players were, as soon as those players decline.

Roddick, too. And definitely Hewitt.

Yeah as soon as players decline they become fodder for weak era arguments.

"Look at how bad Roddick is now! He's such a joke and was lucky to play in such a weak era".

To the OP. Hewitt is incredibly undervalued on TT. He was legit and an animal until 2005. After that first hip surgery, it was downhill from there...

ChipNCharge
08-02-2012, 02:41 PM
Prime Hewitt wouldnt stand a chance vs prime Nadal. Period.


Why did I bother clicking on this thread?

djokovic2008
08-02-2012, 02:57 PM
As good as Hewitt was he was never on the level game wise as fed djoker nadal or even murray he just does not have the power like those guys can rely on when times got tough. He however was better in his prime than the likes of berdych and maybe del potro.

Tombers
08-02-2012, 03:01 PM
I preffered the hewitt of 2004-2005. You could argue that hewitt was stronger than 04 Roddick and not far off 05 Nadal.

cc0509
08-02-2012, 03:04 PM
As good as Hewitt was he was never on the level game wise as fed djoker nadal or even murray he just does not have the power like those guys can rely on when times got tough. He however was better in his prime than the likes of berdych and maybe del potro.

Prime Hewitt was a lot better than Berdych and Del Potro. No comparison.
Berdych and Del Potro are thoughtless ball bashers for the most part. Hewitt was a smart player, he had to be because he did not have the power. He was smart and lightning fast. He would run for every single ball no matter how difficult and many times he would make the shot once he got there. He was great to watch in his prime.

roberttennis54
08-02-2012, 03:06 PM
As good as Hewitt was he was never on the level game wise as fed djoker nadal or even murray he just does not have the power like those guys can rely on when times got tough. He however was better in his prime than the likes of berdych and maybe del potro.

No Hewitt is better than Murray at the US Open or Wimbledon. He is also better than Djokovic on grass. Djokovic is not on the level of Federer or Nadal. Federer was better than Djokovic on every surface. Nadal is better than him on grass and clay. As for Del Potro he was sadly ruined by injury. His top level was something special. In 09 he was set to dominate, but injuries ruined. Putting Hewitt in the same league as Berdych is laughable.

ZeroSkid
08-02-2012, 03:08 PM
As good as Hewitt was he was never on the level game wise as fed djoker nadal or even murray he just does not have the power like those guys can rely on when times got tough. He however was better in his prime than the likes of berdych and maybe del potro.

what am I reading, are you 12, how can you compare berdych and Delpo to hewit, Delpo idolized hewit, you have to be a kid

Ashley D
08-02-2012, 03:25 PM
Totally agree. Leaves Murray eating his dust. The guy won an atp tourney at 15, won queens multiple times, WON THE TWO MOST PRESIGIOUS SLAMS and was number one in the world for a long time. He had the best wheels and mental game in tennis. Had he not been injured so much, whole different career for Ley Ley.

Tombers
08-02-2012, 03:32 PM
Totally agree. Leaves Murray eating his dust. The guy won an atp tourney at 15, won queens multiple times, WON THE TWO MOST PRESIGIOUS SLAMS and was number one in the world for a long time. He had the best wheels and mental game in tennis. Had he not been injured so much, whole different career for Ley Ley.

Agree on the point about him vs murray, but in terms of hewitt being number one for a long time, that was really down to the lack of consistency of players like agassi, safin and keurton. Still to this day think that 00-02 was a lame period for men's tennis.

Cup8489
08-02-2012, 03:47 PM
Hewitt gets nowhere near the credit he deserves. I was laughed at for suggesting he could hang with the top 5 in his prime, for taking a set off Djokovic last year (I forget where), and here he is, doing it again.

90's Clay
08-02-2012, 04:11 PM
Hewitt would do just fine in this era.. He beat Fed in a big match a few years ago (on grass I believe), took Djoker to a final 3rd set 2 times (just recently at the olympics.) Hell I wouldn't be surprised if Hewitt didn't win a slam or two in this era if we are talking PEAK hewitt.. And while his peak did last long and was divided into maybe two different years (2001-2002) and (2004-2005), he would be right in the running for a slam.

If Murray can be a slam contender and reach the finals, I have no doubt a peak hewitt could beat Djoker, Murray, older Fed at a slam.. Maybe not Nadal though.


I could see Hewitt having similar success in this era as he did in 2001-2002 winning 2 slams anyways.. Though I don't see him having any long stretch at the top at #1 though. But he could win some slams.

Hewitt wasn't good enough to have a long reign at the top .(Unless it was in a vacuum during a transitional era Pre Federer, post Sampras, Agassi) but he's certainly good enough to win 2 slams in any era these past 20 years or so.

cc0509
08-02-2012, 04:16 PM
Hewitt gets nowhere near the credit he deserves. I was laughed at for suggesting he could hang with the top 5 in his prime, for taking a set off Djokovic last year (I forget where), and here he is, doing it again.

No question prime Hewitt could hang with the current top five. David Ferrer is number five and prime Hewitt was a better player than Ferrer.

It was at the AO where Hewitt also took a set off of Djokovic. This is grandpa Hewitt who has had 100 surgeries against prime Djokovic. That tells the whole story of how prime Hewitt would have done against the top players today.

dh003i
08-02-2012, 04:16 PM
Sampras also mentioned how good Hewitt's lob was, and noted that he is an underrated player.

BauerAlmeida
08-02-2012, 06:36 PM
As good as Hewitt was he was never on the level game wise as fed djoker nadal or even murray he just does not have the power like those guys can rely on when times got tough. He however was better in his prime than the likes of berdych and maybe del potro.

Murray better than Hewitt?? LOL

2 Grand Slam, 2 Masters Cup and 1 year as N1. Murray can't even dream of achieving that.

He was better than Berdych too, and to Del Potro hard to say, he is just 23, has a lot of time ahead. If he can get back to his 2009 level he will be better.

As people forget how good Hewitt was, they also forget how good Del Potro was.

Mustard
08-02-2012, 07:01 PM
Peak Hewitt would be ranked at either 4 or 5 in the world at the present time. He'd be in a similar position to Murray/Ferrer, but even more dangerous, because Hewitt is tough as nails mentally and has a killer instinct more than Ferrer.

TeflonTom
08-02-2012, 07:01 PM
prime hewitt was a better fastcourt player than anyone on the current tour in their prime except federer

they would all pwn him on slow hardcourts n clay tho

PCXL-Fan
08-02-2012, 07:06 PM
Am I the only won who thinks Hewitt is cursed with unfortunate draws over and over?

Wont it be ironic if Novak wins gold yet nobody in the tournament pushes him as hard as Hewitt did?

TeflonTom
08-02-2012, 07:10 PM
when ur ranked as low as he is, u gotta expect crap draws

one thing is for sure, at any tournament he is still the number 1 wild card that seeds dont wanna see in their section

Lsmkenpo
08-02-2012, 07:30 PM
prime hewitt was a better fastcourt player than anyone on the current tour in their prime except federer

they would all pwn him on slow hardcourts n clay tho

Agreed, on courts that were fast enough for him to counter punch winners he was capable of beating anyone in the world.

Mustard
08-02-2012, 07:32 PM
Murray better than Hewitt?? LOL

2 Grand Slam, 2 Masters Cup and 1 year as N1. Murray can't even dream of achieving that.

He was better than Berdych too, and to Del Potro hard to say, he is just 23, has a lot of time ahead. If he can get back to his 2009 level he will be better.

As people forget how good Hewitt was, they also forget how good Del Potro was.

Hewitt had 2 years as world number 1 (2001 and 2002).

Sabratha
08-02-2012, 08:18 PM
Hewitt had 2 years as world number 1 (2001 and 2002).
Hewitt was also ranked #1 for half of 2003.

TeflonTom
08-02-2012, 08:30 PM
hewitt was #1 for 80 weeks, bein late 2001 to mid 2003 minus a coupla weeks near the end when agassi was briefly on top

OddJack
08-02-2012, 08:44 PM
Hewitt was very good, but somehow he froze in his boyhood and never grew up.

Paul Murphy
08-02-2012, 08:47 PM
Hewitt had mulitple surgeries and still gave Nole fits. A prime Hewitt would have beaten Nole.

Well put. Hewitt had Djokovic in serious discomfort.

Paul Murphy
08-02-2012, 08:52 PM
Totally agree. Leaves Murray eating his dust. The guy won an atp tourney at 15, won queens multiple times, WON THE TWO MOST PRESIGIOUS SLAMS and was number one in the world for a long time. He had the best wheels and mental game in tennis. Had he not been injured so much, whole different career for Ley Ley.

