Duel Match Stats/Reports - Hewitt vs Henman & Hewitt vs Kuerten, Indian Wells finals, 2002 & 2003


Hall of Fame
Lleyton Hewitt beat Tim Henman 6-1, 6-2 in the Indian Wells final, 2002 on hard court

This was the first of Hewitt’s 2 Masters series titles. He was seeded 1, Henman 9th

Hewitt won 61 points, Henman 39

Henman serve-volleyed about half the time off first serves

Serve Stats
- 1st serve percentage (25/46) 54%
- 1st serve points won (18/25) 72%
- 2nd serve points won (9/21) 43%
- Aces 1
- Double Faults 5
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (6/46) 13%

- 1st serve percentage (30/54) 56%
- 1st serve points won (11/30) 37%
- 2nd serve points won (9/24) 38%
- Aces 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (7/54) 13%

Serve Pattern
Hewitt served...
- to FH 56%
- to BH 39%
- to Body 5%

Henman served...
- to FH 30%
- to BH 65%
- to Body 6%

Return Stats
Hewitt made...
- 47 (16 FH, 31 BH), including 2 runround FHs
- 1 Winner (1 BH)
- 6 Errors, comprising...
- 1 Unforced (1 FH)
- 5 Forced (1 FH, 4 BH)
- Return Rate (47/54) 87%

Henman made...
- 35 (18 FH, 17 BH), including 4 return-approaches
- 5 Errors, all unforced...
- 5 Unforced (4 FH, 1 BH)
- Return Rate (35/41) 85%

Break Points
Hewitt 7/14 (8 games)
Henman 2/4 (4 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding aces)
Hewitt 13 (6 FH, 4 BH, 1 FHV, 2 OH)
Henman 6 (1 BH, 2 FHV, 3 BHV)

Hewitt's FHs - 3 cc passes, 2 dtl (1 pass), 1 inside-in
- BHs (all passes) - 3 cc (1 return), 1 dtl

- the FHV was a swinging dtl shot and 1 OH was on the bounce

Henman had 2 from serve-volley points (2 BHV), both first volleys

- 2 from return-approach points (1 FHV, 1 BHV)... the FHV was a re-approach after being forced back

- BH - 1 cc pass

Errors (excluding returns and serves)
Hewitt 21
- 10 Unforced (5 FH, 3 BH, 1 FHV, 1 OH)
- 11 Forced (4 FH, 7 BH)... with 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 47

Henman 42
- 31 Unforced (15 FH, 10 BH, 3 FHV, 3 BHV)
- 11 Forced (5 FH, 3 BH, 2 FHV, 1 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 45.5

(Note 1: all half-volleys refer to such shots played at net. Half -volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke counts)

(Note 2: the Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is an indicator of how aggressive the average UE was. The numbers presented are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Hewitt was 8/11 (73%) at net

Henman was...
- 18/36 (50%) at net, including...
- 5/15 (33%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves
- 4/4 (100%) return-approaching
- 0/1 retreated

Match Report
Baseline mismatch and some nifty returning and passing from Hewitt makes for a one-sided thrashing on a slow court

Henman starts the match looking to play from the baseline. He’s no match for Hewitt there and turns to serve-volleying more frequently - though shy of constantly. Doesn’t stack up too well with against Hewitt’s return and follow-up passing then either, though its better than the alternative

Ground UEs - Hewitt 8, Henman 31, broken up as…
- Henman FH 15
- Henman BH 10
- Hewitt FH 5
- Hewitt BH 3

… amidst normal, firm hitting, with Henman regularly slicing and push-slicing BHs. There’s nothing off about Henman’s look, despite the terrible results. Is unrushed, comfortable, even graceful in trading groundies. Just happens to miss them regularly - and not in long rallies either

Rallying dynamics are neutral (as opposed to one player leading, the other reacting). Hewitt does not pressure, let alone beat down Henman. Hewitt does not gradually take control and push Henman on the defensive. Henman looks as comfy as Hewitt rallying. In short, just normal rallies - 2 guys trading groundstrokes, until one misses. Its usually the same player who does

Hewitt goes with big FH almost only after drawing a weak return, which doesn’t happen often. . Usually follows the big third ball FH to net, with little chance of Henman making a pass. That aside neutrally neutral is the call of the day - results of which are summed up in UE count and breakdown

Just 2 ground-to-ground winners in the match, both of them Hewitt FHs and he’s 8/11 rallying to net

