Hewitt vs Roddick on grass
- Thread starter ADuck
- Start date
Mainad
Bionic Poster
This is a tricky one.
Hewitt has 8 grasscourt titles including a Wimbledon title and 4 titles at Queen's.
Roddick has 5 grasscourt titles including 4 titles at Queen's. He made 3 finals at Wimbledon.
Roddick won all 3 of their grasscourt encounters (1 at Wimbledon, 2 at Queen's).
Hewitt has obviously achieved more by winning Wimbledon whilst Roddick made more Wimbledon finals and owns their H2H on grass.
Hewitt has 8 grasscourt titles including a Wimbledon title and 4 titles at Queen's.
Roddick has 5 grasscourt titles including 4 titles at Queen's. He made 3 finals at Wimbledon.
Roddick won all 3 of their grasscourt encounters (1 at Wimbledon, 2 at Queen's).
Hewitt has obviously achieved more by winning Wimbledon whilst Roddick made more Wimbledon finals and owns their H2H on grass.
frodobaggins
Rookie
The thing that seperates them is the Wimbledon title. That is really the only thing. Beyond that they are close to identical. Hewitt only has 1 Wimbledon final, but that is because he played Federer before the finals numerous times, in 2005 he probably cant lose to anyone but Federer including Roddick, and in 2004 he atleast gives Roddick a run for his money. By the same token though the reason Roddick does not have a Wimbledon title is Federer, and does Hewitt of 2002 really beat any version of Federer?
I think though results come first so has to be Hewitt for his Wimbledon title alone, but playing level wise they are probably roughly tied. Roddick was probably the better Wimbledon performer in many ways, Hewitt underperformed significantly at Wimbledon before his title, especialy in 2000 and 2001 when he won Queens, was a top grass court player, and should have done very well.
I think though results come first so has to be Hewitt for his Wimbledon title alone, but playing level wise they are probably roughly tied. Roddick was probably the better Wimbledon performer in many ways, Hewitt underperformed significantly at Wimbledon before his title, especialy in 2000 and 2001 when he won Queens, was a top grass court player, and should have done very well.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Hewitt overplayed leading into Wimbledon in 2001 IMO and definitely underperformed. Hewitt was a tough match up for Roddick generally so if he was at his best I might back him.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Sounds like the H2H favors Roddick.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Assume no Fedr, Hwt sits on 2 bulldones (02, 05) and Rodk on 3 (03, 04, 09). Both have 4 queens. Rodk is therefore my choice.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Hewitt's prime was cut short by injuries though.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
This doesn't ask whose peak was higher. Probably Hewitt's, but that made no difference to their results.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Asks who was better which sounds like peak, also you gave hypothetical results
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Asks who was better which sounds like peak, also you gave hypothetical results
Which weren't affected either, since they peaked at different times.
Even in prime it's 2 v 2 though, and Hewitt wasn't injured when Dr Ivo trolled him in 03. Epic surgery btw.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Hewitt was in a slump though to be fair, no excuse really. Though honestly Ivo in round one of Wimbledon is a ****ing brutal draw for anyone - and Ivo gave a Hewitt a lot of trouble in general.
Last edited:
frodobaggins
Rookie
The amazing thing about that match though was Karlovic broke Hewitt a lot of times. Karlovic rarely breaks anyone a lot of times, even guys ranked deep into the hundreds, just as usually nobody breaks Karlovic often, even a Big 3/Big 4 member.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Ivo broke him twice, Hewitt broke Ivo three times - the worst thing is Hewitt had 13 break points (not sure how many games that was across though).
Mainad
Bionic Poster
I always thought it odd that Hewitt breezed through the 1st set for the loss of just 1 game and then blew it from the 2nd set tie-break. Did Ivo raise his game that much or was Lleyton just pratting about?
