Does Lleyton Hewitt need the money?

[joeri888]

I agree to some level. But this is the first time he looked a bit helpless imo. Last year was great, Kooyong was good. He had a rough draw and didn't play great (served poorly in particular). I guess it's one of those days. When you only play 4 times a year, and you have a bad day on one of those, people start talking like for the past 4 years you've always been some sort of clown. Hewitt has not been a clown. He's never been. If this year goes on like this, and Wimbledon results in a poor showing, then yes, maybe he could hang up his racquet at next year's AO. However, last year he did great here, the year before he won Halle and another tourney I think, in 09 he went to the Wimbledon quarters, I don't think that's all that bad. Hewitt's an amazing player, but particularly an amazing fighter. People here are way too busy talking about pride and legacy, while they should actually enjoy the fact that the great player may have vanished but the fighter clearly hasn't

[iriraz]

Obviously Hewitt could have retired a long time ago.But he still likes to play these kind of matches in front of a big crowd.Obviously he is no longer a full season player,and his ranking is not that important to him.
And i don`t criticise any player who has a good enough ranking to compete in as many tournaments as he can.
But my biggest issue regarding Hewitt is,if he gets like last year a dozen or so wildcards to compete and his ranking is still around 80 or so then it`s a bit of pointless.
Last year for example,getting a WC into the French Open was ridiculous.He never did that well on clay and on top of it he was far from ready to compete.

[tacou]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

Because he's leagues above them. I can understand the fighting spirit but doesn't he have any pride?

He's better than those guys and that's why he should retire?
It's more prideful to retire than do everything to feel healthy again and see how you compete?

The most overlooked point in this thread is he faced TIPSAREVIC. I realize Tipsy isn't an absolute top dog but he's been in the top 10 for awhile now and is seeded #8.

Hewitt would've rather played a guy like Delpo or even Berdych to be honest. They could blast him off the court but he also could frustrate them more so than Tipsy.

2009 was 3 years ago, yes, but Hewitt has not been playing for 3 years since then. He's lost significant time to injury, and that's the point: when healthy, he's been competitive. He wants to see what he's got left if he can string together a few healthy months.

[wangs78]

One thing to remember is that despite Hewitt's former #1 ranking and 2 slam titles, I don't think he was ever recognized (by fellow players, the media, fans, or himself) as the BEST player on tour. He basically had a window of opportunity where the old guard was winding down and new guard was still maturing and he just happened to mature a bit faster and played consistently enough to accomplish what he did. Don't get me wrong, he deserves credit for what he did but I just don't think anyone ever put him in the league of top top players. With that said, I don't think playing like a journeyman really bothers him at all because he was not at the top long enough to get used the glory, adulation, media attention etc. Someone like Fed, Nadal and Djokovic other hand should definitely quit when the quitting is still good.

[fps]

Originally Posted by tacou

Rusty is one of the few true competitors left on tour. I mean I love Jo Tsonga but the dude is top 8 for awhile now and still has a very questionable mental game and he is far from the only one in the top 20 like this.

In the past few years Lleyton has had a lot of injury trouble, and yet when he returns and gets some matches in him, he's had decent results until the next injury. His AO last year was solid and he won Halle not too long ago beating Fed.

I think Lleyton wants to play (sooner than later of course) a full season without injury and see how he does. A full seasons for him of course will still be about 10 tourneys, but ideally with no injuries in between.

Absolutely, he needs matches and he wants to train and see what level he can get back to, and he wants to compete with the best. It's not like he's taking someone better's place, he's a great character, people want to watch him, and he still plays terrific tennis, which would be even better if he could get an injury-free run/

[NLBwell]

Why would anyone play tournaments if they couldn't win a Slam?
They like to play and compete.

[Gorecki]

typical question of someone who doesnt like this sport...

for crying out loud. 99% of the people in this forum who play tennis are paying to do it, whereas guys like LH (whom i dislike very much) are getting payed to play the sport we all love...

why is this even a question????

[90's Clay]

I have no clue.. The game past him by 7 years ago.

And people say because he "loves the game or needs the money" You can do both on the seniors tour.. Its fun, and you make good money still

Hell.. Teach tennis.. Whats wrong with that?

If I won as many titles as Hewitt did, I wouldn't be able to stomach just going out in an earlier round year after year.. He should have more pride then that

[Gonzalito17]

He loves to play and he still can compete with the best tooth and nail as he showed vs. Djokovic at the OLY last year. He can be a TV commentator any time he wants, a job is waiting for him, he was fantastic last year in the booth.

Killer Cahill talked about this last night, said he thinks Hewitt wants his three kids to be able to see him play the big tournaments and "see him play on TV." Interesting comment by Killer.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by wangs78

One thing to remember is that despite Hewitt's former #1 ranking and 2 slam titles, I don't think he was ever recognized (by fellow players, the media, fans, or himself) as the BEST player on tour. He basically had a window of opportunity where the old guard was winding down and new guard was still maturing and he just happened to mature a bit faster and played consistently enough to accomplish what he did. Don't get me wrong, he deserves credit for what he did but I just don't think anyone ever put him in the league of top top players. With that said, I don't think playing like a journeyman really bothers him at all because he was not at the top long enough to get used the glory, adulation, media attention etc. Someone like Fed, Nadal and Djokovic other hand should definitely quit when the quitting is still good.

