2004-2006 vs. 2014-2016

[tudwell]

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/most-gs-wins-by-year-top10.629649/

Here you can see that secondary players in 2014-16 won more matches than secondary players in 2004-06, despite having to deal with a better top-4.

Good for them. But you're not going to convince me that Ferrer with 19 wins in 2013 is better than Hewitt with 16 or 17 wins in 04 and 05. Just because a player is more consistent does not mean they're a bigger threat to the top players.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Good for them. But you're not going to convince me that Ferrer with 19 wins in 2013 is better than Hewitt with 16 or 17 wins in 04 and 05. Just because a player is more consistent does not mean they're a bigger threat to the top players.

They sure didn't have weak 2000-2006 to win slams and look good.

 

[Druss]

I don't quite agree.

We disagree on 2006/2016.

In 2006 Hewitt and Safin were injured, Roddick and Nalby weren't playing that well either, and Nadal off clay was either injured or not playing well.
In 2016 Nadal played cr*p for his standards, Fed was a non-factor for most of the year and Wawa wasn't playing as well as 2014/15.
Muzza was playing very well that year and Fed in 2006 had nobody (off clay) as good as Murray for competition. So in other words, 2006 Nadal = 2016 Murray, so as competition it was fairly equal.

 

[tudwell]

They sure didn't have weak early 2000s to win slams and look good.

Call me when Ferrer beats Sampras to win a slam title.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Call me when Ferrer beats Sampras to win a slam title.

I showed many times why 2000-06 were easier.

goodbye

 

[abmk]

I struggle to see how Nalbandian was superior to Berdych, much less "easily" so. The only thing we know for sure is that Nalbandian throughout his career was not anywhere near as consistent and reliable as Berdych and Ferrer were.

yeah, you "struggle" to see it.
How about actually winning the YEC and winning 2 b2b masters (Madrid and Paris) beating fedal iin both of them and djokovic in one of them?
ring a bell ?

The other thing we know for sure is over his career : Nalby was considerably better vs the top 10 players (~36.5%) vs only ~30.5% for both ferrer and berdych.

Also since the discussion is about 2004-06 and 2014-2016 ....

What we also know is :

in slams,

2004-2006 nalbandian : 3 SFs, 4 QFs
2014-2016 ferrer : 4 QFs
2014-2016 berdych : 3 SFs, 4 QFs

ferrer ended 2014-2016 as : 10,7,21
nalbandian ended 2004-2006 as : 9,6,8
berdych ended 2014-2016 as : 7,6,10

ferrer's W-L %s in 2014-2016 : 69%, 77%, 62%
nalbandian's W-L%s in 2014-2016 : 71%,70%,70%
berdych's W-L% in 2014-2016 : 71%,72%,66%

so we can throw out ferrer of 2014-2016 from the discussion (esp. considering he didn't even make a single freakin' slam semi in 2014-2016)
not as consistent as nalbandian 04-06, and definitely considerably lesser peak level.

consistency wise, berdych/nalby are at a similar level in those time-frames.

 

[metsman]

We disagree on 2006/2016.

In 2006 Hewitt and Safin were injured, Roddick and Nalby weren't playing that well either, and Nadal off clay was either injured or not playing well.
In 2016 Nadal played cr*p for his standards, Fed was a non-factor for most of the year and Wawa wasn't playing as well as 2014/15.
Muzza was playing very well that year and Fed in 2006 had nobody (off clay) as good as Murray for competition. So in other words, 2006 Nadal = 2016 Murray, so as competition it was fairly equal.

you're talking about 16 AO and RG finals Murray as competition? lol. 06 Nadal is so much tougher due to clay alone and he played better in the Wimby final than Murray did in any of his slam finals against Djokovic.

 

[abmk]

We disagree on 2006/2016.

In 2006 Hewitt and Safin were injured, Roddick and Nalby weren't playing that well either, and Nadal off clay was either injured or not playing well.
In 2016 Nadal played cr*p for his standards, Fed was a non-factor for most of the year and Wawa wasn't playing as well as 2014/15.
Muzza was playing very well that year and Fed in 2006 had nobody (off clay) as good as Murray for competition. So in other words, 2006 Nadal = 2016 Murray, so as competition it was fairly equal.

Nalby made the AO semi and the RG semi.
made the SF of Miami, Rome, Madrid and the YEC.

Roddick didnt't play well in the 1st half of the season (had a slump), but did better in the 2nd half.

won Cincy, made USO final.
barely lost in 3rd set TB in the final of Indianapolis to Blake
had MPs vs fed in YEC RR.