Agreed. Can't compare Murray with Hewitt.
80 weeks at No.1 make him a highly significant player, as do the two majors.

ATP100
08-02-2012, 09:06 PM
Prime Hewitt wouldnt stand a chance vs prime Nadal. Period.

Yes, he was good and yes he hit deep shots and yes he was lightning fast.

But, he didnt hit with a lot of topspin therefore his shots were not very heavy and they didnt penetrate the court that good. He was a great counterpuncher who won 2 GS and 2 YEC in a weak era in between Sampras and Federer.


Disagree....Period.

Paul Murphy
08-02-2012, 09:18 PM
His great strengths were his speed, aggression, fighting qualities and his return.
If I was going to pick a player to play for my life he'd be right at the top of the list - he never gives up.
Terrible shame about all the injuries - how much more interesting would the majors of the past five years or so been had a fit Hewitt been lurking in the draw.
He's a wonderful tactician who's adept at deconstructing opponents' games.
And to top it all off he's a patriot - he's always been there for Australia in the DC.
I remember a few years ago Hewitt flying back from Europe at a crucial time for him in one of his (many) comebacks to play a DC tie in a bid to get Australia back into the world group.
A superb player without any huge weapons but one who used every bit of talent he'd been given, didn't waste an ounce - unlike someone like Safin for instance.

djokovic2008
08-03-2012, 03:54 AM
No Hewitt is better than Murray at the US Open or Wimbledon. He is also better than Djokovic on grass. Djokovic is not on the level of Federer or Nadal. Federer was better than Djokovic on every surface. Nadal is better than him on grass and clay. As for Del Potro he was sadly ruined by injury. His top level was something special. In 09 he was set to dominate, but injuries ruined. Putting Hewitt in the same league as Berdych is laughable.

Sorry were you in a coma in 2011 or 2008 or 2007, Djoker has ALWAYS been able to hang with those guys and now he is their equal or even above them especially on the hardcourts where he has beat both of them up again and again in recent slams.

djokovic2008
08-03-2012, 03:56 AM
Murray better than Hewitt?? LOL

2 Grand Slam, 2 Masters Cup and 1 year as N1. Murray can't even dream of achieving that.

He was better than Berdych too, and to Del Potro hard to say, he is just 23, has a lot of time ahead. If he can get back to his 2009 level he will be better.

As people forget how good Hewitt was, they also forget how good Del Potro was.

Using those stats are unrealistic as murray has to compete with three of the best players in the last 20 years. Murray at his best and hewitt at his best I'd take murray.

djokovic2008
08-03-2012, 03:58 AM
what am I reading, are you 12, how can you compare berdych and Delpo to hewit, Delpo idolized hewit, you have to be a kid

The fact delpo idolized Hewitt means nothing the game has changed and you need a killer shot to win slams counter punching will not win slams today.

Sabratha
08-03-2012, 04:03 AM
The fact delpo idolized Hewitt means nothing the game has changed and you need a killer shot to win slams counter punching will not win slams today.
I guess that's why Djokovic has been losing slams lately.

roberttennis54
08-03-2012, 04:05 AM
Sorry were you in a coma in 2011 or 2008 or 2007, Djoker has ALWAYS been able to hang with those guys and now he is their equal or even above them especially on the hardcourts where he has beat both of them up again and again in recent slams.

Djokovic is a truly great player, but his fans go WAY WAY over the top. I mean comparing his forehand to Sampras's says it all (Sampras forehand maybe the best ever. Djokovic's best is not better than Federer on any surface with the exception of maybe, Plexichusion. Federer had Mono in 08 and still leads DJokovic at the US Open 3-2. Federer is in his 30s and past his prime, but he still got match points against Djokovic at the US Open the last two times they played right in the middle of their peaks. At Wimbledon they played once and Federer won at almost 30.

Nadal is just much better than Djokovic on clay. Better on grass. I agree Djokovic is better on hardcourts, but the gap on the hardcourts is not as big as the gap Nadal has over him on clay. Nadal is the BEST clay court player ever. He is also a very capable grass player.

It seems some people fail to realise players DECLINE. Tennis players usually start to slip around 25/6. You the kind of person that would argue Benjamin Becker beating Agassi means he would beat Agassi in his prime.

djokovic2008
08-03-2012, 04:10 AM
Djokovic is a truly great player, but his fans go WAY WAY over the top. Djokovic's best is not better than Federer on any surface with the exception of maybe, Plexichusion. Federer had Mono in 08 and still leads DJokovic at the US Open 3-2. Federer is in his 30s and past his prime, but he still got match points against Djokovic at the US Open the last two times they played right in the middle of their peaks. At Wimbledon they played once and Federer won at almost 30.

Nadal is just much better than Djokovic on clay. Better on grass. I agree Djokovic is better on hardcourts, but the gap on the hardcourts is not as big as the gap Nadal has over him on clay. Nadal is the BEST clay court player ever. He is also a very capable grass player.

It seems some people fail to realise players DECLINE. Tennis players usually start to slip around 25/6. You the kind of person that would argue Benjamin Becker beating Agassi means he would beat Agassi in his prime.

I like the way when you mention djokers victories you have to add an excuse like all fed fans. Djoker has killed Fed at the AO with a number of straight set victories. At the AO is is better than eveyone as his record shows, fed beats him on grass and indoor and nadal owns clay. Like it or not Djoker beat fed two years in a row at the USO, i'll admit they are very close matchup wise at the USO.

MariaRafael
08-03-2012, 04:21 AM
Djokovic is a truly great player

Djokovic is good at everything and great at nothing. Every top player has some great component in his game:

Federer: serve, footwork, nearly flat DTL forehand
Nadal: top-spin forehand, court coverage, mental strength
Pete Sampras: serve, forehand, volley
Stefan Edberg: VOLLEY, speed, touch
John McEnroe: serve-and-volley, hitting the ball early, attacking all the time
Jimmy Connors: defence, stamina, backhand

etc.

What does Djokovic has where he is better than the others? Ivanicevic's serve, Edberg's volleys and Borg's stamina have been remembered for years. What will Djokovic be remembered for? Incomplete retirement slam?

Sabratha
08-03-2012, 04:22 AM
I like the way when you mention djokers victories you have to add an excuse like all fed fans. Djoker has killed Fed at the AO with a number of straight set victories. At the AO is is better than eveyone as his record shows, fed beats him on grass and indoor and nadal owns clay. Like it or not Djoker beat fed two years in a row at the USO, i'll admit they are very close matchup wise at the USO.
Djokovic barely squeezed past Murray in this years Australian Open, what's to say he won't lose to him next year? Would Djokovic still be the king there then?

roberttennis54
08-03-2012, 04:22 AM
I like the way when you mention djokers victories you have to add an excuse like all fed fans. Djoker has killed Fed at the AO with a number of straight set victories. At the AO is is better than eveyone as his record shows, fed beats him on grass and indoor and nadal owns clay. Like it or not Djoker beat fed two years in a row at the USO, i'll admit they are very close matchup wise at the USO.

I give credit for Djokovic winning the US Open matches, but if you think Djokovic in his prime conceding match points against an aging Federer is means nothing then it says it all. You are obviously new to tennis. You will learn when Djokovic is playing at 30. He can no longer track down Tomic's shots and Tomic fans start claiming, Tomic is better than Djokovic ever was. No point discussing this further with you. In a few years you will realise.

EDIT

Nor do I think Federer is necessarily better than Sampras on grass, despite Federer beating him the one time they met. It is very close between them and I believe Federer may actually win more due to the match up advantage, but if I was forced to pick, who was better it would be Sampras.

Same goes for Hewitt. No way would I say he was better than Sampras at the US.

Sabratha
08-03-2012, 04:27 AM
Djokovic is having trouble with Hewitt, and he's way past his prime. How can he be considered one of the best?

djokovic2008
08-03-2012, 04:31 AM
I give credit for Djokovic winning the US Open matches, but if you think Djokovic in his prime conceding match points against an aging Federer is means nothing then it says it all. You are obviously new to tennis. You will learn when Djokovic is playing at 30. He can no longer track down Tomic's shots and Tomic fans start claiming, Tomic is better than Djokovic ever was. No point discussing this further with you. In a few years you will realise.

EDIT

Nor do I think Federer is necessarily better than Sampras on grass, despite Federer beating him the one time they met. It is very close between them and I believe Federer may actually win more due to the match up advantage, but if I was forced to pick, who was better it would be Sampras.

TOMIC, TOMIC did you say TOMIC your the one who is new to tennis and this shows it. I've been watching and playing which so few do on this board for the last twenty years hence my expert analysis in this field.

djokovic2008
08-03-2012, 04:34 AM
I guess that's why Djokovic has been losing slams lately.

