D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Not for me. I think Cash was a good player on grass but Hewitt was better. Cash to me is like Rafter on grass...
Andy Murray is much better than Courier and Gustavo Kuerten he is tied with Agassi
- Thread starter 1982mathew
- Start date
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Actually Laver is the first to win the career Slam in the Open Era.
And that's the problem, right? The players we're ranking above Hewitt had 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. grass court Majors where they were in form and had solid results. It's tough to rank Hewitt over someone who had more sustained success at grass Majors.
Looking at a few other 1 time winners at Wimbledon:
Krajicek (beat peak Sampras): 74%
Stich (beat peak Edberg and Becker): 76%
Hewitt (beat Henman): 72%
That's the problem for Hewitt. He had a relatively easy path to his 1 Wimbledon title, and he has a lower winning percentage at Wimbledon than almost any other Wimbledon winner.
Krajicek (beat peak Sampras): 74%
Stich (beat peak Edberg and Becker): 76%
Hewitt (beat Henman): 72%
That's the problem for Hewitt. He had a relatively easy path to his 1 Wimbledon title, and he has a lower winning percentage at Wimbledon than almost any other Wimbledon winner.
RenaRafa
New User
Lendl just wasnt a natural grass player. No matter how good a player he was or how hard he worked, or how badly he wanted it, he just wasnt as suitable to the surface. The best grass tennis he ever played was Eastbourne 1990, and he might have won Wimbledon in some years with that form.
That in his best ever shot at the title he got drubbed by Cash of all people really shows he is not even the caliber of guys like Hewitt or Roddick on grass, I agree.
RenaRafa
New User
Krajicek is a strange case for me. His Wimbledon record before 96 was so poor he was dropped to being an unseeded player despite being ranked 13th, then he wins the title and is the only one to dethrone prime Sampras there. I guess his results after 96 got more consistent there even though he never got back to a final.
I think if Krajicek had reached the final in 2002, which it looked like he would when he got to the quarters with the draw left, Hewitt would have beaten him in the final and proved himself the better grass courter for good. We will never know though.
macattack
Professional
Laver completed his first in '62 at the U.S. Open so that's what I was going on. But you're correct. I forgot his second career slam came in '69, the year after the Open Era started. How did I forget the year he completed his second calendar year grand slam! Good catch, man.
Purplemonster
Hall of Fame
Were you drunk at the time you wrote this fantasy ?
Tardigrade
Banned
''I wouldn't say Kuerten was that much better on clay than Hewitt was on grass in his prime.''
bwahahahahaa. I'm beginning to believe this place shouldn't even exist anymore. Laughable. Kuerten is the third best clay courter ever after Nadal and Borg. Hewitt managed to eek out a Wimbledon playing Nalbandian of all people.
bwahahahahaa. I'm beginning to believe this place shouldn't even exist anymore. Laughable. Kuerten is the third best clay courter ever after Nadal and Borg. Hewitt managed to eek out a Wimbledon playing Nalbandian of all people.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Beat Sampras and Federer on grass though, herp derp. Kuerten also lost to Hewitt of all people on clay.
He has 3 FO titles without an ATG clay-courter standing in his way. You're absolutely delusional if you think he "eeks" out more than 1 title with prime Rafa around.
You shouldn't be commenting on people's posts/threads after your vomit provoking one the other day, Napolean.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
PS - Murray is a better player than Safin.
It is a huge excuse. But now way can he be close to Agassi with their respective resumes. At the end of the day you can only get judged on achievements. I'm sure Andy would have been a four time oz open champ had he gotten the guys Andre had against him in the finals. But he is so much better than Courier and Guga. Courier wilted and Guga didn't do much outside clay. Murray beats everyone he is supposed to and in tennis this is massive. These are all circular arguments in the end but Murray's percentages count for a great deal.
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
I thought we had already established that Andy Murray is GOAT.
Until next time.
Tardigrade
Banned
Would like to add that Hewitt never beat a prime Federer or Sampras on grass. May as well say Krajicek on grass is better than Kuerten on clay.
Guga was the great clay courter in his era. Straight setted Federer at FO 04. Which all time greats did Hewitt beat at Wimbledon? I can't think of many. Is Nalbandian an all time great on grass? Is Henman? At least Kuerten beat Bruguera (the best FO player of the 90's) for his first FO title.
You are one thick dipsh!t.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Both were ranked above him at the time so clearly they were closer to their prime than Hewitt was to his.
