Hewitt: Roger & Rafa have taken the game to new levels

F

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
Hewitt in his post match conference says:

Q. Do you think your game is anywhere near its peak? I mean, obviously you were No. 1 in the world for two years straight six years ago, but is your game anywhere near that level?
LLEYTON HEWITT: Yeah, I think so. I think the game is always improving and changing. Roger took it to a new level, and then Rafa came, and believe it or not, took it to a new level again. Roger has had to better himself to stay with Rafa. You have a guy like Murray and Djokovic is hanging around there. Roddick has had to make himself a better, more complete player, as well.
Click to expand...

He also drives the final nail(s) in the coffins of the Fed Vs Sampras, Weak era debates. He says Fed is the greatest he has played against, and is better than Sampras (i.e fed is both BOAT & GOAT - at least relative to sampras). End of story Pete-****s :twisted:

Q. You've played a lot of the greats over your career. He's got the record for maybe right now. But where do you put him up in terms of competition with the players you've played?
LLEYTON HEWITT: Oh, he's as good as there is, there's no doubt, that I've played.
He's got the most all court game I think than I've ever played. Obviously Agassi and Sampras were both greats, and I was able to play both of them when they were still at their best, winning Grand Slams, both of them.
You know, Roger has been able to take the game to a new level, and, you know, I think the most complete player for sure is Roger.
Click to expand...

In summary he has:

1. debunked weak era claims; if anything according to him, this era is stronger than the previous one
2. Fed is better and greater than sampras
3. Fed is the best all-court player

Link: http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/interviews/2009-09-05/200909051252177814593.html
 
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
So basically Hewitt said that Rafa is boat/goat. Hewitt said that Rafa took the game to a new higher level than Fed's previous highest level, then Rafa he got injured and took 3 months off.
 
GasquetGOAT

GasquetGOAT

Hall of Fame
TheNatural said:
So basically Hewitt said that Rafa is boat/goat. Hewitt said that Rafa took the game to a new higher level than Fed's previous highest level, then Rafa he got injured and took 3 months off.
Click to expand...

No, actually he said Rafa took the game to a new higher level, then "Roger has had to better himself to stay with Rafa" therefore took it to another new and even higher level than Rafa, then Rafa could't keep up and resorted to use injuries as excuse and as a way out.
 
GasquetGOAT

GasquetGOAT

Hall of Fame
darthpwner said:
I bet this thread was entirely directed towards the GOAT flame wars between Sampras and *******s
Click to expand...

But Hewitt does have a point, the game is always improving. The level of Roger/Rafa is way higher than the Sampras/Agassi era and any eras before that.
 
nfor304

nfor304

Banned
1. Hewitt is not at his best. At his best he was the wtrongest player mentally and he totally beat himself in his match against fed when he was serving at 5 all in the third. World no.1 Hewitt would never have let that happen.

2. Hewitt did not play Sampras at his best. He played him when he was winding down his career and when he had his career worst year in 2001. He has played Fed at the absolute peak of his career. If you had asked him who was better in 2003 he would have said Sampras was better, because Fed was not yet about to begin his run.

3. Hewitt's word is not gospel. It is one mans opinion.
 
N

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
nfor304 said:
1. Hewitt is not at his best. At his best he was the wtrongest player mentally and he totally beat himself in his match against fed when he was serving at 5 all in the third. World no.1 Hewitt would never have let that happen.

2. Hewitt did not play Sampras at his best. He played him when he was winding down his career and when he had his career worst year in 2001. He has played Fed at the absolute peak of his career. If you had asked him who was better in 2003 he would have said Sampras was better, because Fed was not yet about to begin his run.

3. Hewitt's word is not gospel. It is one mans opinion.
Click to expand...



Hewitt played Agassi and Sampras a few times prior to 2001, so he knows how "prime" Sampras and Agassi play.
 
B

bolo

G.O.A.T.
fed_rulz said:
Hewitt in his post match conference says:



He also drives the final nail(s) in the coffins of the Fed Vs Sampras, Weak era debates. He says Fed is the greatest he has played against, and is better than Sampras (i.e fed is both BOAT & GOAT - at least relative to sampras). End of story Pete-****s :twisted:



In summary he has:

1. debunked weak era claims; if anything according to him, this era is stronger than the previous one
2. Fed is better and greater than sampras
3. Fed is the best all-court player

Link: http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/interviews/2009-09-05/200909051252177814593.html
Click to expand...