Murray in AO 16 was lucky to get by Raonic (thanks to Raonic's injury in the 4th set). was worse in the final vs djoko than davydenko was vs AO 2006 fed.
and of course he lost to Nishi at USO in 16.
and Nadal in Wim 06 was clearly better than Murray in AO 16/USO 16 (including AO 16 final vs Wim 06 final)

yeah, Murray did really well in the 2nd half of the year on HC, but Djokovic faced him only once on HC in that time frame -- the YEC final. (agree that this was an important match)

on grass, you also had Ancic playing great vs Fed, but still losing in straight sets.
HC , no one in 2016 was as consistent as Murray for sure, but you had the competition spread with different guys playing well in different parts/tournaments.

davydenko in AO 06/USO 06/Paris 06
Roddick in cincy 06/USO 06
blake in USO 06/YEC 06/Indian wells etc.
and you had baggy's run in AO 06

etc. etc.

Stan in USO 16 was no better than Roddick in USO 06 honestly. Just that Roddick came up against peak fed.

 

[Druss]

you're talking about 16 AO and RG finals Murray as competition? lol. 06 Nadal is so much tougher due to clay alone and he played better in the Wimby final than Murray did in any of his slam finals against Djokovic.

I’m trying to objectively compare 2006 and 2016 as competition for Fed/Djoko:

I was looking at the whole year(s), it really boils down to 2016 Murray vs 2006 Nadal.
IMO at Wimby had the 2 versions played in the F it would be a close contest, 50/50.

Then again, Djokovic didn’t play well at all in the second half of 2016, even fluking his way to that USO F. Dunno....it’s hard to call. If you had to put a gun to my head and my life depended on the choice though, I’d go with 2006.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

They sure didn't have weak 2000-2006 to win slams and look good.

Ferrer doesn't come close to Hewitt as a player. Don't make this dumb argument dude.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

They sure didn't have weak 2000-2006 to win slams and look good.

Ferrer doesn't have the weapons to beat the very top guys like Lleyton Hewitt can/did. Even near retirement Hewitt beat Federer once or twice in ATP tournaments, Ferrer has a big fat 0 against Federer. No wins compared to 9 for Hewitt.

I always laugh at this comparison. Ferrer is like a poor man's Michael Chang, Hewitt is like a MUCH BETTER version of Chang.

 

[metsman]

I’m trying to objectively compare 2006 and 2016 as competition for Fed/Djoko:

I was looking at the whole year(s), it really boils down to 2016 Murray vs 2006 Nadal.
IMO at Wimby had the 2 versions played in the F it would be a close contest, 50/50.

Then again, Djokovic didn’t play well at all in the second half of 2016, even fluking his way to that USO F. Dunno....it’s hard to call. If you had to put a gun to my head and my life depended on the choice though, I’d go with 2006.

Yeah and if it boils down to Murray 16 vs Nadal 06 in the matches they played against Djoker/Fed, it's not even a discussion. How Murray played at Wimbledon isn't relevant, he didn't play Djokovic there.

 

[Druss]

Yeah and if it boils down to Murray 16 vs Nadal 06 in the matches they played against Djoker/Fed, it's not even a discussion. How Murray played at Wimbledon isn't relevant, he didn't play Djokovic there.

@abmk

Ok, so you guys made me dig a little bit deeper on this topic, rather than just going off the top of my head, like I usually do.

2016 Murray vs 2006 Nadal at the big tournaments only.
2016 Djoko played Murray 5 times (2 slams, 2 Masters, 1 WTF) = 3-2 Djoko.
2006 Fed played Nadal 5 times (2 slams, 2 Masters, 1 WTF) = 3-2 Nadal.

AO 2016 vs Wimby 2006 - Nadal was tougher as competition.
RG 2016 vs RG 2006 - Nadal was tougher as competition (duh!)

Rome 2016 vs Rome 2006 - Nadal of course (we are talking one of the best matches in history here).
Madrid 2016 vs MC 2006 - Nadal was tougher.

WTF 2016 vs WTF 2006 - Parity.

The level of play of the Top 10 in both years were fairly similar, give or take (Daveydenko, Nalby, A-Rod, Lube, Blake, Gonzo vs Wawa, Cilic, Raonic, Nishi, Thiem, Berdy), and it boiling down to Nadal/Murray, then I take it back. It's fairly obvious.