He beat Sampras as a baby and Federer after he had about a zillion surgeries.
I said on grass in general, moron. Hewitt's beaten better players (overall) on grass than Kuerten has on clay - and if Federer and Bruguera are the only "great" clay-courters you can cite (they hold the same amount of French Opens as Kuerten combined, LMAO) than your competition argument falls flat.****igrade said:
I mean you'd have to be one of the biggest idiots on this site to even suggest beating Fed on clay is the same as beating him on grass. LOLworthy stuff from T@rdboy as usual.
Go back to struggling against 3.5 players.****igrade said:
Tardigrade
Banned
Yep, Hewitt is an all time great. He might even be better on clay than Kuerten full stop.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
I never said that and I don't even consider Kuerten an ATG. Stop getting your panties in a twist because someone on the internet disagrees with you.
Krajicek had meniscus surgery in late 2000 or early 2001 and missed all of 2001 and the first half of 2002. He came into Wimbledon 2002 having played 1 match at a warm-up tournament and was exhausted after winning 5 setters over Blake (11-9 in the fifth) and Philippoussis (4 tiebreak sets). He still acquitted himself well in the QF against Malisse before running out of gas and losing 9-7 in the fifth. If he had even just a little more prep before Wimbledon 2002, I think he takes the title.
Tardigrade
Banned
But Hewitt beat an an aging Sampras and GOAT Nalbandian. Very impressive. Not to mention winning a grand total of 6 games against Federer at US Open 04. Mere mortals wouldn't have even won a game! The only reason he lost to Karlovic at W03 was because he couldn't be bothered.
Imo Hewitt was better than Kuerten on every surface. Don't like my opinion, I suggest you ignore me.
Tardigrade
Banned
Krajicek might have been the only player to have beaten prime Sampras at Wimbledon, but Hewitt was able to beat a prime Henman and Nalbandian, as well as score victories over old Sampras & Federer at Queens and Halle!!
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Hewitt is older than Federer.Krajicek might have been the only player to have beaten prime Sampras at Wimbledon, but Hewitt was able to beat a prime Henman and Nalbandian, as well as score victories over old Sampras & Federer at Queens and Halle!!
Tardigrade
Banned
Hewitt is older than Federer.
Exactly, Hewitt has got to be a grass court legend when he's beaten an old Sampras and an out of prime Federer. Even though he never beat any of them at Wimbledon. Fortunately for Hewitt, he was able to get through Wimbledon GOAT Nalbandian and Henman.
Meanwhile, Kuerten only beating Muster, Kafelnikov and Burguera at FO 97 counts for little.
He might not have been the most natural grass player, but he still made WImbledon finals in 1986 and 1987 and SF from 1988-1990. During those years, he beat Edberg and took Becker to 5 sets in addition to the Eastbourne title you mentioned. His only losses were against Becker, Edberg, and Cash. I wouldn't minimize that Cash loss. That year, Pat lost to Edberg in 5 sets in the Australian Open (grass) final, beat Edberg at Queen's Club, and then of course won Wimbledon. He was an excellent player on grass in 1987, and he probably would have won the 1988 Australian Open as well if it were still held on grass (as it was, he lost 8-6 in the fifth set in the final to Wilander).
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
Why is it an excuse for why he fails to bring his best in slam finals time and time again? Plenty of other people have brought their best in slam finals despite playing ATG, most of them not even as good as Murray.
"So much better than Courier"...yeah ok, you know what you're talking about...
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
he would not be beating hewitt, especially not on slow grass. Not a chance.
prostaff1
Rookie
Hewitt has ONE GS title on grass and three Queen's titles. Impressive, no doubt.
Guga has THREE GS titles on clay and 4 Masters on clay, (back when it was still 3 of 5 sets btw).
3<1 and 4<3. You lose on every front if you pick Hewitt better on grass than Guga on clay. 'DEAL WITH IT.'
Speaks for itself. Anyone who can't see the difference...haha!
And to argue that he would not have beat Prime Nadal...ummm he didn't have to beat prime Nadal. He cannot be penalized for that. Ridiculous argument.
OP- please never post again.
Guga has THREE GS titles on clay and 4 Masters on clay, (back when it was still 3 of 5 sets btw).
3<1 and 4<3. You lose on every front if you pick Hewitt better on grass than Guga on clay. 'DEAL WITH IT.'
Speaks for itself. Anyone who can't see the difference...haha!
