Hewitt Henman Wimbledon 2002 semi stats

[abmk]

Hewitt def. Henman 7-5,6-1,7-5

(Some points are missing.
1st set, 1-2 , Henman serving, from 0-0 to 30-15 Henman
2nd set, 0-3, Henman serving , from 0-0 to 15-15 Henman)

Aces:
Hewitt : 4, Henman : 2

DFs:
Hewitt : 2, Henman : 1

SWs:
Hewitt : 4, Henman : 3

FHWs:
Hewitt : 17 (including 5 return passing winners, 8 passing winners and 2 lobs)
Henman : 3 (including 1 passing winner)

BHWs:
Hewitt : 11 (including 2 return passing winners and 9 passing winners)
Henman : 2 (both passing winners)

FH wing UEs:
Hewitt : 4 (including one overhead error)
Henman : 10 (including one overhead error, one volley error and one return error)

BH wing UEs:
Hewitt : 3
Henman : 17 (including 2 volley errors and 1 return error)

FH wing FEs:
Hewitt : 21, Henman : 19

BH wing FEs:
Hewitt : 26, Henman : 14

FHV :
Hewitt : 2, Henman : 3

BHV:
Hewitt : 1, Henman : 1

OH:
Hewitt : 2, Henman : 6 (including one BH overhead by Henman)

Net points :
Hewitt : 12/21 (57.14%)
Henman : 51/98 (52.04%)

1st serve SnV:Henman : 32/52 (61.53%)

2nd serve SnV: Henman : 4/9 (44.4%)

All SnV : Henman : 36/61 (59.01%)

Unreturned serves (minus aces and service winners) :

1st serve:
Hewitt : 10, Henman : 18

2nd serve:
Hewitt : 5, Henman : 1

All unreturned serves :

Hewitt : 23/90 (25.55%)
Henman : 24/93 (25.8%)

BP chances :
Hewitt : 6/15, Henman: 2/5

Games with BP chances:
Hewitt : 6/7, Henman : 2/3

In summary,

Winners:
Hewitt : 41, Henman : 20

UEs:
Hewitt : 9, Henman : 28

FEs:
Hewitt : 47, Henman : 33

Points :
Hewitt : 102, Henman : 76

 

[abmk]

Set by set stats :

(Some points are missing.
1st set, 1-2 , Henman serving, from 0-0 to 30-15 Henman
2nd set, 0-3, Henman serving , from 0-0 to 15-15 Henman)

Aces:
Hewitt : 1,0,3 -- Total = 4
Henman : 0,1,1 -- Total = 2

DFs:
Hewitt : 2,0,0 -- Total = 2
Henman : 0,0,1 -- Total = 1

SWs:
Hewitt : 3,0,1 -- Total = 4
Henman : 1,1,1 -- Total = 3

FHWs:
Hewitt : 6,3,8 -- Total = 17
Henman : 1,0,2 -- Total = 3

BHWs:
Hewitt : 3,6,2 -- Total = 11
Henman : 2,0,0 -- Total = 2

FH UEs:
Hewitt : 2,1,1 -- Total = 4
Henman : 5,2,3 -- Total = 10

BH UEs:
Hewitt : 2,1,0 -- Total = 3
Henman : 8,5,4 -- Total = 17

FH FEs:
Hewitt : 9,3,9 -- Total = 21
Henman : 8,5,6 -- Total = 19

BH FEs:
Hewitt : 10,5,11 -- Total = 26
Henman : 5,4,5 -- Total = 14

FHV :
Hewitt : 0,1,1 -- Total = 2
Henman : 2,0,1 -- Total = 3

BHV:
Hewitt : 0,1,0 -- Total = 1
Henman : 1,0,1 -- Total = 1

OH:
Hewitt : 1,0,1 -- Total = 2
Henman : 1,1,4 -- Total = 6

Net points :
Hewitt : 3/9,6/7,3/5 -- Total = 12/21 (57.14%)
Henman : 19/33, 9/25,23/40 -- Total = 51/98 (52.04%)

