Originally Posted by tennis_pro
The difference between Connors and Hewitt is that Connors was in the top 5/top10 until the late 80's when he was 37. He even made another major SF at 39.
Hewitt hasn't done anything comparable to late Connors since like 2006 (when he was 25)? Connors was competitive until pretty much the end of his career.
It's been fun having Lleyton being the ultimate underdog at the AO (since I don't remember him playing a lot during the year bar an odd WC) for a couple of years now but it's getting riddiculous.
Connors did not have massive surgery like all the time. Why do you even judge the guy? What's so ridiculous. Why is he more ridiculous than Somdev Devvarman or Simone Bolelli?
Also, Hewitt came within a few points of beating Andy Roddick in the Wimbledon 2009 QF. Setting up a semi, with a favoured but pretty beatable Andy Murray. He would go on to beat Federer on grass a year later.