One Handed Dynasty
Semi-Pro
I think that it has to be Roddick, his 5 setter final against Fed is a higher level than Hewitt reached. Roddick would have been a multi slam winner if he didn’t have Fed dominating.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Well stated. A true dilemma.
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Hewitt's road to that 2002 Wimbledon title looks very peculiar (if not lucky).
All the good players (Sampras, Agassi, Safin, baby Fed, Roddick) who might have challenged him lost in the early rounds.
His opponent in the final, Nalbandian, was seeded no. 28. Three opponents were unseeded and one was a qualifier. Henman, seeded fourth, was the only low seed he faced.
All the good players (Sampras, Agassi, Safin, baby Fed, Roddick) who might have challenged him lost in the early rounds.
His opponent in the final, Nalbandian, was seeded no. 28. Three opponents were unseeded and one was a qualifier. Henman, seeded fourth, was the only low seed he faced.
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Hewitt was the best player on grass that year anyway, aside from a wobble against Schalken he thrashed everyone.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Hewitt has to be considered the greater grass player due to his W title.
But I have no idea who was better.
But I have no idea who was better.
frodobaggins
Rookie
One poster said the tennis Roddick played at Wimbledon 09 was better than Hewitt has ever produced on grass or at Wimbledon. While that is certainly possible the counter to that is a well post prime Hewitt (who was injured to boot) very nearly beat Roddick at Wimbledon 09 in the quarters.
FD3S
Hall of Fame
Tough call. While I'd say peak for peak Hewitt would probably lead the grass H2H between the two due to his strengths neutralizing most of Roddick's (with the caveat that there would still be matches where Roddick's serve and power off the ground would prove to be unplayable), I'd say Roddick's game would fare much better against the rest of the field in comparison to Hewitt's.
abmk
Bionic Poster
except Roddick won their only peak to peak match on grass (Queens 04) and also their other 2 grass matches (Queens 09, Wim 09)
FD3S
Hall of Fame
He did, but Queens 2004 I saw as one of the matches I mentioned where his power ended up trumping everything; given from what we saw in most of their other matches from that time frame (the next three went Hewitt's way, and when Roddick won next in 2006 his baseline blaster mode was long gone and Hewitt's slide had started), I'm not at all comfortable with saying peak Roddick would consistently do that to peak Hewitt on grass, even with his serve. Some of the time? Sure, grass is fast and Roddick's offense was monstrous. All the time? A lot harder to say.
As for 2009 Hewitt, while he was still a fine player he was way farther from his peak than Roddick was from his, especially considering his injuries. It speaks volumes about the slim margins of grass tennis and Hewitt's tenacity that he turned both those matches into highwire knife fights.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Roddick also beat Hewitt in Cincy 05.
Granted Hewitt was further away from his peak in 09 Wim than Roddick, but it was still arguably his best GS performance after 05
FD3S
Hall of Fame
Forgot about that Cincy match! I'm certainly not diagreeing with you on Wimbledon 2009, it was an excellent run, but in terms of evaluating how they'd do on grass... they'd both dropped enough compared to thier younger selves so IMO it's a bit harder to use their 09 encounters as an yardstick, especially considering that peak Roddick's playstyle was vastly different than how it was after Connors and under Stefanki.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Hewitt was no where near his best in that match really, think he was up a break in the first and then gave it away. At that time (04-early 05 pre first surgery) Hewitt really dominated the h2h, basically out clutching and outplaying Roddick in the biggest matches, IMO he was a better overall player - even his forehand looked better h2h. On grass that might have been different but I don't think one match in 04 is enough to say who would lead on grass.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I take it as 3-2 lead for Hewitt from 2004-05 when both were in their mutual primes.
I don't think the 1 match in 04 is enough to say who'd lead on grass. But IMO, Roddick's peak on grass was higher. that along with the 04 match (and to a lesser extent the 09 matches) make me think Roddick would have the slight edge on grass.
