Murray overall has a more powerful game than Hewitt. It's not just his serve that's bigger.
Novak admits that Roger is playing the best tennis of his career
- Thread starter ABCD
- Start date
Murray overall has a more powerful game than Hewitt. It's not just his serve that's bigger.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
You and HoyaPride are two of them..
NatF
Bionic Poster
Hewitt never had a weakness like Murray's second serve and at times his smash. Hewitt scored a lot of aces with his serve, the issue was generally the percentage not the power. Murray is surely more powerful but in the end he doesn't use his power effectively most of the time. Hewitt used to hit with just as much if not more aggressive intent IMO.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
It says you underrate guys like Hewitt and Roddick by acting like Murray is in a completely different realm compared to them..
If Federer at his peak destroyed these guys and today he is destroying Murray, that means at his peak he'd also destroy Murray. You follow?
Murray has the bigger game. At least we've established that.
I'm not even trying to get into an argument about who's better between the two. I made a simple point that Murray troubled Federer much more during his prime than Hewitt ever did. That's a fact.
I only said that I don't think much about Lleyton Hewitt as a player overall. I don't think much of Murray either so that shows how much I think of Lleyton.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Murray doesn't use that bigger game to win tennis matches which is the point I was making.
He didn't really trouble Federer more in slam meetings during Federer's prime though. Scoring wins over Federer in 08-10 in masters is impressive but Hewitt at his best never had the luxury of facing Federer at that juncture of his career.
I didn't say anything about Murray being in a "completely different realm." I'm going to put you on ignore if you keep putting words into my mouth. You said earlier that I claimed to be a professional tennis player when I said no such thing. It's like you enjoy fabricating these strawmen to knock down.
Yes, we see how well the transitive works here. Federer destroyed Hewitt and Roddick, beating them all multiple times in a row, but yet couldn't achieve a winning record against Murray during his prime years. "Peak" Federer even had a chance to "destroy" Murray in 2006 and lost in straight sets.
He also scored a straight sets victory over Federer in 2006 when Fed was at his alleged "peak."
The parameters in this debate keep getting tighter and tighter. Why not choose a specific date? "Andy Murray couldn't beat Roger Federer between 3 and 5pm on August 12, 2006."
I mean, Murray beat Federer quite a bit between 2006 and 2010. You could argue that a 110% Hewitt would have a similar record against Fed during the same time period, but all that is is argument. Murray actually has the "W"s against Fed, not just internet conjecture about how he "would have" done.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Federer had just had an epic week in Toronto the week before. Him losing to Murray in Cinci in 2006 is about as relevant as him losing to Hrbaty in 2004. Federer just couldn't get up for that match with the USO round the corner. Not to mention there's a difference between meeting Federer in an early round and meeting him in a SF or Final. Roddick stomped on Murray later in the tournament anyway...
Indeed, Murray did beat Federer a bunch during a period where Federer was dropping matches to the field far more frequently than before. However in the slams despite Federer's gradual decline Murray has posed barely more challenge than Hewitt did to Federer at his peak. I don't argue that a 110% Hewitt would have that record against Federer. I personally think 100% Hewitt meeting Federer in that kind of form would score some wins.
He dropped matches more frequently before but oddly enough failed to drop any against Hewitt.
I still don't understand this "in the Slams" distinction. Hewitt couldn't beat Federer anywhere when Federer was in his prime. So they're not the same.
You can come up with excuses and hypotheticals all day long. What if Hewitt had a bowel movement before the match? What if he had eaten Cheerios instead of Fruit Loops? What if he played on Thursday instead of Saturday? None of this changes the fact that he was Federer's whipping boy for a 6-year period. That's six years, 15 losses and 0 victories.
These arguments are way too squirmy for me. There is an explanation/excuse for every possible thing in this forum.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
WTF 2002, Davis Cup 2003...
You also conveniently forget that Hewitt had 3 surgeries from 2005-2010, which is 5 of the 6 years you're crapping on him for. When it comes to Murray though, he just "isn't as good as he was then".
