Hewitt: De Minaur = Sinner: Tipsarevic = Alcaraz: Santoro

abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
I see some posts calling Hewitt weaponless and equating him with De minaur who is like 3 levels below. Hewitt was way way way better than de Minaur.
hewitt is way better than de minaur at everything except defense - fh, bh, serve, return, net play, hits much harder and deeper than De minaur also
equating them just because they are both quick and calling hewitt powerless is just utterly ignorant and stupid.

Its like equating Sinner with Tipsarevic and Alcaraz with Santoro.
just because sinner & tipsy are good ballstrikes and alcaraz & santoro have good trick shots/volleying skills.
That's how bad the comparison is, to give an idea.
 
Soul_Evisceration said:
Comparing De Minaur to Hewitt is absurd.

But to equal Sinner with Tipsarevic or even worse Berdych who all wishes to be 1/3rd as successful as Sinner is even more absurd.

Everyone has their opinion but there's no need to be sensitive about it.
Click to expand...

not at all. all are same levels of absurd.

its when that nonsense opinion becomes somewhat widespread that it has to be countered.

in which world is equating Sinner with tipsy worse than equating sinner with berdych. that statement of yours absurd.
 
abmk said:
not at all. all are same levels of absurd.

its when that nonsense opinion becomes somewhat widespread that it has to be countered.

in which world is equating Sinner with tipsy worse than equating sinner with berdych. that statement of yours absurd.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to argue with you because you think every ATP Players from 2003-2012 are the goldmine of Premium Standard Players.

There's no point of having any intelligent conversations with you because you're wrong on many facets and I'm not going to waste my time over a simpleton minded poster like you.
 
Hewitt's strengths were his intensity, fight, consistency, mixing things up, his speed etc. He loved a scrap. If players got in his face in response, they lost almost every time.

I remember a Hewitt quote after he beat Coria in a feisty 2005 Davis Cup quarter final match on grass in Sydney "It was dumb by them. Very rarely have I lost matches when people try to get in my face". Argentina seemed to listen to Hewitt's words though, and they came back and won the tie.
 
abmk said:
I see some posts calling Hewitt weaponless and equating him with De minaur who is like 3 levels below. Hewitt was way way way better than de Minaur.
hewitt is way better than de minaur at everything except defense - fh, bh, serve, return, net play, hits much harder and deeper than De minaur also
equating them just because they are both quick and calling hewitt powerless is just utterly ignorant and stupid.

Its like equating Sinner with Tipsarevic and Alcaraz with Santoro.
just because sinner & tipsy are good ballstrikes and alcaraz & santoro have good trick shots/volleying skills.
That's how bad the comparison is, to give an idea.
Click to expand...

You're wrong. MuryGOAT.
 
The Blond Blur said:
Everyone knows that Santoro = Fraud with a worse serve.
Click to expand...

Everyone might think this but do they know it? If we define knowledge (with many a contemporary philosopher) as "justified true belief," then the question is, "Is it true that Santoro's serve was weaker than Fraud's?"

Isn't the belief that Fraud's serve was stronger than Santoro's a potentially fraudulent one, and the truth that Santoro = Fraud?
 
Some people are indeed being unfair to Hewitt. On the other side of the coin, others are overrating him. Few are capable of finding a middle term between those two extremes.

On the one hand, while there're simmilarities between Hewitt and ADM in terms of playing style (both used an insane speed and court coverage, and both possessed a relatively weak serve and no ATG-like weapons), the comparison in literal terms is absurd. The difference in achievements between Hewitt and ADM is astronomical. Hewitt was #1 for 80 weeks, won 2 Slams, defeated Sampras and Nadal at Slams, Federer in the ATP finals, and the list goes on.

On the other hand, Jannik Sinner is a generational talent with a much more complete game than Hewitt ever had. He possesses not only speed and excellent court coverage as Hewitt, but also a magnificent backhand, a clinically precise (tier 1 ATG) forehand, and, crucially, a precise, powerful and difficult to read serve. He has all the tools, his game is that of a flawless machine when he's on. Comparing SInner with Hewitt is equally unobjetive as comparing Hewitt with ADM.