There has been three slams this year and djoker has won one lost the final and semi of the other two its not the end of the world is it. Plus he'll win USO this year anyway.

Sabratha
08-03-2012, 04:38 AM
There has been three slams this year and djoker has won one lost the final and semi of the other two its not the end of the world is it. Plus he'll win USO this year anyway.
He won't win the US Open if Murray and Federer step their game up.

djokovic2008
08-03-2012, 04:39 AM
Djokovic is good at everything and great at nothing. Every top player has some great component in his game:

Federer: serve, footwork, nearly flat DTL forehand
Nadal: top-spin forehand, court coverage, mental strength
Pete Sampras: serve, forehand, volley
Stefan Edberg: VOLLEY, speed, touch
John McEnroe: serve-and-volley, hitting the ball early, attacking all the time
Jimmy Connors: defence, stamina, backhand

etc.

What does Djokovic has where he is better than the others? Ivanicevic's serve, Edberg's volleys and Borg's stamina have been remembered for years. What will Djokovic be remembered for? Incomplete retirement slam?

Someone sounds very bitter, so his backhand is not great no? please, and if he is just good and these areas how come it was enough to whip the entire tour last year including fed and of course the humilation of NADAL last year?

MariaRafael
08-03-2012, 04:46 AM
The past and the future ... What about the present? Lost RG and career slam to Nadal and Wimbledon and the opportunity to prove his credentials to Federer. Hopefully Murray will be the next one in the big four to cut this jumped-up stable lad to his size.

There's no last year in sports. Rafa whipped the whole tour last but one year ago. Federer was lynching everybody in 2006-2007. Both are much more successful than Djokovic.

And don't speak about bitterness. My critical feelings towards Djokovic have a highly relaxing whistle which I use in the stadiums every time your hero tosses a racket, breaks some furniture, rolls his eyes, plays possum, etc.

And no, his backhand is not great. Great backhand is Marat Safin, David Nalbandyan, Richard Gasquet. THeir backhands are both weapons and a thing of beauty. Djokovic hasn't even come close.

Paul Murphy
08-03-2012, 04:53 AM
What a shame that a thread extolling the virtues of Hewitt gets taken over by this rubbish.
How about I set up a new thread for you called the "Djokovic is good, no, Djokovic is crap thread" and you can take your argument over there.

TeflonTom
08-03-2012, 04:57 AM
what did u expect, this forum is full o 12 year old ***** who were in nappies when hewitt was winnin slams

Paul Murphy
08-03-2012, 05:09 AM
what did u expect, this forum is full o 12 year old ***** who were in nappies when hewitt was winnin slams

Hope springs eternal. :)

djokovic2008
08-03-2012, 05:10 AM
What a shame that a thread extolling the virtues of Hewitt gets taken over by this rubbish.
How about I set up a new thread for you called the "Djokovic is good, no, Djokovic is crap thread" and you can take your argument over there.

If you check the history of this thread I started talking about Hewitt but when the ***** see djokovic in my name the bitterness of 2011 comes out and they jump in, happens in every thread.

Sabratha
08-03-2012, 07:29 AM
what did u expect, this forum is full o 12 year old ***** who were in nappies when hewitt was winnin slams
If this applies to me, I was old enough to remember Hewitt defeating Sampras in the 2001 US Open and also old enough to remember Hewitt conquering Nalbandian in Wimbledon 2002.

I also remember Hewitt becoming a threat again after sinking to #17 in the rankings and fighting his way back up to #3 at the end of 2004. Hewitt made it to the final of the 2005 Australian Open, and I believe that was when he was at his absolute peak.

Hewitt was a beast, no doubt about it.

BauerAlmeida
08-03-2012, 09:09 AM
Djokovic is good at everything and great at nothing. Every top player has some great component in his game:

Federer: serve, footwork, nearly flat DTL forehand
Nadal: top-spin forehand, court coverage, mental strength
Pete Sampras: serve, forehand, volley
Stefan Edberg: VOLLEY, speed, touch
John McEnroe: serve-and-volley, hitting the ball early, attacking all the time
Jimmy Connors: defence, stamina, backhand

etc.

What does Djokovic has where he is better than the others? Ivanicevic's serve, Edberg's volleys and Borg's stamina have been remembered for years. What will Djokovic be remembered for? Incomplete retirement slam?

Backhand, Return Of Serve, Movement, Speed, Mental Strength.

tistrapukcipeht
08-03-2012, 06:35 PM
I'll tell you guys, I never liked Hewitt, I still don't like Hewitt, I think he is a dbag, just like Roddick, but his fight and heart is admirable, how He played against Cilic and Djokovic was a lesson to how good this guy is, while Roddick got destroyed, Hewitt after all surgeries and only 7-8 matches to date almost beat Novak.

TeflonTom
08-03-2012, 06:56 PM
I still don't like Hewitt, I think he is a dbag, just like Roddick

ironically duck n rusty r two of the nicest guys u will meet. Both of em have a lotta time for fans n actually treat em like human beins. Always see em chattin n laughin with someone or other at tourneys, askin kids about emselves, etc

If u ever get a chance 2 chat to one of em, go for it. duck in particular is awesome

tom_asdelonge182
08-03-2012, 08:12 PM
ironically duck n rusty r two of the nicest guys u will meet. Both of em have a lotta time for fans n actually treat em like human beins. Always see em chattin n laughin with someone or other at tourneys, askin kids about emselves, etc

If u ever get a chance 2 chat to one of em, go for it. duck in particular is awesome

Thats funny. In Australia, the public perception of him is that he's a cash up bogan and not very liked which is a shame because he was so good

TeflonTom
08-03-2012, 08:26 PM
australians hate successful ppl. one on one he is a really nice guy

think ur overstatin the dislike for him tho. He wasnt real liked when he was younger n more outspoken, but he seems a lot more popular now he is older

most ozzies i meet say they like him since he matured. certainly gets massive support at the ao

Manus Domini
08-03-2012, 08:30 PM
For those that are comparing Hewitt to Murray: just look at the mental game. Let's, for the sake of argument, say Murray has a game that is a little stronger (I strongly disagree). When the going gets rough, who is the one who is going to give up more easily?

Look, Hewitt was fast--really fast--from what I can see. And he had a lot of injuries. His prime was cut short because of them. Yet he can still give the top guys a run for their money. Would Murray be able to after as much surgery as Hewitt had?

El Diablo
08-03-2012, 08:38 PM
I think everyone remembers Hewitt as a talented tennis player but all the accusations of child molestation make one want to put him out of mind.

DRII
08-03-2012, 09:28 PM
I think everyone remembers Hewitt as a talented tennis player but all the accusations of child molestation make one want to put him out of mind.


What :confused:

Sabratha
08-03-2012, 09:29 PM
australians hate successful ppl. one on one he is a really nice guy

think ur overstatin the dislike for him tho. He wasnt real liked when he was younger n more outspoken, but he seems a lot more popular now he is older

most ozzies i meet say they like him since he matured. certainly gets massive support at the ao
Hewitt was more reliable at slams than Rafter was, I will say that much.

Mustard
08-03-2012, 09:31 PM
What :confused:

El Diablo is obviously thinking of Bob Hewitt instead of Lleyton Hewitt.

Sid_Vicious
08-03-2012, 09:44 PM
El Diablo is obviously thinking of Bob Hewitt instead of Lleyton Hewitt.

Yup. Btw what happened to Bob? Did they prosecuate him or is he in the clear?

Start da Game
08-03-2012, 09:47 PM
hewitt is one of the most overrated players in history who came in at a time when all the old lions of the 90s were on the brink of retirement and the new generation hasn't yet taken over.......he was just a transition era champ and nothing more than that.......

Crisp
08-03-2012, 09:53 PM
Hewitt proves time and again that he is a threat when healthy. He was absolutely a top player there was a period of nearly 2 years that he only ever lost to the winner of the grand slam that he was contesting. He still proves it now, and better yet he believes he is a threat. Well done lleyton carried the Australian flag very well in the tennis as those around you crumbled. Yes he was and is a flat hitter, so is Novak. And he was super fleet of foot there is no doubting that. Too many people are happy to have a go at our champions. What have you been the best in the world in?

Mustard
08-03-2012, 09:54 PM
Yup. Btw what happened to Bob? Did they prosecuate him or is he in the clear?

I'm not sure what the current situation is.

Paul Murphy
08-04-2012, 01:24 AM
australians hate successful ppl. one on one he is a really nice guy

think ur overstatin the dislike for him tho. He wasnt real liked when he was younger n more outspoken, but he seems a lot more popular now he is older

most ozzies i meet say they like him since he matured. certainly gets massive support at the ao

Correct. Huge support at the AO.
He's revered in Australian tennis circles - highly popular among his Aussie contemporaries too.