2002 was "peak" or "prime" Federer? You're really stretching here. You're about to be on my ignore list very soon.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Federer played prime level tennis during the WTF in 2002..
I personally think you started watching tennis in 2008.. You honestly are clueless when it comes to Federer and how well he played in matches..
I bet you'll have some excuse though.
Officially on ignore.
NatF
Bionic Poster
What ranking did Hewitt have beaten 2006-2010. That probably tells you why he wasn't beating Federer. I guess surgeries are just excuses though right? Interesting that pointing out A) The difference in Hewitt's play from say 01-05 and 06-10 and B) Federer declined results against the field in 08-10 compared to 04-07 are both excuses to you.
The slams is an important distinction because it's where top players are the most motivated and aim to peak. Murray had a lot of success against Federer on the tour but none in the slams. Why do you think that was? - And don't go making excuses now. There's no denying Murray has handled Federer a lot better than Hewitt did (though Hewitt does have 9 wins) but that's what you tend to expect from younger challengers.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
I didn't mean to offend you. It is obvious that HoyaPride played tennis at a good level while for you it is obvious that you don't know what are you talking about. Thus, it was kind of Becker vs lay person, which is a hilarious comedy moment. What is finy is serous effort of HoyaPride put in to explain you something while you don't have a clue being completely oblivious of yourself.
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
Djokovic is absolutely correct. He is playing somewhat different tennis than when he was 28 but he is playing some of his best tennis ever contrary to what many assume.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
You think Djokovic is the best player in the history of the sport, HoyaPride is about as delusional as you (cites that they played as a junior yet won't show proof of this).
I've also hit with Mark Philippoussis and Mark Petchey before.. I doubt you'd ever have the chance to do so with these legends of the game (and if you haven't hit with these guys, you would probably call them mugs or nobodies, but you'd be dead wrong. Their ability actually isn't that far removed from a guy like Djoker). I've also never said I have played at a professional level though, but I would beat you in an actual match (seeing as I've actually played before and you seem like the sort of guy who will try to return serve Agassi or Djoko style, fail, hit it softly and allow players like me to finish points at the net or crack a forehand winner by you).
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Federer's best tennis from this year impresses me as much as 2012 to be honest, but he's less mentally sure against Djokovic than he used to be.
He reached 2 Slam finals this year which is more than what he managed in 2011 or 2012, but in 2015 he had to face the best version of Djokovic ever (IMO) or at least comparable to 2011, rather than facing 2012 Djokovic at Wimbledon. So, he reached 2 Slam finals and was on the right level to win one of them (US) but mentally messed up somewhat. In 2012, he won 6 titles, and in 2015 he's on 5 and counting. Federer's standard at the US Open might have been the best he's produced for at least 3 years and possibly longer. The last time he reached 2 or more Slam finals in a calendar year was 2009.
He reached 2 Slam finals this year which is more than what he managed in 2011 or 2012, but in 2015 he had to face the best version of Djokovic ever (IMO) or at least comparable to 2011, rather than facing 2012 Djokovic at Wimbledon. So, he reached 2 Slam finals and was on the right level to win one of them (US) but mentally messed up somewhat. In 2012, he won 6 titles, and in 2015 he's on 5 and counting. Federer's standard at the US Open might have been the best he's produced for at least 3 years and possibly longer. The last time he reached 2 or more Slam finals in a calendar year was 2009.
What I think is irrelevant. What indicates that you don't have a clue is your aggressiveness, ruddiness ("delusional") and inflexibility in discussions. These are not typical features of a person who is an expert in the field. These are primary signs. Secondary is that, in my opinion, you don't have understanding of the game in a way that a person with significant expertise and personal experience of playing would have. This is opposite of HoyaPride who shows flexibility, patience and is usually polite.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
The way in which I execute an argument doesn't show any ability or inability in my knowledge of the game. It shows I am fed up with the constant bias towards the current era when I myself have watched and know about several past eras which are as good as now.
Similarly, a high school coach might not be the friendliest of people but they know what they are talking about..
