amazing fields overcame at regular events like Kodes in Madrid 75
- Thread starter kiki
- Start date
abmk
Bionic Poster
not overall, but at the peak of his abilities, he was up there with agassi, connors ...agassi wasn't that good on the run and connors had some trouble with the low ball to his FH ... hewitt had no such problems tbh ... only agassi, connors had more power than him ...
sampras was still well above hewitt in the rankings in 2000 (ended it #3 ) and hewitt beat him twice in 2000 ( both straight sets wins , including a bagel at the year ending masters )
beat 2-time GS champion rafter in 3 of their 4 meetings ..all meetings in rafter's prime only ...
totally owned henman ( who btw was better than amritraj, stockton, gottfried and a better volleyer than todd martin, ivanisevic, tanner etc )
your list includes players from 3 decades ... how do you expect hewitt to play them all !?
There is no contradiction between my two statements. Emerson's GS titles are true achievements but less worth than pro majors or open era majors. Laver's 1962 GS is a true GS but less worth than his 1967 and 1969 GSs.
I have not belittled Emerson but put his achievements into perspective...
abmk, I doubt that Hewitt would have been able to beat Laver as Taylor did.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I'm not surprised at your doubt at all ... you have no idea how good hewitt was at his peak .... you even said he wouldn't be top 10 in any other "stronger" era ... LOL !
hewitt was actually hurt by the slowing down of surfaces and he'd do better in other eras tbh ....
you could actually watch him beat sampras @ USO 2001, queens 2000 , lisbon 2000 etc ...
rafter on 3 occasions
agassi on 4 occasions
henman on plenty of occasions ..
maybe you'd get some idea ...
there's no comparison whatsoever b/w hewitt and taylor on any surface ...its a no contest ...hewitt is far and away superior ...
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
its not just of less worth, laver wasn't even close to the best player in the world at that time ....
Last edited:
He was arguable No.3. Not too bad, I would say. Imagine Djokovic and Murray today would be injured and Federer would win the Grand Slam. You would be the first to claim that his GS is a worthy GS as you probably also say that Federer's FO win was a true one even though he did not meet Nadal...
abmk
Bionic Poster
first of all, federer is still ranked #2 , above murray ...
injury is a different case from playing in a different field ...
also laver was getting beat down by both rosewall and hoad repeatedly ... quite a bit of gap ..
federer still gets a fair share of wins vs djoker/murray/nadal ...combined, he was even with him h2h in 2012 ....
in any case, still very unlikely that he'd win the GS in 2014, even if the other 3 were injured ...
pretty sure there'd be plenty of cries of about weakened fields then ... it wouldn't just be the same , not at all ...
beating nadal is not a requirement to win the FO ..besides nadal was pretty much there at that FO ..just that Robin Soderling too him out .... fed beat soderling in the final ...
abmk
Bionic Poster
in the present era, kodes would be just as good as Andreas Seppi , promise ...
I just want you to be consistent...how you devalue Emerson's amateur slams should hold the same for Laver/Rosewall amateur slams.
kiki
Banned
... provided he keeps up with that era schedule and keeps his moonballing talent intact.
kiki
Banned
Yes, he was.But I doubt he could sustain that level over a fortnight at RG
I believe the top players(doesn't necessary be #1) today would have won the 1962 amateur GS since the field is so weak.
You should admit that Murray is stronger now than Federer.
As far as I know Nadal had already knee problems in that FO.
abmk, I'm glad you show now you are an ignorant even though you seem to be intelligent: a rather dangerous connection...
Agree.
Hewitt was one of the fastest players ever (when he was young) and one of the best baseline players against a serve-and-volley player.
He put many more returns in than Agassi (though Agassi's returns used to be killers) and his passing-shots (both fh and bh) were amazing. And of course he was much faster and better mover than Agassi (Agassi and Connors were obviously much better players overall, but here I am talking about the great things Hewitt had).
He almost always defeated Henman and Rafter in a time when these two players were playing great tennis.
He defeated Sampras several times precisely when Sampras started to do serve-and-volley on every serve (first and second) and chip-and-charge a lot. Hewitt loved to face a player doing that (Sampras won some matches against Hewitt earlier when he still played a good fraction of the points from the baseline).
It is funny what happens in these forums (GPPD). Not only players from the 60s, 70s or 80s or even 90s (let alone earlier) are belittled all the time.
Even players like Hewitt or Roddick are belittled too (both in this forum and in the GPPD).
It seems (talking more of the GPPD forum now) that only the present players are good for some new posters, and we will see in less than five years a new group of ignorant tennis posters writing that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were just weak players from a very weak era.
Roddick and Hewitt were very good players. The slower conditions harmed them both.
kiki said:
Both absurd statements.
Kodes was a great player, just like Hewitt was a great player too.
They are not all-time greats (greatest of one era) but they were very very good players, each in his time.
mattennis, You are right that often the greats of the past are underrated and the players of the presence are overrated, especially one player...
abmk
Bionic Poster
You both need to turn your sarcasm meter on .. That was just a sarcastic response to kiki's statement. I know kodes was a very good player, far far better than andreas seppi ...
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
and its also true that many of the so called old-timers, including you, belittle the players in the modern times without even watching/knowing much ....
