Hewitt has an awful Masters 1000 record

edmondsm

Legend
I had never realized this about him. Here's a guy who won two GS titles, but only two MS titles.....and they were both at Indian Wells in back to back years.


There are years where he had great showings at the slams and was just terrible at the MS events. In 2005 he made the AO final and semis at Wimbledon and the USO and yet skipped 6 out of 9 MS events.

Maybe I am making too much out of it, but I thought it was crazy how many early exits and no-shows he had at MS events considering how solid he was at slams for several years. I guess I had never really noticed how absent he was at these events.
 

edmondsm

Legend
Juan Martin Del Potro won 1 GS and 0 Masters, same as Cilic. Stan Wawrinka won 2 GS and only 1 Masters to his name. Just saying.
Delpo didn't have any staying power at all, always injured. Stan at least showed up to the MS touneys. He's barely missed any in 10 years. There were years where Hewitt was playing great at the slams and hardly even getting out of bed at the MS events. 2006 he made the 4th round at the FO and QFs at Wimbledon and USO, yet missed 6 out of 9 MS events and his best showing was a 3rd round. I thought it was puzzling.
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
That's interesting, it never caught my attention until now. Maybe the Masters were not his thing.
 
pre big 4 it was normal for top players to have crappy masters series records. They weren't even mandatory in the 90s. Funny how this era makes fans constantly reevaluate past players. Maybe that's why you didn't notice this before, because fans only payed attention to slams back then. And there was limited tv coverage of many of the masters series then as well
 

Indio

Semi-Pro
pre big 4 it was normal for top players to have crappy masters series records. They weren't even mandatory in the 90s. Funny how this era makes fans constantly reevaluate past players. Maybe that's why you didn't notice this before, because fans only payed attention to slams back then. And there was limited tv coverage of many of the masters series then as well
By 1992, only the majors, the TWC event, and seven of the nine Masters offered more than $1 million in prize money. That would help to elevate their status very quickly.
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
There are years where he had great showings at the slams and was just terrible at the MS events. In 2005 he made the AO final and semis at Wimbledon and the USO and yet skipped 6 out of 9 MS events.

Maybe I am making too much out of it, but I thought it was crazy how many early exits and no-shows he had at MS events considering how solid he was at slams for several years. I guess I had never really noticed how absent he was at these events.
Hewitt had quite a few injuries through his career. 2005 was an example of this. He didn't "just" skip MS events in 2005. He was injured for quite a few months, he missed the French Open thanks to injury as well but I see you didn't mention that. He contested Indian Wells in March and then missed all tournaments til the Aegon Championships in June. So that includes; Miami, Monte Carlo, Madrid, Hamburg and the French Open. He then played a few more tournaments including Wimbledon, USO, Cincinnati and Montreal Masers. His final tournament of the year was in Bangkok. He was injured for the remainder of the year which is why he didn't contest the remainder of the masters events, he also had to withdraw from the Year End Championships.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Well he played 7/9 masters in 2000, 8/9 in 2001, 8/9 in 2002..
Indeed, he did play a lot of masters in those years. Which is better evidence than 2007 after Hewitt was injury prone and not usually going deep.

His 22-8 record in 2001 and 23-7 records in 2002 are pretty good win/losses in masters. For example Murray in the years he won slams went 12-7 (2012) and 15-6 (2013). Hewitt won a lot of smaller events e.g. below M1000 level but beat some good players in doing so in those years - Agassi, Henman, Grosjean etc...
 

Navdeep Srivastava

Hall of Fame
He always lost big events somehow , slam result of 01, 02 and 03 , and master result also don't do justice to his talent.
From 04 he ran into peak Fed and then injuries derailed his career .
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
Masters events weren't compulsory back in Hewitt's day??

This is in article from 2007 saying how the ATP is going to suspend players who skip master tournaments
http://espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=2999435

I may be wrong but yeah
Hewitt's days were 2001-05. By 2007 he was already 'washed up', should have retired then, but to his credit kept going, mainly to support the Davis Cup team, and of course, for the money (who doesn't!).
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
Hewitt's days were 2001-05. By 2007 he was already 'washed up', should have retired then, but to his credit kept going, mainly to support the Davis Cup team, and of course, for the money (who doesn't!).
I wasn't saying it was Hewitt's hey day. I was just saying that prior to 2009 (article posted in 2007) the Masters events weren't compulsory which could be a reason he didn't compete as much. Except I posted that he was clouded with injuries and that was the reason he missed quite a few events
 

captainbryce

Hall of Fame
The best of three set format for every final gives me the feel of any other ATP tournament, just played in a bigger stadium and bigger prize money. But I no longer get excited about matches at Masters level.
I never thought that the Masters events should play best 3 of 5 sets throughout the whole tournament, but always felt that the final round of a masters event should be a best 3 or 5 match. That's the same format they should use for the women's grand slam events as well (best 2 of 3 from rounds 1 through 6, and best 3 of 5 in the final round).
 

