View Single Post
Old 01-31-2013, 08:34 PM   #36
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,821
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Order View Post
I like how you say Hewitt and Roddick were past their prime in most of the matches.

First of all clarify what you think were their prime years.

Secondly, Rafa lost to Roddick in 2004 USO. He was 17 against the defending champ, so if Roddick's post prime losses (assuming you mean 2010 onwards) don't count, then neither does Nadal pre-prime loss. In fact (even though it was on clay) 17 year old beat Roddick in Davis Cup later that year. In their only 2007 encounter on HC, Rafa also won that. In their only grass encounter, Rafa won that also.

As for Hewitt, all 3 of his wins came against pre-prime Nadal at the Australian Open x2 and 1 in Toronto 04. The first one was 2 tight sets then Hewitt ran away with it (interestingly if Rafa had won that match he would've met Fed in the 2004 AO). The second one was Toronto which went to 3 sets. The third one was 2005 AO and Hewitt had a tough 5 set battle against him. This is PRIME Hewitt struggling against kid Rafa before he won his first major. THeir grass encounter doesn't matter since Rafa had to retire the match at 1 set all.

If prime Hewitt and Roddick were playing in this era they wouldn't even come close to winning a major. They'd at best make a few semi's here and there and possibly fluke their way to a final once or twice. Look how weak Hewitt's 02 WIM draw was, do you really think he'd win it if post-prime Fed or prime Rafa, Joker or Murray entered? Not a chance.
Blah blah blah. All speculation. I could just as easily claim Roddick and Hewitt would be 39-time Slam Champions in this era. Try again.
Prisoner of Birth is offline   Reply With Quote