Hewitt was the better player overall, but this assessment of mine is only about a peak to peak or prime to prime h2h on grass.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I don't place too much emphasis on it, but I won't completely ignore it either. Also see my above post.
FD3S
Hall of Fame
I did - my assessment is that Roddick's best game on grass does beat Hewitt's handily when it comes to playing the rest of the field (hence my vote for Roddick in the poll - you play the field, not one guy), but H2H in a vacuum with just those two... I just don't know if I could give it to Roddick based on that one match in 2004, because Hewitt at his peak was very capable of feeding off Roddick's strengths. He was one of the few that could legitimately blunt Roddick's power off the serve consistently (the other two being Federer and Agassi) and he had no issues taking groundstroke pace and sending it back with interest and direction thanks to his timing and anticipation. Add his undiminished speed and agility into the equation along with Roddick's poorer BH and grass might not enough of an equalizer to offset the matchup over a series of encounters.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Meh, it's 3-2 but Roddick basically got Hewitt back when he was still on his way back to being "Hewitt" at Queen's and post first surgery Hewitt who was struggling for consistency in the smaller events
Their Cincy match was actually pretty high quality, some good ballstriking from both - shame that Roddick never came out of his shell in the final.Roddick's peak may have been higher, his serve + forehand combo was lethal in those days.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
Roddick.
crackerspread
New User
It is interesting you feel that way. I am not sure that is true or not. Who would far better against certain key opponents.
Federer- Neither really. Not much difference, maybe Roddick a bit more threatening, but next to no difference. Both had about an equally close match with him in 2004, Hewitt's match against him in 2005 was better, Roddick came closer in 2009 than Hewitt ever has but Federer's period of dominance was clearly over at this point regardless if his prime wasnt and Hewitt was in no shape by then to be able to face a no longer dominating tennis Federer.
Nadal- Umm anyway to know? Total guess really. I would guess it might be Roddick due to playing style, but really there is nothing to go on.
Djokovic- Next to no evidence here as well. I will guess Roddick here due to the match up.
Agassi- Hewitt almost certainly even if there are limited matches in both cases on actual grass. The overall head to heads of both vs Agassi are telling enough in this case though. Grass would clearly help both in their chances in playing Agassi too.
Henman- Hewitt for sure.
Murray- Probably Roddick for the 09 Wimbledon win alone, but he did lose to baby Murray at Wimbledon 06. Not much to go on for Hewitt.
Then against the field, well neither were ever able to have a stretch of longer than a few years of top results contending at Wimbledon without being upset by much lower ranked, so both seemed equally vurnerable to this, so that part is a wash too.
I dont see much difference vs the field at all, certainly not in Roddick's favor.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
There were basically only 3 other guys from Federer’s generation battling for the chance to be the second best player in the world. And Safin was too busy enjoying life most of the time, leaving only Roddick and Hewitt to take that job seriously.
In a way, that made Roddick and Hewitt each other’s biggest rival during their primes.
In a way, that made Roddick and Hewitt each other’s biggest rival during their primes.
crackerspread
New User
It is too bad the rivalry didnt last longer. I always enjoyed their matches and they were very evenly matched when both were prime-ish.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Yes, Sampras was going to challenge him at that point... don't make me die of laughter. He didn't lose a single match to him (or even a set IIRC) after that 2000 WTF thrashing he gave Sampras (who was 3 in the world at the time).
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
The H2H for Sampras versus Hewitt is 4-5, in favor of Hewitt.
Sampras won the first three meetings 1998-2000, including a win on grass at Queen's Club in 1999 (in which Hewitt took the first set).
Hewitt won the last four meetings 2000-2002.
They split two matches in 2000, at Queens Club and the USO.