citybert

Hall of Fame
For the top 8 guys Depending on your routine and how you train masters could be worse bc you play back to back days. Sampras always hated it and probably should have had more 3-5 more masters titles based on his GS record.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
I had never realized this about him. Here's a guy who won two GS titles, but only two MS titles.....and they were both at Indian Wells in back to back years.


There are years where he had great showings at the slams and was just terrible at the MS events. In 2005 he made the AO final and semis at Wimbledon and the USO and yet skipped 6 out of 9 MS events.

Maybe I am making too much out of it, but I thought it was crazy how many early exits and no-shows he had at MS events considering how solid he was at slams for several years. I guess I had never really noticed how absent he was at these events.
Er...maybe because Masters events aren't really that significant (of course, Djokovic fanatics will try and convince you otherwise).
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
pre big 4 it was normal for top players to have crappy masters series records. They weren't even mandatory in the 90s. Funny how this era makes fans constantly reevaluate past players. Maybe that's why you didn't notice this before, because fans only payed attention to slams back then. And there was limited tv coverage of many of the masters series then as well
Do you know when they become mandatory?
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
The best of three set format for every final gives me the feel of any other ATP tournament, just played in a bigger stadium and bigger prize money. But I no longer get excited about matches at Masters level.
I presume that goes for WTF matches as well?
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
2007 wasn't Hewitt's day...
The article is from 2007 but seems to be referring to the habit of many players who had skipped Masters events in the past which presumes they were always meant to play them, the only difference being that they weren't penalised as much !
 
L

Laurie

Guest
I presume that goes for WTF matches as well?
The WTA tour has been running a different format since it was founded in the 1970s, they always play best of three sets in finals all year round.

Having said that, I see no reason why women can't play best of five set finals in majors and at the end of year championships, they played best of five sets at the year end championships in the 1980s and 1990s. I wrote this article two years ago which was published here http://www.sportsister.com/2013/08/29/have-your-say-time-for-a-five-set-final-ladies/
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
The WTA tour has been running a different format since it was founded in the 1970s, they always play best of three sets in finals all year round.

Having said that, I see no reason why women can't play best of five set finals in majors and at the end of year championships, they played best of five sets at the year end championships in the 1980s and 1990s. I wrote this article two years ago which was published here http://www.sportsister.com/2013/08/29/have-your-say-time-for-a-five-set-final-ladies/
I agree with you about the WTA Laurie but as I was actually asking about the WTF! ;)
 
Yevgeny Kafelnikov, a 2 time Slam champion, famously never won any Masters events!
IMO he was an overachiever in slams, underachiever elsewhere. I don't see him as a player who should have won 2 slams. Not taking anything away from him doing that as he earned those slams, just when you look at his game there is nothing that stands out that you think would equate to 2 slams. He doesn't look the same caliber of talent or game of any of Murray, Hewitt, Rafter (when playing well), Safin, and others with 2 slams at all. You would think 1 would be his limit. On the other hand you would think he would have a couple Masters titles atleast, and he has 0.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Hewitt had quite a few injuries through his career. 2005 was an example of this. He didn't "just" skip MS events in 2005. He was injured for quite a few months, he missed the French Open thanks to injury as well but I see you didn't mention that. He contested Indian Wells in March and then missed all tournaments til the Aegon Championships in June. So that includes; Miami, Monte Carlo, Madrid, Hamburg and the French Open. He then played a few more tournaments including Wimbledon, USO, Cincinnati and Montreal Masers. His final tournament of the year was in Bangkok. He was injured for the remainder of the year which is why he didn't contest the remainder of the masters events, he also had to withdraw from the Year End Championships.
Also had 2 surgeries during that time period. 2 on his foot I believe, one in May and one again in October.

When he made a formal return to the tour in 2006, his speed had visibly diminished and his results suffered as a result.
 