SnV points :
No SnV from Hewitt

1st serve SnV:
Henman : 13/18,5/13,14/21 -- Total = 32/52 (61.53%)

2nd serve SnV:
Henman : 0/1,2/3,2/5 --- Total = 4/9 (44.4%)

Unreturned serves (minus aces and service winners) :

1st serve:
Hewitt : 7,2,1 -- Total = 10
Henman : 7,4,7 -- Total = 18

2nd serve:
Hewitt : 3,1,1 -- Total = 5
Henman : 1,0,0 -- Total = 1


BP chances :
Hewitt : 2/5,2/6,2/4 -- Total = 6/15
Henman: 1/3,0/0,1/2 -- Total = 2/5

Games with BP chances:
Hewitt : 2/2,2/3,2/2 -- Total = 6/7
Henman : 1/2,0/0,1/1 -- Total = 2/3

In summary,

Winners:
Hewitt : 14,11,16 --- Total = 41
Henman : 8,3,9 -- Total = 20

UEs:
Hewitt : 6,2,1 -- Total = 9
Henman : 13,7,8 -- Total = 28

FEs:
Hewitt : 19,8,20 -- Total = 47
Henman : 13,9,11 -- Total = 33

Points :
Hewitt : 40,27,35 -- Total = 102
Henman : 33,13,30 -- Total = 76

 

[NatF]

This match was a clinic from Hewitt, had answers to everything.

 

[abmk]

my comments on the match :

1. It was even till 5 all in the first.
Then Hewitt went into the zone, returning brilliantly and passing Henman at will.
He won 8 of the 9 games from then on.
He continued playing brilliantly until he was serving for the match at 5-4 in the 3rd set.
Then some nerves from him + Henman swinging freely for the first time since the 1st set and Hewitt was broken.
Then Hewitt got back into it with an excellent return game and this time did not fail to serve it out.

2. Henman wasn't playing that great in the tournament, but at times raised his level in this match. But it wasn't going to be enough vs a pretty high level Hewitt.

 

[abmk]

3. I think Henman not playing that well had more to do with his form rather than the change in grass per se.
He was missing some routine groundstrokes, mistiming chip and charge approaches to the net.

4. Hewitt's serve and groundtrokes did not have as much pop/power that he'd have later on in 04/05, but they were still precise and pretty good. But he was half a step/step quicker in 01/02.

 

[Moose Malloy]

@abmk
Do you have henman's S&V stats on 1st and 2nd serve? Also I have NBC's broadcast, so I might have those missing pts.

 

[Mazz Retic]

Going into the match who was considered the favourite?

 

[abmk]

@abmk
Do you have henman's S&V stats on 1st and 2nd serve? Also I have NBC's broadcast, so I might have those missing pts.

Added.
Would be great if you could describe those 5 missing points from NBC's broadcast.

 

[jaggy]

 

[Moose Malloy]

@abmk
Here are the missing points
Game 4, 1st set
Henman S&V on 1st serve, Hewitt hits a BH lob winner
Henman S&V on 1st serve, draws a return error
Henman 2nd serve, stays back but approaches later and hits a BH overhead winner

Game 4, 2nd set
Henman S&V on 1st serve, draws a return error
Henman 2nd serve, stays back and Hewitt wins baseline point by forcing a FH error from henman

As far as your stats go, surprised to see such a low number of unreturned serves by Henman. But I've never done stats on his matches so I don't know what the norm was for him.

Also since he had a better % on S&V than overall net points, maybe he should have S&V more on 2nd serves? McEnroe seemed to think so.

 

[abmk]

@abmk
Here are the missing points
Game 4, 1st set
Henman S&V on 1st serve, Hewitt hits a BH lob winner
Henman S&V on 1st serve, draws a return error
Henman 2nd serve, stays back but approaches later and hits a BH overhead winner

Game 4, 2nd set
Henman S&V on 1st serve, draws a return error
Henman 2nd serve, stays back and Hewitt wins baseline point by forcing a FH error from henman

As far as your stats go, surprised to see such a low number of unreturned serves by Henman. But I've never done stats on his matches so I don't know what the norm was for him.

