Hewitt was done in the GS tournaments after the 2005 US Open.
The Australian Open, but I hope he also does excellent at the US Open starting this season.
No I've always seen it. Been having him as the top contender all year long.
I think carlos can win 4-5 RG, what I was saying that both will not do it, one will cut down the other, I don't see a time where around same age atg won 5-5 at a slam.
I think Sinner would find it difficult to not drop a set. I would probably favour him though.
Well these sycophantic umpires and officials seemed to think they should be rigging things for Sinner and Rune none to happy about:
I think you're undervaluing Hewitt quite a lot.
At the 1989 U.S. Open, Jimmy Connors, 5 days shy of turning 37, trounced 24-year old Stefan Edberg 6-2, 6-3, 6-1. I turned that up after 2 minutes of research. I'm sure I could find similar examples examining the careers of other ATGs. By the way, Connors and Edberg went 6-6 and all but one of their matches was played after Connors turned 32 with the other one being Connors 2 weeks shy of 32.
Wow!! That's a shocker! 1989 was a solid year for Edberg, he made two finals that year. I am very surprised that he lost to Connors so easily.
The reason that Djokovic won those slams is because of how bad the field is today.
See if you are talking about RG, I disagree completely with you on that part. Sinner is nothing at RG, like I said he will be very lucky to win 1. So Sinner would not be what prevents Alcarez from winning 4-5 RG. Whether he is good enough or durable enough (or the field stops sucking so much to prevent it) is the only question.
Federer's celebration after overcoming his biggest obstacle to his first title at Flushing Meadows said it all.
Hewitt was done in the GS tournaments after the 2005 US Open.
He was only 24 years old.
He was never again a contender in this type of tournament, apart from a very good participation in Wimbledon 2009, when he lost in 5 sets to the eventual finalist, Andy Roddick.
Agassi won no slams in 2004 because the competition was just stronger. Winning pct isn't super important anyway.
It's a rare occurrence though, it has to be said. And Connors still won no slams after age 31.
First of all, of course, winning percentage is important. It's one of the most important stats there is because it tells you, you know, how much you win! The debate is about how strong the competition is. It's a circular argument if you say Agassi didn't perform as well due to strong competition because then you are assuming what you are trying to prove. Second, it's funny how you contradict yourself here because Connors did have strong competition after he turned 31 with the rise and peak of Lendl, Wilander, Becker, and Edberg, who make the competition in 2004 look laughable. Somehow old Agassi's lack of slams can be excused for tough competition but Connors shouldn't be despite having much tougher competition?
Where did I imply that? I only spoke in relation to Djokovic.
Exactly. I'd say it was more a terrible match for Edberg more than anything else and when you play badly you can lose to anyone, irrespective of age.
I don't think it's fair to say that Agassi was way below Djokovic level-wise when the latter didn't face anyone like Fed in his mid 30's.
Agreed. On hard courts. Agassi barely played, and the rare times he did was completely ineffective on both grass and clay in 2004-2006 (probably due to his compromised movement given the nature of his injuries and back problems by that point), so safe to say Djokovic is clearly ahead overall taking into account all surfaces. However I agree hard courts, level wise, there wouldn't be much in it between them, ignoring results which are largely dictated by their vastly different competition.
2004 agassi blows away 2023 djokovic on HC, let alone 2024 djoko at AO who got stomped by Sinner.
It’s April. We’ve had one major — the AO.
Let’s see what it looks like after the USO.
Ridiculous statement. Djokovic lost 3 times on hard court in all of 2023 and that was to Sinner twice and Medvedev once. Agassi lost on hard court 10 times in 2004 to the likes of #21 Mardy Fish, #21 Augustin Calleri, #91 Tommy Haas, #61 Jurgen Melzer, #124 Gilles Muller, and #42 Thomas Johansson, but he blows away Djokovic? That's a laughable claim.
Nah, Alcaraz is already a better player than Roddick and Hewitt who are only a bit better than Medvedev. That Safin only qualifies when "playing well" is a big caveat.
That statement is interesting only in that Alcaraz hasn't even yet proven he is that much better than Medvedev (he is definitely better, but of yet not that much better, although in all likelihood he will end up being). So even your judgement that has Roddick and Hewitt a bit better than Medvedev, would not put Alcarez as significantly better than Hewitt and Roddick.
You're losing credibility by the second. Raonic, Dimitrov, Nishikori, Medvedev, Zverev, and Tsitsipas, who have 5 YEC, an Olympic Gold, and 15 Masters titles between them have no skill compared to Fish, Haas, Johansson, Calleri (never broke the top 15), and Mueller (never broke the top 20), who have zero YEC and 2 Masters titles between them? Just no. Calleri and Mueller barely beat more players than they lost to over their entire careers, but they are supposed to be strong opponents while Raonic, Dimitrov, Nishikori, Medvedev, Zverev, and Tsitsipas are all trash? Just stop.
First of all, the Alcaraz comparison is not only regarding hard courts and I am not isolating performances to slams. That is something you just artificially imposed, so your argument of wanting to look at just some small subset of play is moot. The comparison is about these 4 players. I just explained why Alcaraz is a better player than Roddick and Hewitt. Alcaraz is 4-2 against Medvedev with one of those losses being 3 years ago before Alcaraz hit his prime. Alcaraz, by the way, is 3-1 against Medvedev on hard courts.
lol @ Alcaraz having better movement than Hewitt. hewitt's clearly more sure footed and is so clearly better on the run. Alcaraz flashy gets/runs doesn't mean he's the better mover.
You just made my case for me. 2023 Djokovic didn't lose to any of the top-rung players you mentioned except for Medvedev in one match and went 2-1 against him in 2023. 2004 Agassi lost to all of those lower-rung players. Hence 2023 Djokovic > 2004 Agassi.
Nah, Alcaraz is faster and his flashy gets indeed shows he is better on the run than Hewitt.
Alcaraz is 2-0 in slam finals. Hewitt was 2-2. Roddick was 1-4. In Masters finals, Alcaraz is 5-1. Hewitt was 2-5. Roddick was 5-4. So far, it's clear that Alcaraz is the better big-match player.
Sinner will crush Alcaraz in Madrid.
He’s playing