In 2001 they met at Queens Club on grass. Hewitt won 3-6, 6-3, 6-2. Sampras did take the first set, but was not much of a challenge to Hewitt after 2000.
crackerspread
New User
If Sampras made the semis and finals there is a decent shot it would be a competitive match simply since if Sampras got that far it would mean he was playing extremely well. Sampras was never playing remotedly well enough to make it that far at Wimbledon 02 so it is a moot point.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Hewitt also got Sampras in the RR stage of the YEC in 2000.
The only match of theirs I can't find in the 2001 Queens match, really wish I could get my hands on it. In basically all their other meetings outside of the USO 2000 clash Hewitt just looked super comfortable against Sampras - the returns, passes etc...just too good. It had been very wet that summer in 2001 so wondering if the conditions were the equaliser here.
Night Slasher
Semi-Pro
I always felt Sampras didn't use a smart strategy when he faced Hewitt and it was usually based on rushing the net no matter what. It gave Hewitt easy time often and he killed him with the passing shots. Pete should've tried to mix it up a bit more.
On contrary, Becker's masterclass against Hewitt in 1999 at Wimbledon (similar to how Fed used to play him later) was a good lesson on how to deal with a great returner who hits incredible passing shots, but who isn't quite known for putting too much weight on the ball. He played him much smarter by throwing a lot of junk and using a raw power that put Lleyton out of the rhythm and he never felt comfortable in that match and made a lot of uncharacteristic errors. This combo of lack of pace and big power was really challenging for Hewitt. That never happened to him against Pete as he employed pretty much one-dimensional tactics.
I know many people would argue it was a young Hewitt, but just a week prior to that match he had Sampras on the ropes at Queen's - a break up in the third and mini break in the third set's tie-break, so the young gun was a real deal even back then.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Sampras had the advantage before Hewitt had fully developed as a player.... and even then he was dropping sets to him.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
True.
Often in tennis the careers of two players overlap, but the younger player is on the way up and the older player is on the way down.
If they overlap enough, the older wins the first few meetings and the younger player wins the later meetings--with some splits in the middle. (Connors versus Lendl is one good example, or McEnroe versus Edberg.)
Last edited:
FD3S
Hall of Fame
Grass rewards raw offensive prowess perhaps more than any other surface, and peak Roddick took the racquet out of your hands more often than not. Very few people were capable of dealing with the 1-2 combination that his serve and forehand presented, and most of them are in his stratosphere if not far higher. Hewitt's probably better against pure serve and volleyers, true, but I'd argue that's where his advantage ends.
With even peak Hewitt on grass, the average player would usually at least be in the points a good chunk of the time - his serve wasn't overpowering, and his returning was great but not point-ending like Agassi's was. Peak Roddick, in contrast, would probably hold in the blink of an eye against 90% to 95% of the opposition while he could take risks on his return games knowing that one break was probably the set. The margins of error are far lower on grass, and Roddick's strengths and weapons were better suited to take advantage.
Definitely Roddick...Roddick was really unlucky imo to run into prime Federer on grass...even in those 3 Wimbledon finals, he could have won the 2009 final. Even the 2004 final was a close match, a tight 4 setter. The 2005 final was the only match where Roddick looked like 1-2 tiers below Roger.
trailgraves
New User
Their playing levels are basically the same, so is their consistency and most of their stats. So obviously Hewitt because of the Wimbledon title. The Federer excuse can only go so far, Hewitt atleast managed to peak in a year Federer was beatable or not in the way and won, while Roddick couldnt manage the same in years the same opportunity was present where he was strong (eg- 2008 and 2010, maybe 2007). It isnt even like Roddick would be certain to have more Wimbledon titles than Hewitt without Federer either. It is possible Roddick has 3- 2003, 2004, 2009 and Hewitt only 2- 2002 and 2005, but Roddick is far from certain to beat Hewitt in 2004 or Philippoussis in 2003, both which would be close calls IMO. I guess 2005 isnt certain either, but Hewitt is a more likely winner over Roddick this year, than Roddick is either of those other 2 years over Hewitt/Philippoussis.
