Peopl forget how good Hewitt was

Tammo

Banned
Hewitt was a great player, but sadly injuries prevented him from going really far. Also having a family takes time away from the game.
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
I don't think people generally, at least hardcore tennis fans, have forgotten how good he was. He's just not talked about so much because he's not a top player any more. He was always fun to watch.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Look at this match against Federer in 2002.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIiP5Hw_Pq0

Notice how deep he hits the ball compared to other defensive players like Simon, Murray or even Nadal. He was definitely as fast as Nadal in his prime.

Yes Hewitt was better than Nadal which is why still prime Hewitt was destroyed by Federer in 2004-2005, the same Federer who teenage Nadal was regularly beating.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
Yes Hewitt was better than Nadal which is why still prime Hewitt was destroyed by Federer in 2004-2005, the same Federer who teenage Nadal was regularly beating.

I didn't say Hewitt was better than Nadal. His best (fast) hard court form was better than Nadal's though. I still don't know how Nadal managed to win a US open.

Nadal's success against Federer in particular has always been about the Nadal forehand to Federer backhand match up. That was the only reason Nadal was getting victories against Federer in 2004-2006 on hard courts. Nadal was consistently losing to hard court journeymen back then that Federer was beating love and love.
 
Last edited:
T

TheMagicianOfPrecision

Guest
Prime Hewitt wouldnt stand a chance vs prime Nadal. Period.

Yes, he was good and yes he hit deep shots and yes he was lightning fast.

But, he didnt hit with a lot of topspin therefore his shots were not very heavy and they didnt penetrate the court that good. He was a great counterpuncher who won 2 GS and 2 YEC in a weak era in between Sampras and Federer.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
Prime Hewitt wouldnt stand a chance vs prime Nadal. Period.

Yes, he was good and yes he hit deep shots and yes he was lightning fast.

But, he didnt hit with a lot of topspin therefore his shots were not very heavy and they didnt penetrate the court that good. He was a great counterpuncher who won 2 GS and 2 YEC in a weak era in between Sampras and Federer.

Actually it's the opposite, on hard courts Nadal's heavy topspin shots sat up and were attackable leaving him vulnerable to players like Berdych, Blake etc, it was only in mid 2008 he finally learned to hit his forehand flatter to penetrate the hard courts, which has hurt his game on clay slightly in my opinion. Flat balls penetrate fast courts and topspun shots penetrate clay.

Hewitt, whenever he is injury free for a few months, pushes Nadal harder than anyone on clay except Soderling. He pushed Nadal to 4 sets in the french open (4 hour match), and 3 sets in Hamburg (3 hour match).
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
The French Open match was not a tough match despite that Hewitt somehow snuck out a set. Nadal had far more winners, far fewer errors, and dominated all 3 sets he won. As for the Hamburg match that was the round before Federer beat Nadal and gave him a bagel in the final. Are you actually implying Hewitt gives Nadal a tougher time on clay than say Federer, LOL! Mind you even Federer isnt overall tough opponent for Nadal on clay, but he is far more than Hewitt, even both those events which were Hewitt's best performances vs Nadal on clay, Federer still did better vs Nadal than Hewitt did.

Prime Hewitt was outplayed and lucky to win vs baby Nadal at the 2005 Australian Open on HARD courts. If Nadal hadnt cramped up and choked a bit in the 4th set he would have taken Hewitt out, and Hewitt went on to make the final. By contrast matches between prime Nadal and past prime Hewitt on hard courts see Nadal spanking Hewitt, like at the Olympics when Hewitt got 3 games. Prime Hewitt wouldnt even have the edge on prime Nadal on hard courts.

Lastly Hewitt is very fast but he is definitely not faster or even as fast as Nadal. Chang is even faster than prime Hewitt. Federer was even moving atleast as fast (and overall more effeciently) than Hewitt in their 04-05 matches when Hewitt was still at his best.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tammo

Banned
Prime Hewitt wouldnt stand a chance vs prime Nadal. Period.

Yes, he was good and yes he hit deep shots and yes he was lightning fast.