Paul Murphy
08-04-2012, 01:25 AM
Hewitt proves time and again that he is a threat when healthy. He was absolutely a top player there was a period of nearly 2 years that he only ever lost to the winner of the grand slam that he was contesting. He still proves it now, and better yet he believes he is a threat. Well done lleyton carried the Australian flag very well in the tennis as those around you crumbled. Yes he was and is a flat hitter, so is Novak. And he was super fleet of foot there is no doubting that. Too many people are happy to have a go at our champions. What have you been the best in the world in?

Nicely put as well.
He's carried Australian tennis for a long, long time.

MTF07
08-04-2012, 04:52 AM
hewitt is one of the most overrated players in history who came in at a time when all the old lions of the 90s were on the brink of retirement and the new generation hasn't yet taken over.......he was just a transition era champ and nothing more than that.......

Oh please.

Seventeen
08-04-2012, 05:44 AM
Hewitt proves time and again that he is a threat when healthy. He was absolutely a top player there was a period of nearly 2 years that he only ever lost to the winner of the grand slam that he was contesting. He still proves it now, and better yet he believes he is a threat. Well done lleyton carried the Australian flag very well in the tennis as those around you crumbled. Yes he was and is a flat hitter, so is Novak. And he was super fleet of foot there is no doubting that. Too many people are happy to have a go at our champions. What have you been the best in the world in?

Amen brother.

Start da Game
08-04-2012, 05:47 AM
there is no secret behind who loves hewitt.......there are actually more no. of fedfans supporting the player than the actual fans.......hewitt, roddick, davydenko, ljubicic etc. ordinary players get heavy support from fed fans because their player made his glory over them.......

often the us open 2001 final is showed as some proof of hewitt's ability but people forget that sampras owned his arse until 2001 with a 4-1 head to head.......

2001 was a very low year for pete in a lot of ways.......he was never the same after wimbledon 2000, was emotionally done and dusted from the sport.......

TeflonTom
08-04-2012, 05:56 AM
prior to 2001 hewitt was a teenager. only teenager I can think of who's had a winnin H2H against the world number 1 is nadal

roberttennis54
08-04-2012, 06:01 AM
prior to 2001 hewitt was a teenager. only teenager I can think of who's had a winnin H2H against the world number 1 is nadal

Not to mention that the head to head was 4-2, Hewitt nearly always took a set and even at the 2000 open, he pushed Sampras.

In tennis ball strikers with big serves are going to outlast players, who rely on physical attributes. Injuries took their toll on him sadly. The difference between Hewitt and most counter punchers is he made you do as much running as he did.

Paul Murphy
08-04-2012, 06:03 AM
there is no secret behind who loves hewitt.......there are actually more no. of fedfans supporting the player than the actual fans.......hewitt, roddick, davydenko, ljubicic etc. ordinary players get heavy support from fed fans because their player made his glory over them.......

often the us open 2001 final is showed as some proof of hewitt's ability but people forget that sampras owned his arse until 2001 with a 4-1 head to head.......

2001 was a very low year for pete in a lot of ways.......he was never the same after wimbledon 2000, was emotionally done and dusted from the sport.......

Yes, indeed. You've got me.
My admiration for Hewitt is really all about Federer.
Thanks for making me realise that. :)

mistik
08-04-2012, 06:58 AM
He was never that good people didnt forget anything.

Paul Murphy
08-04-2012, 09:23 AM
He was never that good people didnt forget anything.

More incisive comment from the intelligentsia.

mental midget
08-04-2012, 09:26 AM
Using those stats are unrealistic as murray has to compete with three of the best players in the last 20 years. Murray at his best and hewitt at his best I'd take murray.

i think this would be a very close match. hewitt would have lots of chances on murray's 2nd serve. also murray beats a lot of players by luring them into making errors, and hewitt at his best made very few. it would be a good contest.

anantak2k
08-04-2012, 03:41 PM
ironically duck n rusty r two of the nicest guys u will meet. Both of em have a lotta time for fans n actually treat em like human beins. Always see em chattin n laughin with someone or other at tourneys, askin kids about emselves, etc

If u ever get a chance 2 chat to one of em, go for it. duck in particular is awesome

I agree with this. The two of them may act like ****** bags on court, especially Roddick BUT off-court they are super nice.


Hewitt was awesome. He did the best he could with what he had. He had a lot of fight and still does. He was mentally very strong during his peak years. He was a counter-puncher who loved fast courts as he was able to redirect many powerful shots to hit winners. For the most part, he made his opponents have to run just as much as he did.

Sid_Vicious
08-04-2012, 04:41 PM
He was never that good people didnt forget anything.

I am sure they didn't. You can't really forget something you never saw in the first place.

Manus Domini
08-04-2012, 07:21 PM
Using those stats are unrealistic as murray has to compete with three of the best players in the last 20 years. Murray at his best and hewitt at his best I'd take murray.

Oh, please. Federer's way past his prime and Murray still can't take him out at a final. It's not because Murray doesn't have the talent; he chokes, plain and simple. Are you honestly going to argue that Murray has a better mental game than Hewitt? The mental game is, arguably, more important even than the technique and footwork and everything. Because it doesn't matter how good you are if you can't execute.

Sabratha
08-04-2012, 11:26 PM
Hewitt defeated Federer in a close five setter in 2003, and this was Federer's turning point. Without Hewitt, Federer might not have even become #1, let alone held it for as long as he did.

Hewitt was also a very capable #1 and held the spot for nearly two years. And when he came back from his slump, he got back as high as #2 in the world, behind Federer. If he wasn't injured, he would probably be top 10 or top 20 NOW. People seem to forget that.

Gizo
08-05-2012, 12:20 AM
I would recommend watching or getting copy of Hewitt's 2002 San Jose final against Agassi to see how a good a player he was.

That was one of the best quality tennis matches I've ever seen, and there was so much drama and excitement as well.

djokovic2008
08-05-2012, 12:37 AM
Oh, please. Federer's way past his prime and Murray still can't take him out at a final. It's not because Murray doesn't have the talent; he chokes, plain and simple. Are you honestly going to argue that Murray has a better mental game than Hewitt? The mental game is, arguably, more important even than the technique and footwork and everything. Because it doesn't matter how good you are if you can't execute.

You miss the point as I agree with mentality but do you think murray would have any mental baggag vs Hewitt as I remember a young Murray beating hewitt not sure of there h2h it's just Murray as you would agree as more OPTIONS in his game.

Sabratha
08-05-2012, 12:39 AM
You miss the point as I agree with mentality but do you think murray would have any mental baggag vs Hewitt as I remember a young Murray beating hewitt not sure of there h2h it's just Murray as you would agree as more OPTIONS in his game.
Murray beat Hewitt in 2006, so Hewitt wasn't in his prime. He had lost footspeed by that point due to lingering injuries. If Murray played Hewitt of 2004/2005, he would not have won. Especially if it was in a final.

djokovic2008
08-05-2012, 12:42 AM
There is too much nostalgia on this thread I watched Hewitt and yes he was a fighter with great movement and counter punching ability. But had no power no soft hands like Murray no big first serve like fed backhand not as good as djoker and forehand no where near rafa basically no weapons in today's game.

Sabratha
08-05-2012, 12:43 AM
There is too much nostalgia on this thread I watched Hewitt and yes he was a fighter with great movement and counter punching ability. But had no power no soft hands like Murray no big first serve like fed backhand not as good as djoker and forehand no where near rafa basically no weapons in today's game.
You don't see his speed as a weapon?

djokovic2008
08-05-2012, 12:49 AM
Murray beat Hewitt in 2006, so Hewitt wasn't in his prime. He had lost footspeed by that point due to lingering injuries. If Murray played Hewitt of 2004/2005, he would not have won. Especially if it was in a final.

I remember that he beat roddick at the tournament too not with power but canny play as he is very clever on court. That's the thing Murray with the options he has he makes players of that calibre look very ordinary.

djokovic2008
08-05-2012, 12:50 AM
You don't see his speed as a weapon?

The top four ALL have speed.

Sabratha
08-05-2012, 01:03 AM
The top four ALL have speed.
In 2004/2005, Hewitt also had a killer forehand and great consistency around the court. Hewitt was a beast, if he didn't get injured he would have been top ten (probably even ranked above Roddick, Davydenko and others) for many years.

Sabratha
08-05-2012, 01:05 AM
I remember that he beat roddick at the tournament too not with power but canny play as he is very clever on court. That's the thing Murray with the options he has he makes players of that calibre look very ordinary.
Hewitt beat Roddick often before he got injured in 2005/2006, even Henman beat Hewitt after his level dropped, and Henman was Hewitt's pidgeon for many years.