Also since he had a better % on S&V than overall net points, maybe he should have S&V more on 2nd serves? McEnroe seemed to think so.

thanks Moose. Can you please also let me know the return errors were of which wings ?

Henman should've gone a bit more to the net on 2nd serves (SnV) to mix it up, but I don't think it would've helped that much. He really needed to execute at a high level to stay with Hewitt, be it from the baseline or at the net.

Hewitt returned really well. So no surprise that Henman's unreturned serve% was less.
its 26/93 (27.95%) now with the 2 other unreturned serves that you mentioned.

 

[abmk]

@Moose Malloy :

Can you please let me know the return errors were of which wings so I can complete the stats for this match ?

------------------

Re : unreturned serves by Henman,

you can check in Tennisabstract for some of these matches :

http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-bin/player.cgi?p=TimHenman

(this is applicable in general for any player)

example : Henman vs Enqvist Cincy 2000

http://www.tennisabstract.com/chart...nati_Masters-F-Thomas_Enqvist-Tim_Henman.html

For unreturned serves by Henman, check his # of DFs under serve breakdown (add up for deuce and ad court) . Its 5+1 = 6 here.

Then go to return breakdown for Enqvist :

See Points , that's his return points, that's 74 here.
then inPlay , that's # of returns Enqvist put back in play, that's 41 over here.

all unreturned serves for Henman = return points for Enqvist - # of returns Enqvist put back in play - # of DFs for Henman
= 74-41-6 = 25

unreturned % for Henman in this Cincy match = 25/74 (33.78%)

 

[Thomas195]

Well, when a baseliner gives a leading serve-and-volley player (Henman, since Rafter had retired and Sampras was already eliminated and was about to retire) a total beatdown on Wimbledon grass, S&V is done.

Giving a leading serve-and-volley player a total beatdown on grass is exceptional at that time, even if we assumes that Hewitt was supported by slower grass.

 

[Mainad]

Well, when a baseliner gives a leading serve-and-volley player (Henman, since Rafter had retired and Sampras was already eliminated and was about to retire) a total beatdown on Wimbledon grass, S&V is done.

Giving a leading serve-and-volley player a total beatdown on grass is exceptional at that time, even if we assumes that Hewitt was supported by slower grass.

Hewitt was just the better player as his H2H vs Henman showed (9-1). He won all 4 of their meetings on grass, 1 at Wimbledon (2002) and 3 at Queen's (2001-2,2006). Henman's only victory against Hewitt came on hardcourt at the 2006 Miami Masters.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

my comments on the match :

1. It was even till 5 all in the first.
Then Hewitt went into the zone, returning brilliantly and passing Henman at will.
He won 8 of the 9 games from then on.
He continued playing brilliantly until he was serving for the match at 5-4 in the 3rd set.
Then some nerves from him + Henman swinging freely for the first time since the 1st set and Hewitt was broken.
Then Hewitt got back into it with an excellent return game and this time did not fail to serve it out.

2. Henman wasn't playing that great in the tournament, but at times raised his level in this match. But it wasn't going to be enough vs a pretty high level Hewitt.

Even if Henman threw the kitchen sink at Hewitt he'd still have lost. The matchup disadvantage was just too much for him to overcome plus Lleyton was the much better overall player.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Well, when a baseliner gives a leading serve-and-volley player (Henman, since Rafter had retired and Sampras was already eliminated and was about to retire) a total beatdown on Wimbledon grass, S&V is done.

Giving a leading serve-and-volley player a total beatdown on grass is exceptional at that time, even if we assumes that Hewitt was supported by slower grass.

Hewitt had victories over Sampras and Henman on fast grass. If I remember correctly, he lead almost all the S&V players in the H2H and pretty much "owned" them.

The Lleyton - Chang comparison comes apart when you examine their games. Chang was a counterpuncher, but his passing shots and ability/talent overall were nowhere near as good as prime Lleyton's.

Lleyton also had the best return on tour for a while (besides Agassi, but even then while Agassi was more aggressive on the return and hit them in deeper on average, Lleyton got more returns in play on average) which is mostly why he was No. 1 along with his footspeed and solid backhand.