But, he didnt hit with a lot of topspin therefore his shots were not very heavy and they didnt penetrate the court that good. He was a great counterpuncher who won 2 GS and 2 YEC in a weak era in between Sampras and Federer.

+1 Except I don't think Hewitt would be crushed by Nadal. If they played in a slam (both prime) I think Hewitt could push it to four sets, and take the first set 7-5 or 7-6.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
The French Open match was not a tough match despite that Hewitt somehow snuck out a set. Nadal had far more winners, far fewer errors, and dominated all 3 sets he won.

There you are again, running to wikipedia and youtube. Well I actually watched the match and I can tell you that it was a very very close and long match.

As for the Hamburg match that was the round before Federer beat Nadal and gave him a bagel in the final.

Because Nadal was exhausted after playing Hewitt for 3 hours, same thing happened with a semi final against Moya resulting in a drubbing in the final by Youzhney a few years later.

Are you actually implying Hewitt gives Nadal a tougher time on clay than say Federer, LOL! Mind you even Federer isnt overall tough opponent for Nadal on clay, but he is far more than Hewitt, even both those events which were Hewitt's best performances vs Nadal on clay, Federer still did better vs Nadal than Hewitt did.

That year Hewitt gave Nadal a far tougher test than Federer ever did in my opinion. Nadal was absolutely physically shattered after that match. Nadal only ever lost sets to Federer out of a lack of concentration at key times, whenever he needed to step up a gear against Federer and close the match out he did it easily.

Lastly Hewitt is very fast but he is definitely not faster or even as fast as Nadal. Chang is even faster than prime Hewitt.

Nonsense. If you'd actually watched tennis back then you'd know how fast Hewitt was before all those injuries.
 
Last edited:

Kaz00

Semi-Pro
Prime Hewitt vs Prime Nadal on a fast surface Hewitt wins. If I remember right Hewitt was complaining surfaces were too slow that he couldn't end points.
 
T

TheMagicianOfPrecision

Guest
+1 Except I don't think Hewitt would be crushed by Nadal. If they played in a slam (both prime) I think Hewitt could push it to four sets, and take the first set 7-5 or 7-6.

You might be right, but that would be either in USO or AO, in Wimby (with todays grass) or in FO. I dont think Hewitt would take a set.
 
Prime Hewitt vs Prime Nadal on a fast surface Hewitt wins. If I remember right Hewitt was complaining surfaces were too slow that he couldn't end points.
That seems a bit odd, he could only win Queens the slower grass tourney, and Wimby the year they started slowing it down and making it bounce higher. Hewitt was a stop gap .
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
Haven't they played 3 times at the FO. Do you have the scores for those matches?

Hewitt was past his prime in 2006 as it was, Nadal was right in the middle of his and you said Hewitt wouldn't take a set off Nadal in his prime, but if you look at 2006 he did. What more do you want?
 
T

TheMagicianOfPrecision

Guest
Hewitt took Nadal to 4 in the FO in 2006 and to 3 in Hamburg 2007. Both very very tough and close matches.

You are absolutely right, I missed that. Surprising imo. VERY surprising
 

Tammo

Banned
Hewitt was past his prime in 2006 as it was, Nadal was right in the middle of his and you said Hewitt wouldn't take a set off Nadal in his prime, but if you look at 2006 he did. What more do you want?

When did I say that. I said if both played prime Hewitt would probably take a set off Nadal. Nadal's game can change from day to day. Maybe Nadal had a bad day and Hewitt had a good day. But if Nadal played his VERY best and Hewitt played his VERY best Hewitt probably could take a set off Nadal. The point is Nadal's best is Better than Hewitt's best.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
When did I say that. I said if both played prime Hewitt would probably take a set off Nadal. Nadal's game can change from day to day. Maybe Nadal had a bad day and Hewitt had a good day. But if Nadal played his VERY best and Hewitt played his VERY best Hewitt probably could take a set off Nadal. The point is Nadal's best is Better than Hewitt's best.

On clay - definitely, absolutely no question. On slow hard courts - 50-50 probably, on fast hard courts like the USO though I think Hewitt would dominate as easily as Nadal would on clay.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Hewitt won Halle 2 years ago and made a grass final this year. Grass is the only surface where he is still in the conversation. To think he was able to stay toe to toe with #2 and last year's Wimbledon champion! Respect.
 