Only right, nadal is the next great after federer and increased the level of the game. Safin more or less said the same thing last year that nadal is the best player (I think he is probably talking about the level) he has ever played, better than sampras and federer.
 
Last edited:
clayman2000

clayman2000

Hall of Fame
NamRanger said:
Hewitt played Agassi and Sampras a few times prior to 2001, so he knows how "prime" Sampras and Agassi play.
Click to expand...

While i dont think Sampras was washed up, he was clearly not in his prime. Agassi could be different, but his best years 94 - 95, 99 were gone
 
Omega_7000

Omega_7000

Legend
bolo said:
Only right, nadal is the next great after federer and increased the level of the game. Safin more or less said the same thing last year that nadal is the best player (I think he is probably talking about the level) he has ever played, better than sampras and federer.
Click to expand...

If you ask Safin now who the best player is, I am sure he will tell you its Federer...Don't forget that Nadal was # 1 when Safin was asked this question...
 
vanciki

vanciki

Banned
Omega_7000 said:
gj011 = shouldretire = goyeji = julesb = gjules011 = I.M. Beck = vanciki? Are you allowed to have multiple usernames?
Click to expand...

No, it's against the rules to have multiple screennames. Try posting from your vtmike or Tiberious accounts if you don't believe me.
 
J

Jchurch

Guest
I think that Sampras could have been just about on par with Federer, but he didn't have the same hunger that Federer does. Sampras could have dominated the way that Federer did, but he just didn't have the drive to do it.
 
F

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
Jchurch said:
I think that Sampras could have been just about on par with Federer, but he didn't have the same hunger that Federer does. Sampras could have dominated the way that Federer did, but he just didn't have the drive to do it.
Click to expand...

no, sampras does not have the complete game that Fed has. his game has some glaring holes that were thoroughly exposed on clay, so just being more "hungry" would not have cut it for Pete, IMO.
 
B

bruce38

Banned
Actually Nadal hasn't taken the game to new level beyond Fed. It just seems that way because in 2008 Fed was not at his best. Fed is actually much more talented than Nadal. People will see order resumed in the upcoming years.
 
J

Jchurch

Guest
fed_rulz said:
no, sampras does not have the complete game that Fed has. his game has some glaring holes that were thoroughly exposed on clay, so just being more "hungry" would not have cut it for Pete, IMO.
Click to expand...

I think that if Pete really wanted to, he could of become much better on clay. But there is still no reason Pete couldn't have dominated the hard courts the same way he did grass at Wimbledon.
 
GasquetGOAT

GasquetGOAT

Hall of Fame
bruce38 said:
Actually Nadal hasn't taken the game to new level beyond Fed. It just seems that way because in 2008 Fed was not at his best. Fed is actually much more talented than Nadal. People will see order resumed in the upcoming years.
Click to expand...

I thought the order has already been resumed, Fed 1, Murray 2 and Nadal 3, no?
 
S

Steve132

Professional
Jchurch said:
I think that if Pete really wanted to, he could of become much better on clay. But there is still no reason Pete couldn't have dominated the hard courts the same way he did grass at Wimbledon.
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have to support this claim - other than wishful thinking, that is?
 
zagor

zagor

Bionic Poster
Jchurch said:
I think that if Pete really wanted to, he could of become much better on clay. But there is still no reason Pete couldn't have dominated the hard courts the same way he did grass at Wimbledon.
Click to expand...

So you think the guy who's idol was Laver(a guy who won calendar grand slam twice)didn't want to be better on clay? To prove himself on all surfaces? Don't kid yourself,Pete wanted to win the FO(badly)but he wasn't able to.
 
F

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
Jchurch said:
I think that if Pete really wanted to, he could of become much better on clay. But there is still no reason Pete couldn't have dominated the hard courts the same way he did grass at Wimbledon.
Click to expand...

That's a load of BS. Then, pray tell me, why didn't Pete "really want" to? As far as your assertion that there's "no reason" why he didnt dominate hard courts, here's a thought: perhaps, he wasn't as good as Fed? Perhaps he wouldn't have dominated wimby if he had met his bad match-up (say Krajicek) more often? I don't know..

Pete had great talent, but not to the extent of Fed; he maximally utilized his talents and achieved what he had in his career. A superior talent came along, and eclipsed most of his records (and still continues to do so).

This explanation seems to "fit" as opposed to one where the sole claim hinges on a wishful "if he wanted to...".
 