Lleyton also gave Agassi fits at times (even though Agassi won their only slam meeting in 4 tightly contested sets) with the H2H ending up even between them.

 

[abmk]

Even if Henman threw the kitchen sink at Hewitt he'd still have lost. The matchup disadvantage was just too much for him to overcome plus Lleyton was the much better overall player.

he'd have had a shot if Hewitt was atleast slightly below par. vs a hewitt playing well, his task was going to be very uphill.

hewitt's game was the perfect counter to SnV tennis.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

he'd have had a shot if Hewitt was atleast slightly below par. vs a hewitt playing well, his task was going to be very uphill.

hewitt's game was the perfect counter to SnV tennis.

He'd have to be more than slightly subpar. Lleyton was in horrible form when Henman piped him at Miami in 06. He had lots of iffy losses around that time including to James Blake and others he usually defeated.

Second point is true and it's why he'd lose. It's not because Henman was a bad player (he was very good, in fact) but the matchup disadvantage was just too great to counter. Goran would've suffered a similar fate (and did so in their meetings but there's nothing conclusive to go by).

 

[abmk]

He'd have to be more than slightly subpar. Lleyton was in horrible form when Henman piped him at Miami in 06. He had lots of iffy losses around that time including to James Blake and others he usually defeated.


Second point is true and it's why he'd lose. It's not because Henman was a bad player (he was very good, in fact) but the matchup disadvantage was just too great to counter. Goran would've suffered a similar fate (and did so in their meetings but there's nothing conclusive to go by).

I was talking about specifically at Wimbledon, where crowd support would've probably spurred Henman on had a he got a good foothold on the match & Hewitt may have gotten a tad nervous. I said Henman have a shot if that were the case, not that Henman would necessarily win.

As far as Goran is concerned, depends on how well Goran was serving and the surface . Goran wasn't your typical SnVer, he was more dependent on his serve. Hewitt was a fantastic returner, but considering his troubles vs Karlovic, I have to take a pause before saying he'd dominate Goran. (& I mean a prime Goran over here)

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I was talking about specifically at Wimbledon, where crowd support would've probably spurred Henman on had a he got a good foothold on the match & Hewitt may have gotten a tad nervous. I said Henman have a shot if that were the case, not that Henman would necessarily win.

As far as Goran is concerned, depends on how well Goran was serving and the surface . Goran wasn't your typical SnVer, he was more dependent on his serve. Hewitt was a fantastic returner, but considering his troubles vs Karlovic, I have to take a pause before saying he'd dominate Goran. (& I mean a prime Goran over here)

Henman would have more of a chance, sure, but their history does dictate a much different fate. Even when things went the distance (in a couple of their 3-set Queens encounters) Hewitt managed to turn the tides for the win. I feel mentally Hewitt was a class above Henman. Henman did have periods of bad mentality which cost him matches (against Goran at Wimbledon in 2001 for example).

Prime Goran would have beaten Hewitt a couple of times. I think Goran and Hewitt might have had a similar history to Hewitt and Roddick (pre 06) but that's simply due to the fact Goran was a much better player than Henman and had much bigger weapons in his arsenal.

 

[abmk]

Henman would have more of a chance, sure, but their history does dictate a much different fate. Even when things went the distance (in a couple of their 3-set Queens encounters) Hewitt managed to turn the tides for the win. I feel mentally Hewitt was a class above Henman. Henman did have periods of bad mentality which cost him matches (against Goran at Wimbledon in 2001 for example).

yeah, agree with that.

Prime Goran would have beaten Hewitt a couple of times. I think Goran and Hewitt might have had a similar history to Hewitt and Roddick (pre 06) but that's simply due to the fact Goran was a much better player than Henman and had much bigger weapons in his arsenal.

well, in their mutual primes, 04-05, it was 3-2 to Hewitt vs Roddick.

I see it going something like 7-3 for Hewitt vs Goran.

 

[IowaGuy]

I see it going something like 7-3 for Hewitt vs Goran.

4-3 Agassi - Goran.