And to argue that he would not have beat Prime Nadal...ummm he didn't have to beat prime Nadal. He cannot be penalized for that. Ridiculous argument.
OP- please never post again.
2002 conditions help Hewitt, but did he ever beat a big server at Wimbledon, aside from half-retired Goran? Losses to Becker, Karlovic, Federer (*4), Roddick, Soderling, Tsonga, etc. (obviously not all in his prime). Who was the best server he beat? Lopez?
RenaRafa
New User
I am not mimimizing Cash but I dont see peak Roddick or peak Hewitt ever in a million years going down that easily to Cash in a Wimbledon final, even if they lost. Just wouldnt ever happen. Sorry but I just dont see any reason to believe Lendl is a better grass courter than Hewitt or even Roddick, either through their results or watching all 3 play on grass many times. You mention Lendl going deep at Wimbledon a few times but Roddick and Hewitt have made alot of semis and quarters, and in Roddick's case finals (Hewitt not only since he lost to Fed near the final a couple times) too, so that doesnt put Lendl ahead.
Of course Lendl is the much greater player overall but he is still weaker on grass. It is like everyone knows Seles is a greater player than Novotna, but Novotna is still clearly and hands down a better grass player. Bartoli might be a greater grass player than Henin, even though on surfaces other than grass she can barely get a few games off Henin. Tomas Muster is a far better clay court player than Sampras, it doesnt matter that Sampras is eons a better player overall, he is still well behind Muster on clay. Justine Henin is ahead of Serena on clay even though she is nowhere near Serena in the female GOAT discussion. Clijsters is far behind Henin as a player overall but above her on hard courts, particularly medium to fast U.S Open style decoturf courts. As I mentioned in another thread Venus is clearly >>> Evert on grass, despite that Evert is the much greater and more accomplished player overall. You seem unable to discern from a players overall greatness and their rank/ability on a specific surface.
Hewitt won 1 Wimbledon, made 1 other SF, and made 3 other QFs. His Wimbledon record was 41-16: 72% winning percentage.
Lendl made 2 Wimbledon finals and 5 other Wimbledon SFs. His Wimbledon record was 48-14: 77% winning percentage.
I would also say that Lendl's win against Edberg at Wimbledon was better than any win at Wimbledon that Lleyton had. It's a close call to be sure, but I'd give Ivan the edge.
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
he was great against big servers in general. Look at his performances against Pete and Goran at Queens when both of them were still in good form and most of the matches you mentioned, in fact all besides Federer, were when Hewitt was not at his best.
I would say that Wimbledon is a whole different beast than the grass court tuneups. That said, the grass court player Hewitt played in 2002 who was most similar to Krajicek was Todd Martin, a poor man's Krajicek, who had dipped to #44 by the time of their Queen's Club matchup but still put up a pretty good fight against Hewitt before going down 7-6, 7-5. At that same tournament, Hewitt had to come back from a set down to beat another serve & volleyer, Henman, 6-4 in the 3rd. Now, of course, Hewitt played much better against Henman at Wimbledon, but that was right after he played a pretty poor match against Schalken.
If Krajicek had been able to return to the tour in early 2002, I think that, given the same draw, he would have made the finals and had a close match against Hewitt in the finals. I'd tab him to win but could certainly see why you'd go the other way.
RenaRafa
New User
Pointing out win percentage is pointless when Hewitt played like 10 years after his prime. That plus nobody will check their win percentage except the biggest diehards or stats nerds. The only people whose win percentage get examined are the GOATS or GOATS on a specific surface, so nobody will look up the win percentages of Hewitt and Lendl on grass.
Novotna's win percentage is only 3% or something better than Seles on grass, so by this logic Novotna is only a slightly better grass courter than Seles. Federer has something like a 9% better win percentage on clay than Kuerten, do you consider Federer the better (or for a good laugh the much better) grass courter?
