Hewitt has an awful Masters 1000 record

edmondsm

Legend
Nobody cares that much about Masters tournaments apart from some wikipedia debaters.
Obviously Nadal (27 titles), Djokovic (26 titles), and Fed (24 titles) care about the masters 1000 events. There are several players with NO slam titles but much, much better MS series records than Hewitt. Tsonga has 2 MS titles for christ sake.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Obviously Nadal (27 titles), Djokovic (26 titles), and Fed (24 titles) care about the masters 1000 events. There are several players with NO slam titles but much, much better MS series records than Hewitt. Tsonga has 2 MS titles for christ sake.
Got my stats nerd hat on now: ;)

In addition to Tsonga (2), the following non-Slam winners, all no longer active, have Masters records better than or equal to Hewitt's:

Rios (5), Medvedev (4), Davydenko (3), Enqvist (3), Chesnokov (2), Coria (2), Corretja (2), Ferreira (2), Forget (2), Nalbandian (2).
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Hewitt had weapons.

He was the fastest on tour at his best, along with having a huge amount of variety in his game. I'd also say his lobs are the greatest ever -- better than Murray's.
I forgot I turned on the Sabratha bat-signal :p
Yeah I guess, to me he's like a male Wozniacki with great lobs. Not an insult though, he's been one of my fav players for years.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Hewitt had good ground strokes he could trade with guys like Agassi at his best.
Well I wouldn't say any former world #1 wasn't a great tennis player. Just that if he was a character on TS4 his skill #'s would all be around 70 with maybe speed and reflexes at 85.

 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Well I wouldn't say any former world #1 wasn't a great tennis player. Just that if he was a character on TS4 his skill #'s would all be around 70 with maybe speed and reflexes at 85.


I think Hewitt is about as good a player as Murray. I wouldn't say either is weaponless. Murray has more power because he's a bigger bloke but his forehand tends to break down when he's forced to go for big shots over and over. Hewitt never used to just loop in forehands into the middle of the court like Murray sometimes does. I actually think Hewitt was generally more aggressive than Murray.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
I forgot I turned on the Sabratha bat-signal :p
Yeah I guess, to me he's like a male Wozniacki with great lobs. Not an insult though, he's been one of my fav players for years.
Seems more like a proto-type Murray to be honest. In comparison with Wozniacki he had better groundstrokes and or a better mentality.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
I think Hewitt is about as good a player as Murray. I wouldn't say either is weaponless. Murray has more power because he's a bigger bloke but his forehand tends to break down when he's forced to go for big shots over and over. Hewitt never used to just loop in forehands into the middle of the court like Murray sometimes does. I actually think Hewitt was generally more aggressive than Murray.
I agree with this.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Well I wouldn't say any former world #1 wasn't a great tennis player. Just that if he was a character on TS4 his skill #'s would all be around 70 with maybe speed and reflexes at 85.

Forehand would probably be around 80, BH would be 70. Serve would be like 65. Power would be like 70. Stamina would be like 85. Speed would be 85. Reflexes 85.
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
Hewitt had weapons.

He was the fastest on tour at his best, along with having a huge amount of variety in his game. I'd also say his lobs are the greatest ever -- better than Murray's.
....and he was so damn good at volleying, I always wondered why he didn't play doubles as much.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
....and he was so damn good at volleying, I always wondered why he didn't play doubles as much.

He's won a doubles Grand Slam at the US Open in 2000 by the way. His peak doubles rank was 18th in the world. Not too shabby and better than many singles players. Kafelnikov is probably one of the only exceptions.
 

Druss

Hall of Fame

He's won a doubles Grand Slam at the US Open in 2000 by the way. His peak doubles rank was 18th in the world. Not too shabby and better than many singles players. Kafelnikov is probably one of the only exceptions.
Still not that many doubles matches, which he could have focused more on in the latter part of his career, after losing a considerable amount of speed post surgeries. Thanks for the clip. Can't wait for Davis Cup at Kooyong in a couple weeks. Got the tickets. Hewitt's first as team captain.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
J

He's won a doubles Grand Slam at the US Open by the way. His peak doubles rank was 18th in the world. Not too shabby and better than many singles players. Kafelnikov is probably one of the only exceptions.
Well you really do learn something new every day Saby! :)
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Still not that many doubles matches, which he could have focused more on in the latter part of his career, after losing a considerable amount of speed post surgeries. Thanks for the clip. Can't wait for Davis Cup at Kooyong in a couple weeks. Got the tickets. Hewitt's first as team captain.
I guess he was holding out hope he'd have another great run of form in singles, which (sort) of happened in 2009.