I agree with most of what you said except for one thing. Hewitt was definitely a transition player who capatilized on his window between eras, but Hewitt during his time at #1 WAS considered the best player in the World at the time. He was probably only the best since the really great players were either too old and on the way down or not matured yet, but he still was for that year and half period or so the best. The only one you could make a case was better was Agassi, but Hewitt had a winning record vs Agassi and won more big titles during those 18 months, so he was the best. The next closest were people like Safin and Haas who werent really close at all overall, even if Safin on his day could still blow Hewitt off the court.

[Mustard]

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.

Connors wasn't affected by injuries to Hewitt's extent. Hewitt has had a load of injury troubles since 2005, including several surgeries on his hip, problems with his knees, elbow, feet and toes.

Connors didn't have surgery until 1990, on his wrist.

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

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.

If Hewitt wants to play, then he'll continue to play. Connors stayed out there until he wasn't physically able to do it anymore, so why wouldn't Hewitt to do the same if he has the desire to compete?

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

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.

If Lleyton Hewitt had your attitude then he wouldn't be Lleyton Hewitt.

Originally Posted by wangs78

One thing to remember is that despite Hewitt's former #1 ranking and 2 slam titles, I don't think he was ever recognized (by fellow players, the media, fans, or himself) as the BEST player on tour.

Lleyton Hewitt was world number 1 for 80 weeks and was the clear world number 1 as soon as Gustavo Kuerten's hip problems took over after the 2001 US Open. Hewitt was never a dominant world number 1, though. Ask anyone from 2002 who was world number 1, and it was obviously Hewitt.

Originally Posted by wangs78

He basically had a window of opportunity where the old guard was winding down and new guard was still maturing and he just happened to mature a bit faster and played consistently enough to accomplish what he did.

You're using hindsight. Nobody saw anything about "transition era" when Hewitt was world number 1. Back then, the popular opinion was that the generation of 2002 were all way too good for any one player to dominate the sport. That opinion soon changed when Federer started dominating.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Connors wasn't affected by injuries to Hewitt's extent. Hewitt has had a load of injury troubles since 2005, including several surgeries on his hip, problems with his knees, elbow, feet and toes.

Connors didn't have surgery until 1990, on his wrist.



If Hewitt wants to play, then he'll continue to play. Connors stayed out there until he wasn't physically able to do it anymore, so why wouldn't Hewitt to do the same if he has the desire to compete?



If Lleyton Hewitt had your attitude then he wouldn't be Lleyton Hewitt.



Lleyton Hewitt was world number 1 for 80 weeks and was the clear world number 1 as soon as Gustavo Kuerten's hip problems took over after the 2001 US Open. Hewitt was a never a dominant world number 1, though. Ask anyone from 2002 who was world number 1, and it was obviously Hewitt.



You're using hindsight. Nobody saw anything about "transition era" when Hewitt was world number 1. Back then, the popular opinion was that the generation of 2002 were all way too good for any one player to dominate the sport. That opinion soon changed when Federer started dominating.

Great post.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Connors wasn't affected by injuries to Hewitt's extent. Hewitt has had a load of injury troubles since 2005, including several surgeries on his hip, problems with his knees, elbow, feet and toes.

Connors didn't have surgery until 1990, on his wrist.



If Hewitt wants to play, then he'll continue to play. Connors stayed out there until he wasn't physically able to do it anymore, so why wouldn't Hewitt to do the same if he has the desire to compete?



If Lleyton Hewitt had your attitude then he wouldn't be Lleyton Hewitt.



Lleyton Hewitt was world number 1 for 80 weeks and was the clear world number 1 as soon as Gustavo Kuerten's hip problems took over after the 2001 US Open. Hewitt was never a dominant world number 1, though. Ask anyone from 2002 who was world number 1, and it was obviously Hewitt.



You're using hindsight. Nobody saw anything about "transition era" when Hewitt was world number 1. Back then, the popular opinion was that the generation of 2002 were all way too good for any one player to dominate the sport. That opinion soon changed when Federer started dominating.

Thanks for this post, Mustard. How quickly people forget, it is frightening.

[Gorecki]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Great post.

second that

when the subject is not Nadal, mustarD is a clear top 3 poster. when the stinky boy is the subject... well, that is a whole different subject!

[SLD76]

Originally Posted by Gorecki

second that

when the subject is not Nadal, mustarD is a clear top 3 poster. when the stinky boy or lance armstrong is the subject... well, that is a whole different subject!

fixed it for ya

but yeah, the only thing I wonder about for hewitt is, he is married and does have kids and he cant need the money, at what age will he hang it up so his kids can attend school and whatnot.

[aimr75]

He was on the radio about a week ago here in Australia and was asked this.. he said he still loves getting out there and competing

[SoCalJay]

Isn't Hewitt's old lady a famous Australian actress? I hardly think that they're hurting for money. The man loves the game and will play until he's unable to compete at a level that makes him happy.

[Defcon]

Roddick was never the fighter that Hewitt is. Neither is nadal for that matter. Sure, he competes like hell in a match but I doubt he loves the game or will miss it the way some players seem to need it.

Money is not a factor for most of these guys. It is for some who will come back for 'farewell tours'. It's about doing something that makes you get up in the morning. The training is surely much more grueling and mentally taxing. Compared to that, actual match play is probably fun.

[westside]

Who are we to judge him? We don't know what goes through his mind. If he wants to continue to compete, then everyone should be ok with that.

I can tell you now that A LOT of people around the world are happy to see him competing still. Ever seen an empty seat when he's playing at Wimbledon or the USO? You know he's going to give 100% in every match.

[nikdom]

What, first round loser money? Well, I guess it might have been worthwhile since he didn't have to travel or stay in a hotel.