Verdict: 2006! Not to mention, the 2006 Fedal matches were much more competitive and entertaining to watch compared to the 2016 Djokoray ones.[/QUOTE]

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I didn't mention him. I just mentioned "secondary players" (Cilic, Raonic, Berdych, Nishikori)

Why are you always allowed to insult?

And you've tried to equate those same mugs to Roddick/Hewitt in the past LOL. Cilic couldn't hold a candle to Lleyton Hewitt and you were busy arguing 2014-2015 Cilic was as good as 2004-2005 Hewitt.

I don't give a damn if Cilic won a slam in that time period, he doesn't touch Hewitt who was top 5 (got to No. 2 even) and won more titles and did better outside majors. Actually he did better inside majors too lol.

You are so misinformed you actually thought Cilic was coming back from injury... when erm, no. He was coming back from a doping ban LOL.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Ferrer doesn't have the weapons to beat the very top guys like Lleyton Hewitt can/did. Even near retirement Hewitt beat Federer once or twice in ATP tournaments, Ferrer has a big fat 0 against Federer. No wins compared to 9 for Hewitt.

I always laugh at this comparison. Ferrer is like a poor man's Michael Chang, Hewitt is like a MUCH BETTER version of Chang.

And you've tried to equate those same mugs to Roddick/Hewitt in the past LOL. Cilic couldn't hold a candle to Lleyton Hewitt and you were busy arguing 2014-2015 Cilic was as good as 2004-2005 Hewitt.

I don't give a damn if Cilic won a slam in that time period, he doesn't touch Hewitt who was top 5 (got to No. 2 even) and won more titles and did better outside majors. Actually he did better inside majors too lol.

You are so misinformed you actually thought Cilic was coming back from injury... when erm, no. He was coming back from a doping ban LOL.

I can show you why Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga, Nishikori, Raonic, Cilic were good. Hewitt better? Maybe, but he IMO took advantage of 2000-2005, he's not that better.

Anyway they're all not so relevant in this discussion, they are not players who can hurt the Big3.

Only these players IMO showed the level to beat the Big3: Murray (often), Wawrinka (sometimes), Del Potro, Safin (rarely), Tsonga, Nalbandian (very rarely).

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I can show you why Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga, Nishikori, Raonic, Cilic were good. Hewitt better? Maybe, but he IMO took advantage of 2000-2005 which was a lot easier than 2011-16.

Anyway Hewitt is not that relevant, he is not a player who can hurt the Big3.

Only these players IMO showed the level to beat the Big3: Murray (often), Wawrinka (sometimes), Del Potro (sometimes), Tsonga/Safin/Nalbandian (rarely).

Yes Hewitt is a player who can hurt the Big 3. He beat Sampras in a GS final for God's sake. Took Fed to five in 2003, beat him. Nearly took him to five at the USO in 2005 but because Fed was too clutch and held the mental advantage it ended up being a tough 4 setter.

Yeah they are good but they aren't anywhere near Lleyton Hewitt or even Andy Roddick as players. They are below them in level AND results. In any other era they wouldn't win what they did lol.

Also by the way, Cilic, Nishikori AND Raonic took advantage of a weak period themselves. But you never bring that up. You just keep saying 2015 was the best, blah, blah, BLAH.

 

[abmk]

@abmk

Ok, so you guys made me dig a little bit deeper on this topic, rather than just going off the top of my head, like I usually do.

2016 Murray vs 2006 Nadal at the big tournaments only.
2016 Djoko played Murray 5 times (2 slams, 2 Masters, 1 WTF) = 3-2 Djoko.
2006 Fed played Nadal 5 times (2 slams, 2 Masters, 1 WTF) = 3-2 Nadal.

AO 2016 vs Wimby 2006 - Nadal was tougher as competition.
RG 2016 vs RG 2006 - Nadal was tougher as competition (duh!)

Rome 2016 vs Rome 2006 - Nadal of course (we are talking one of the best matches in history here).
Madrid 2016 vs MC 2006 - Nadal was tougher.

WTF 2016 vs WTF 2006 - Parity.

The level of play of the Top 10 in both years were fairly similar, give or take (Daveydenko, Nalby, A-Rod, Lube, Blake, Gonzo vs Wawa, Cilic, Raonic, Nishi, Thiem, Berdy), and it boiling down to Nadal/Murray, then I take it back. It's fairly obvious.

Verdict: 2006! Not to mention, the 2006 Fedal matches were much more competitive and entertaining to watch compared to the 2016 Djokoray ones.