A more balanced evaluation of Hewitt would be the following: he was a good player of his era that deserves praise and respect, but should not be compared neither to journeymen (ADM) nor to superstars, tier 1 ATGs, like Sinner who are destined to 10+ Slams.
 
Last edited:
Sport said:
Some people are indeed being unfair with Hewitt. On the other side of the coin, others are overrating him. Few are capable of finding a middle term between those two extremes.

On the one hand, while there're simmilarities between Hewitt and ADM in terms of playing style (both used an insane speed and court coverage, and both possessed a relatively weak serve and no ATG-like weapons), the comparison in literal terms is absurd. The difference in achievements between Hewitt and ADM is astronomical. Hewitt is a former #1, was #1 for 80 weeks, won 2 Slams, defeated Sampras at Slams, Federer in the ATP finals, and the list goes on.

On the other hand, Jannik Sinner is a generational talent with a much more complete game than Hewitt ever had. He possesses not only speed and excellent court coverage as Hewitt, but also a magnificent backhand, a clinically precise (tier 1 ATG) forehand, and, crucially, a precise, powerful and difficult to read serve. He has all the tools, his game is that of a flawless machine when he's on. Comparing SInner with Hewitt is equally unobjetive as comparing Hewitt with ADM.

A more balanced evaluation of Hewitt would be the following: he was a good player of his era that deserves praise and respect, but should not be compared neither to journeymen (ADM) nor to superstars, tier 1 ATGs, like Sinner who are destined to 10+ Slams.
Click to expand...
Hewitt was mentally ready almost straight away. There's not many players that we can say that about. Federer was a late developer on that.
 
Poisoned Slice said:
You would have to spend the whole 100m budget on Jimmy Greaves, and marvel as he outscores teams with the full 15 players. Does he have the weapons to deal with a serve to the body at optimum temperature, though? It is all quite fascinating.
Click to expand...
I think Denis Law was even better, more than just a prolific goalscorer, but also a great roamer around the pitch too. Greaves didn't do the roaming as often as Law. And that beaming smile and laugh of Law's was infectious.
 
Mustard said:
Hewitt's strengths were his intensity, fight, consistency, mixing things up, his speed etc. He loved a scrap. If players got in his face in response, they lost almost every time.

I remember a Hewitt quote after he beat Coria in a feisty 2005 Davis Cup quarter final match on grass in Sydney "It was dumb by them. Very rarely have I lost matches when people try to get in my face". Argentina seemed to listen to Hewitt's words though, and they came back and won the tie.
Click to expand...
Wow a Wimbledon champion had to to get in Coria's face to beat him on grass at home
 
;
lleyton-hewitt-cmon.gif
 
Sport said:
Some people are indeed being unfair with Hewitt. On the other side of the coin, others are overrating him. Few are capable of finding a middle term between those two extremes.

On the one hand, while there're simmilarities between Hewitt and ADM in terms of playing style (both used an insane speed and court coverage, and both possessed a relatively weak serve and no ATG-like weapons), the comparison in literal terms is absurd. The difference in achievements between Hewitt and ADM is astronomical. Hewitt is a former #1, was #1 for 80 weeks, won 2 Slams, defeated Sampras at Slams, Federer in the ATP finals, and the list goes on.

On the other hand, Jannik Sinner is a generational talent with a much more complete game than Hewitt ever had. He possesses not only speed and excellent court coverage as Hewitt, but also a magnificent backhand, a clinically precise (tier 1 ATG) forehand, and, crucially, a precise, powerful and difficult to read serve. He has all the tools, his game is that of a flawless machine when he's on. Comparing SInner with Hewitt is equally unobjetive as comparing Hewitt with ADM.

A more balanced evaluation of Hewitt would be the following: he was a good player of his era that deserves praise and respect, but should not be compared neither to journeymen (ADM) nor to superstars, tier 1 ATGs, like Sinner who are destined to 10+ Slams.
Click to expand...

100% spot on.
 
Soul_Evisceration said:
I'm not going to argue with you because you think every ATP Players from 2003-2012 are the goldmine of Premium Standard Players.