J

Jchurch

Guest
Steve132 said:
What evidence do you have to support this claim - other than wishful thinking, that is?
Click to expand...

I am actually a Federer fan and I do believe Federer is Goat. I think the only surface that Sampras would have possibly given Federer trouble on would be grass. I just think that Sampras had the talent to become better, but he just seemed content with what happens happens.
 
J

Jchurch

Guest
zagor said:
So you think the guy who's idol was Laver(a guy who won calendar grand slam twice)didn't want to be better on clay? To prove himself on all surfaces? Don't kid yourself,Pete wanted to win the FO(badly)but he wasn't able to.
Click to expand...

Wanting and doing are two different things. Are you honestly going to say that it is impossible for Pete to develop a game that would have worked better on clay? I sure as hell think he could have.
 
J

Jchurch

Guest
fed_rulz said:
That's a load of BS. Then, pray tell me, why didn't Pete "really want" to? As far as your assertion that there's "no reason" why he didnt dominate hard courts, here's a thought: perhaps, he wasn't as good as Fed? Perhaps he wouldn't have dominated wimby if he had met his bad match-up (say Krajicek) more often? I don't know..

Pete had great talent, but not to the extent of Fed; he maximally utilized his talents and achieved what he had in his career. A superior talent came along, and eclipsed most of his records (and still continues to do so).

This explanation seems to "fit" as opposed to one where the sole claim hinges on a wishful "if he wanted to...".
Click to expand...

I don't think that Pete was better than Federer or could ever be. As I posted earlier I think grass is the only surface that he could give Federer a problem on. Federer's game is far more complete than Pete's ever was. It also took Federer longer to pull his game together to achieve the success that he has. I just don't think Pete really cared to put the work in.
 
VivalaVida

VivalaVida

Banned
Jchurch said:
Wanting and doing are two different things. Are you honestly going to say that it is impossible for Pete to develop a game that would have worked better on clay? I sure as hell think he could have.
Click to expand...
Well he had a coach and youth on his side. He played and trained for the clay court season but it just never happened to for him. Unless you think Pete should have took time off and switched to a western forehand grip and two handed backhand, I dont see your point. Pete had an agressive all court game and It didnt work to well for him on clay. It is really hard to tweak your game that much when you are a top class pro player.
 
F

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
Jchurch said:
I don't think that Pete was better than Federer or could ever be. As I posted earlier I think grass is the only surface that he could give Federer a problem on. Federer's game is far more complete than Pete's ever was. It also took Federer longer to pull his game together to achieve the success that he has. I just don't think Pete really cared to put the work in.
Click to expand...

JChurch, we can agree to disagree then. I'm pretty sure Pete wanted FO badly, and if it meant extra effort on his part, then I'd bet that he'd have worked his *** off to get it.
 
zagor

zagor

Bionic Poster
Jchurch said:
I don't think that Pete was better than Federer or could ever be. As I posted earlier I think grass is the only surface that he could give Federer a problem on. Federer's game is far more complete than Pete's ever was. It also took Federer longer to pull his game together to achieve the success that he has. I just don't think Pete really cared to put the work in.
Click to expand...

Here's a thread you might be interested in:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=263734&highlight=kafelnikov&page=2

On page 2 Krosero found a lot of articles and interviews from Pete from his time that showed he still cared and tried to win the FO but it didn't work out.Pete was a champ,he wanted to win everything and FO was the only thing that was missing.
 
vanciki

vanciki

Banned
NamRanger said:
And you would know information about vtmike and Tiberious how?
Click to expand...

lawrence said:
gee you sure know a lot for someone who just reg'd
Click to expand...

I have many friends from the academy who have followed this forum and been posting for a while. I just overheard two of them talking the other day: "Can you believe that hypocritical fool vtmike on TW forums. He's been changing screennames more often than socks since he got banned."
 
R

rommil

Legend
vanciki said:
I have many friends from the academy who have followed this forum and been posting for a while. I just overheard two of them talking the other day: "Can you believe that hypocritical fool vtmike on TW forums. He's been changing screennames more often than socks since he got banned."
Click to expand...

LOL. gj you better get ready with your next screen name....
 
L

lawrence

Hall of Fame
vanciki said:
I have many friends from the academy who have followed this forum and been posting for a while. I just overheard two of them talking the other day: "Can you believe that hypocritical fool vtmike on TW forums. He's been changing screennames more often than socks since he got banned."
Click to expand...

indirectly calling the mods gullible fools, is basically what you're doing here lol.
 