Edberg was not in his prime in 87. His prime was clearly 88-92, as @helterskelter who is a long time fan(atic) of Edberg would vouch for I am sure. In 86-87 he was still a good player but didnt have the mental toughness to win big matches or big events (the Australian wasnt really a big event yet, but I am sure glad he won it twice when it wasnt anyway to compensate for his bad luck there later). I would agree that was a better win than any Hewitt had there though, but it isnt Hewitt's fault he got a super easy draw which he clearly didnt need in 2002, and the first good player he ran into both 2004 and 2005 was the one guy he couldnt beat- Federer. Lendl sure as heck wouldnt in a million years come close to beating Fed on grass either, I would be amazed if he could even get a set (which atleast Hewitt can do). Had Hewitt played say Agassi at Wimbledon 2002 he likely would have won, and that would be a bigger win than pre prime Edberg, but unfortunately in that respect Agassi chose to take a bad loss early rather than go on to his expected finals or semis loss to Hewitt. Had Hewitt played Roddick at Wimbledons 2004 and 2005 he would have won in 2005, and might have won in 2004 (I would guess Roddick but almost a toss up) and those would be huge wins, probably bigger than pre prime Edberg too, but he didnt get the chance.
Lets say Lendls prime on grass was 2002-2005 instead, we know he wouldnt have done any better than Hewitt in those years apart from 2003 probably, but even in 2003 he falls to any of Federer, Roddick, Phillipoussis, or Agassi later on probably. Best case in 2002 he wins with the same easy draw Hewitt had, but given his blowout loss to Cash in 87 dont be surprised if Henman with his serve and volley game beats him either. 2004 and 2005 obviously best case is he loses to Federer at the same stage Hewitt does, it would be comical to suggest Lendl beating Fed either of those years. Have Hewitt switch places with Lendl and I believe he still wins a Wimbledon, maybe more than one. I could definitely see him beating Cash in 87. It wouldnt be easy at all since Cash was in great form and played tennis worthy of being the Wimbledon Champ, but Hewitt is excellent at countering that kind of player. He was a nightmare match up for Rafter who is probably better than Cash, and extremely similar in playing styles/strengths in every respect. I could see Hewitt having a shot at Wimbledon 89 and 90 if he played Becker in the semis in 89 and 90 (he would have no chance vs final version Becker of 89 and semi version of Edberg in 90, but if he played Becker 89 in the semis instead and Edberg in 90 in the final in good but less ominous form he definitely has a shot).
Last edited:
It might not be fair to compare Hewitt's overall Wimbledon win percentage to some players, but Lendl and Hewitt both played until age 34, so the comparison seems fair.
As for Edberg in 1987...he finished #2 in the world that year, winning the Australian Open (beating Mecir and Cash), Cincinnati (over Becker), Stockholm, and Tokyo (over Lendl). Made finals at Indian Wells (beating Mecir and Wilander but losing to Becker) and Canada (beating Becker but losing to Lendl). Made SF at Wimbledon, the U.S. Open, and WTF (beating Cash, Wilander, and Mecir before losing the rematch with Wilander). 1987 might not have been Edberg at his very peak, buthe was pretty close.
1982mathew
New User
U are mentally ill?
Lob even? MURRAY HAS BEST LOB I EVER SAW TOGETHER WITH HEWITT
Touch Murray
Return ? Yeah Safin no doubt Murray return suck obv
PAss even? lol?
Backhand is very very close.... Both one of best two handers i ever saw, Marat better offensice backhand, Andy more stable and better slice , hard call
U beated me at trolling gratz
RenaRafa
New User
Sorry but this is not a proper way to look at things. Players all have different timelines, primes, development rates. Hewitt was a injury prone grinder, so not surprising his prime ended much sooner than the powerful serve/forehand dominant Lendl. And again I am not saying he is even close to the player Lendl was, just better on grass. Had Navratilova''s career ended with injury at age 25 you would be saying she was a weaker player than Davenport (which in fact if that occured she would be). This by age shtick just doesnt work, as every players career path is different. Ferrer is a better player than Hewitt every year from 2006 onwards, yet is still a far inferior player.
Again I take the perspective Hewitt probably would have beaten people who would constitute wins atleast as good as a still mentally green Edberg in 87- Agassi in 2002, Roddick in 2004 and 2005. Also do you dispute Lendl wouldnt have done any better than Hewitt in any of 2002, 2004, 2005? You cant do better than winning in 2002 and I guess Lendl would be bashed for winning with an easy draw as you and others are doing with Hewitt now even though Hewitt was the dominant #1 and didnt need an easy draw, and no way in hell does Lendl touch Fed if he gets that far in 2004 and 2005. So essentialy your saying Lendl is better on grass since he beat Edberg and that is better than anyone Hewitt beat is like saying it is better to lose in straight sets to Cash than to win the title with an easy draw. Which is bullocks.
TupeloDanger
Professional
You're way too young, stupid, and ignorant to be spouting. The post 2001 world would have been made for Lendl. On medium-slow courts, such as now exist at all Slams, he owned the universe for a decade plus.