Agassi also had good game to counter-punch against S&V, as evidenced by his Wimbledon victories over Boris Becker and Goran in 1992 Wimbledon (fast grass).

Edit: was just looking at the 1992 Wimby draw - Goran had a great run that year, beating Lendl, Edberg, and Sampras en route to a 5-set final against Agassi! Peak Goran would have given (theoretical) peak Hewitt a great match on early 1990's grass!

 

[IowaGuy]

What made Hewitt's return game so good?

I notice that Hewitt blocks back BH returns of serve, at times, which is something Agassi (or Joker or Nadal or other good 2HBH returners) hardly ever did.

 

[abmk]

4-3 Agassi - Goran.

Agassi also had good game to counter-punch against S&V, as evidenced by his Wimbledon victories over Boris Becker and Goran in 1992 Wimbledon (fast grass).

Edit: was just looking at the 1992 Wimby draw - Goran had a great run that year, beating Lendl, Edberg, and Sampras en route to a 5-set final against Agassi! Peak Goran would have given (theoretical) peak Hewitt a great match on early 1990's grass!

What made Hewitt's return game so good?

I notice that Hewitt blocks back BH returns of serve, at times, which is something Agassi (or Joker or Nadal or other good 2HBH returners) hardly ever did.

Sampras explains it over here.

................


Putting on possibly the most impressive display of returning of serving seen during the Open era, Hewitt consistently took Sampras best shots and either cracked them at the American's feet, or whipped them past his outstretched foe.

Sampras came into the match having won 87 straight service games but Hewitt broke him in the opening game of the first set and from then on, constantly put the serving god Sampras under pressure. Sampras, who knocked off former U.S. Open champions Patrick Rafter, Andre Agassi and Marat Safin to get here, was awestruck.

"He returned and passed as well as anyone I think I've ever played," said Sampras of Hewitt, who only committed 13 unforced errors and won 57 percent of Sampras' second serve points. "The reason why I wasn't' quite as sharp was because of the way he was returning, passing. He made me play. I was hitting low volleys. The harder I served, the more I put into it, the better he returned. He's got the best return in the game, the best wheels in the game. He now possesses a much better serve. He's a great player. You'll see him contending here for the next 10 years."

Sampras tried to batter Hewitt with the same super-aggressive strategy that he successfully employed against Agassi et al, but his balls landed a little short and Hewitt always seemed to be reading where he was going with his approach shots.

""The times I was aggressive he came up with great shots," said Sampras, who only won 50 percent of his net approaches. "But I felt fresh. I could have played all night if I had to. But he loves playing a target, against guys that come in a lot. He uses his quickness to his advantage. It seemed like everything I tried didn't work."

Amazingly, Sampras said that Hewitt is a better return of server than Agassi, even though Agassi is considered by many to be the best returner of all time.

"He's quicker," Sampras said. "Maybe he doesn't have the power, but he doesn't miss. He's very tough to ace. He's got the hands and the feet. It's really impressive stuff."

The 5-foot-11 Hewitt took that as a huge compliment and said that when he was a slight junior playing against older, taller and stronger foes, he needed to develop that weapon.

"I've had to work on little areas of my game to be able to counterpunch those guys," Hewitt said. "The return of serve is something I've worked on since I was nine or 10 playing in four to three year age groups against the bigger guys, I've always been a big returner."

.......................

http://web.archive.org/web/20020127...0921391389d43ebbde653e3f00256ac30009012f.html

 

[IowaGuy]

Sampras explains it over here.

I've never thought of him as being such a stud against S&V, since he was right at the end of that era.

How many GS might he have won if he played throughout the late 80's and 90's? Or would fast grass/hard court have been too much for him? (he caught Sampras on a slower surface than when Pistol Pete was at peak dominance)

 

[abmk]

I've never thought of him as being such a stud against S&V, since he was right at the end of that era.

How many GS might he have won if he played throughout the late 80's and 90's? Or would fast grass/hard court have been too much for him? (he caught Sampras on a slower surface than when Pistol Pete was at peak dominance)

Hewitt was always thought of as one of THE guys who finished off SnV tennis at top level. (Agassi of course was regarded one of the the guys) . Henman, Rafter and even Sampras from 2000 onwards struggled vs him.