I mean seriously, hewitt wouldn't be top 10 in other eras ? seriously ?
tell me seriously , have you watched any of these matches where hewitt played very well :
vs sampras USO 2001 (sampras won only 8 games in 3 sets)
vs kafelnikov USO 2001 (kafelnikov won only 4 games in 3 sets)
vs sampras queens 2000 (straight-setted sampras)
vs sampras YEC 2000 (bagelled sampras)
vs roddick YEC 2004 ( won 20 points in a row ! )
vs henman wimbledon 2002 ( dismantled henman there )
etc ?
abmk
Bionic Poster
he might be , but needs to put a closure to that by taking over the #2 spot if he can ...
he is definitely better on HC right now, but federer is still quite a bit better on clay and federer did win wimbledon last year beating djokovic/murray back to back .... yeah, murray did beat djokovic/federer back to back at the olympics, but wimbledon > olympics ...
all of nadal's so called knee problems surfaced only after soderling beat him ...he was perfectly fine till then ...I'm inclined to disbelieve those injury excuses ... soderling played a brilliant match and took him out ...
abmk, All what I write causes aggression from you. You always try to blame me for doubting Federer's lack of much touch. It's just not fair!
To say it clearly: I have not seen many touch shots of Federer's.
And all what I have seen from Hewitt (I concede: It was not too much) has not impressed me that much.
NatF
Bionic Poster
To say it clearly: In that case you haven't watched much Federer and you shouldn't comment.
Naturally FEDERER: I live in a free country yet (Austria) and am free to post...A question specially for you and abmk:
Could it be that I have not watched much Federer BECAUSE he did not show too many touch shots?!?!?
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
So grown up making a pun out of my username which is actually my nickname plus the first initial of my surname.Just for your information.
It couldn't be the case because he's played a great many touch shots. Just accept you know nothing about Federer and stick to talking about top 10 all time great Rosewall.
It's a difficult question for me: if you or abmk is more arrogant. I have not yet decided. But you both are in my all-time list...
NatF
Bionic Poster
Whats better to be ignorant or dishonest? Because you're either one or the other, or perhaps both.
kiki
Banned
Yes Bobbyone you unmasked that clueless soul
kiki
Banned
Abmk however has praised somehow Rosewall in some posts even if he did so to belittle Laver
He is sure Kenny played great in 68 and 70 but a big hole ate him through 69
Maybe he went to moon with Armstrong???
abmk
Bionic Poster
no, not at all , federer has amazing touch ..... you can ask pretty much anyone who has watched enough of federer and they'd tell you the same ...
I posted multiple posts and plenty of videos of federer showing amazing touch, but you didn't respond to even one of them, did you ?
Like I and many of the others have said, saying federer doesn't have touch shots is like saying rosewall's backhand sucked ... that is absurd it is ....
see these posts for the videos :
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7250356&postcount=875
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7234698&postcount=303
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
it is fair .... saying federer lacks touch is like saying rosewall lacks a good BH ...how would you respond to someone who says that ?
krosero has very high patience. I don't ....
again, that's your fault or shortcoming ... I've seen plenty, plenty .....
I've even posted many of those videos. See above ..
again, your shortcoming , I've seen hewitt playing brilliantly many times and know he'd be top 10 in any era at his peak , no question ...
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
lol, BobbyOne will concur with me when I say that rosewall was quite a bit better in 68 and in 70 when compared to 69 .... didn't I already post that he was #2 in 68 , arguable #1 in 70 , but only #5 in 69 ?
abmk, I never said Federer has no touch shots. I'm tired to answer your aggressive posts...
You are right.
abmk
Bionic Poster
you said every player can play some touch shots and federer is one among these. just ordinary as far as touch shots go. That's not close to the reality at all ....
that's like saying many players have good BHs and even rosewall could hit good BHs at times ...
again, watch some of those videos .... they are short ones ....they showcase downright sick touch shots ...
then get back ...
kiki
Banned
I know ABMK motivation to denigrate Kodes
He beat Amritraj, his country idol to win Wimbledon
Had Vijay win it he would be praising W 73
I also wish Vijay to win a major during his career, e had enormous talent and was so great watching...he , Lutz,Ramirez,Pecci and Mecir are among rhe greatest non slam players I remember
He beat Amritraj, his country idol to win Wimbledon
Had Vijay win it he would be praising W 73
I also wish Vijay to win a major during his career, e had enormous talent and was so great watching...he , Lutz,Ramirez,Pecci and Mecir are among rhe greatest non slam players I remember
Carsomyr
Legend
Not everyone has the extreme national zealotry that you do. For instance, in the disputed years of the early 70s, I'm hardly loath to say Newcombe was better than Smith.
abmk
Bionic Poster
lol, I'm not a great fan of Vijay at all .....he was a talented player , but nowhere close to being one of the best not to win a major ....
mecir, rios,nalbandian are the top 3 in the open era as far as that goes IMO ...
kiki
Banned
I don' t have any national biass...well I like Australians but also players from different places
BTW cold war did a lot of harm to " steorotiped" eastern guys like Kodes and Lendl, specially in the US fan market
kiki
Banned
Do you really think that Borg,Nastase and Connors ´d play a Mickey Mouse event? really?
abmk
Bionic Poster
actually, top players that time played far more mickey mouse events than the top players do now ....
borg was just 17 and playing his first wimbledon , was 3 years away from his grass court prime...Only someone like you can use his name to pump up the joke of a field that was 1973 wimbledon ..
Come on kiki...the 1973 Wimbledon draw has many "lucky losers" since 13 out of 16 seeded players didn't play. Some of the modern ATP250 even has more quality players.
Tropikal_Knights
Banned
wimby was class backl then not the clay court it has become now.......proper grass then
kiki
Banned
Borg beat Ashe on grass that year and Connors was solid top ten dominating Stan Smith and Ashe while Nastase was playing his best tennis
And don' t forget it was still Wimbledon
kiki
Banned
abmk
Bionic Poster
one upset win over ashe doesn't borg was close to his grass court prime in 73 .. after beating ashe, he lost to pilic ....
nastase's best year was 73, but he totally blew it in wim 73 ......
yes, it was still Wimbledon, which is why it seems even more of a joke when 13 of the 16 seeds and 81 players overall aren't there ....
Last edited: