2001-2003, who was the best player

[Pheasant]

2001-2003 was the transition period, except for Agassi. Old man Agassi found the fountain of youth and gave these up-and-coming youngsters all they could handle.

Here are some of their stats. Who was the best?


Player…………..overall record……………record vs top 10………slam titles………WTF titles………..Masters titles………total titles
Hewitt……………178-43, .805…………….23-7, .766………………..2……………………2………………………2…………………………13
Agassi…………….145-37, .797…………….17-16, .515………………2…………………..0………………………6…………………………13
Federer…………185-60, .755……………..24-15, .615……………..1…………………….1………………………1…………………………11
Roddick…………168-57, .747……………..8-15, .348……………….1…………………….0………………………2…………………………11
Ferrero…………..172-67, .720…………….18-14, .563……………..1……………......……0…………….........…4..................................10

 

[RS]

Sadly it's probably Hewitt.

 

[Kralingen]

Dre.

 

[Third Serve]

You can use the table feature for this btw

Li	ke
Th	is

 

[Winners or Errors]

Sad that, even with the clear statistical advantages and some stellar performances, Hewitt will still be disrespected for his great play as a young #1.

 

[Pheasant]

I went with a Hewitt by a whisker. Hewitt’s 2 Master Cups titles ultimately tipped this in his favor. Also, his 23-7 record vs the top-10 trumps Agassi’s 17-16 mark.

That said, I’d say Hewitt and Agassi were a whole level above Federer, Roddick, and Ferrero.

 

[NatF]

Hewitt was a bit better than a late prime Agassi.

 

[Gizo]

Agassi winning 6 masters series titles during that period, including the Indian Wells-Miami double in 2001 (around that time there was talk about him potentially being able to win the grand slam that year), 3 consecutive Miami titles from 2001-2003, and Rome in 2002 was impressive. Masters series events became more of a big deal from 2000 onwards.

And he was noticeably more consistent at the majors than Hewitt was, reaching the quarter-finals or better in 9 out of the 12 (very good going), or 9 out of the 11 that he participated in, with him missing the 2002 Australian Open through a wrist injury when he would have been the big title favourite (there were rumours that he withdrew on the morning of the tournament as he didn't think he'd be able to pass a drugs test). Hewitt, still recovering from chickenpox, was bounced out in the 1st round of that same event. Agassi's only really 'bad' showing at majors during that period was when he was heavily outplayed and straight setted by Srichaphan in the 2nd round at Wimbledon in 2002.

But Hewitt's back to back Masters Cup wins, and back to back year end no. 1 finishes (for me the year end no. 1 ranking is a big title in itself, and players are awarded trophies for it) are enough to make me lean towards him. Plus his Davis Cup record during that period, with him straight setting Kuerten on clay in home city in Florianopolis (I remember seeing that result at the time and thinking it was huge), beating Federer in 2003 and helping Australia win the tournament in 2003, also carries weight IMO. He won 13 out of his 14 singles matches in the competition during that period across grass, hard courts (outdoor and indoor) and clay, with his one defeat his 5 set loss to Escude in the 2001 final (with Escude also beating him in 5 sets on grass in their Wimbledon 4th round clash earlier that year).

Also for what it's worth most if not all players, including Hewitt and Agassi themselves, while greatly appreciating any grand slam title win, would clearly much prefer to win 1 Wimbledon title and 1 US Open title over 2 Australian Open titles.

 

[boredone3456]

Hewitt winning those 2 WTF, ending 2 years as #1 and that record against top 10 players during that period...I have to lean in favor of Hewitt.

 

[Pheasant]

Agassi winning 6 masters series titles during that period, including the Indian Wells-Miami double in 2001 (around that time there was talk about him potentially being able to win the grand slam that year), 3 consecutive Miami titles from 2001-2003, and Rome in 2002 was impressive. Masters series events became more of a big deal from 2000 onwards.

And he was noticeably more consistent at the majors than Hewitt was, reaching the quarter-finals or better in 9 out of the 12 (very good going), or 9 out of the 11 that he participated in, with him missing the 2002 Australian Open through a wrist injury when he would have been the big title favourite (there were rumours that he withdrew on the morning of the tournament as he didn't think he'd be able to pass a drugs test). Hewitt, still recovering from chickenpox, was bounced out in the 1st round of that same event. Agassi's only really 'bad' showing at majors during that period was when he was heavily outplayed and straight setted by Srichaphan in the 2nd round at Wimbledon in 2002.