9-1 vs Henman
3-1 vs Rafter
5-2 vs Sampras from 2000 onwards


USO 01 was a fast surface, not slower than what it used to be in the mid-90s or so.
hewitt beat Sampras in straights at Queens in 00.
took him to 3rd set TB in Queens 99, when Hewitt wasn't even close to top 10.

He actually liked medium fast or faster courts more than slower ones.

I'm guessing he'd have won anywhere b/w 2-4 slams in any era.

 

[Thomas195]

hewitt beat Sampras in straights at Queens in 00.
took him to 3rd set TB in Queens 99, when Hewitt wasn't even close to top 10.

But Hewitt performed much worse than he should have in Wimby until 2002. In 1999, he lost to Becker (whose prime was in the 1980s), in 2000 he lost to Gambill, in 2001 he nearly lost to Dent and then lost to Escude. Except for Gambill, all other guys mentioned here were all-courters/S&Vers.

I mean he seemed to be quite vulnerable to journeymen on old Wimbledon grass. I once saw a comment which stated that old Wimbledon grass during the first week was faster than Queen.

Prime Goran would have beaten Hewitt a couple of times.

Depending on where they meet. If Hewitt consistently underperform on fast grass like in 1999-2001, he would not meet Goran. If they meet in the first week, then I would bet on Goran, but if in the second week then it's a close call.

On indoor carpet, I think it would be some kind of 55-45 for Goran.

I think Goran actually could have dominated because most of the time he would fail too early on hard courts .

hewitt beat Sampras in straights at Queens in 00.

Looking at Queen results cannot evaluate Sampras correctly because he never tried that hard on Queens. You know, he also lost to the likes of Brad Gilbert or Todd Martin there.

USO 01 was a fast surface, not slower than what it used to be in the mid-90s or so.

I'm guessing he'd have won anywhere b/w 2-4 slams in any era.

Well, he's not going to beat Ivan Lendl or Jim Courier or young Agassi with his game.

When a semi-retired Becker gave him a schooling, I don't think he would fare well against Becker, who was also capable of blowing him off the court from the baseline. The same thing would apply with young Sampras.
Edberg, OTOH, would make a good target.

 

[abmk]

But Hewitt performed much worse than he should have in Wimby until 2002. In 1999, he lost to Becker (whose prime was in the 1980s), in 2000 he lost to Gambill, in 2001 he nearly lost to Dent and then lost to Escude. Except for Gambill, all other guys mentioned here were all-courters/S&Vers.

I mean he seemed to be quite vulnerable to journeymen on old Wimbledon grass. I once saw a comment which stated that old Wimbledon grass during the first week was faster than Queen.

see about 99 below. how did he nearly lose to dent in 01 ? He was up 2 sets to 1 and won the last set 6-3.


oh, you saw a comment somewhere ? so ? doesn't make it the reality.

Well, he's not going to beat Ivan Lendl or Jim Courier or young Agassi with his game.

oh yes, he could.

When a semi-retired Becker gave him a schooling, I don't think he would fare well against Becker, who was also capable of blowing him off the court from the baseline. The same thing would apply with young Sampras.
Edberg, OTOH, would make a good target.

FFS, Hewitt was 18 at that time.

he was ranked 35.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/rankings/singles?rankDate=1999-06-28&rankRange=0-100

doesn't really mean much.

and while Becker did have enough power, he'd struggle to get past Hewitt's defense/counterpunching. He wouldn't find him an easy target like he did Chang. hewitt is NOT Chang.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

But Hewitt performed much worse than he should have in Wimby until 2002. In 1999, he lost to Becker (whose prime was in the 1980s), in 2000 he lost to Gambill, in 2001 he nearly lost to Dent and then lost to Escude. Except for Gambill, all other guys mentioned here were all-courters/S&Vers.

I mean he seemed to be quite vulnerable to journeymen on old Wimbledon grass. I once saw a comment which stated that old Wimbledon grass during the first week was faster than Queen.