No problem for the clip and that sounds exciting. I hope you enjoy yourself!
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Still not that many doubles matches, which he could have focused more on in the latter part of his career, after losing a considerable amount of speed post surgeries. Thanks for the clip. Can't wait for Davis Cup at Kooyong in a couple weeks. Got the tickets. Hewitt's first as team captain.
Hope you have a really great time there mate. :)
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Hewitt's volleys are top notch. The 2005 USO SF against Federer always sticks in my mind. He went to net some 40 times in 2 sets and won about 30 of the points.
 

augustobt

Legend
Obviously Nadal (27 titles), Djokovic (26 titles), and Fed (24 titles) care about the masters 1000 events. There are several players with NO slam titles but much, much better MS series records than Hewitt. Tsonga has 2 MS titles for christ sake.
It's a thing from the last 10 years, I'd say. Before that (and for many players still is), Masters are only mandatory big tournaments that are warmups for Grand Slams.
 
Hewitt's volleys are top notch. The 2005 USO SF against Federer always sticks in my mind. He went to net some 40 times in 2 sets and won about 30 of the points.
He should have come in more often when he played Federer, like he did in that match. It should have been clear by the end of 2004 (when they went from competitive matches up until Wimbledon, to blowouts in the last couple) he no longer was going to win a match against Federer from the baseline. Incidentally in the earlier days Federer had more of a true all court game and came to net quite a bit against Hewitt which actually worked in his favor since Hewitt loves a target and counterpunched and passed better than anyone. Once Federer stopped coming to net hardly ever against Hewitt (I think that was by design as he still came in more against other players), Hewitt completely lost his advantage in the match up.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
He should have come in more often when he played Federer, like he did in that match. It should have been clear by the end of 2004 (when they went from competitive matches up until Wimbledon, to blowouts in the last couple) he no longer was going to win a match against Federer from the baseline. Incidentally in the earlier days Federer had more of a true all court game and came to net quite a bit against Hewitt which actually worked in his favor since Hewitt loves a target and counterpunched and passed better than anyone. Once Federer stopped coming to net hardly ever against Hewitt (I think that was by design as he still came in more against other players), Hewitt completely lost his advantage in the match up.
Federer did come a bit in the USO final, he was 30/35. I think the main difference was he came in behind a huge forehand not off the serve to put away the volley. But I agree, the secret to beating Federer for Hewitt was to be really aggressive. Go down the line off the backhand and approach etc...
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
I think Hewitt is about as good a player as Murray. I wouldn't say either is weaponless. Murray has more power because he's a bigger bloke but his forehand tends to break down when he's forced to go for big shots over and over. Hewitt never used to just loop in forehands into the middle of the court like Murray sometimes does. I actually think Hewitt was generally more aggressive than Murray.
If Hewitt had Murray's physical gifts he would have won at least 4 slams. The guy got the absolute max his body would allow...he had deceptive power off the ground because he had great trunk rotation and put his whole body into it and took big cuts at the ball unlike Murray. He was a good volleyer, one of the best ever passing shots and court coverage. The % on the serve could sometimes tank but when he was serving at a good % he had a good serve too. He got the absolute max out of his body and I gotta think that's a big reason for his injuries too. I mean Murray has a solid 4-5 inches and 25 pounds on him. Give Hewitt that kind of size without a big loss in mobility (Murray is easily the most mobile 6'3" and up tennis player ever anyways) and he doesn't have to kill himself to hit the ball or serve 120....it would come a lot easier and he would preserve his body in the process too.
 
L

Laurie

Guest
I forgot I turned on the Sabratha bat-signal :p
Yeah I guess, to me he's like a male Wozniacki with great lobs. Not an insult though, he's been one of my fav players for years.
I would liken Hewitt to Hingis much more than Wowzniacki.
 
L

Laurie

Guest
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.
I have said it before and will say it again. It is much easier to rack up Masters titles when every final is best of 3 sets, it is just like any other ATP tournament now, and despite the Sky Sports hyperbole (and any American television equivalent), the general public is not fussed about Masters tournaments.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes. It's true.A player should have won at least two masters against his one grand slam.Hewitt lacks at least three masters.
 