But Hewitt's back to back Masters Cup wins, and back to back year end no. 1 finishes (for me the year end no. 1 ranking is a big title in itself, and players are awarded trophies for it) are enough to make me lean towards him. Plus his Davis Cup record during that period, with him straight setting Kuerten on clay in home city in Florianopolis (I remember seeing that result at the time and thinking it was huge), beating Federer in 2003 and helping Australia win the tournament in 2003, also carries weight IMO. He won 13 out of his 14 singles matches in the competition during that period across grass, hard courts (outdoor and indoor) and clay, with his one defeat his 5 set loss to Escude in the 2001 final (with Escude also beating him in 5 sets on grass in their Wimbledon 4th round clash earlier that year).

Also for what it's worth most if not all players, including Hewitt and Agassi themselves, while greatly appreciating any grand slam title win, would clearly much prefer to win 1 Wimbledon title and 1 US Open title over 2 Australian Open titles.

Good summary. You've built a great case for Hewitt here.

 

[RS]

Fed should have got his act together earlier he would beaten the breaks out of this field

 

[Kralingen]

Fed should have got his act together earlier he would beaten the breaks out of this field

Agassi without his back being completely Amun-Ragonized would never be easy for any version of Fed even with his 'act together'

I favour 01 Agassi against any version of Fed at the US Open.

 

[RS]

Agassi without his back being completely Amun-Ragonized would never be easy for any version of Fed even with his 'act together'

I favour 01 Agassi against any version of Fed at the US Open.

Are you actually serious with this take though because sometimes it is a meme. I think you are but I am not sure.

 

[Kralingen]

Are you actually serious with this take though because sometimes it is a meme. I think you are but I am not sure.

Full match here

 

[RS]

Full match here

Ok so you do actually think it.

 

[Pheasant]

The emergence of Federer really messed over Hewitt. Hewitt was still at his peak level until late in the 2005 season.

If we back out his record vs Federer, then here's what Lleyton's stats look like during the following timeframes:

2001-2003(excluding matches vs Fed)
174-42, .806 overall
20-7, .741

2004-2005(excluding matches vs Fed)
105-18, .854 overall
12-3, .800 vs top 10

Federer completely switched the rivalry around by going 9-0 vs Hewitt from 2004-2005, including 5-0 in majors. Hewitt might very well have won 5 majors without Fed elevating his level. Fed turned his rivalry around against everybody in 2004. He was down big against Hewitt(2-7), Agassi(0-3), Nalbandian(0-5) and Henman(1-6).

 

[martinezownsclay]

Yes 2004 and 2005 probably would have been career years for Hewitt without Federer. He likely wins Wimbledon 2005. He has a great shot at US Opens both 2004 and 2005, 2004 is 50-50 with Agassi probably, but would favor Hewitt in 2005, especialy as it was evident by the final Agassi could no longer physically last 4 or 5 sets vs a really tough opponent anymore. Australia 2004 he has a decent shot at, although there are 3 or 4 guys who might have won that without Federer, pending the draw. Wimbledon 2004 is also a chance, although would favor Roddick there. He probably wins 2 or 3 more slams, but is in a whole bunch of finals, and has a great shot at the #1 ranking, and also the YEC in 2004.

 

[Kemitak]

Second best was Max Mirnyi

 

[Third Serve]

Agassi without his back being completely Amun-Ragonized would never be easy for any version of Fed even with his 'act together'

I favour 01 Agassi against any version of Fed at the US Open.

cap

 

[kevin qmto]

Ok so you do actually think it.

And he’s not alone.

I wouldn’t go quite as for to say ANY version of Federer.

Just most of them.

Lest we forget that slowish Agassi went 5 sets v near peak Fed in 04. And Bad-Back-step-slower Agassi still took a set off peak Fed in 05, and broke him 3 times in that match.

 

[Gizo]

Sad that, even with the clear statistical advantages and some stellar performances, Hewitt will still be disrespected for his great play as a young #1.

I remember watching an 18 year old Hewitt play live at Queen's in 1999, being incredibly impressed, and thinking that he'd have a very good chance of winning grand slams in the future. I'm normally pretty cautious when it comes to predicting how talented young players will do. His return, passing shots, lobs (though still a work in progress) and speed and movement all immediately stood out.