Red Rick
Bionic Poster
Watching the 2012 final on repeat?
Eating Haggis?
That ain't no punishment for the Syphylis
Who is the best USO player between Hewitt, Roddick and Murray?
- Thread starter mike danny
- Start date
Eating Haggis?
That ain't no punishment for the Syphylis
NatF
Bionic Poster
Luckily Hewitt is one of the best counter punchers ever. Dealing with pace is kinda his thing
Hewitt dealt with the likes of Roddick and Sampras in his run, both with better serves than Cilic. Yes Sampras was tired but even so keeping him to just 62% of first serve points won is quite a feat.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Luckily Hewitt is one of the best counter punchers ever. Dealing with pace is kinda his thing
Well it took him 5 sets to beat a young Roddick and yeah Sampras was tired after beating Rafter, Safin and Agassi in back to back matches. He also wasn't a spring chicken anymore at 30 years old. No I'm basing all of this on the form Cilic was in in his 2014 US Open run. Of course Hewitt would have his chance any other day but just not in that tournament in my opinion. Cilic was virtually unplayable. I have rarely seen someone just overpower Federer like that and Nishikori looked like a ragdoll out there. We just agree to disagree on this but imo Hewitt would have been pummeled.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Safin was in straight sets. Not a tough match in retrospect.
Young Roddick was playing well enough to the USO in other years IMO. Hewitt got even better as the event went on - his SF-F performances were great. It's not like Kei was fresh going through Raonic, Wawrinka and Djokovic either. Hewitt would have beaten Kei just as badly considering his return versus Nishi's serve.
And ok agree to disagree.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Yea but still. That is a physically and mentally draining draw. The Agassi match alone was over 4 hours I think. Nishikori was 24 years old at the time so that's a faster recovery. I would definitely favor Hewitt over Nishikori, just not Cilic.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
Still if we're going to consider 2011 a deep run for Murray where he was getting spanked before he finally decided to take advantage of Rafa throwing batting practice with forehands inside the service line for a set before the spanking resumed, 2007 is definitely a deep run for Roddick. Not any worse than Hewitt losing the plot against Agassi in 02 either, he mugged both the first and second set. Peak Fed is also a much tougher opponent and matchup for Roddick than late prime Agassi for Hewitt or prime Nadal for Murray and Roddick played just as well or better considering that. The fact that it was a QF changes nothing.
Also the shine doesn't really come off if the player is still playing well. Sure Fed choked a little bit 08 wimby/09 AO but those victories are still much more impressive than say 14 AO or 15 Wimby where Fed did not play nearly as well overall.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Didn't take a set, though. That kinda sucks. I did count 2000 SF for Hewitt, because he was still a teenager yet (just about) to enter peak/prime, and the 1st set TB was very close (9-7). Although losing two close sets isn't necessarily worse than taking one set while losing the other three easily. Still not convinced, too little pressure on Federer - one easily missed BP is nothing, never up a mini-break in either tiebreak, never got to a set point. Kind of a Karlovic type of match, may be pretty close, but NID that Fed wins unless he outright chokes in TBs (which is exactly how he lost to Dr. Ivo that one time).
Sure, but neither is mind-blowing, that's my point. The wonderful way tennis scoring works makes it entirely possible - and not at all infrequent - for one to play amazingly for 90% of the match, but still lose due to the 10% that wasn't so good (and the other way around as well, naturally). And, as we know, Federer is the master of doing just that - him choking breaks of serve is pretty much symptomatic of his losses.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
so? Murray took a set off a worse opponent in 2011 but in general had zero prospects of ever winning the match or the tournament and we still call that a deep run.
Last edited:
killerboi2
Hall of Fame
Maybe Hewitt this time. He has pretty good consistency and he did beat Pete there to in all fairness to him. Murray has wins over Nadal and Djokovic there so it's still close between them. Roddick was alright there as well. Pretty close between all 3 of them.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Lol, if rafi was so dull as you say, how did he even make the final then? weak era? xD
metsman
G.O.A.T.
no secret that dull's USO opponents in general have not been world beaters hence why Dull was able to mount just 1 set of resistance against Noel playing with a dislocated shoulder in the final as well as disgusting USO crowds blatantly cheering for the nagal.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
which is quite a mystery, why would the usaians cheer for N/A Dull of all people? Do they just hate novack so much after his fights with Rodbot? nothing new of course, super self-centric folks, ohoho.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Not better though.I thought even you admitted that Murray is the greater player?
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
LOL!!!!! Cilic would lose to 2001 USO Hewitt, guy took an absolute crap on Kafelnikov and Sampras back to back plus Cilic is a MUG.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Well not a surprising comment coming from you regarding Hewitt since we've been down this road before. Well in your eyes, Cilic may be a mug but he certainly wasn't that tournament and Hewitt would have most certainly lost.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Just like it isn't surprising you are defending Cilic, lmao...
Cilic wasn't even tested, Berdych and that version of Federer aren't beating 01 Hewitt, and Nishikori is like a less talented Hewitt with half the tennis IQ. Don't see him coming close to beating Hewitt. Cilic is a mug and my point still stands.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Rafter wasn't in great form after mentally losing the plot after 2001 Wimbledon either..
Sampras was already losing to Hewitt on his favorite surfaces long before that final. Hewitt was just a terrible matchup for Sampras in general. People will bring up Chang, but unlike Hewitt he would always give you the same ball; Hewitt would always mix things up to the point where you won't know what sorta ball you'll get.
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
Imho, Murray is the best among them.
abmk
Bionic Poster
it took Cilic 5 sets to beat Simon in 4R.
federer was 33 years old ( coming off a 5-setter vs Monfils in the previous round).
No doubt Cilic was very good in QF-F of USO 2014, but so was hewitti in SF-F ( he demolished kafelnikov, losing only 4 games in the semi and sampras , losing only 8 games in the final )
Hewitt is one of the best at returning/counter punching and would prove to be too crafty for Cilic in the end I think; would edge it out in 4 tight sets or 5 sets.
Oh and there's no way he gets pummeled btw.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
I have no reason or ulterior motive for defending Cilic. He was unplayable and deserves all the credit anyone gives him.
Cilic crushed Federer, Berdych and Nishikori. He played tennis at a level that is almost impossible to beat for any player yet you think Hewitt would beat him? He wouldn't. You're basing your opinions on players' whole careers instead of being able to see the level each player played at to win their titles. Here is an interesting fact. Sampras averaged 116mph first serve and 102 mph second serve against Safin that tournament. He averaged 115 mph first serve and 105 mph against Agassi. In the final, however, he only averaged 110 mph first serve and 95 mph second serve. So as you can see, he did not even serve as well in the final as he had been during the tournament. Rewind to when he played Hewitt a year earlier at the US Open, he averaged 117 mph first serve and 102 second serve. So really that version of Sampras in that 2001 final wasn't all that great either. On the other hand, Cilic in the 2014 final averaged 123 mph first serve and 93 mph second serve. Also, he won 43% return points against Berdych, 38% against Federer and 43% against Nishikori. That's not even including the level of depth and pace he was hitting his groundstrokes in those last three matches. There's only so much counterpunching you can do and Hewitt would be outgunned without a doubt. I guess Cilic would be happy to be a mug with the same number of US Open titles as Hewitt.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
It took Djokovic 5 sets to beat Simon at 2016 AO as well and look what he did in his last 3 matches. I'm basically talking about Cilic's last three matches. Federer was 33 years old. Big deal. He just won a Slam at 35 as well Miami and Indian Wells. That excuse is getting old. Sampras was 30 years old and one year away from retirement, having played 3 former US Open champions in back to back to back matches. Hewitt would lose in no more than 4 sets but personally I think he would lose in 3 sets. I've been watching tennis long enough to know when a performance is unplayable. Cilic was unplayable and he deserves his credit. It would take a special kind of player to stop him and 2001 US Open Hewitt is not that player.
abmk
Bionic Poster
that's your problem, the double standards; you mention about the last 3 rounds for Cilic, but don't give the same consideration for the last 2 rounds of Hewitt ( where he lost 4 games and 8 games respectively), while mentioning the roddick 5-setter.
Hewitt's performances in those 2 matches were special and the fact that you don't know it is your problem/ignorance. His game was designed to counterpunch against the hitters like Cilic/Delpo etc. (apart from demolishing the SnVers)
hilarious how sampras at 30 is allowed to be exhausted after a 3-setter vs safin in the SF ( and 2 4-set matches before that) , but federer at 33 can't be drained after a 5-setter vs Monfils .
I'm not saying Sampras wasn't drained by the draw, but federer came out flat against Cilic as well. Federer's performance this year doesn't change that he came out flat vs Cilic.
I'm well aware of how Cilic played.
In fact, I made a thread after the SF :
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/flawless-from-cilic-well-done.511890/
I'm also well aware of how Hewitt played in the last 2 matches of US Open 2001. He demolished a baseliner in kafelnikov and then SnVer in Sampras. That final vs Sampras was the best display of returning+passing that I've seen , from any player.
Look at the trouble an older Hewitt caused Delpo .
Cilic is a somewhat similar kind of player, only worse mentally.
beat delpo at wimby 09
just lost close 3-setter at washington 09 ( 3rd set TB)
bad loss at san jose 11 ( straight sets)
beat delpo at queens in 13 ( delpo would go on to SF at wimby and have that 5-setter vs djokovic a tournament later)
beat delpo at USO in 13 ( delpo would go on to beat nadal in shanghai and take djokovic to 3 sets in the final soon after)
Last edited:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Thanks
NatF
Bionic Poster
Don't think it was 4 hours, think it was a bit over 3? Might be wrong though. Those guys played quickly. And no doubt Pete's recovery time was worse, never disputed it Just saying Nishikori was flat and tired as well, played worse than Sampras IMO.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Can anyone explain why is the USO has become Murray's weakest slam nowadays?
H_Richardson
Semi-Pro
2013, 2014 he was injured/coming back from injury. 2015 blown off the court by a guy in the form of his life. 2016 is the only seriously bad loss where he just got distracted. It's certainly weaker than his other slam records but I don't think he's terrible there by any stretch if you look beneath the QF, QF, 4R, QF results to the circumstances surrounding the losses.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
It's hard to be ignorant to something if you watched the tournament and the match in question. I am well aware of how well Hewitt played that tournament and that was victory well deserved on all counts. He did return extremely well, had great anticipation and just outplayed both Kafelnikov and Sampras. However, I am also not too detached where I cannot see that that Hewitt would lose to 2014 US Open Cilic. The problem with you is that you have a hard time seeing things for what they are and have a serious problem with giving the opponents who beat Federer their credit. It is always he did not play well, he was tired, he's old, etc. There is always an excuse. Federer was 33 years old and played a 5 set match in the QF against Monfils which I am well aware of but he did not have the kind of brutal draw that Sampras had in having to play Rafter, then Agassi and then Safin in back to back to back matches (the last 3 US Open champions). Not only was it physical but it was mentally draining to have to play those kind of opponents just to get to the final. Federer may not have not been as sharp after that 5 setter, but had a rather meek draw and did not play one GS champion or even a Masters champion in getting to the SF. He also did not lose 6 mph on his first serve and 10 mph on his second serve in his match in question. Sampras is a serve and volley player and if he is not getting the power on his serve that is needed and has a lower serve percentage (59%), he becomes vulnerable. Federer hit 28 winners and 17 unforced errors so he did not play badly. Cilic just didn't allow him to play when he's averaging 121 mph on his 1st serve, hit 43 winners to 23 unforced errors, and just bludgeoning virtually every shot deep and close to the lines. Federer also played a 5 set match in this years AO SF against Wawrinka and played another 5 set match in the tournament to Nishikori yet won the tournament by beating Nadal in 5 sets at 35 years old. You like to make statements but are often unable to qualify them.
You also, for whatever reason, are throwing around a head to head with Del Potro which has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. We all know that Hewitt was great at counterpunching and redirecting against more powerful players. You talk about the 2013 Queens match where Hewitt beat Del Potro but omit the fact that he lost to Cilic in that same tournament in the SF. You talk about Cilic being mentally weak and that would be true if we are talking about his career as a whole, but we are talking about his 2014 US Open run where he was very strong mentally and shut the door in both his SF and F matches during his run. So the bottom line is, in my opinion, Cilic would have defeated 2001 US Open Hewitt and it wouldn't be as close you'd like. Again, this is my opinion, which is not fact just like yours is not fact. However, unlike you I am able to qualify why I believe my opinion would come to fruition.
Last edited:
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Yea it was actually 3 hours and 33 minutes so not quite 4 hours. Nishikori was definitely somewhat tired and I actually was rooting for Nishikori in that match. I really wanted him to win but the weight of shot from Cilic was just too much for him to handle. He was completely overpowered in that match and there literally nothing he could do.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Sampras started declining rapidly after 2000 and was losing to lots of players, not only Hewitt. His 2001 year was pretty bad by his standards and he lost in the 4th round of both the AO and Wimbledon. That was the first time since 1991 where he failed to at least get to the QF of one of those tournaments. Even so, Hewitt did manage to beat him at 2000 Queens and the Masters Cup so he showed could compete well with Sampras. It was not a terrible matchup for Sampras though as he went into 2001 with a 4-2 head to head against Hewitt and finished with 4-5 record overall.
Last edited:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
3 things though:
1. Federer was fully rested ahead of the AO this year thanks to his 6 month layoff. In 2014 he had already played a full schedule before the USO and had been to the finals or better in Toronto and Cincy, with not a single week of rest in between those 2. Basically he played a lot of tennis and that 5 setter against Monfils proved to really have emptied his reserves.
2. Keep in mind that Federer's 5 setters at the AO weren't even long. Sampras's 4 setter against Agassi in the 2001 USO QF was longer than Federer's 5 setters against both Nishikori and Wawrinka and pretty much as long as Federer's 5 setter against Nadal.
3. After the 5 setter against Nishikori Fed got a day off, followed by an easy practice session against M. Zverev, followed by another day off. And after the Stan match he got 2 days off. That was plenty of rest. Something he didn't get before facing Cilic in USO 2014.
Not trying to find any excuses. Just stating some facts you ignored.
jaystarhair
New User
Murray is an overall underperformer at the U.S Open so definitely not him. 1 title and 2 finals isnt a big underachievement, but his overall performances there with many strange losses and lackluster efforts is. Considering he is 1-2 vs Wawrinka there, and both have 1 title, it isnt even clear if he is better than Wawrinka there or not, and Wawrinka is mostly a slow court specialist.
Between Roddick and Hewitt. I go with Roddick since he has a bigger game, bigger weapons, and at his best likely beats Hewitt.
Between Roddick and Hewitt. I go with Roddick since he has a bigger game, bigger weapons, and at his best likely beats Hewitt.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Correction: Murray has 1 title and 1 final.
jaystarhair
New User
I meant 2 finals total, I didnt mean 2 runner ups. I guess I should have been more clear. Anyway I think it is debateable if Murray is even above Wawrinka at the U.S Open or not, and Wawrinka is way better at both the Australian and French Opens than at the U.S Open. U.S Open is clearly the best slam overall for both Hewitt and Roddick, despite that both did good at Wimbledon too.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
1. This is a key point. He did play a lot of tennis leading up to that match. However, he had a week off before the US Open and his draw really wasn't that difficult until he ran into Monfils who really came to play that night. However, the 6 month layoff did allow him to recharge his batteries so good point.
2. The Monfils match was 3 hours and 18 minutes so it was actually less time spent on the court than the Nishikori match.
3. Well he got a day off after the Monfils match. He played a night match but he still got his day off.
abmk
Bionic Poster
a) see mike danny's post
b) the Monfils match was mentally draining than any of those other matches. He had save MPs (2) in that one IIRC.
c) giving credit to federer's opponents. Jeez, what was that whole thread about then ? taking credit away from Cilic ?
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/flawless-from-cilic-well-done.511890/
are you going to tell me that you are going to give credit to Istomin in AO 17 and thiem in RG 17 like they beat djokovic at his prime ? really ?
I know Cilic's performance was damn good, but I'm not going to make it look like Cilic beat a well playing version of federer.
Note that I'm saying that sampras wasn't playing well vs Hewitt as well.
d) yeah, Cilic shut the door in both SF and F, but neither federer or nishi were playing well in those matches. Easier to shut the door, then.
Downright hilarious to compare with an in-form Hewitt.
e) why should I mention Cilic when I was talking about delpo there. Now coming to Cilic himself, they're 1 all in h2h - hewitt winning in oly 12 and Cilic in queens 13.
del potro is more consistent than Cilic and has more/wider set of matches vs Hewitt - which kind of illustrated my point about hewitt vs pace.
f) sampras' serve % of 59 wasn't low for him. His career first serve % was 59%.
g) you believe that you have qualified your opinion by just talking about Cilic, while ignoring the stats about Hewitt.
you want stats ? here they are :
in the final :
hewitt : 36 winners to 13 UEs
broke sampras 6 times, broken 1 time
won 45.4% of the return points
in the SF :
hewitt : broke kafelnikov 8 times, broken 1 time
won 60% of the return points
return points and # of breaks in both matches more than Cilic in any of the 3 matches .
cilic was broken 2 times vs berd, once vs fed and once vs nishi - which is on par with Hewitt.
as NatF already pointed out, Cilic's 1st serve % in the final was 52%, which you'd expect one of the greatest returners of all time in hewitt at the peak of his powers to exploit. hell, Nishi had 9 BPs vs him and he wasn't even playing well.
it was 56% vs federer. only in the berdych match it was 63%.
its one thing to say Cilic would beat Hewitt, but to say he'd beat him easily ? in straights even ? just a big LOL
My problem is most of you Djokodal fans have near zero respect for Hewitt/Roddick. You say you know how well Hewitt was playing, but you actually don't.
Last edited:
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
a) mike danny made a good point and actually qualified it
b) Right on queue. Of course it was....
c) You have been getting better about giving credit and being more reasonable but look to have had a regression. So now we are comparing Djokovic's overall crappy 2017 form to that of 2014 Federer who got to the final of Wimbledon, won Cincinnati, got to the final of Canada and the SF of the US Open?? Dude, give me a break. Well one thing is sure, you are consistent.
d) completely subjective with no basis or qualification for that conclusion
e) Because Del Potro has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion and you pretty much shot yourself in the foot by bringing up 2013 Queens.
f) I'm talking about his serve speed for this tournament, not his career and he served 63% against Agassi and 64% against Safin. As you you can see, it dipped below 60% in this match not to mention that his serve speed on the first and second was not up to par.
g) I think I have more than qualified my opinion. Hewitt's stats were very impressive and I never said they weren't, which is why he was the US Open champion. However, since you like to throw around stats and keep bringing up that Kafelnikov match here are some stats for you. Kafelnikov only hit 11 winners and 36 unforced errors which is pretty dismal even for his standards. Hewitt also was a terrible matchup for him and never beat him in 7 tries, so couple that with his terrible performance and Hewitt being in great form and you get that result. Here are more stats for you. In the final, Hewitt's average first serve speed was 99 mph and his second serve was 83 mph yet you somehow view him as impenetrable. In comparison, Cilic's average first serve speed was 123 mph and his average second serve speed was 93 mph. Cilic second serve average is not far off from Hewitt's first serve average but Sampras unable to take advantage of this in that match and did not return well. Not to mention Cilic's return percentage numbers that he was averaging in the QF, SF and F rounds. Cilic would have made mincemeat out of that weak serve yet you are talking about Hewitt getting the advantage of his serve? Not to mention how Cilic was hitting the ball off the ground with ferocity and depth. Now check Cilic's stats overall and try to qualify your opinion. You should be laughing at this...at yourself!
I have given you all the information and if you can't see how this would go down then you won't ever be able to see it.
Last edited:
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Also, in ending, let me address that last statement you made. For one thing this has nothing to do with being a Djokovic fan and I have no idea why are trying to group us with the Nadal fans. This has to do with how I view two US Open champions would match up against each other. For you, it may look like certain fans are dismissive of Hewitt and Roddick but I think they both were great players at their peak. Do I think they have reached the levels of Djokovic and Nadal? Hell no. In retrospect, I think you and some other Federer fans like to overrate Hewitt and Roddick to make Federer's era look tougher to some extent, and go to great lengths to try and prove that point. However, neither Hewitt nor Roddick ever beat Federer is a GS match. Never. Not once. That is the reality. So maybe you should understand the opposite side of that spectrum when analyzing those two players.
abmk
Bionic Poster
federer nearly lost to Monfils in 4 sets ( had to save 2 MPs ) in the match before.
Hardly a sign of good form.
watching those matches, you can easily make out that neither federer or nishikori were playing well.
hewitt beat cilic in Oly 12. their h2h is 1-1. so how the hell is that shooting myself in the foot ?
my point was about hewitt even well past his prime being able to handle big hitters. he was better at his prime.
and 52% in the match vs rafter in 4R, which brings his average to ~60% in the 3 matches before the final.
I am aware his speeds dipped in the final.
g) I think I have more than qualified my opinion. Hewitt's stats were very impressive and I never said they weren't, which is why he was the US Open champion. However, since you like to throw around stats and keep bringing up that Kafelnikov match here are some stats for you. Kafelnikov only hit 11 winners and 36 unforced errors which is pretty dismal even for his standards. Hewitt also was a terrible matchup for him and never beat him in 7 tries, so couple that with his terrible performance and Hewitt being in great form and you get that result. Here are more stats for you. In the final, Hewitt's average first serve speed was 99 mph and his second serve was 83 mph yet you someone view him as impenetrable. In comparison, Cilic's average first serve speed was 123 mph and his average second serve speed was 93 mph. Cilic second serve average is not far off from Hewitt's first serve average but Sampras unable to take advantage of this in that match and did not return well. Not to mention Cilic's return percentage numbers that he was averaging in the WF, SF and F rounds. Cilic would have made mincemeat out of that weak serve yet you are talking about Hewitt getting the advantage of his serve? Not to mention how Cilic was hitting the ball off the ground with ferocity and depth. Now check Cilic's stats overall and try to qualify your opinion. You should be laughing at this...at yourself!
Didn't say Hewitt's serve was great, but he backed up his service games well with his ground game, which is why he got broken only once each in both the semi and final.
Yes, Hewitt was a not a good matchup for Kafelnikov, but that was still the worst beatdown in their matches - only 4 games on a fast HC .
Hewitt's returns were deep, accurate and would put Cilic on the backfoot right away in Cilic's service games.
Cilic too would have shots at Hewitt's service games. didn't say hewitt's serve was inpenetrable either.
hewitt would be absorbing all that pace and use it against Cilic, putting that seed of doubt in Cilic's mind.
which is why I said it'd be a close 4 sets or 5 sets , but I see Hewitt edging it out.
I didn't predict an easy win for Hewitt, unlike you who is predicting an easy win for Cilic based on his perf. vs 3 opponents who were not playing well.
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
you don't even think Hewitt reached the level of Cilic, when playing his best at his best slam (forget about Nadal, Djokovic). What else does that indicate ?
you don't even think it'd be close.
even saying Cilic would edge Hewitt out is understandable ( though I don't agree ). But to say hewitt wouldn't have a chance ?
What else is that apart from blatant disrespect of Hewitt ?
you kept mentioning about hewitt's 5-setter vs roddick, while not talking about cilic's 5-setter vs Simon.
what else is that if not double standards ?
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Once again, subjective. I actually didn't think Federer played badly. Was it the best he ever played? No but he wasn't bad by any stretch of the imagination. Cilic was just on another level.
That has nothing to do with this discussion especially bringing up a tournament where he lost to Cilic anyways.
This is the first time you have acknowledged this fact.
If Hewitt brought that weak serving to 2014 US Open, everybody would have been taking huge cuts at it. There is no way he would be broken once with that WTA type serving. Sampras and Kafelnikov were terrible off the return which allowed him to get away with it but not in this day and age would he get away with it. His ground game was good but I could not see him getting best of Cilic in that type of form off the ground.
Yes he returned well but it's much different to return a serve some 11 mph faster on the first serve. Nishikori didn't return terribly and actually has a decent return but he just didn't get enough balls he could attack off the return. Nishikori also tried to absorb the pace and push Cilic back but it just didn't work because Cilic was able to stay in the rallies and then regain control. I see the same thing happening here especially since Hewitt is not even as aggressive as Nishikori off the ground. I stand by my opinion and in my view, no way can he push Cilic to a 5th set. We both have given our opinions and we disagree...that's that.
NatF
Bionic Poster
g) I think I have more than qualified my opinion. Hewitt's stats were very impressive and I never said they weren't, which is why he was the US Open champion. However, since you like to throw around stats and keep bringing up that Kafelnikov match here are some stats for you. Kafelnikov only hit 11 winners and 36 unforced errors which is pretty dismal even for his standards. Hewitt also was a terrible matchup for him and never beat him in 7 tries, so couple that with his terrible performance and Hewitt being in great form and you get that result. Here are more stats for you. In the final, Hewitt's average first serve speed was 99 mph and his second serve was 83 mph yet you somehow view him as impenetrable. In comparison, Cilic's average first serve speed was 123 mph and his average second serve speed was 93 mph. Cilic second serve average is not far off from Hewitt's first serve average but Sampras unable to take advantage of this in that match and did not return well. Not to mention Cilic's return percentage numbers that he was averaging in the QF, SF and F rounds. Cilic would have made mincemeat out of that weak serve yet you are talking about Hewitt getting the advantage of his serve? Not to mention how Cilic was hitting the ball off the ground with ferocity and depth. Now check Cilic's stats overall and try to qualify your opinion. You should be laughing at this...at yourself!
Didn't they start measuring serve speeds in a different way at some point? Was that before or after this match? But yes the 99 mph first serve seems awfully slow. In his last USO SF performance he was around 108 mph on average and scoring only slightly more aces 7.4% compared to 6.9% in 2005 vs 2001. For comparison Nishikori was at 4.3% in 2014.
Hewitt's serve numbers were solid all tournament really. So something seems off about that to me.
ibbi
G.O.A.T.
I think it's a pretty close one, but for me it is probably between Hewitt and Murray? They really all sort of have things working in their favour, and it's tough to put Murray in with them considering his career is still (kind of?) in full swing. Still, I think I would eliminate Roddick who in spite of having the most QF berths out of all of them did the worst job converting them into SF berths.
It's also worth noting that Murray already has more USO victories than Roddick does, and he's played the tournament only 11 times to Roddick's 12. I do think Roddick and Hewitt both kind of benefited to some degree from coming about in that period after Sampras had lost it, and before Federer quite got it, where as Murray played his career through a far tougher era with multiple guys winning multiple US Opens.
Still, what Roddick and Murray both have that Hewitt simply did not are those stupid early losses in earlier rounds (Murray's actually don't look anywhere that bad in retrospect considering most of the guys who inflicted those early round defeats on him - Cilic, Stan - went on to win that tournament in later years) where as Hewitt from 2000 to 06 had a 7 year run where every single loss he had there was to a grand slam champion, and every single guy that beat him went on to make the final. What Hewitt also has is that magical night in 2013, one year after Roddick had already called it quits (and against the same opponent no less) where he downed the Tower of Tandil. Got to give Hewitt the edge.
It's also worth noting that Murray already has more USO victories than Roddick does, and he's played the tournament only 11 times to Roddick's 12. I do think Roddick and Hewitt both kind of benefited to some degree from coming about in that period after Sampras had lost it, and before Federer quite got it, where as Murray played his career through a far tougher era with multiple guys winning multiple US Opens.
Still, what Roddick and Murray both have that Hewitt simply did not are those stupid early losses in earlier rounds (Murray's actually don't look anywhere that bad in retrospect considering most of the guys who inflicted those early round defeats on him - Cilic, Stan - went on to win that tournament in later years) where as Hewitt from 2000 to 06 had a 7 year run where every single loss he had there was to a grand slam champion, and every single guy that beat him went on to make the final. What Hewitt also has is that magical night in 2013, one year after Roddick had already called it quits (and against the same opponent no less) where he downed the Tower of Tandil. Got to give Hewitt the edge.
Last edited:
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
It is no disrespect to Hewitt but praise to Cilic. He was phenomenal and it should not be forgotten that he was able to play that level of tennis over successive matches. I only mentioned the 5 setter against Roddick once because it was brought up that he beat Roddick in his title run. There is no double standard when either of these matches are pointless anyways when talking about the last two rounds of their title runs.
abmk
Bionic Poster
it wasn't bad per se, but it wasn't good , it wasn't sharp, nowhere close.
certainly nowhere near Hewitt's level in USO 01 SF/F.
and the QF match vs Monfils as I said was a clear indicator that he wasn't in good form.
pretty much does since talk was about handling big hitting, which even past his prime hewitt was able to do.
Kafelnikov was a fine returner, in general.
and in this age and day, Hewitt's %s and speeds would be up with poly, so no.
poly allows returners in this day and age to take bigger cuts.
Nishikori doesn't have the defensive return of hewitt, nor does he put as many balls into play or hit it as deep in the rallies. Hewitt is actually good at the net and can finish off points there, unlike Nishi. Also has a good slice, which is a pivotal weapon against zoning players to disrupt rhythm.
nishikori trying to be more aggressive off the ground just results in him committing more UEs, that's a -ve for him, not a +ve, duh ( well, majority of the times )
and he wasn't playing well
had 19 W to 30 UEs.
to think it would anywhere near similar vs hewitt playing his best tennis at the USO is downright delusional.
more returns in play, sharper returns, deeper balls in rallies, more balls coming back, more variety ( slices, net play to some extent) -- all would frustrate Cilic.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Well his fastest serve in that Sampras match was 127 mph, the same as Sampras'. He just didn't hit them that fast regularly in that match. I'm just going by the US Open archive website stats and would hope they would be correct.
abmk
Bionic Poster
it very much is , when you say that he'd handle hewitt easily in his best form , at his best slam.
Saying he would edge out Hewitt is another thing.
Hewitt was phenomenal in the SF/F as well.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Maybe you're right then. Guess he was placing them really well idk, he usually hit his spots well - he got over 60% first serves in so maybe he was going for high percentage. Either way his serve was pretty effective, he won 77% behind his first delivery.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
I would take Federer over any version of Hewitt especially since he has never beat him in a Slam.
I think you are underselling Monfils' performance in that match. He was very good, especially those 1st two sets. That's not the first time he has really pushed Federer in a big match.
I guess then...
Well he wasn't that day. Yes I know, which is why I said he wouldn't be able to get away with that today. Even for that time, that serve is very attackable.
Nishikori was pressed to go for more because that was his only chance, which resulted in more unforced errors. He was getting killed in neutral rallies. I never said Nishikori played at Hewitt's level there because he didn't. I just said he returned decent considering what he was up against. That's your opinion that he would get more returns in play. Do you remember how hard Cilic was serving and where those serves were landing? I remember him repeatedly hitting 125+ down the T on the line and huge 120 out wide. In your opinion, he would get more balls back and frustrate Cilic but off the ground Cilic was in the zone so I disagree.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
- Deleted member 781040
- General Pro Player Discussion