Zarfot Z
08-05-2012, 03:35 AM
I've never really like Hewitt. All he does is counter punch and occasionally fire the odd passing shot or two. Boring.

TeflonTom
08-05-2012, 03:36 AM
I've never really like Hewitt. All he does is counter punch and occasionally fire the odd passing shot or two. Boring.

bit like u in this thread eh brah?

tennisplayer1993
08-05-2012, 08:03 AM
i used to love hewitt. he had such a fiery persona and had a great counter-puncher with plenty of speed on those feet of his. before i knew about federer, i thought it would be a roddick v. hewitt rivalry for another decade or so

BeHappy
08-05-2012, 08:04 AM
I've never really like Hewitt. All he does is counter punch and occasionally fire the odd passing shot or two. Boring.

He is the most boring, unpopular and even hated world no. 1 in history. He really had no fans at all.


But he was a truly brilliant tennis player.

Ashley D
08-09-2012, 04:17 AM
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=396qtU_GcnA

Not much else needs to be said really. So quick, so relentless, one of the best topspin lobs the world has ever seen. If he hadn't been smashed by injury, he'd be number 5 in the world I reckon. And would occasionally beat Murray and Nadal. Nads used to be Hewitt's little b!tch in the early days.

6-1 6-3 6-0
08-09-2012, 04:17 AM
People forget how good he was because he wasn't that good in the first place.

Sabratha
08-09-2012, 04:28 AM
People forget how good he was because he wasn't that good in the first place.
Does it hurt you to think that even past his prime, Hewitt troubled Nadal?

6-1 6-3 6-0
08-09-2012, 04:30 AM
Does it hurt you to think that even past his prime, Hewitt troubled Nadal?

2010 Roland Garros
France Clay R32 Nadal, Rafael
6-3, 6-4, 6-3 Stats
2009 Roland Garros
France Clay R32 Nadal, Rafael
6-1, 6-3, 6-1 Stats
2008 Beijing Olympics
China Hard R32 Nadal, Rafael
6-1, 6-2

Yep, Hewitt really troubled Nadal.

Sabratha
08-09-2012, 04:38 AM
2010 Roland Garros
France Clay R32 Nadal, Rafael
6-3, 6-4, 6-3 Stats
2009 Roland Garros
France Clay R32 Nadal, Rafael
6-1, 6-3, 6-1 Stats
2008 Beijing Olympics
China Hard R32 Nadal, Rafael
6-1, 6-2

Yep, Hewitt really troubled Nadal.
2007 Roland Garros - 6-3, 6-1, 7-6(5).
2006 Queens - 3-6, 6-3 RET. (Hewitt won).
2006 Roland Garros - 6-2, 5-7, 6-4, 6-2.

Yep, he did.

Paul Murphy
08-09-2012, 04:41 AM
2007 Roland Garros - 6-3, 6-1, 7-6(5).
2006 Queens - 3-6, 6-3 RET. (Hewitt won).
2006 Roland Garros - 6-2, 5-7, 6-4, 6-2.

Yep, he did.

Spot on.
But you should know better than to engage in debate with the mentally ill. :)

6-1 6-3 6-0
08-09-2012, 04:44 AM
2007 Roland Garros - 6-3, 6-1, 7-6(5).
2006 Queens - 3-6, 6-3 RET. (Hewitt won).
2006 Roland Garros - 6-2, 5-7, 6-4, 6-2.

Yep, he did.

2006 Roland Garros, two 6-2 sets and a closely lost 5-7 set.
2007 Roland Garros, straight sets. Lots of people take Nadal to tiebreakers.
And Nadal doesn't usually go all out at Queens (apart from 2008).

djokovic2008
08-09-2012, 04:48 AM
In 2004/2005, Hewitt also had a killer forehand and great consistency around the court. Hewitt was a beast, if he didn't get injured he would have been top ten (probably even ranked above Roddick, Davydenko and others) for many years.

Hewitt has never and will never be described as a beast with a killer forehand now your getting carried away. Please apologize for this statement as I assume it was a typing error.

Sabratha
08-09-2012, 04:54 AM
2006 Roland Garros, two 6-2 sets and a closely lost 5-7 set.
2007 Roland Garros, straight sets. Lots of people take Nadal to tiebreakers.
And Nadal doesn't usually go all out at Queens (apart from 2008).
Here's how Hewitt in his prime stacked up.


2004 ATP Masters Series Canada - 1-6, 6-4, 6-2 (Hewitt won).
2004 Australian Open - 7-6(2), 7-6(5), 6-2 (Hewitt won).

Head to head is also 4-6.

SLD76
08-09-2012, 04:55 AM
People forget how good he was because he wasn't that good in the first place.

well, its hard to remember or recall something you have never witnessed in the first place as I am pretty sure you only started following tennis circa 2006 or so...

Paul Murphy
08-09-2012, 04:57 AM
well, its hard to remember or recall something you have never witnessed in the first place as I am pretty sure you only started following tennis circa 2006 or so...

He doesn't follow "tennis" - he just follows Nadal - there's a big difference unfortunately.

SLD76
08-09-2012, 05:02 AM
He doesn't follow "tennis" - he just follows Nadal - there's a big difference unfortunately.

Precisely, which is why I am sure his knowledge of hte game goes all the way back to 2006. 2005, tops.

kiki
08-09-2012, 08:15 AM
People forget how good he was because he wasn't that good in the first place.

Bob hewitt was a great player, and one of the best ever in doubles.

Chillaxer
08-09-2012, 08:18 AM
He troubled Roddick. Troubled a few people. Isn't he regarded as someone who should have won more? He was an intesne competitor, but this manifested itself in some nobbish behaviour towards opponents. I didn't like the guy, but he was good.

NadalAgassi
08-09-2012, 08:22 AM
Here's how Hewitt in his prime stacked up.


2004 ATP Masters Series Canada - 1-6, 6-4, 6-2 (Hewitt won).
2004 Australian Open - 7-6(2), 7-6(5), 6-2 (Hewitt won).

Head to head is also 4-6.

Yes Nadal was in his prime in 2004 wasnt he, LOL! Pretty bad for the World #3 to lose a 6-1 set to 17 year old 30 something ranked Nadal. That would be like Nadal losing a 6-1 set to Hewitt now.

NadalAgassi
08-09-2012, 08:25 AM
Look at this match against Federer in 2002.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIiP5Hw_Pq0

Notice how deep he hits the ball compared to other defensive players like Simon, Murray or even Nadal. He was definitely as fast as Nadal in his prime.

I think he is rated about right. Most rate him above Roddick and Safin, even though recognizing Safin had a way higher A-game but wasnt anywhere near as consistent. I think most also rank him superior to other recent 2 slam winners like Kafelnikov, Rafter, Bruguera. He isnt recalled as a dominant player since he isnt. Even in his best year of 2002 he lost 1st round, 4th round, and semis of 3 of his 4 slams, won only 1 Masters (and the TMC), and had many losses to lower ranked players through the year, while constantly having trouble with many of the top guys- Agassi, Safin, Moya, especialy.

ktid
08-09-2012, 08:28 AM
People forget how good he was because he wasn't that good in the first place.

You said in another thread you didnt start watching tennis till 2004, so how could you possibly know?

6-1 6-3 6-0
08-09-2012, 08:31 AM
You said in another thread you didnt start watching tennis till 2004, so how could you possibly know?

Re-watching lots of old matches. (Plus, Hewitt made the US Open 2004 and Australian Open 2005 finals.)

SLD76
08-09-2012, 09:21 AM
Re-watching lots of old matches. (Plus, Hewitt made the US Open 2004 and Australian Open 2005 finals.)

hmmmmmm .,..somehow..I dont...believe...you...at...all.

why would you look up old matches of a player you dont think much of in the first place.

6-1 6-3 6-0
08-09-2012, 09:32 AM
hmmmmmm .,..somehow..I dont...believe...you...at...all.

why would you look up old matches of a player you dont think much of in the first place.

Yeah, it's understandable that someone with a burger for an avatar can't comprehend what I'm saying.

I watched the matches, then didn't think much of the player. Not the other way round. But I suppose the other way round is how a Federer fan approaches tennis. :D

SLD76
08-09-2012, 09:39 AM
Yeah, it's understandable that someone with a burger for an avatar can't comprehend what I'm saying.

I watched the matches, then didn't think much of the player. Not the other way round. But I suppose the other way round is how a Federer fan approaches tennis. :D

hmm yes, I remain unconvinced. good try though. especially given your propensity to wax poetic about the strong era in the 90's you have never seen.

ktid
08-09-2012, 02:14 PM
hmmmmmm .,..somehow..I dont...believe...you...at...all.

why would you look up old matches of a player you dont think much of in the first place.

I think what he meant by that, is he wanked off to the matches where Nadal beat him.

wilkinru
08-09-2012, 03:28 PM
Hewitt has made tennis better. Much respect here. He continues on even. I always root for him and Haas.

West Coast Ace
08-09-2012, 03:43 PM
Much respect here.+1. A lot of people don't like him because of his testy relationship with the press and the Blake incident. They forget he was told as a teenager he should quit - he'd never make it on tour. Not long after that he won Adelaide. Then went on to be #1. The 'weak/transitional' Era stuff is junk spewed by armchairs. He played who they told him to - and won most of the time for 3 yrs.

Hewitt's movement and return of serve were incredible. Underrated net skills and improved his serve quite a bit. Always gave a great effort 'til the end.

NadalDramaQueen
08-09-2012, 03:49 PM
+1. A lot of people don't like him because of his testy relationship with the press and the Blake incident. They forget he was told as a teenager he should quit - he'd never make it on tour. Not long after that he won Adelaide. Then went on to be #1. The 'weak/transitional' Era stuff is junk spewed by armchairs. He played who they told him to - and won most of the time for 3 yrs.

Hewitt's movement and return of serve were incredible. Underrated net skills and improved his serve quite a bit. Always gave a great effort 'til the end.

The people who have watched tennis long enough to know about any of those incidents wouldn't think he was a terrible player though, only one that they dislike. The problem is the people, like you said, who have no idea how good Hewitt was in his prime.

It is unfortunate about all the injuries, but if he could have just developed a true weapon off of the ground, maybe he could have used that to extend the length of his healthy playing career.

Hewitt seemed to be built to take down s&v players, so it is unfortunate that the tour (with the help of slower surfaces) moved away from that style of play.

Mustard
08-09-2012, 05:36 PM
+1. A lot of people don't like him because of his testy relationship with the press and the Blake incident. They forget he was told as a teenager he should quit - he'd never make it on tour. Not long after that he won Adelaide. Then went on to be #1. The 'weak/transitional' Era stuff is junk spewed by armchairs. He played who they told him to - and won most of the time for 3 yrs.

Hewitt's movement and return of serve were incredible. Underrated net skills and improved his serve quite a bit. Always gave a great effort 'til the end.

I was amazed to learn, years later, that some people were telling a young Hewitt that he would never make it on tour! I was never so certain that a player WOULD make it on tour as I was with Lleyton. They really must have been blind not to see his huge potential. Or did they just hate him so much that they wanted him to fail?

TeflonTom
08-09-2012, 06:03 PM
I was amazed to learn, years later, that some people were telling a young Hewitt that he would never make it on tour! I was never so certain that a player WOULD make it on tour as I was with Lleyton. They really must have been blind not to see his huge potential. Or did they just hate him so much that they wanted him to fail?
tbf he used to get towelled up somethin chronic by philippoussis as a jr

i think most ppl realized he was somethin special when he won his first atp title at 17, beatin agassi along the way

Sabratha
08-10-2012, 02:02 AM
Yes Nadal was in his prime in 2004 wasnt he, LOL! Pretty bad for the World #3 to lose a 6-1 set to 17 year old 30 something ranked Nadal. That would be like Nadal losing a 6-1 set to Hewitt now.
When he was in his prime, and Hewitt was out of his, he still troubled him.

BeHappy
08-10-2012, 09:59 AM
When he was in his prime, and Hewitt was out of his, he still troubled him.

Nadal beat Federer on an outdoor hardcourt in 2004 too. He basically emerged on the tour fully formed like Boris Becker.

opiate
08-10-2012, 10:04 AM
"Peopl"

hahaha, reminded me of this buzzcock episode!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxYra6WEKo

sorry for the randomness.

NadalAgassi
08-10-2012, 10:30 AM
When he was in his prime, and Hewitt was out of his, he still troubled him.

Nadals prime is 2008 to today. Before 2008 he was a mug on non clay surfaces, apart from being good on grass in 2007 (he was a mug on grass even in 2006, his making the final at Wimbledon was only testament to how pitiful the clay and grass fields of this era are). If you are referring to 2006-2007 I dont know what you consider troubling but I dont consider winning a match where the opponent retires at 1 set all with injury in a small event, or eking out 1 set in a best of 5 match you end with 20 less winners, 20 more errors, and winning about 35 less points, as troubling.

Start da Game
08-12-2012, 07:00 AM
When he was in his prime, and Hewitt was out of his, he still troubled him.

hewitt at his peak is not 20% the man nadal was at his peak......

MTF07
08-12-2012, 07:04 AM
hewitt at his peak is not 20% the man nadal was at his peak......

Hewitt at his peak > Nadal at his peak on fast courts.

Start da Game
08-12-2012, 07:11 AM
Hewitt at his peak > Nadal at his peak on fast courts.

nope......hewitt just doesn't belong in the discussion......he played in a depleted era......

Hawkeye7
08-12-2012, 07:18 AM
'Peopl' also forget how to spell...

Sabratha
08-12-2012, 07:30 AM
hewitt at his peak is not 20% the man nadal was at his peak......
He still managed to take a set off Nadal at Roland Garros when he was out of his prime, and took a set off Djokovic at the Australian Open this year. Yet, he doesn't hold a candle to Nadal. Hm...

Tennis_Hands
08-12-2012, 07:46 AM
This post contains so much fail.

Nadals prime is 2008 to today.

No. One's player's prime starts , when he wins his first Major, if he backs it up with consistent results and other Majors to follow.

Before 2008 he was a mug on non clay surfaces, apart from being good on grass in 2007 (he was a mug on grass even in 2006.

That is screamingly inadequate.

How many titles on hard did Nadal win in 2005?

LOL at Nadal being mug on grass in 2006.

It was already well disproven, that Nadal was inexperienced on the surface back then.

his making the final at Wimbledon was only testament to how pitiful the clay and grass fields of this era are).

Compared to what are the grass fields pitiful?

You are drawing comparisons, without taking into consideration the fact, that the grass has been slowed down and is high bouncing now.

If you are referring to 2006-2007 I dont know what you consider troubling but I dont consider winning a match where the opponent retires at 1 set all with injury in a small event.,

Small event?. LOL. One could argue, that it is/was the biggest event on grass bar SW19. And how about the fact, that Nadal actually reached the final at Wimbledon a couple of weeks later?

or eking out 1 set in a best of 5 match you end with 20 less winners, 20 more errors, and winning about 35 less points, as troubling.

As it stands now, Nadal is ruined after hearing something cracking in his knee while sitting on a chair. And you have the face to compare both player, like nothing affected Hewitt's development and form?

Nah. Hewitt is the real McCoy, when it comes to mental fortitude. And quite a player, who did trouble Nadal a lot, and would have even more, if they were not born 5 years apart, Hewitt wasn't injured so often and most of their meetings weren't on clay.

West Coast Ace
08-12-2012, 08:00 AM
I was amazed to learn, years later, that some people were telling a young Hewitt that he would never make it on tour! I was never so certain that a player WOULD make it on tour as I was with Lleyton. They really must have been blind not to see his huge potential. Or did they just hate him so much that they wanted him to fail?Remember, when he was 16 he wasn't 5'11" yet - and was painfully thin. There are those (not just tennis, all sports) who can't see past size.

No doubt his team - especially his dad - turned a lot of people even in AU off. Calling the media idiots isn't going to get you a lot of fans, especially in AU where the concept of 'fair dinkum' lives. He was also following Rafter - everybody's favorite.

He still managed to take a set off Nadal at Roland Garros when he was out of his prime, and took a set off Djokovic at the Australian Open this year. Yet, he doesn't hold a candle to Nadal. Hm...Please don't feed the trolls. The 12 yr old Nadal fans are the worst - voracious appetites. Let their parents take care of them.

BeHappy
06-25-2013, 10:12 AM
Hewitt is playing better now than he has done since 2009, I predict a deep run in Wimbledon.

TMF
06-25-2013, 10:20 AM
Unfortunately prime Hewitt in 2004/05 isn't playing in this era otherwise he could have a great shot at winning slams.

BeHappy
06-25-2013, 10:25 AM
Unfortunately prime Hewitt in 2004/05 isn't playing in this era otherwise he could have a great shot at winning slams.

His best was 2001-2002 when he won Wimbledon, the USO, 2 TMC's and was year end no.1 against a field of Sampras, Federer, Agassi, Safin, Philippoussis, Kuerten, Rafter, Henman, Ferrero, Haas, Moya etc.

Steve0904
06-25-2013, 10:32 AM
Yes they do forget. It's unfortunate, but that's time and a lot of picking and choosing by "weak era" theorists for you. He took apart Wawrinka yesterday, and he's not even close to what he used to be.

zam88
06-25-2013, 10:41 AM
if he'd have quit 7 years ago when he should have, people would be more likely to remember the good stuff than all the bad that's come since

struggle
06-25-2013, 11:06 AM
Hewitt = Hingis.

Opportunist at best.

Steve0904
06-25-2013, 11:07 AM
if he'd have quit 7 years ago when he should have, people would be more likely to remember the good stuff than all the bad that's come since

What is wrong with you? Are you some kind of legacytard?

Vcore89
06-25-2013, 11:33 AM
Lleyton was the best in his time. Nevermind the competition, one has got to be number one in their respective primes. No excuses as to who was there or not. Otherwise, why didn't somebody else took the number 1 ranking and win the titles? He was also truly the world number 2 once Roger got to the top.

Overdrive
06-25-2013, 12:18 PM
I never forgot how good Hewitt was. His injuries held him back (similar to Joakim Johansson, Gael Monfils, etc.)

TMF
06-25-2013, 12:20 PM
His best was 2001-2002 when he won Wimbledon, the USO, 2 TMC's and was year end no.1 against a field of Sampras, Federer, Agassi, Safin, Philippoussis, Kuerten, Rafter, Henman, Ferrero, Haas, Moya etc.

Sorry but Hewitt himself disagree with you. He said he was playing better tennis in 2005 but one guy[Federer] was too "bloody good".

Tenez101
06-25-2013, 12:23 PM
Look at this match against Federer in 2002.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIiP5Hw_Pq0

Notice how deep he hits the ball compared to other defensive players like Simon, Murray or even Nadal. He was definitely as fast as Nadal in his prime.

Don't agree with this. See that point at 1:14? Nadal would've gotten to that ball and passed Federer with a DTL winner.

Topspinner271
06-25-2013, 12:25 PM
Hewitt's forehand and service technique really annoys me. I don't know why!?

zam88
06-25-2013, 12:26 PM
What is wrong with you? Are you some kind of legacytard?


Look.. imagine if Nadal kept playing for about 12 more years... and after 2 of those years he just kept entering and losing the in 1st or 2nd or 3rd round... and frequently being absent.

Well.. by about 2020 he'll be there, but you pretty much will have forgotten how good the guy was and only focus on wonder why the eff he's still out there bothering to play earning next to nothing and killing his win %.


Yeah, i guess I'm a legacy-****... If you're playing to the point where people are posing threads like "People forgot how good this guy was".. you've played too long.

Have some respect for your fanbase.. no one wanted to see Jordan playing mostly horrible basketball for those 2 seasons with the Wizards even if he did have some flashes of greatness.

Mustard
06-25-2013, 12:49 PM
His best was 2001-2002 when he won Wimbledon, the USO, 2 TMC's and was year end no.1 against a field of Sampras, Federer, Agassi, Safin, Philippoussis, Kuerten, Rafter, Henman, Ferrero, Haas, Moya etc.

2001-2002 was his prime in terms of his results. 2004-2005 was his prime in terms of his level of play. In the latter period, Hewitt was more powerful and more experienced, but he also had prime Federer in his way, unlike in 2001-2002. Hewitt only lost to the eventual winners of the majors in the 2004-2005 majors.

rainingaces
06-25-2013, 12:53 PM
The fact delpo idolized Hewitt means nothing the game has changed and you need a killer shot to win slams counter punching will not win slams today.

I'm a huge Delpo fan but even I know at their peaks Hewitt wins on anything but clay easily partly due to the nightmare of a match up. Hewitt just beat Delpo recently at queens, Delpo struggles against this type of player so do all the tall guys.

mattennis
06-25-2013, 12:53 PM
Sorry but Hewitt himself disagree with you. He said he was playing better tennis in 2005 but one guy[Federer] was too "bloody good".

Federer disagree with you ALL THE TIME. Does it bother you?

TMF
06-25-2013, 01:03 PM
Federer disagree with you ALL THE TIME. Does it bother you?

What are u talking about?

mattennis
06-25-2013, 01:09 PM
What are u talking about?

Federer has said many times that he is not the greatest, that you can not compare different eras, that in the current slow and homogeneous era with 32 seeds it is easier to reach many consecutive QF, SF... that in todays conditions red-hot big-hitter players playing out of their skin are not as dangerous than in past conditions,....and that he is playing the best tennis of his career in the last years....

Do you agree with him?

BeHappy
06-25-2013, 01:27 PM
2001-2002 was his prime in terms of his results. 2004-2005 was his prime in terms of his level of play. In the latter period, Hewitt was more powerful and more experienced, but he also had prime Federer in his way, unlike in 2001-2002. Hewitt only lost to the eventual winners of the majors in the 2004-2005 majors.

I don't agree. He did some bodybuilding but it didn't gain him any power. The long break he took to do that bodybuilding led to a small drop of form.

To put it in perspective, I remember he won 17 points in a row on Roddick's swerve in one of their TMC matches. He was dominating such a strong field:

Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Philippoussis, Rafter, Moya, Haas, Safin, Kuerten, Ferrero, Coria, Henman, Roddick, Rusedski...

It was phenomenal.

BeHappy
06-25-2013, 01:31 PM
Don't agree with this. See that point at 1:14? Nadal would've gotten to that ball and passed Federer with a DTL winner.

Is that why Federer bagelled Nadal in that competition?

Mustard
06-25-2013, 01:36 PM
The long break he took to do that bodybuilding led to a small drop of form.

It didn't. April to July 2003 was his shocking drop in form. At the time, Hewitt was involved in legal disputes with the ATP and there was talk of him quitting tennis to become an Aussie Rules footballer. The dispute with the ATP and his focus on Davis Cup is why he didn't play any tournaments after the US Open that year. He was also bulking up, and but for prime Federer arriving on the scene, would have won multiple majors and another Masters Cup in 2004-2005.

To put it in perspective, I remember he won 17 points in a row on Roddick's swerve in one of their TMC matches. He was dominating such a strong field:

Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Philippoussis, Rafter, Moya, Haas, Safin, Kuerten, Ferrero, Coria, Henman, Roddick, Rusedski...

It was phenomenal.

That match against Roddick was in the semi finals of the 2004 Masters Cup in Houston. Hewitt, from 1-2 down in the second set, won 20 points in a row to take the match. Unfortunately, Hewitt didn't finish the year as world number 2 because he failed to beat Federer in the final.

BeHappy
06-25-2013, 01:45 PM
It didn't. April to July 2003 was his shocking drop in form. At the time, Hewitt was involved in legal disputes with the ATP and there was talk of him quitting tennis to become an Aussie Rules footballer. The dispute with the ATP and his focus on Davis Cup is why he didn't play any tournaments after the US Open that year. He was also bulking up, and but for prime Federer arriving on the scene, would have won multiple majors and another Masters Cup in 2004-2005.


Bodybuilding in tennis is a waste of time. Chang and Hewitt both did it and didn't gain any power and just played the same style of tennis as they always did. Federer and Sampras had no muscle and both hit much harder than players like Robbie Ginepri or Jose Acasuso.

There were, as you say other factors besides the bodybuilding like the weird relationship with his parents (shades of Tomic) and the lawsuit with the ATP when he didn't do the press conference, but Hewitt was always arguing with people (Blake, Coria etc), he actually thrived on it, like McEnroe or Connors.

It was the break from tennis that led to a small drop in his level, not any of the other factors.

mike danny
06-25-2013, 01:52 PM
Bodybuilding in tennis is a waste of time. Chang and Hewitt both did it and didn't gain any power and just played the same style of tennis as they always did. Federer and Sampras had no muscle and both hit much harder than players like Robbie Ginepri or Jose Acasuso.

There were, as you say other factors besides the bodybuilding like the weird relationship with his parents (shades of Tomic) and the lawsuit with the ATP when he didn't do the press conference, but Hewitt was always arguing with people (Blake, Coria etc), he actually thrived on it, like McEnroe or Connors.

It was the break from tennis that led to a small drop in his level, not any of the other factors.
still hewitt was pretty consistent in 2004-2005. too bad he ran into federer so many times. 9 times in 2 years is a fair number of meetings 5 of them being in majors

BeHappy
06-25-2013, 01:54 PM
still hewitt was pretty consistent in 2004-2005. too bad he ran into federer so many times. 9 times in 2 years is a fair number of meetings 5 of them being in majors

True, Federer was just too good from 2004 to 2005. But like Djesus that didn't continue forever and if Hewitt had stayed injury free he would have had his chances.