Gizo

Hall of Fame
Given that the US Open was Hewitt's most consistent grand slam, it was maybe a surprise that he never won either of the 2 lead-up masters series events in Canada or Cincy.

In Canada his record was pretty miserable, with his best showing a QF appearance in 2007. At Cincy he impressively disposed of Agassi in his semi-final in 2002, serving very well in particular, but then was upset by Moya in the final. And of course he was beaten by Agassi in the 2004 final, with the Agassi having also won a high quality semi-final against Roddick the previous day.
 
Given that the US Open was Hewitt's most consistent grand slam, it was maybe a surprise that he never won either of the 2 lead-up masters series events in Canada or Cincy.

In Canada his record was pretty miserable, with his best showing a QF appearance in 2007. At Cincy he impressively disposed of Agassi in his semi-final in 2002, serving very well in particular, but then was upset by Moya in the final. And of course he was beaten by Agassi in the 2004 final, with the Agassi having also won a high quality semi-final against Roddick the previous day.
It is a real shame he never won Cincy. He was playing at a level worthy of a Masters win in 2002 and 2004 but was denied by inspired Moya (a personal nemesis) and an inspired Agassi.

His record in Canada is quite shocking and inexplicable. Maybe he is the kind he needs to play often to be in the groove and it is usually after a longer layoff post Wimbledon.
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
Neither of those guys were number 1, Hewitt was number 1 for like 80 weeks.
Indeed he was. Kafelnikov, a two time major winner never won a Masters, and he was No1 only a couple years prior to Hewitt. At least Hewitt has 2 WTF titles to his name, of which Murray, Wawrinka, Kafelnikov, Rafter (all two time GS winners) have none.
 

timnz

Legend
But masters were not compulsory in Sampras days.
Well what else was he doing with his years? They were available to compete in for him - and in many examples - he did actually compete in them. He just didn't win that many. (There is one exception to this - from 1990 to 1992 there were many events that had similar prize money and points to Masters 1000's that were not Masters 1000 - so it was fair enough that he go after them. He won 4 events of this category - 2 Philadephia's and 2 Indianapolis). Hence, he has 15 Masters 1000 equivalents. From 1993-1995 there was only the Stuttgart Indoor* that was at the level of the Masters 1000's and had similar prize money and points - and Sampras' didn't win any of those. So Sampras doesn't get off the hook. He has 15 Masters 1000 equivalents - and that's all. (Having said that Sampras was the greatest fast court player of all time - but that is an aside).

* I am excepting the Slams and the two season end finals - ATP and ITF which were higher classed as higher events.
 

Navdeep Srivastava

Hall of Fame
Well what else was he doing with his years? They were available to compete in for him - and in many examples - he did actually compete in them. He just didn't win that many. (There is one exception to this - from 1990 to 1992 there were many events that had similar prize money and points to Masters 1000's that were not Masters 1000 - so it was fair enough that he go after them. He won 4 events of this category - 2 Philadephia's and 2 Indianapolis). Hence, he has 15 Masters 1000 equivalents. From 1993-1995 there was only the Stuttgart Indoor* that was at the level of the Masters 1000's and had similar prize money and points - and Sampras' didn't win any of those. So Sampras doesn't get off the hook. He has 15 Masters 1000 equivalents - and that's all. (Having said that Sampras was the greatest fast court player of all time - but that is an aside).

* I am excepting the Slams and the two season end finals - ATP and ITF which were higher classed as higher events.
Yeah Sampras should have won more, but as you have said he has 15 master level tournament , with 14 slam and 5tour finals which make overall tier 1 tournament 34/64 , not bad . Hewitt has 6/30 tier 1 tounament and above 20+ ATP 250 out of remaining 24 wins.
Problem with Sampras is that he never won many tournament , AA has 60 tournaments, J mac has 75+ tournaments win and Lendl over 100 . Everybody has less slam in compare to Sampras. So Sampras was not winning at all.
Hewitt was one of the best baseliner when he came, he was winning tournament but not big one which don't do justice to the talent he has.
 

edmondsm

Legend
Using this logic, Sampras' Masters record is much worst. Here's a guy who won 14 slam titles, but only 11 MS titles.
11 MS titles was a big deal until about 5 years ago. Agassi had the record with 18. Now those numbers have been trounced by Fed, Nadal, and Djokovic. What struck me was how many touneys Hewitt had to miss altogether, and then many of the ones he did play he made very early exits. There were just a couple years where he showed up consistently and played deep into the tournament. They were of course, his GS winning years.
 
Top