There's no point of having any intelligent conversations with you because you're wrong on many facets and I'm not going to waste my time over a simpleton minded poster like you.
Click to expand...

I don't think that at all. Strawman BS
But your arrogance and delusions are telling. That too after saying "But to equal Sinner with Tipsarevic or even worse Berdych" :-D :-D

I'm many things, but simpleton? LMAO, I could run circles around you in my sleep.
Stick to tennis if you don't want me to hit back personally.
 
Last edited:
abmk said:
hewitt is way better than de minaur at everything except defense
Click to expand...
oh interesting, do you give de Minaur the edge or is it just close enough that Hewitt isn't way better? to me, Hewitt is even or better in terms of speed, footwork, tenacity, anticipation, end-range ballstriking, passing + lobs, and slice, so that seems like a way better in the evaluation overall. only thing is sliding maybe, but that's era diff anyway so idk
 
Angrybirdstar said:
oh interesting, do you give de Minaur the edge or is it just close enough that Hewitt isn't way better? to me, Hewitt is even or better in terms of speed, footwork, tenacity, anticipation, end-range ballstriking, passing + lobs, and slice, so that seems like a way better in the evaluation overall. only thing is sliding maybe, but that's era diff anyway so idk
Click to expand...
De Minaur maybe has the slight edge in footspeed and sliding but Hewitt has the edge in power, placement, actually doing something with the ball.
 
Angrybirdstar said:
oh interesting, do you give de Minaur the edge or is it just close enough that Hewitt isn't way better? to me, Hewitt is even or better in terms of speed, footwork, tenacity, anticipation, end-range ballstriking, passing + lobs, and slice, so that seems like a way better in the evaluation overall. only thing is sliding maybe, but that's era diff anyway so idk
Click to expand...

hewitt is better in terms of movement overall. But it is just close enough that Hewitt isn't way better.
 
abmk said:
I see some posts calling Hewitt weaponless and equating him with De minaur who is like 3 levels below. Hewitt was way way way better than de Minaur.
hewitt is way better than de minaur at everything except defense - fh, bh, serve, return, net play, hits much harder and deeper than De minaur also
equating them just because they are both quick and calling hewitt powerless is just utterly ignorant and stupid.

Its like equating Sinner with Tipsarevic and Alcaraz with Santoro.
just because sinner & tipsy are good ballstrikes and alcaraz & santoro have good trick shots/volleying skills.
That's how bad the comparison is, to give an idea.
Click to expand...
I knew the TTW recency bias would be there in my thread, but I was not expecting this. :D
Although maybe I should have because this is the same forum that says PETE playing his best Wimbledon tennis would have no chance against this current generation.
PETE, the guy who can take away time from almost any opponent, including Alcaraz who can be rushed by a shot pattycaked just past the service box.
Maybe the 14 time grand slam champion is just another Ben Shelton...
 
abmk said:
hewitt is better in terms of movement overall. But it is just close enough that Hewitt isn't way better.
Click to expand...
gotcha. my feeling is that de Minaur weirdly isn't even particularly good at pushing his way to wins, considering his losses at Slams for the past 4 years. he's just a bizarre player in general though - these stats feel like 3 completely different players!

YearHold %Break %DR
202480.7%31.1%1.18
202176.4%24.7%1.02
201984.3%23.6%1.14
 
People always compare Hewitt and De Minaur because they are Australian and great movers. It’s a lazy comparison.

Hewitt was 10 times the player De Minaur is. His ground strokes were far more penetrating, and his shot selection was far far better.

De Minaur will routinely get a set up shoulder high forehand and hit it as hard as he can squarely to the middle of the court. His court sense is very bad.

While De Minaur is very fast he is very inefficient and defensive, while Hewitt was a very aggressive mover and very good at transitioning to the net.
 
Technically wise Hewitt lagged behind. He totally missed the forehand revolution that started with Agassi and that moved further steps forward with Roger and Rafa. Also his serve was underwhelming. Great fighter, champions mind but in today environment he wouldn't win a 250.
 
Last edited:
Mustard said:
That's why Hewitt beat Sampras and Agassi often is it? And once led Federer 7-2 and Nadal 4-1 in head-to-heads?
Click to expand...