Depending on where they meet. If Hewitt consistently underperform on fast grass like in 1999-2001, he would not meet Goran. If they meet in the first week, then I would bet on Goran, but if in the second week then it's a close call.

On indoor carpet, I think it would be some kind of 55-45 for Goran.

I think Goran actually could have dominated because most of the time he would fail too early on hard courts .

Becker was arguably in his prime until 1996/1997 which was when he started sliding down the rankings. He won the 1996 Australian Open lmao, you don't win GS titles (when you're a Becker-level player) if you're already past it. So a slightly past prime Becker (who retired early, mind you) piped a fresh faced 18 year old Lleyton Hewitt who was barely off the Challenger circuit. Big deal.

The other matches can easily be explained away as age-related and not surface related. When he upped his game he could defeat even Sampras on grass (which was evidenced by his 2000 Queens Club victory over Pete) -- and I disagree. I actually think the grass at Queens was faster than the grass at Wimbledon during that time period.

If they met in the first week you'd bet on Goran? Really? The guy would fold mentally in most Grand Slam matches. His only weapon, being his serve, would come firing back at him with nearly the same velocity it was struck at.

I think Goran wouldn't have dominated the meetings but he'd win a couple of times due to him actually having a weapon to rely on, unlike Henman who used his finesse more than anything and it served him horribly against Hewitt; who was pipped as a stronger, taller and better version of Michael Chang.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Well, he's not going to beat Ivan Lendl or Jim Courier or young Agassi with his game.

When a semi-retired Becker gave him a schooling, I don't think he would fare well against Becker, who was also capable of blowing him off the court from the baseline. The same thing would apply with young Sampras.
Edberg, OTOH, would make a good target.

I actually think Lleyton Hewitt was a better player than Jim Courier; he was just incredibly unlucky to play against peak Roger Federer (and Jim Courier would lose to him every single time too).

If he can beat Andre Agassi as a 16 year old he can beat Ivan Lendl once or twice lmao.

Young Agassi wasn't even as good as the older Agassi Hewitt was playing against so how would he do worse? Agassi's consistency helped him later on, that's something he didn't have when he was fresh on the circuit.

 

[Prabhanjan]

I actually think Lleyton Hewitt was a better player than Jim Courier; he was just incredibly unlucky to play against peak Roger Federer (and Jim Courier would lose to him every single time too).

Federer as well as his own injuries is how I see the tragedy of Hewitt.

 

[BringBackWood]

Felt sorry for Tim in this match. The slow courts from this year on was like Wimbledon giving Tim the 2 fingers for choking against Goran the previous year. S & V didn't stand a chance against Hewitt on these courts.

 

[Mainad]

Felt sorry for Tim in this match. The slow courts from this year on was like Wimbledon giving Tim the 2 fingers for choking against Goran the previous year. S & V didn't stand a chance against Hewitt on these courts.

Maybe they figured if Tim couldn't get the job done on the faster courts, maybe he'd fare better if they were slowed down?

 

[BringBackWood]

Maybe they figured if Tim couldn't get the job done on the faster courts, maybe he'd fare better if they were slowed down?

.

 

[fundrazer]

I've never thought of him as being such a stud against S&V, since he was right at the end of that era.

How many GS might he have won if he played throughout the late 80's and 90's? Or would fast grass/hard court have been too much for him? (he caught Sampras on a slower surface than when Pistol Pete was at peak dominance)

I dunno much, but I think Hewitt had such good control of his shots that he could almost always manage to put the ball in an uncomfortable position for S&V players. Basically what Pete said as the other poster mentioned. They probably had to respect his lob as well, as I recall Hewitt having a pretty good one.

Anyway, thought I'd post another Hewitt match that I was watching a bit lately. Felt like watching PimPim for whatever reason, and Hewitt pretty much dismantled him here. It's unrealistic, but PimPim has the kind of game I want....relative to 3.5/4.0 tennis anyway. Probably doesn't make much sense because even serving 25% as good as PimPim probably enough for 4.5 rating. But I would love to have that confidence to go for all of my shots, fh/bh/serve and at net.