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
Hewitt...
- 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%
Henman...
- 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
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
Hewitt...
- 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%
Henman...
- 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