At what stage in their careers was Hewitt able to do that?

If Hewitt was so amazing how many slams does he have and during what period.

I don’t know why you even bother posting that garbage of a response in the first place when you’re just so incredibly blatantly wrong.

It’s outright embarrassing to be honest.

Hewitt did well in the vacuum era where Sampras and Agassi aged out and secured some wins against undeveloped Nadal and Federer, but was completely demolished as they matured and pushed Hewitt so far that he injured himself attempting to just have a realistic chance of competing against them before they ever even peaked.

That’s how weak Hewitt is and how delusional your response it.
 
jackson vile said:
At what stage in their careers was Hewitt able to do that?

If Hewitt was so amazing how many slams does he have and during what period.

I don’t know why you even bother posting that garbage of a response in the first place when you’re just so incredibly blatantly wrong.

It’s outright embarrassing to be honest.

Hewitt did well in the vacuum era where Sampras and Agassi aged out and secured some wins against undeveloped Nadal and Federer, but was completely demolished as they matured and pushed Hewitt so far that he injured himself attempting to just have a realistic chance of competing against them before they ever even peaked.

That’s how weak Hewitt is and how delusional your response it.
Click to expand...
Embarrassingly ignorant post.
 
Mustard said:
That's why Hewitt beat Sampras and Agassi often is it? And once led Federer 7-2 and Nadal 4-1 in head-to-heads?
Click to expand...
Hewitt beat Fed when Agassi, Rafter, Kafelnikov, Henman completely dominated him as well. Hewitt beat Nadal in 2004 and 2005 on HC and already struggled severely here. His only other win in 2006 came by retirement. Once Fed and Nadal came even close to mature it was definitely over for Hewitt.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Hewitt beat Fed when Agassi, Rafter, Kafelnikov, Henman completely dominated him as well. Hewitt beat Nadal in 2004 and 2005 on HC and already struggled severely here. His only other win in 2006 came by retirement. Once Fed and Nadal came even close to mature it was definitely over for Hewitt.
Click to expand...
He could still challenge them. 2004 Wimbledon QF was competitive in two sets. 2005 USO SF had a lot of clutch gameplay with Federer saving set points in the second set. Hewitt vs. Federer at the AO 2005 final is a match we never got to see but Hewitt definitely takes a set there.

Even past that he gave Federer a close match at Cincy in 2007 and took the first set against him at USO 2009, and this was when both Hewitt had declined and Federer's matchup advantage with slice potency had decreased slightly.

He took a set off Nadal at RG and gave him a relatively close match in Hamburg too.

Maybe not the best A-game tennis in any case, but solid 7.5-8/10 level of play IMO, which is good compared to the level Murray was bringing to some of these slam finals and I see them as similar players.
 
Sport said:
Some people are indeed being unfair to Hewitt. On the other side of the coin, others are overrating him. Few are capable of finding a middle term between those two extremes.

On the one hand, while there're simmilarities between Hewitt and ADM in terms of playing style (both used an insane speed and court coverage, and both possessed a relatively weak serve and no ATG-like weapons), the comparison in literal terms is absurd. The difference in achievements between Hewitt and ADM is astronomical. Hewitt was #1 for 80 weeks, won 2 Slams, defeated Sampras and Nadal at Slams, Federer in the ATP finals, and the list goes on.

On the other hand, Jannik Sinner is a generational talent with a much more complete game than Hewitt ever had. He possesses not only speed and excellent court coverage as Hewitt, but also a magnificent backhand, a clinically precise (tier 1 ATG) forehand, and, crucially, a precise, powerful and difficult to read serve. He has all the tools, his game is that of a flawless machine when he's on. Comparing SInner with Hewitt is equally unobjetive as comparing Hewitt with ADM.

A more balanced evaluation of Hewitt would be the following: he was a good player of his era that deserves praise and respect, but should not be compared neither to journeymen (ADM) nor to superstars, tier 1 ATGs, like Sinner who are destined to 10+ Slams.
Click to expand...
De Minaur is not journeyman though, a journeyman is typically a player ranked outside of the top 50 with no career titles.
 