Max G.

Legend
People always seem to forget how good players were, as soon as those players decline.

Roddick, too. And definitely Hewitt.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Hewitt had mulitple surgeries and still gave Nole fits. A prime Hewitt would have beaten Nole.
 

Tombers

New User
Though not a huge fan of his style of play, I respected his endeavour. Hewitt filled in that gap between Sampras and the emergence of Federer in 03 quite well. Between 00-02 he was the most determined player among an inconsistent bunch which included post prime Sampras and Agassi, lazy Saifn, pre prime Federer, Rafter, Ferrero and kuerton.
However, Hewitt’s win loss record in 2001 and 2002, when he finished number 1 always troubled me. He was 80-18 in 2001 and 61-15 in 2002 which would indicate that there was a strong field at the time, this was not the case. In 2002 Hewitt lost to Alberto Martin, Federer, Moya, Gaudio, Safin, Canas, Mantilla, Rusedski, Agassi, Srichaphan and Sluiter. 1999-2002 was a dark time for the men's game and pushed me to the wta to watch the hingis/williams sisters encounters.
 
People always seem to forget how good players were, as soon as those players decline.

Roddick, too. And definitely Hewitt.

Yeah as soon as players decline they become fodder for weak era arguments.

"Look at how bad Roddick is now! He's such a joke and was lucky to play in such a weak era".

To the OP. Hewitt is incredibly undervalued on TT. He was legit and an animal until 2005. After that first hip surgery, it was downhill from there...
 

djokovic2008

Hall of Fame
As good as Hewitt was he was never on the level game wise as fed djoker nadal or even murray he just does not have the power like those guys can rely on when times got tough. He however was better in his prime than the likes of berdych and maybe del potro.
 

Tombers

New User
I preffered the hewitt of 2004-2005. You could argue that hewitt was stronger than 04 Roddick and not far off 05 Nadal.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
As good as Hewitt was he was never on the level game wise as fed djoker nadal or even murray he just does not have the power like those guys can rely on when times got tough. He however was better in his prime than the likes of berdych and maybe del potro.

Prime Hewitt was a lot better than Berdych and Del Potro. No comparison.
Berdych and Del Potro are thoughtless ball bashers for the most part. Hewitt was a smart player, he had to be because he did not have the power. He was smart and lightning fast. He would run for every single ball no matter how difficult and many times he would make the shot once he got there. He was great to watch in his prime.
 
As good as Hewitt was he was never on the level game wise as fed djoker nadal or even murray he just does not have the power like those guys can rely on when times got tough. He however was better in his prime than the likes of berdych and maybe del potro.

No Hewitt is better than Murray at the US Open or Wimbledon. He is also better than Djokovic on grass. Djokovic is not on the level of Federer or Nadal. Federer was better than Djokovic on every surface. Nadal is better than him on grass and clay. As for Del Potro he was sadly ruined by injury. His top level was something special. In 09 he was set to dominate, but injuries ruined. Putting Hewitt in the same league as Berdych is laughable.
 

ZeroSkid

Banned
As good as Hewitt was he was never on the level game wise as fed djoker nadal or even murray he just does not have the power like those guys can rely on when times got tough. He however was better in his prime than the likes of berdych and maybe del potro.

what am I reading, are you 12, how can you compare berdych and Delpo to hewit, Delpo idolized hewit, you have to be a kid
 

Ashley D

Rookie
Totally agree. Leaves Murray eating his dust. The guy won an atp tourney at 15, won queens multiple times, WON THE TWO MOST PRESIGIOUS SLAMS and was number one in the world for a long time. He had the best wheels and mental game in tennis. Had he not been injured so much, whole different career for Ley Ley.
 

Tombers

New User
Totally agree. Leaves Murray eating his dust. The guy won an atp tourney at 15, won queens multiple times, WON THE TWO MOST PRESIGIOUS SLAMS and was number one in the world for a long time. He had the best wheels and mental game in tennis. Had he not been injured so much, whole different career for Ley Ley.