Henman’s serve rarely draws a weak return. It isn’t a strong serve and Hewitt returns firmly without strain. ‘Firmly’, not ‘hard’. If anything, Henman tries more to attack from the back, with a few back-away FHs in both directions. His shots aren’t too strong, the court is slow, Hewitt is very quick… it doesn’t come to much

Unlike Hewitt, Henman does look for approaches from the back. He’s 9/17 rallying forward. And he does serve-volley occasionally, sometimes in bursts. Always off first serves. Does so 15/32 times - and wins just 5 of those. Only type of net play that proves a hit is chip-charge returning, where Henman’s a perfect 4/4

In all 18/36 at net for Henman

When serve-volleying, he’s met by firm returns, around net high (usually slightly lower) and faced with volleys that aren’t much trouble to put in play but would be difficult to puaway. He’s not rushed, but has no excess time to play the first volley. In general, this quality of returning is good to get breaks against serve-volleying sooner or later, even with high lot of freebies

Here, there aren’t many freebies (both players have just 13% unreturned rates), Henman misses a good few and Hewitt’s onto what he doesn’t in a flash. Hewitt’s counter serve-volley returning is highlight of the match. Not slapping winners (he has just 1) or delivering shoe music, but as described above. You could say its clinical counter serve-volleying returning - a rare thing, as serve-volley whether successful or not tends to at least strain the returner. Hewitt returns just as naturally as he does when Henman’s staying back, and why wouldn’t he with such effective, unstrained returns?

What else? 5 double faults from Hewitt from just 21 second serves. Doesn’t go for too much on them either, despite the lingering possibility of being chip-charged. Sans the doubles and Henman’s chip-charges, he wins 9/12 second serve points - just more of the same of what happens in baseline rallies

That’s about it. Ground game mismatch with large consistency gap - solid Hewitt, but more discredit to Henman for poorness for that outcome. Henman not finding much compensation at net - he’s not too good there (6 UEs from just 36 approaches), but more credit to Hewitt’s passing for that

Hewitt has 6 passing winners to Henman’s 5 volleying ones

Match Progression
Henman’s broken in a deuce game to start, with all 3 points he wins being unreturned serves. The 5 he loses are baseline errors - 4 regulation UEs, 1 an FE to a wide return

Hewitt responds by being broken to love - double fault to start, double fault to finish, and 2 net points from Henman in between

Doesn’t look like a bad match so far

Hewitt reels off next 6 games. Wonderful, running BH pass winner by Hewitt in game where he breaks a second time, a low-ish return that draws a makeably difficult volley error to seal the third and his only return-pass winner in the last one of the set. He’s got Henman rattled enough at net that after making a first half-volley, Henman retreats to baseline, having a good idea that the follow-up pass is likely to be a good one despite Hewitt having to run it down (doesn’t help, Hewitt’s rejoinder forces an error anyway)

Second set also doesn’t look like a thrashing on the cards to start. 3 tough holds to start - Hewitt a break point each in 10 and 12 point games, Henman 1 in an 8 pointer

Cute point to end game 3, as Henman’s BH dtl is going well wide when its deflected back in court by hitting the net post at just the right angle. Hewitt adjusts and dispatches the surprise FH dtl for a winner

Then the two trade breaks - Hewitt wrapping up with consecutive cc passing winners (1 of each wing), Henman responding by finishing with a drop FHV winner from a chip-charge point, where he’d been forced slightly behind service line but returns to position. That makes it 3-2 and still on serve

Hewitt wins the last 3 games (2 breaks), with Henman missing net high, regulation volleys. FH dtl passing winner closes out the match

Summing up, as one sided as the scoreline looks. From the back, Henman’s no match for Hewitt of consistency, though he looks just as comfortable in playing groundstrokes. Rallies stay neutral - neither player stepping up to attack or falling back to defend - but Henman making the error to end them stays constant, with FH particularly faltering

Henman serve-volleys some and otherwise comes to net. He’s met by firm returns slightly under the net that would require at least 2 volleys to putaway, with the first one not easy to be too aggressive with. Misses good lot of those, and Hewitt’s onto what he doesn’t in a flash to hit precise wide winning passes

Credit Hewitt for good passing, including the return, for clipping Henman’s net wings, though Henman doesn’t volley well and discredit to Henman for all the ground errors, though Hewitt’s solid from the back

Stats for Hewitt's semi-final with Pete Sampras - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ls-semi-final-2001-2002.688154/#post-15902110


Bionic Poster
Hewitt always had Henman's number. Their H2H is 9-1 to Hewitt. Henman's sole victory against him came on hardcourt at 2006 Miami. He could never beat him on grass (lost to him 3 times at Queen's including in back to back finals 2001-2 and in their only meeting at Wimbledon in the semis of 2002 when Hewitt went on to win the title).