In 2002 Hewitt was number one, and the top five were…

1) Lleyton Hewitt
2) Andre Agassi (broke back old man)
3) Marat Safin (party play boy tennis is last)
4) Juan Carlos Ferrero (the coach you love to hate)
5) Carlos Moyà (do I really need to say more?)
 
jackson vile said:
At what stage in their careers was Hewitt able to do that?
Click to expand...
Hewitt's head-to-head with Sampras ended at 5-4 to Hewitt. Hewitt pushed Sampras to the limit at 1999 Queen's Club, and in 2000 defeated Sampras in the Queen's Club final. Hewitt was still a teenager at that time. Hewitt won his last 4 matches against Sampras from the 2000 YEC to 2002 Indian Wells, when Hewitt was age 19-21 and Sampras was age 29-30.

Hewitt's head-to-head with Agassi ended at 4-4, with Hewitt winning 3 in a row at one point from 2001 YEC to 2002 Cincinnati, when Hewitt was age 20-21 and Agassi was age 31-32.

Hewitt was 7-2 up on Federer in their head-to-head after Hewitt won their 2003 Davis Cup semi final match from 2 sets and a break down to win in 5 sets. Hewitt was 4-1 up on Nadal in their head-to-head after their match at 2006 Queen's Club, and then their next match was Nadal winning at 2007 Hamburg 2-6, 6-3, 7-5.

jackson vile said:
If Hewitt was so amazing how many slams does he have and during what period.
Click to expand...
2 majors (1 US Open, 1 Wimbledon), which you obviously know. Unless we're talking doubles, in which case he won the men's doubles at the US Open too.

jackson vile said:
In 2002 Hewitt was number one, and the top five were…

1) Lleyton Hewitt
2) Andre Agassi (broke back old man)
3) Marat Safin (party play boy tennis is last)
4) Juan Carlos Ferrero (the coach you love to hate)
5) Carlos Moyà (do I really need to say more?)
Click to expand...
Agassi won 3 masters in 2002.

And what you don't say about Moya is funny, Moya was actually Hewitt's toughest matchup at the time. The head-to-head finished 7-5 in Hewitt's favour, with Hewitt winning their last 5 matches, but Moya won 5 matches out of 6 against Hewitt in 2001-2002.
 
Devin said:
He could still challenge them. 2004 Wimbledon QF was competitive in two sets. 2005 USO SF had a lot of clutch gameplay with Federer saving set points in the second set. Hewitt vs. Federer at the AO 2005 final is a match we never got to see but Hewitt definitely takes a set there.

Even past that he gave Federer a close match at Cincy in 2007 and took the first set against him at USO 2009, and this was when both Hewitt had declined and Federer's matchup advantage with slice potency had decreased slightly.

He took a set off Nadal at RG and gave him a relatively close match in Hamburg too.

Maybe not the best A-game tennis in any case, but solid 7.5-8/10 level of play IMO, which is good compared to the level Murray was bringing to some of these slam finals and I see them as similar players.
Click to expand...
A lot of people could "challenge" Fedal here and there or be "competitive" in some sets. I just wanted to put into right context that 7-2 against Fed at some point and 4-1 against Nadal at some point. This sounds good on paper but is as relevant as Kafelnikov being 4-2 against Fed. Nadal was giving Hewitt fits on HC already when he was light years away from this won HC prime and the Queens match Hewitt only won by retirement. Once Fedal matured Hewitt won next to nothing against them, and literally nothing at slams. Comparable to Murray maybe, but that's it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
What does De Minaur not reaching top 5 in the current era say when Hewitt was #1 in Federer's era?
2
Replies
87
Views
3K
Red Rick
Red Rick
B
The fastest player in history?
2 3
Replies
114
Views
5K
Fintft
Fintft
L
Who will have the better career Ruud or De Minaur?
Replies
22
Views
590
Jonas78
J
Tennease
Kei and Nadal walked in while De Minaur was having a shower
Replies
21
Views
9K
Hitman
Hitman
TTMR
Going Out on a Limb: De Minaur Will Never Win a Slam
2
Replies
79
Views
4K
TTMR
TTMR
Back
Top