I wouldn't think of a high school coach as an expert, far from it. I would certainly think about 2 guys you mentioned as experts. If you had an opportunity to discuss with them you could see how soft and flexible they are. If I would say to Mark Petchey "I believe that Djokovic is the best player ever" he wouldn't call me delusional, but would say something like "It is a matter of taste; possibly etc.". HoyaPride has this kind of expert graciousness.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Hard to say between 2012 Federer and 2015 Federer. I do think confidence is such a huge factor that I must rate 2012 Federer above 2015. This year Federer had been stomping on the field in a big way at times but how he performs on finals day matters more to me. I do think Federer of 2012 would have posed more difficult questions of Djokovic that at Wimbledon.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
When I met either of them, Novak was not a big name yet..
Although both had a lot of respect for both Roger and Rafa.
SpicyCurry1990
Hall of Fame
Roger in the second half of this season (post-FO) is 22-0 in matches and 46-2 in sets (outside of the slam finals he lost to Djoker).
But because he lost those two matches, Fed fans have to scramble for excuses. Those are the kind of #s he posted in his prime. In fact 04, 06, 08, AND 09 Fed did not even reach the finals of all the tournaments from Halle to USO that he played. Only 05 and 07 Fed did that (with 07 Fed taking a loss to 20 year old Novak in Canada btw).
So naturally fed fans forgo the logically derivation that Fed is producing some near peak level play right now (which Fed himself agrees with, as do people playing AGAINST fed, and as do analysts who's job it is to watch this stuff) and instead think that the ENTIRE field of 1000s of players has declined so heavily from 06 to 15 that Fed himself has declined to 60% of his abilities and is still able to post peak like numbers. A MUCH MORE likely scenario.
Oh and lets remember 06 Fed would have won this USO final in straights because you know 1 time slam winner Roddick and 0 time slam winner Blake taking sets off that form of Fed CLEARLY indicate he was in such god mode that he would beat a 10 time slam winner with a higher career hard court win % than him in 3....
RF20Lennon
Legend
Nobody once said he would crush Djokovic or that he isn't playing great tennis. The point is over time due to age like all athletes is losing his mental edge. Djokovic dropped sets to Lopez and Agut. That doesn't mean anything. Federer gifted breaks and couldn't hold up 40-15 thrice! He couldn't take any of those bp's.Roger in the second half of this season (post-FO) is 22-0 in matches and 46-2 in sets (outside of the slam finals he lost to Djoker).
But because he lost those two matches, Fed fans have to scramble for excuses. Those are the kind of #s he posted in his prime. In fact 04, 06, 08, AND 09 Fed did not even reach the finals of all the tournaments from Halle to USO that he played. Only 05 and 07 Fed did that (with 07 Fed taking a loss to 20 year old Novak in Canada btw).
So naturally fed fans forgo the logically derivation that Fed is producing some near peak level play right now (which Fed himself agrees with, as do people playing AGAINST fed, and as do analysts who's job it is to watch this stuff) and instead think that the ENTIRE field of 1000s of players has declined so heavily from 06 to 15 that Fed himself has declined to 60% of his abilities and is still able to post peak like numbers. A MUCH MORE likely scenario.
Oh and lets remember 06 Fed would have won this USO final in straights because you know 1 time slam winner Roddick and 0 time slam winner Blake taking sets off that form of Fed CLEARLY indicate he was in such god mode that he would beat a 10 time slam winner with a higher career hard court win % than him in 3....
Prime Federer was match tough. He would've pressed on till he held, been more proactive and taken those opportunities. Not stayed back waiting for Djokovic to make the error. In terms of tennis quality he's not playing bad at all. He's just going AWOL on big points.
A champion plays well enough to beat his opponent like Djokovic two nights ago and Federer 10 years ago. They are steady and they don't waver as much. Djokovic didn't play all that great. He was steady enough and let Federer fold.
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
Do we need any more evidence for what a pathetically weak mug year this is? There is only one player that can beat a freaking 34-year-old! Thanks for the research, Spicy!
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
no need for all the words, I ignore you from here on out in every single post of yours. Not worth my time.
Cheers and have fun!
Similar threads