Ultimately there is no conjecture so positively in Roddick's favor to overcome the actual Wimbledon title and Hewitt's overall bigger string of grass tournament winss.
Ultimately there is no conjecture so positively in Roddick's favor to overcome the actual Wimbledon title and Hewitt's overall bigger string of grass tournament winss.
trailgraves
New User
I can see your points but countering that is that even peak Roddick didnt seem unplayable at all to the field outside of Federer. Ancic overpowered him for good parts of their 2004 semi, and actually hit more winners, but Roddick was just mentally tougher on the big points and a bit more consistent. This is definitely peak Roddick as he pushed peak Federer hard in the final, hit more winners than Federer, and might have even had a shot of winning in 4 or 5 sets had he played the big points better. I could be wrong, but I think he had another tough match at that Wimbledon. And of course 2009 Roddick, the other likely best example of all time peak Roddick on grass, nearly lost to a way past prime Hewitt, and didnt exactly have it easy vs a tenative playing and non prime Murray in the semis (who at that point was a renowned big match choker and underperformer).
Hewitt in Wimbledon 2002 had one shocking scare vs Schalken, but he had match points for an easy straight sets win and the match never should have gotten that complicated, and otherwise destroyed everyone else even if it was mostly a joke draw, it still included some reasonable opponents (eg- prime Henman). He actually looked more dominant and unplayable than Roddick ever did, despite your accurate points on their playing styles.
FD3S
Hall of Fame
I would argue that Roddick's W/L on grass during his peak as a player disputes the bolded point; during his best years from 2003 to 2005, he was 34-3 on the surface and you can probably guess the one person that managed to beat him three times. It also bears noting that this time period also had grass scalps over Hewitt and Agassi, both of who matched up very well with Roddick's offense driven game on every other court.
More to the point, I remember that match and Roddick's general level of play in the final exceeded his showing against Ancic in the semi by a fair bit - while Ancic was undoubtedly playing well throughout, Roddick was far more patchy with a lot more peaks and valleys then he would show against Roger, and this is saying a lot considering the topsy-turvy second set of that final. While some of that had to do with Ancic's own game keeping him from doing his best, I recall that Roddick wasn't serving nearly as well as he would a match later, and even when Ancic wasn't taking it to him his groundstrokes weren't quite what what they would be against Federer; for instance, his backhand was superb (by Roddick standards, anyway) against Roger. Against Ancic, not so much - and he still only dropped a set when all was said and done. Hell, it could very well have been nerves plaguing him for the first half; McEnroe noted in the final's opening set that Roddick looked far more relaxed against Federer than Ancic.
Now, when it comes to 2009 (past his peak but still very dangerous) Roddick, I'll grant you that a red-lining Hewitt was farther past his own peak and it still took him five sets, but there's a reason Murray was favored by more people by far, at least on paper. Much like Roddick/Djokovic prognostications from back then, pre-prime Murray's game was such that he was seen as having the advantage by most, even considering the mental issues you pointed out; he also led Roddick in the H2H and had beaten him at Wimbledon before, not to mention he was the higher ranked player going in. He was a solid world #3/#4 with the results to back it up.
2002 Hewitt played mainly baseliners during that Wimbledon, and like you said yourself... it was a bit of a joke draw, especially compared to the coming years. He didn't have to play any true grass court threats aside from Henman, and he was well-equipped to dissect net players at that point. Nalbandian could and should have put up far more resistance, but... that's Nalbandian.
This one is easy. Roddick's best surface IMO was grass, evident by the fact that peak Roddick had all losses against Hewitt and Agassi except for on grass (coincidence?).
You might argue that the reason that he beat Agassi was due to Agassi being much weaker on grass (rather than Roddick much stronger) BUT the same cannot be said for Hewitt.
You might argue that the reason that he beat Agassi was due to Agassi being much weaker on grass (rather than Roddick much stronger) BUT the same cannot be said for Hewitt.