R

rafan

Hall of Fame
I would rather watch a Federer, Nadal, Hewett, Roddick match any day. These four have contributed enormously to the game and they all have that vital ingredient that makes tennis exciting to watch: pure determination and guts. They all need bonus points just for attending because they all have suffered for the game in some way
 
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
GasquetGOAT said:
No, actually he said Rafa took the game to a new higher level, then "Roger has had to better himself to stay with Rafa" therefore took it to another new and even higher level than Rafa, then Rafa could't keep up and resorted to use injuries as excuse and as a way out.
Click to expand...


You mean Rafa streaked ahead of Fed and so he beat Fed in the last 3 slam finals that they played against each other. Rafa's level was beyond Fed's highest level ever and unattainable by Fed. Fed was overextending himself and his game was breaking down while he was trying to reach Rafa's higher unattainable level, then Rafa got injured and Fed's lower level was enough to beat the rest.

Yeh Fed was trying to better himself to stay with Rafa but it wasn't enough until Rafa got injured.
 
SLD76

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
You mean Rafa streaked ahead of Fed and so he beat Fed in the last 3 slam finals that they played against each other. Rafa's level was beyond Fed's highest level ever and unattainable by Fed. Fed was overextending himself and his game was breaking down while he was trying to reach Rafa's higher unattainable level, then Rafa got injured and Fed's lower level was enough to beat the rest.
Click to expand...



Right, thats why in 06 and 07 when Roger was in top form, Rafa managed to win all those slams outside Clay and made the USO finals. And why a non top form Roger(for whatever reasons) in 08, Rafa won 1 slam outside of clay.
 
GasquetGOAT

GasquetGOAT

Hall of Fame
TheNatural said:
You mean Rafa streaked ahead of Fed and so he beat Fed in the last 3 slam finals that they played against each other. Rafa's level was beyond Fed's highest level ever and unattainable by Fed. Fed was overextending himself and his game was breaking down while he was trying to reach Rafa's higher unattainable level, then Rafa got injured and Fed's lower level was enough to beat the rest.

Yeh Fed was trying to better himself to stay with Rafa but it wasn't enough until Rafa got injured.
Click to expand...

Well the story is right but you got the charactors the other way around.

The correct version: Roger's level was beyond Rafa's highest level ever and unattainable by Rafa. Nadal was overextending himself and his game and body was breaking down while he was trying to reach Roger's higher unattainable level, then Rafa got injured because Roger's consistency and skills are at an unattainable level for Rafa, no matter how hard he tried.

Rafa was trying to better himself to stay with Roger but it wasn't enough and never will be so Rafa had to resort to use injuries as an excuse for he realises he will never be as consistent or talented as Roger.
 
フェデラー

フェデラー

Hall of Fame
Gasquet hit the nail on head. If Nadal wanted to keep up with Fed he had to push himself to an entirely new level, and look what happened. Though madrid was far from a fluke.
 
SLD76

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
As another poster in another thread put it, to overtake Roger at #1( and even with that he was assisted with Roger's mono), and catch him at Wimbledon, it cost Nadal a leg and a knee.
 
M

morten

Hall of Fame
Hewitt loved playing netchargers like Sampras, no wonder he finds Fed better then... Also Moya, Guga and Brugera i think has said that they think Sampras is better..
 
F

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
morten said:
Hewitt loved playing netchargers like Sampras, no wonder he finds Fed better then... Also Moya, Guga and Brugera i think has said that they think Sampras is better..
Click to expand...

Moya & Guga did think sampras was better, but I think that was before Fed at least a couple of years ago. Bruguera, iirc, always maintained Fed was better.
Plus, these are opinions, and they can vary. However, the ones that think Sampras is better than Fed are a very small minority now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Hewitt on Roger Federer..
Replies
2
Views
1K
mlee2
M
B
Sampras - "Hewitt was a victim of his time"
2
Replies
69
Views
17K
Meles
Meles
Cesc Fabregas
Lleyton Hewitt builds his perfect player
Replies
23
Views
4K
NadalAgassi
N
babbette
Hewitt "Rafa deserves to be number 1"
2
Replies
59
Views
4K
joeri888
J
T
Congratulations to Tennis, Roger and Rafa
Replies
0
Views
154
TennisCJC
T
Top