I'd take Murray of WTF 2016 over Nadal of WTF 2006. (by a small margin)
But otherwise, I'll add that 2006 had better depth of top 20 compared to 2016, IMO.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Yes Hewitt is a player who can hurt the Big 3. He beat Sampras in a GS final for God's sake. Took Fed to five in 2003, beat him. Nearly took him to five at the USO in 2005 but because Fed was too clutch and held the mental advantage it ended up being a tough 4 setter.

Yeah they are good but they aren't anywhere near Lleyton Hewitt or even Andy Roddick as players. They are below them in level AND results. In any other era they wouldn't win what they did lol.

Also by the way, Cilic, Nishikori AND Raonic took advantage of a weak period themselves. But you never bring that up. You just keep saying 2015 was the best, blah, blah, BLAH.

Hewitt is 1-18 in slams against top10 ranked ATGs (Sampras, Agassi, Big3).

Objectively looking at results of top players, 2014-16 is still strong era, despite not as much as 2011-13. Nishikori and Raonic could have done better in 2017-18, but they had many injuries. I doubt winning slams would have been easy though, since the Big3 won all of them.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Hewitt is 1-18 in slams against top10 ranked ATGs (Sampras, Agassi, Big3).

Slams aren't everything.

Hewitt has a winning record against Pete Sampras and an even H2H with Andre Agassi. He has a 9-18 record against Federer which is only behind Murray, Nalbandian and the Big 3.

And you obviously didn't add Hewitt's wins over Nadal in 2004/2005 in majors. The 2005 win should for sure count because he was 3 months off winning a major LOL. Anything to suit your agenda. Not to mention your "stats" aren't even remotely accurate.

Objectively looking at results of top players, 2014-16 is still strong era, despite not as much as 2011-13.

No, no it is not. Even in 2011 you had guys like Melzer cracking the top 8 LOL. Only the very top were great in 2011-2013, the tour lacked depth below them.

Nishikori and Raonic could have done better in 2017-18, but they had many injuries. I doubt winning slams would have been easy though, since the Big3 won all of them.

They wouldn't win majors in any era.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Also, @Lew, Lleyton Hewitt beat Sampras 7-5, 6-0 at the Tennis Masters Cup, beat him 6-4, 6-4 on grass, etc. How can you discount these wins?!?!?!

He is better than Cilic or the worst most overrated player of them all, Raonic.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Slams aren't everything.

Hewitt has a winning record against Pete Sampras and an even H2H with Andre Agassi. He has a 9-18 record against Federer which is only behind Murray, Nalbandian and the Big 3.

And you obviously didn't add Hewitt's wins over Nadal in 2004/2005 in majors. The 2005 win should for sure count because he was 3 months off winning a major LOL. Anything to suit your agenda. Not to mention your "stats" aren't even remotely accurate.

Slams are more relevant.

Wins over 17-18 years old Nadal on hardcourt are meaningless, he reached his first slam semifinal 3-4 years later.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Also, @Lew, Lleyton Hewitt beat Sampras 7-5, 6-0 at the Tennis Masters Cup, beat him 6-4, 6-4 on grass, etc. How can you discount these wins?!?!?!

He is better than Cilic or the worst most overrated player of them all, Raonic.

Hewitt had some good wins, but 1-18 against top10 ranked ATGs is embarassing, it's John Millman level. I can't take this player as a threat for Big3/4.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Slams are more relevant.

Wins over 17-18 years old Nadal on hardcourt are meaningless, he reached his first slam semifinal 3-4 years later.

So you discount whatever you like lol. Alright then, Djokovic's win over Federer at the 2016 AO is meaningless because Federer would go on to have surgery.

Nadal was playing top 5 tennis at the time, look at his ranking history. The climb says it all. Within 3 months he was top 5 and a little later top 2.

Even Nadal himself has said Lleyton Hewitt wasn't easy to surpass coming up.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Hewitt had some good wins, but 1-18 against top10 ranked ATGs is embarassing, it's John Millman level. I can't take this player as a threat for Big3/4.

So now you're comparing Hewitt to ****ing Millman. Lol. Seriously?

And it's because you are cherrypicking everything. He is a threat for the Big 3 (and especially Murray who he isn't even far behind in terms of playing level).

Look at 2009 Wimbledon, a barely walking Hewitt pushed Roddick HARDER than prime No. 3 Murray. Just LOL dude.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

So you discount whatever you like lol. Alright then, Djokovic's win over Federer at the 2016 AO is meaningless because Federer would go on to have surgery.