Agree on the point about him vs murray, but in terms of hewitt being number one for a long time, that was really down to the lack of consistency of players like agassi, safin and keurton. Still to this day think that 00-02 was a lame period for men's tennis.
 

Cup8489

G.O.A.T.
Hewitt gets nowhere near the credit he deserves. I was laughed at for suggesting he could hang with the top 5 in his prime, for taking a set off Djokovic last year (I forget where), and here he is, doing it again.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Hewitt would do just fine in this era.. He beat Fed in a big match a few years ago (on grass I believe), took Djoker to a final 3rd set 2 times (just recently at the olympics.) Hell I wouldn't be surprised if Hewitt didn't win a slam or two in this era if we are talking PEAK hewitt.. And while his peak did last long and was divided into maybe two different years (2001-2002) and (2004-2005), he would be right in the running for a slam.

If Murray can be a slam contender and reach the finals, I have no doubt a peak hewitt could beat Djoker, Murray, older Fed at a slam.. Maybe not Nadal though.


I could see Hewitt having similar success in this era as he did in 2001-2002 winning 2 slams anyways.. Though I don't see him having any long stretch at the top at #1 though. But he could win some slams.

Hewitt wasn't good enough to have a long reign at the top .(Unless it was in a vacuum during a transitional era Pre Federer, post Sampras, Agassi) but he's certainly good enough to win 2 slams in any era these past 20 years or so.
 
Last edited:

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
Hewitt gets nowhere near the credit he deserves. I was laughed at for suggesting he could hang with the top 5 in his prime, for taking a set off Djokovic last year (I forget where), and here he is, doing it again.

No question prime Hewitt could hang with the current top five. David Ferrer is number five and prime Hewitt was a better player than Ferrer.

It was at the AO where Hewitt also took a set off of Djokovic. This is grandpa Hewitt who has had 100 surgeries against prime Djokovic. That tells the whole story of how prime Hewitt would have done against the top players today.
 

BauerAlmeida

Hall of Fame
As good as Hewitt was he was never on the level game wise as fed djoker nadal or even murray he just does not have the power like those guys can rely on when times got tough. He however was better in his prime than the likes of berdych and maybe del potro.

Murray better than Hewitt?? LOL

2 Grand Slam, 2 Masters Cup and 1 year as N1. Murray can't even dream of achieving that.

He was better than Berdych too, and to Del Potro hard to say, he is just 23, has a lot of time ahead. If he can get back to his 2009 level he will be better.

As people forget how good Hewitt was, they also forget how good Del Potro was.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Peak Hewitt would be ranked at either 4 or 5 in the world at the present time. He'd be in a similar position to Murray/Ferrer, but even more dangerous, because Hewitt is tough as nails mentally and has a killer instinct more than Ferrer.
 

TeflonTom

Banned
prime hewitt was a better fastcourt player than anyone on the current tour in their prime except federer

they would all pwn him on slow hardcourts n clay tho
 

PCXL-Fan

Hall of Fame
Am I the only won who thinks Hewitt is cursed with unfortunate draws over and over?

Wont it be ironic if Novak wins gold yet nobody in the tournament pushes him as hard as Hewitt did?
 

TeflonTom

Banned
when ur ranked as low as he is, u gotta expect crap draws

one thing is for sure, at any tournament he is still the number 1 wild card that seeds dont wanna see in their section
 

Lsmkenpo

Hall of Fame
prime hewitt was a better fastcourt player than anyone on the current tour in their prime except federer

they would all pwn him on slow hardcourts n clay tho

Agreed, on courts that were fast enough for him to counter punch winners he was capable of beating anyone in the world.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Murray better than Hewitt?? LOL

2 Grand Slam, 2 Masters Cup and 1 year as N1. Murray can't even dream of achieving that.

He was better than Berdych too, and to Del Potro hard to say, he is just 23, has a lot of time ahead. If he can get back to his 2009 level he will be better.

As people forget how good Hewitt was, they also forget how good Del Potro was.

Hewitt had 2 years as world number 1 (2001 and 2002).
 
Top