President
06-25-2013, 01:54 PM
True, Federer was just too good from 2004 to 2005. But like Djesus that didn't continue forever and if Hewitt had stayed injury free he would have had his chances.

Federer 2006>>>>Federer 2004

NatF
06-25-2013, 01:57 PM
Hewitt had 4 very good years, 2001-2002 and 2004-2005. If he didn't Federer in the later too he would have won another 3-4 slams most probably. He'd be in the company of Borris Becker.

BeHappy
06-25-2013, 02:02 PM
Federer 2006>>>>Federer 2004

I don't think so. The entire top 10 practically collapsed from injury overnight in 2005/2006. It's actually unprecedented in history:

Haas (shoulder, parents in a car accident), Safin (knee, never the same), Hewitt (first hip problem), Ferrero (Chickenpox, cracked rib, changed racquet, never the same), Philippoussis (knee,end of career), Coria (mental breakdown), Gaudio (mental breakdown), Kuerten (hip, end of career), Roddick (started pushing), Agassi (retired), Henman (back problems).

All of a sudden players like Robredo were top 5. I think it's very revealing that Murray beat Federer at 19 in 2006. Federer was still great but that year is a little trumped up compared to 2004 and 2005 due to lack of competition.

smoledman
06-25-2013, 02:02 PM
Hewitt had 4 very good years, 2001-2002 and 2004-2005. If he didn't Federer in the later too he would have won another 3-4 slams most probably. He'd be in the company of Borris Becker.

I think the 2004 US Open final was pivotal in their respective fates. It wasn't immediate for Hewitt. He still made the AO final and USO semis the next year, but he would never really be the same after that utter demolition job.

Mustard
06-25-2013, 02:04 PM
Bodybuilding in tennis is a waste of time. Chang and Hewitt both did it and didn't gain any power and just played the same style of tennis as they always did. Federer and Sampras had no muscle and both hit much harder than players like Robbie Ginepri or Jose Acasuso.

There were, as you say other factors besides the bodybuilding like the weird relationship with his parents (shades of Tomic) and the lawsuit with the ATP when he didn't do the press conference, but Hewitt was always arguing with people (Blake, Coria etc), he actually thrived on it, like McEnroe or Connors.

It was the break from tennis that led to a small drop in his level, not any of the other factors.

I don't see anything weird in regards to Lleyton's relationship with his parents. He has never made any secret of the fact that he wanted his parents to travel with him on the tour.

BeHappy
06-25-2013, 02:06 PM
I don't see anything weird in regards to Lleyton's relationship with his parents. He has never made any secret of the fact that he wanted his parents to travel with him on the tour.

He was fully grown man hanging from his mother's apron strings. His "bad behaviour" disappeared when they stopped being a presence in his box.

Mustard
06-25-2013, 02:09 PM
I think the 2004 US Open final was pivotal in their respective fates. It wasn't immediate for Hewitt. He still made the AO final and USO semis the next year, but he would never really be the same after that utter demolition job.

That match was when I realised that Federer wasn't just having a good 2004. He was going to be at the top for some time. But I also knew that Lleyton was going to be after him all the time and wouldn't be going away, which late 2004 and 2005 showed. The injuries ruined it for Hewitt, though. He has been regularly fighting against injury problems for nearly 8 years now, but is still battling away and giving his all.

TMF
06-25-2013, 03:01 PM
Federer has said many times that he is not the greatest, that you can not compare different eras, that in the current slow and homogeneous era with 32 seeds it is easier to reach many consecutive QF, SF... that in todays conditions red-hot big-hitter players playing out of their skin are not as dangerous than in past conditions,....and that he is playing the best tennis of his career in the last years....

Do you agree with him?

Where did you get this "many times"? Even if the question was addressed to him many times, a great player don't self-proclaimed himself as the greatest. Jerry Rice was being asked the same question all the time when he broke many NFL records, and he never admit it that he's the greatest. However most fans believe he's the greatest, regardless if doesn't want to admit it. With that being said, I don't go by a player's self-evaluating himself, but rather from the general public.

tennis_badger
06-25-2013, 03:26 PM
hewitt had the same problem with roddick: "Federer"
and also injuries later on.
its hard to stay on top with his style of play and his injuries, he has shown time and time again what he "could've been" without injuries.

pound cat
06-25-2013, 03:33 PM
When Hewitt was #1 many articles had the heading "Who will ever be able fo displace Hewitt?" He was great in his time...didn't have a huge serve but he flew around the court running down balls and had a lob that hit the baseline every time. And he was the first to use the phrase "c'mon"

Sabratha
06-25-2013, 05:44 PM
True, Federer was just too good from 2004 to 2005. But like Djesus that didn't continue forever and if Hewitt had stayed injury free he would have had his chances.
Hewitt in 2005 mode wouldn't have been able to beat 2006 Federer.

Steve0904
06-25-2013, 05:46 PM
Look.. imagine if Nadal kept playing for about 12 more years... and after 2 of those years he just kept entering and losing the in 1st or 2nd or 3rd round... and frequently being absent.

Well.. by about 2020 he'll be there, but you pretty much will have forgotten how good the guy was and only focus on wonder why the eff he's still out there bothering to play earning next to nothing and killing his win %.


Yeah, i guess I'm a legacy-****... If you're playing to the point where people are posing threads like "People forgot how good this guy was".. you've played too long.

Have some respect for your fanbase.. no one wanted to see Jordan playing mostly horrible basketball for those 2 seasons with the Wizards even if he did have some flashes of greatness.


The difference is Hewitt lives for the moments where he beats guys like Wawrinka, and I'm supremely enjoying watching him play, and I liked him back when he was the best. If he can still beat guys like Wawrinka on ANY surface and he wants to play then that means that he hasn't played too long.

Jordan did play too long and should've stayed retired I agree, but Hewitt still challenges guys in the top 10 and can take sets off guys in the top 5. Massive difference. And Hewitt didn't achieve near as much as Nadal or Federer, so the comparison is invalid. If Federer or Nadal went around losing in the 1st and 2nd rounds and had no hope of winning anything anymore then yes I would want them to retire, but Hewitt has never been one of the top greats in tennis history. Again a massive difference.

Even saying all that, it's runs like Connors in 91 that make sports magical. If Federer retired every time someone told him to he would not have ascended back to #1 and won a 17th major for example.

Mustard
06-25-2013, 05:51 PM
You should only retire if you don't enjoy it anymore. If you still enjoy the challenge, which Hewitt obviously does, carry on playing.

NEW_BORN
06-25-2013, 05:55 PM
You should only retire if you don't enjoy it anymore. If you still enjoy the challenge, which Hewitt obviously does, carry on playing.

Exactly right!

ScentOfDefeat
06-26-2013, 05:39 AM
From another post:

Hewitt, to me, is similar to Chang. Great fighter, excellent demeanour on court, never say die attitude. His career was slightly more fortunate than Chang's because he peaked between decadent Sampras and upcoming Federer. Hadn't Chang played peak Sampras or resurgent Becker in Slam finals, he might have had a very similar career to Hewitt's. Honestly, I can't see him as more than a luckier version of what Chang could have been if he hadn't played in an era where Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Becker and Edberg reached the peak of their games. And he still managed to be ranked #2 for a large period of time.

pjonesy
06-26-2013, 08:48 PM
From another post:

Hewitt, to me, is similar to Chang. Great fighter, excellent demeanour on court, never say die attitude. His career was slightly more fortunate than Chang's because he peaked between decadent Sampras and upcoming Federer. Hadn't Chang played peak Sampras or resurgent Becker in Slam finals, he might have had a very similar career to Hewitt's. Honestly, I can't see him as more than a luckier version of what Chang could have been if he hadn't played in an era where Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Becker and Edberg reached the peak of their games. And he still managed to be ranked #2 for a large period of time.

Some good points in this post. The comparison to Chang makes sense, but I truly believe Hewitt had the ability to do more with the ball when he got to it. I do believe Chang was quicker, but Hewitt's ability to take his racquet back, lock into a balanced position and really sit down on shots, was an effective technique that allowed him to generate more pace than Chang. At least over the course of a match. IMO.

That being said, Chang and Hewitt are 2 of the greatest competitors in the history of tennis. They gave everything they had in every match. You really can't pay a higher compliment to a professional tennis player.

West Coast Ace
06-26-2013, 08:54 PM
Many people don't give Hewitt credit because of the 1 incident with Blake.

Hewitt is an average sized guy who battled the giants; when you tune into a Hewitt match you know you're going to see a guy give everything.

Knew he had to improve his serve; went off and did it.

One of the best returners all-time.

If not for all the injuries he may have never left the top 20. A healthy Hewitt vs Tips, Almagro, Stan, etc - I know who I think is winning.