Nadal was playing top 5 tennis at the time, look at his ranking history. The climb says it all. Within 3 months he was top 5 and a little later top 2.

Even Nadal himself has said Lleyton Hewitt wasn't easy to surpass coming up.

Whatever, I'll stop here, I know I can't convince you.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

So now you're comparing Hewitt to ****ing Millman. Lol. Seriously?

And it's because you are cherrypicking everything. He is a threat for the Big 3 (and especially Murray who he isn't even far behind in terms of playing level).

Look at 2009 Wimbledon, a barely walking Hewitt pushed Roddick HARDER than prime No. 3 Murray. Just LOL dude.

No, only in that stat he is Millman level. And that is relevant IMO.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Whatever, I'll stop here, I know I can't convince you.

Because what I'm saying is accurately countering what you are pushing here.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

No, only in that stat he is Millman level. And that is relevant IMO.

No. He isn't Millman level in any freaking stat or any tidbit of information. I can accept 2012+ Hewitt was Millman level, but during his peak years if he had to deal with a tour as condensed and occupied as now he would score more wins.

There's a reason I stand up for him blindly at times and it's not just cuz I like him as a player, it's because I know how good he was and I see you comparing him to Tim Henman (or worse) level players ALL THE TIME. A guy he went 9-1 against.

It's incredibly frustrating.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Because what I'm saying is accurately countering what you are pushing here.

I won't believe a player who is 0-15 in slams against top10 ranked Big3 could ever be a big threat to them, thanks.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I won't believe a player who is 0-15 in slams against top10 ranked Big3 could ever be a big threat to them, thanks.

And I don't believe Tim Henman's lackeys are anywhere near as good as Lleyton Hewitt, thanks. You can keep your Raonic love to yourself from now on.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

I won't believe a player who is 0-15 in slams against top10 ranked Big3 could ever be a big threat to them, thanks.

And he didn't even ever reach a 5th set

 

[Deleted member 307496]

And he didn't even ever reach a 5th set

Yep this is a guy that is the same as John Millman in level LOL.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Yep this is a guy that is the same as John Millman in level LOL.

I was joking. That stat looks like Millman level.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I was joking. That stat looks like Millman level.

How can I tell you're joking? You've also said Cilic, Thiem, Anderson and a whole slew of other mugs were better too. LOL.

Only one I can finally agree with is Murray being better but it isn't by a great deal.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

How can I tell you're joking? You've also said Cilic, Thiem, Anderson and a whole slew of other mugs were better too. LOL.

Only one I can finally agree with is Murray being better but it isn't by a great deal.

He may have been better, but not so distant from good secondary players of 2011-16. What I mean is they're all little relevant when it comes to win slams in the Big3 era. Only Big3 can beat Big3.

These are the players who beat them most times in grand slams, their numbers are very low:

Murray 5
Wawrinka 5
Berdych 5
Del Potro 4
Tsonga 4

 

[Deleted member 307496]

He may have been better, but not so distant from good secondary players of 2011-16. What I mean is they're all little relevant when it comes to win slams in the Big3 era. Only Big3 can beat Big3.

These are the players who beat them most times in grand slams, their numbers are very low:

Murray 5
Wawrinka 5
Berdych 5
Del Potro 4
Tsonga 4

And as an old man he led the H2H with Del Potro LMAO. Your stats indicate he wouldn't hold a torch to him. It's really ridiculous.

And yes, he is very distant from the secondary players of 2011-2016. He isn't anywhere close to being on the level of a mug like Berdych. Get real.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

And as an old man he led the H2H with Del Potro LMAO. Your stats indicate he wouldn't hold a torch to him. It's really ridiculous.

And yes, he is very distant from the secondary players of 2011-2016. He isn't anywhere close to being on the level of a mug like Berdych. Get real.

And what the h2h against Delpo should mean?

He is 1-10 against Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga, can you find a meaning here too?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

And what the h2h against Delpo should mean?

He is 1-10 against Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga, can you find a meaning here too?

Yeah I can. There also isn't enough sample data to conclude anything but you do anyway LOL. Like with Ferrer for instance, let's look into the H2H.

Ferrer leads 3-1. That means they only played 4 times.

Hewitt won their encounter at 2006 Wimbledon in 4 sets. A decisive victory. By this time it's good to take notes and realize he had already had 2 surgeries and was ranked outside the top 10.