Serve&Bash

Semi-Pro
Murray is a considerably better tennis player than Hewitt.

Not hard to see why Hewitt has such an abysmal MS record. All it took was a zoning player to send him packing in a best of 3 match
 
The thing Murray does have over Hewitt though is he has had a much longer prime. I would say he has been in his prime since U.S Open 2008 (with 2014 excluded as a non prime year of tennis). Hewitt had only 4 prime years really- 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005. So if one argues their levels are roughly the same, Murray could be argued to be considerably better then in the sense he maintained that level a lot longer, now going on about twice the time. Largely due to injuries and other bad luck for Hewitt, but that is tennis isn't it, them the breaks, Connolly would probably be the GOAT today (man or women hands down) with like 35-40 slams without her riding accident. Particularly IF (and it is a big if at this point) he backs that up with more slams than he currently has, atleast a 3rd, preferably a 4th.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
The thing Murray does have over Hewitt though is he has had a much longer prime. I would say he has been in his prime since U.S Open 2008 (with 2014 excluded as a non prime year of tennis). Hewitt had only 4 prime years really- 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005. So if one argues their levels are roughly the same, Murray could be argued to be considerably better then in the sense he maintained that level a lot longer, now going on about twice the time. Largely due to injuries and other bad luck for Hewitt, but that is tennis isn't it, them the breaks, Connolly would probably be the GOAT today (man or women hands down) with like 35-40 slams without her riding accident. Particularly IF (and it is a big if at this point) he backs that up with more slams than he currently has, atleast a 3rd, preferably a 4th.
I can understand that view point. Murray smashes Hewitt in terms of longevity. But that doesn't make him a better player, that's more of a career perspective.
 
I can understand that view point. Murray smashes Hewitt in terms of longevity. But that doesn't make him a better player, that's more of a career perspective.
I think if you maintain a similar level longer you sort of are better. Just not better in peak play, but better overall. It is the same thing as that Federer is a way way better player than Safin due to 100 times better consistency (and now also longevity), even if Safin's peak play is comparable (atleast on hard courts and indoors, less so on grass and clay).
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
I can understand that view point. Murray smashes Hewitt in terms of longevity. But that doesn't make him a better player, that's more of a career perspective.
I think both have similarities that can be argued about! Both tenacious bulldog-like players and presumed to have max'd out their talent; that I have to disagree with! Hewitt probably got the most out of his meager talent with no real weapon besides his legs! He benefitted from a "down-period" when Pete was dropping in the rankings, Agassi was up and down, and the rest of the tour was up in the air with a number of talented, but serious head-cases like Safin! He at least got to #1, won a couple majors, and sustained a good level for a while! Murray on the other hand is woefully overrated and underachieving for what he could and should be doing! He's had to deal with a few ATG's, but he had victories over them; just didn't back it up for long! That passive, defensive game isn't doing him much good, bu5t he persists! Results aren't going to turn around until he starts pushing the issue like he did when working with Lendl! ;-)
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I think both have similarities that can be argued about! Both tenacious bulldog-like players and presumed to have max'd out their talent; that I have to disagree with! Hewitt probably got the most out of his meager talent with no real weapon besides his legs! He benefitted from a "down-period" when Pete was dropping in the rankings, Agassi was up and down, and the rest of the tour was up in the air with a number of talented, but serious head-cases like Safin! He at least got to #1, won a couple majors, and sustained a good level for a while! Murray on the other hand is woefully overrated and underachieving for what he could and should be doing! He's had to deal with a few ATG's, but he had victories over them; just didn't back it up for long! That passive, defensive game isn't doing him much good, bu5t he persists! Results aren't going to turn around until he starts pushing the issue like he did when working with Lendl! ;-)
Did you mean 'underrated' (in which case I agree with you)?
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
Did you mean 'underrated' (in which case I agree with you)?
He's both overrated for what he can do and underrated because he's allowed to stay so stagnant for so many years! He's regressed since Lend left and overtaking Roger for #2 ranking isn't exactly playing up to his ability; still loses to the old guy! ;-)
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
He's both overrated for what he can do and underrated because he's allowed to stay so stagnant for so many years! He's regressed since Lend left and overtaking Roger for #2 ranking isn't exactly playing up to his ability; still loses to the old guy! ;-)
Not sure what you mean. In what way is he overrated in your view?
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
Not sure what you mean. In what way is he overrated in your view?
He's over-rated because everyone says he should be winning more, but he's obviously underrated since he's holding onto #2 ranking without a lot to show for it! He gets to a Slam final, then doesn't even win a set! How good can he be; esp. after dropping 15 straight games to the world #1 going back to last season's AO final! ;-)
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
He's over-rated because everyone says he should be winning more, but he's obviously underrated since he's holding onto #2 ranking without a lot to show for it! He gets to a Slam final, then doesn't even win a set! How good can he be; esp. after dropping 15 straight games to the world #1 going back to last season's AO final! ;-)
But who else do you think should be holding onto the number #2 ranking? Who deserves it more?
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
But who else do you think should be holding onto the number #2 ranking? Who deserves it more than Murray?
No one! I watched him and for the 1st 6 months of last season I wondered how Roger was able to hold onto the ranking with being in 6th place on the ATP list? His results from 2014 held him up until the end of 2015 when Murray finally took over as #2 and justifiably so with 2 Masters win and a major final! Roger was marginally better overall with 2 major finals and a Masters, beating Andy convincingly, but it balanced out to give The Brit a slight advantage! ;-)
 

