Lleyton Hewitt would be No4 today with his points from 2002 and 2001

[Achilles82]

In 2002, if we use todays rankings, he would have somewhere around 7480 points (counting all masters, + masters finals, + grand slams, + two ATP titles).

In 2001 he would have around 7290 points.

I didn't count some ATP 250 and 500 QF and SF, so it might be a little more points, but not much more.



So, in last 5 years, world No3, who ever that was, Andy, Novak, Rafa or Roger, had more points then 2002 world No1 Lleyton Hewitt, and he was No1 for almost 2 years!


Which just shows how tough it is today to be wolrd No1 player....

 

[NadalAgassi]

He also wouldnt have his 2002 point today as he would not win Wimbledon this year with his tennis from Wimbledon 2002 (most likely). Nor the YEC with his tennis from 2002 YEC (most likely). At best he might win one event, and probably not even that. So factoring that into he would probably be below #4 with the same performances.

 

[Evan77]

well, I get your point although not sure about points, but fair enough. Hewitt, was in a way a transitional champ before Fed era (I hate that term, but). I do agree with you, that being #1 even for a week is a big deal and it's so hard to achieve it (not talking about the WTA, lol).

now, I don't want to derail your thread but I really like Hewitt. He was portrayed as a bad boy, but he was fine. He still is. The media just used every single opportunity to make some drama around him. They tried to make him a racist and all of that ... stupid ... DC, Australia vs. Argentina, God help me ... so much drama ...

 

[Deleted member 307496]

If Federer was not around in 2004/2005, Hewitt would have been No. 1 again and had more points than last time.

 

[forzamilan90]

Hewitt's a homie, but alas when Fed started ripping it up the standard was raised, the other top guys had to really play catch up and compete like crazy to win lots of points creating that ultimate standard that still remains to this day (hence #4 being equivalent point wise to a #1 in previous eras)

 

[tudwell]

Sampras in 1998 would have around 7300 points in today's system. In 1996, he would have around 8200 points. Both of these would put him ranked 4th, but he finished the year at number one in both years.

 

[nereis]

The number of points you win is a direct result of how you do against the field.

Hence, comparing the absolute number of points won between two different people at such a large time interval is not exactly an apples to apples comparison because there can be two explanations for a discrepancy.

1. One player is does better against the field than the other.
2. The field was stronger for one era than another.

Whether it's answer 1 or 2 is subjective. Now if we want to be subjective and give our opinion that's all fine and good. But let's not pretend that we're not making a value judgment here.

FYI I think Hewitt was much better in 2004-5 than in 2001-2.

 

[merlinpinpin]

In 2002, if we use todays rankings, he would have somewhere around 7480 points (counting all masters, + masters finals, + grand slams, + two ATP titles).

In 2001 he would have around 7290 points.

I didn't count some ATP 250 and 500 QF and SF, so it might be a little more points, but not much more.



So, in last 5 years, world No3, who ever that was, Andy, Novak, Rafa or Roger, had more points then 2002 world No1 Lleyton Hewitt, and he was No1 for almost 2 years!


Which just shows how tough it is today to be wolrd No1 player....

Just do the same calculations for Sampras, you'll be very surprised about several of his #1 finishes.

Sampras in 1998 would have around 7300 points in today's system. In 1996, he would have around 8200 points. Both of these would put him ranked 4th, but he finished the year at number one in both years.

I see I'm not the first to bring that up...

 

[nadal_slam_king]

Hewitt is the reason why Federer gave up on serve-volley tennis. Hewitt was owning Federer h2h 7-2 until net-charger Federer turned it around in 2004 from the baseline.

 

[BeHappy]

Hewitt's Competition:

Sampras
Agassi
Federer
Safin
Philippoussis
Nalbandian
Ferrero
Moya
Rafter
Tommy Haas
etc

Best defensive player ever. Just as fast as nadal, Murray, Chang - but he hit his rally ball deep and flat making it very hard to attack him.

This is him in 2001/2002 against Federer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIiP5Hw_Pq0

Pushed Nadal to 4 sets over 4 hours RG 2006. 3 sets over 3 hours in the semi final of Hamburg 2008 (nadal was so tired he lost to Federer in the final). Pushed Federer to 3 sets over 3 hours in 2007. Got injured for 6 months shortly after each match. He hasn't had 6 months injury free tennis since 2005.

A bit of respect is due. I don't like him as a person and I don't like his tennis, but he was an incredible tennis player.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Hewitt's a homie

I'm sure that's the first and last time that term has been used to describe Hewitt.

 

[tennis_pro]

Sampras in 1998 would have around 7300 points in today's system. In 1996, he would have around 8200 points. Both of these would put him ranked 4th, but he finished the year at number one in both years.

In fact Sampras in 1998 had almost identical results as the guy in your avatar, yet Del Potro finished 5th in 2009 while Sampras was ranked 1st. Talk about Sampras having to work hard for his ranking.