If Lendl had entered his prime in 2002, Hewitt wouldn't have been a speck on his radar: he'd be the unquestioned GOAT, sitting with 20+ slams.
RenaRafa
New User
BTW buscemi since I know you are a big womens tennis fan (I recall both of us arguing against Graf when compared to Navratilova and Evert and about the merits of the Seles stabbing against her career even against the majority on another site) you might want to join the talk in my recent thread http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/is-serena-now-the-womens-tennis-goat.569532/. Thanks
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
RenaRafa
New User
Keep in mind you are responding to someone who says Chris Evert is the 2nd best female grass player in history behind only Navratilova. Yes I am serious, above Graf, Venus, Serena, Court, King (who prime Evert couldnt even beat in her 30s, first ever win at age 34 for King), Wills Moody, Lenglen apparently. And I am supposably the troll for not seeing something that nobody on the planet but this individual sees (Chris 2nd best all time on grass), and that includes Chris herself, her mother, her 3 ex husbands, or the people who run the Chris Evert fan club online. Not even those who believe beyond a doubt Chris is the best ever would argue her 2nd best ever to only Martina on grass
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...n-break-navratilovas-wimbledon-record.569476/
I love Chris do death but just LOL to that level of absurd. Also apparently Chris would have beaten Graf in the 87 and 88 Wimbledon finals had Navratilova not stopped her in the semis in this individuals alterior world (never mind that Graf won all 8 matches vs Evert from spring 86 onwards, losing only 1 set, crushed Martina in the last 2 sets of the 88 final after Martina beat Chris in the semis, and all other evidence that exists to the contrary).
Last edited:
I'm not even sure we're really disagreeing. You're saying that Hewitt had a higher peak than Lendl on grass, albeit a much shorter peak due to grinding and injuries. I don't necessarily disagree with that. I'm saying that Lendl had much more consistency and durability on grass to go along with some really nice wins on the surface, such as wins over Edberg and Becker. You're not disagreeing with that. The only question, then, is whether Hewitt's shorter peak trumps Lendl's consistency and durability. I'll take Lendl based on his Wimbledon results from 1984-1990, Australian Open (grass) results from 1983-1987, and Eastbourne win in 1990, with victories over McEnroe and Becker. You'll take Hewitt based on his Wimbledon results in 2002, 2004-2005 (maybe 2006 and 2009) as well as his Queen's Club/Halle titles and wins over guys like Sampras and Federer.
RenaRafa
New User
That is true. In essence we probably arent disagreeing much. I will put it simply, for me it would take alot to overcome a Wimbledon title vs no Wimbledon title. I dont believe Lendl quite does that. Also I do value peak level play and achievements highly, probably more highly than you do. I do factor in consistency and long term performance too. I do recall us disagree which of Capriati or Pierce should rank higher on clay (I had Pierce by a large margin and you had Capriati) which shows the differences in our philosophy. We both agreed Pierce clearly beats Capriati in peak level or big wins on clay, RG performance (considering Pierce's 3 finals there) but you were focusing on things like win percentage, bad losses, etc...I acknowledged those things but for me it wasnt close to enough to make up Pierce's extra RG finals, bigger and greater number of tournament wins on clay, more impressive peak displays.
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
He eeks no FO out with prime Rafa around
NatF
Bionic Poster
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
Maybe 2014. That was Rafas worst FO final. He was sick. Along with Novak.He might beat the 2011, 2013 or 2014 versions
RenaRafa
New User
He might beat the 2011, 2013 or 2014 versions
The 2013 French Rafa? No way, that Rafa was really good, far too good for Fed given the match up. He at best would lose his standard 4 setter to Rafa at RG he did most of their meetings there, and not come very close to winning and have a good shot to win like Djokovic had.
The 2011 French? Maybe, but then again Djokovic did too and likely would have beaten Nadal, more likely than Federer. In fact Fed at RG 2011 was playing as well as any of his prime years there, and still lost to Nadal, so likely loses any year to even this Nadal. Djokovic would have probably won over Nadal, but Fed was the one who prevented it.
The 2014 French Rafa? That is the most likely one. Hopefully he wouldnt be sick the day of the final like Djokovic was.
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
Rafa was spectacular the last 3 sets.
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
Talking about Kuerten not Federer...of course you couldn't pass up a chance to talk crap about Federer.
Similar threads