Serve&Bash

Semi-Pro
Don't see it.
It's fine. When Murray retires you will see it and people will start giving extra credit points to Murray for everything he has achieved in his career. Hewitt and Roddick are too of the most absurdly overrated players here because a lot of posters get sentimental about the times when they were at their best.

The only difference is, Murray has many more brilliant achievements to his name compared to Roddick and Hewitt.
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
It's fine. When Murray retires you will see it and people will start giving extra credit points to Murray for everything he has achieved in his career. Hewitt and Roddick are too of the most absurdly overrated players here because a lot of posters get sentimental about the times when they were at their best.

The only difference is, Murray has many more brilliant achievements to his name compared to Roddick and Hewitt.
If Murray doesn't achieve #1 status for even 5 minutes like a Rios, Muster, or Moyer, Murray will end up being merely a footnote in the grand scheme of things! He has a lot more ability than past #1's, but was unfortunate to play at the same time as Nole, Roger, and Rafa! He had the ability to make more of a mark, but his passive, counterpunching game wasn't going to rule this era! He needed his opposition to "give it to him" and that just wasn't going to happen enough to make it worthwhile to continue playing as he does! He's a moron to regress as he has, changing the rest of his team, taking on Mauresmo; where has it gotten him? ;-(
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
No one! I watched him and for the 1st 6 months of last season I wondered how Roger was able to hold onto the ranking with being in 6th place on the ATP list? His results from 2014 held him up until the end of 2015 when Murray finally took over as #2 and justifiably so with 2 Masters win and a major final! Roger was marginally better overall with 2 major finals and a Masters, beating Andy convincingly, but it balanced out to give The Brit a slight advantage! ;-)
Basically, Djokovic is so far ahead of everybody else that there is him and the rest of the tour. He makes any number #2 look bad!
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
Basically, Djokovic is so far ahead of everybody else that there is him and the rest of the tour. He makes any number #2 look bad!
It hasn't been this bad since Roger started his run over 10 years ago! At the time, old man Agassi was his only challenge! Talk about deja vu! lol!
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
If Murray doesn't achieve #1 status for even 5 minutes like a Rios, Muster, or Moyer, Murray will end up being merely a footnote in the grand scheme of things! He has a lot more ability than past #1's, but was unfortunate to play at the same time as Nole, Roger, and Rafa! He had the ability to make more of a mark, but his passive, counterpunching game wasn't going to rule this era! He needed his opposition to "give it to him" and that just wasn't going to happen enough to make it worthwhile to continue playing as he does! He's a moron to regress as he has, changing the rest of his team, taking on Mauresmo; where has it gotten him? ;-(
That's a little unfair. He had a back surgery and hasn't been quite the same player since. He has done well to fight his way back to the number #2 spot but, while he was struggling to regain his form, Djokovic was able to move on with his game and get even better. He has had the good fortune to avoid any serious injuries and so has enjoyed an uninterrupted career. Unfortunately for Murray, Lendl walked out on him shortly after his back surgery (I personally don't think that was a coincidence). It was certainly not Murray's decision to split up. I agree with you that he could possibly have found someone more suitable than Mauresmo but, winning Slams apart, he has got back to number #2 with her at his side. Yes, he might have done a bit better but it's pretty remarkable how well he has done since his surgery, IMO.
 
Top