Hall of Fame
Hewitt beat Gustavo Kuerten 6-1, 6-1 in the Indian Wells final, 2003 on hard court

Hewitt was seeded 1, Kuerten was unseeded. This was the second and last of Hewitt’s 2 Masters series titles and Kuerten’s last final at the same level

Hewitt won 57 points, Kuerten 33

Serve Stats
- 1st serve percentage (22/40) 55%
- 1st serve points won (19/22) 86%
- 2nd serve points won (11/18) 61%
- Aces 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (10/40) 25%

- 1st serve percentage (27/50) 54%
- 1st serve points won (15/27) 56%
- 2nd serve points won (8/23) 35%
- Aces 2
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (6/50) 12%

Serve Pattern
Hewitt served...
- to FH 53%
- to BH 45%
- to Body 3%

Kuerten served...
- to FH 16%
- to BH 82%
- to Body 2%

Return Stats
Hewitt made...
- 43 (14 FH, 29 BH), including 7 runround FHs
- 2 Winners (1 FH, 1 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 4 Errors, comprising...
- 1 Unforced (1 FH), a runaround FH
- 3 Forced (3 BH)
- Return Rate (43/49) 88%

Kuerten made...
- 30 (18 FH, 12 BH), including 2 runround FHs
- 1 Winner (1 BH)
- 7 Errors, comprising...
- 4 Unforced (2 FH, 2 BH)
- 3 Forced (1 FH, 2 BH)
- Return Rate (30/40) 75%

Break Points
Hewitt 5/13 (6 games)
Kuerten 0/2 (1 game)

Winners (including returns, excluding aces)
Hewitt 14 (8 FH, 3 BH, 2 FHV, 1 FH1/2V)
Kuerten 8 (2 FH, 4 BH, 1 FHV, 1 OH)

Hewitt's FHs - 1 cc, 2 dtl/inside-out (1 runaround return), 3 inside-out, 1 inside-in, 1 longline at net
- BHs - 1 cc pass, 1 dtl, 1 inside-out return

- 2 from serve-volley points (1 FHV, 1 FH1/2V), both first 'volleys'

- 1 other FHV can reasonably be called an OH

Kuerten's FHs - 2 inside-out
- BHs - 3 dtl (1 return), 1 inside-out

- the OH was on the bounce

Errors (excluding returns and serves)
Hewitt 19
- 13 Unforced (7 FH, 6 BH)
- 6 Forced (2 FH, 4 BH)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 47.7

Kuerten 32
- 28 Unforced (11 FH, 16 BH, 1 BHV)
- 4 Forced (3 BH, 1 BHV)... with 1 BH at net (pass attempt)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 48.9

(Note 1: all half-volleys refer to such shots played at net. Half -volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke counts)

(Note 2: the Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is an indicator of how aggressive the average UE was. The numbers presented are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Hewitt was...
- 8/8 (100%) at net, including...
- 3/3 (100%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves

Kuerten was 4/8 (50%) at net

Match Report
Another thrashing. This time more credit to Hewitt, less discredit to his opponent. Court is still slow

Compared to previous year, Hewitt’s serve is stronger. And he uses it smartly to exploit Guga’s backward return position, serve-volleying 3 times, winning all 3 points. 2 with winners, including a particularly difficult FH1/2V. Doesn’t always serve his strongest, but sends the three-quarter paced serves wider to drag Guga off court

3 aces, no doubles this year

Returns just as surely and easily. Some big serves by Guga, and Hewitt’s usually up to stretching out and get the ball back. Anything in his range, swings through easy as you like

And then they rally from the back. BH-BH makes up the bulk stock one, and Hewitt’s firm of shot and a lot steadier

Ground UEs -
- Guga BH 16
- Guga FH 11
- Hewitt FH 7
- Hewitt BH 6

… and UE breakdown -
- Neutral - Hewitt 7, Guga 12
- Attacking - Hewitt 2, Guga 7
- Winner Attempts - Hewitt 4, Guga 9

Never the most patient of players, Guga stays neutral for just so long. Amidst routine BH-BH exchanges, he goes a little wider bit by bit. Or goes sharply wide - either out of the blue or as extension of the bit by bit to the point of being attacking. Or goes dtl for the attempted point finisher