Then after undergoing a third surgery and being ranked outside the top 25, he pushed Ferrer to 5 sets on clay at Roland Garros, which is his best surface and Hewitt's worst.

He also took a set at the 2012 US Open when Hewitt was ranked outside the top 100.

All of this says to me without coming close to leading the H2H that Hewitt is far and away a better player than Ferrer. It isn't even close dude. Peak for peak and Hewitt would definitely lead the H2H. He still gave him a hard time despite being injured 24/7 LOL.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

The H2H with Del Potro should mean that he wouldn't be a problem for him either, i.e; Hewitt >> Del Potro.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Hewitt never won 2 sets in 15 slam matches against top10 Big3.



Most dangerous player ever.

This will make me laugh for days.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Hewitt never won 2 sets in 15 slam matches against top10 Big3.



Most dangerous player ever.

Sorry @Sabratha , you're way cooler than abmk or kingroger, but this will make me laugh for days.

He isn't the most dangerous player ever, but he is better than is projected. I'm a Hewitt fan first and foremost, not a Fed fan. That is why I only jump in when they are disparaged in some way.

He was a good player during his best years. I don't think a lot of players who were top 10 when he was would have enjoyed facing him.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

@Sabratha

Hewitt is the only player 5'10 or shorter to have reached more than 1 slam final in the last 35 years.

Here's a big limit he had, that would have been exposed in the Big3 era.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

@Sabratha

Hewitt is the only player 5'10 or shorter to have reached more than 1 slam final in the last 35 years.

Here's a big limit he had, that would have been exposed in the Big3 era.

He was listed at 5'11" for years. He is also the same height as Andre Agassi who won 8 majors, some of them came this century. I've also personally met him and I stand at 6 foot. He was not a great deal shorter than I am.

I don't think it'd be a limit like it was for Ferrer for instance. His first serve while erratic was actually quite good when he was on.

 

[NatF]

Don't think Lew has watched anything of Hewitt at his best...

 

[Deleted member 757377]

He was listed at 5'11" for years. He is also the same height as Andre Agassi who won 8 majors, some of them came this century. I've also personally met him and I stand at 6 foot. He was not a great deal shorter than I am.

I don't think it'd be a limit like it was for Ferrer for instance. His first serve while erratic was actually quite good when he was on.

ATP says 5'10.

In pics he is shorter than Agassi and Nalbandian (5'11).

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Don't think Lew has watched anything of Hewitt at his best...

LOL I imagine you guys in a process.

''Your honor, no one knows what I know. I win.''

 

[Druss]

Don't think Lew has watched anything of Hewitt at his best...

Anyone who talks about 2012 Hewitt as being the same as 2001-05 knows squat. 2017 Djokovic was closer to his 2015 version than what 2012 Hewitt was to 2005. This person goes on about stats on Hewitt when he was a ghost of his former self, at the same time is quick to discount Djokovic in 2007-09 because he was too young or 2017 because he was whatever...or discounts Nadal in 2005-07 because he was a ‘baby’. Double standards and cherry-picking at its finest.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Anyone who talks about 2012 Hewitt as being the same as 2001-05 knows squat. 2017 Djokovic was closer to his 2015 version than what 2012 Hewitt was to 2005. This person goes on about stats on Hewitt when he was a ghost of his former self, at the same time is quick to discount Djokovic in 2007-09 because he was too young or 2017 because he was whatever...or discounts Nadal in 2005-07 because he was a ‘baby’. Double standards and cherry-picking at its finest.

Calling tough for the Big3 a player who is 0-15 in slams is pure fantasy.

I'm not saying he was at peak, but he was in his 20s and he couldn't even reach the 5th set in 15 matches.

Plus he had an objective limit in height.

His 2 slam titles in the worst era ever (even worse than 2004-06) mean nothing.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Calling tough for the Big3 a player who is 0-15 in slams is pure fantasy.

With the way Hewitt moved he'd create problems for a lot of people. Stats don't back this up, the eye test does. And as I've said before. Even people of your fan base agree with some points I make about Hewitt. Of course Djokovic is a million miles better but you don't need to compare him to anybody or anything to appreciate how good Lleyton was as a player.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

ATP says 5'10.

In pics he is shorter than Agassi and Nalbandian (5'11).

He isn't shorter than Agassi man. Only difference is Agassi was heavier. Nalbandian I have no idea about. I'd bet he is taller than 5'11" anyway.