Whatever he does, Hewitt sticks his firm, steady stock cc reply - and Guga ends up missing every kind of BH he tries

Couple of dtl winners for Guga (Hewitt’s solitary one is an up court almost putaway ball), forces a couple running FH errors and draws other defensive shots with BH dtl. He always does dominate highlights reel - but he comes off a distant second in the contest of BHs with all the errors

The rallies that stay neutral tend to go on for awhile. More so than pervious year. And Hewitt’s hitting looks a little sturdier. Against Henman, he’d dealt with push-slices, whereas here, Guga uses top spin, which probably accounts for it more accurately than any significant change in Hewitt’s ability

On FH side of things, rallies tend not to stay cc as long, as is the nature of FHs. Good FH day for Hewitt with sizable 8 winners (Guga has that many total) and in all directions. He likes to back away and attack inside-in or inside-out. He’s a bit prone to error on inside-in. Whatever he does, its better than Guga, who has just 2 winners

Guga is not as aggressive off the FH as the BH. No telling what you’ll get from him on any given day - he’s apt to be overly aggressive of both wings in general. Not much damage done by FH, or attempted (also, it makes up minority of play)

Hewitt’s quick as ever. A particularly pleasing part of his movement is the one-motion way he changes direction on the run

Gist - Hewitt impressive in his BH steadiness, Guga looser on that front, more adventurous with a few little gems thrown in and a lot more errors trying

Hewitt impressive with his FH too, but on this side, it’s the attacking side that shines. It flows out of sound base. He’s not overly on look out for chances to finish points with FH, but not slow to take them as they come up

Guga less adventurous of FH, fewer gems, fewer errors - and still a distant second best

And movement. Hewitt’s still quick. Guga’s movement is distinctly on slow side

Match Progression
Guga wins game 4, a hold to love - 3 quick winners (third ball FH inside-out and BH dtl, and a drop FHV), followed by a throwaway BH dtl winner attempt by Hewitt

Hewitt wins everything else in the first set, with Guga’s BH giving out most of the time as described earlier. Both breaks are tough ones (both are 10 point games) and Guga’s got 2 break points in game 3. Misses a wide, but very makeable FH return that’s been marked a UE and Hewitt wallops a BH dtl winner set up by a good serve

Few good shots and points. Guga with a wonderful 1-2 - wide FH cc to open the court + BH inside-out winner into it. Hewitt coming out with a FH dtl/inside-out winner that comes a little out of the blue as he’d been playing cc, cc, cc at the time. A Hewitt runaround FH dtl/inside-out winner, where he gets well across to make the shot. And Hewitt with a first ‘volley’ FH1/2V winner serve-volleying

In second set Guga wins game 3, saving a break point along the way with a wide BH cc along the way, and Hewitt wins everything else. Easier set for Hewitt. There are 42 points in it, as opposed to 48 in the first one

Hewitt wins his last 10 service points, the first 6 having been split 3-3. Love hold for him with 4 winners (including an ace). The 3 breaks all come to 30

Not quite as many bright points as first set. A Guga drop shot is run down, leaving him nose-to-nose let alone net-to-net with Hewitt with a low ball. Almost no choice but to lob and it goes out. A BH dtl return winners against first serve by Guga, at least, hasn’t been going for aggressive returns in the match. A well constructed point by Hewitt aiming FH inside-outs to pressure and pin Guga’s position, before finishing with FH inside-in winner. And in the last game, a FH inside-out winner by Hewitt as he sweeps into position to make the shot

Summing up, good showing from Hewitt - steady BH and attackingly potent FH coming out of solid base. Uses the serve well to exploit his opponents back-ward position and returns with ease

With a scoreline like 1 & 1, its almost always the case the losers showing contributes to the result more than the winners, and this is no exception. Kuerten far too free with the errors. Way he plays, I imagine it happened not infrequently. The opposite side of the coin of his wonder shot-making showings that tend to get forgotten and overlooked. Tosses in the occasional dashing gem of a shot or combination of shots. If your going to go down 1 & 1, might as well give the crowd a moment or 2 to ‘wow’ than not, and he does that
Last edited:

80s New Wave

Always seemed a little strange that hewitts masters titles are at super slow Indian wells. He was good at playing in adverse conditions though and IW can be really windy.

Moose Malloy

FYI, Kuerten had to finish his semi with Schuettler earlier in the day(played 2 full sets) and then had to play the final 2 hours later.