Roddick vs Hewitt, who got more out of their talent?

[FedererGlides]

Ok it is easy to say Hewitt got more out of his talent, because people immediately think that Hewitt was smaller and had much less power and no big weapons and yet he won 2 slams to Roddick's 1 slam.

But when you look at their games in their primes, Hewitt was more talented. He had a much better backhand, much better return of serve, was faster around the court, better tennis brain, better lob. Roddick had a much better serve and much more power, but his forehand was overrated and he had a very poor backhand. So in their primes, Hewitt had more talent especially with his incredible court speed.

In terms of intangibles, yes Roddick had incredible determination and grit to achieve what he did with his limited talent, but for me Hewitt was mentally stronger and had even more grit. Roddick could easily lose focus on the court and get into pointless arguements with umpires. Hewitt was annoying with his "Come on's", but atleast he didn't get into pointless arguements with umpires and never lost his focus.

Looking at their careers, I would say Hewitt got more out of his talent because his prime was shorter and once he lost the court speed, he lost much of his talent and he had lots of injury problems. Roddick was not as talented as prime Hewitt, but Roddick's prime lasted longer because he had the big serve and the power. Roddick's decline was more to do with lack of confidence after losing so many times(he even admitted this) whereas Hewitt's decline was more to do with injuries and being burnt out - Hewitt turned pro at a very young age and chased down every ball in every match and this is bound to take a big physical toll on you. Hewitt's superior mental strength is what allowed him to get even more out of his game than Roddick got out of his game.

So even though prime Hewitt had more talent than prime Roddick, I still think Hewitt got even more out of his game due to his superior mental strength. But they were both Federer's pigeons especially Roddick. Atleast Hewitt can say he beat Federer a lot in Federer's younger days. But Roddick was owned by Federer even before Federer won a slam. Federer didn't start to own Hewitt until 2004. He owned Roddick from the start.

 

[SStrikerR]

Two things.

1) Hewitt had more talent, and achieved more. However, Roddick worked hard with what he had, and got the most out of it. I think he made more use of his talent, although that could've been a different story had lleyton stayed healthy.

2) Roddicks old forehand is not overrated. It was one of the best in the game, and a huge weapon. Roddick held serve with his bombs, and broke serve by rippin his forehand, given the chance. That's how he stayed at the top. If he still had that forehand he'd be in the top 10.

 

[Mustard]

I've always picked Hewitt over Roddick in these debates.

 

[NadalAgassi]

I've always picked Hewitt over Roddick in these debates.

What more could Hewitt have done to maximize his talent? I dont see how he didnt get the best out of himself. The only way he could have done better is not having hip problems that ended his time as a serious contender after 2005, but he had no control over that.

Roddick meanwhile is both an overachiever and underachiever in a sense, but he didnt have to leave Gilbert which was the worst decision of his career, he should be playing more agressively off the ground than he does and has proven the ability to do so. In many respects he could have gotten more out of himself, which I dont see how one can say for Hewitt.

 

[tennisplayer1993]

If he still had that forehand he'd be in the top 10.

i agree that forehand was lethal. i saw in person during the 2001 and 2004 us opens

 

[tennisplayer1993]

Roddick I feel underachieved, changing from his pre 2005 game to post 2005 definitely screwed him over. I feel he could have won at least one more grand slam and would have had 2-3 grand slams by now (including US open 2003) if he kept his aggressive mentality.

I say he underachieved but yeah Hewitt was more talented but Roddick's power was in another world and could have won a Wimbledon title I believe at least at some point during his career.

 

[Mustard]

What more could Hewitt have done to maximize his talent? I dont see how he didnt get the best out of himself. The only way he could have done better is not having hip problems that ended his time as a serious contender after 2005, but he had no control over that.

But I certainly didn't foresee injury slowing Hewitt's speed as early as 2006 either. The hip problems only got worse over time. Speed and timing were the key things in Hewitt's game, and once they started to be affected, Hewitt suffered as a player. Roddick's big strength, the serve, is one of the last things to go with age providing shoulder injuries don't intervene, so he's had much more longevity.

Hewitt certainly got more highs out of his career than Roddick has, in my opinion. For a good while, Hewitt was the best player in the world and the most feared. Of course, during this current era of Fedalovic domination, it doesn't seem much, because Hewitt was never a dominant world number 1, but he did have an aura of being the best player and/or in fighting to the end.

 

[tennisplayer1993]

But I certainly didn't foresee injury slowing Hewitt's speed as early as 2006 either. The hip problems only got worse over time. Speed and timing were the key things in Hewitt's game, and once they started to be affected, Hewitt suffered as a player. Roddick's big strength, the serve, is one of the last things to go with age providing shoulder injuries don't intervene, so he's had much more longevity.

Hewitt certainly got more highs out of his career than Roddick has, in my opinion. For a good while, Hewitt was the best player in the world and the most feared. Of course, during this current era of Fedalovic domination, it doesn't seem much, because Hewitt was never a dominant world number 1, but he did have an aura of being the best player and/or in fighting to the end.

Hewitt was a warrior. Always respected him.

For me back in those years, it was Roddick first and Hewitt second.
Totally different players but I enjoyed watching them play.

 

[Mustard]

One question we should also ask is, would Hewitt or Roddick have the most regrets about their career? I think it's clearly Roddick.

Hewitt had his own little era with 80 weeks as world number 1 and achieved his best results, while a few years later, he had his best form when peak Federer was on the scene, and Hewitt was only losing to eventual champions in majors.

Roddick's peak came just a little bit too late for him to have his own "little era", unless we're counting the North American summer of 2003 and his brief period as world number 1. Roddick got less achievements in before peak Federer arrived on the scene, and has suffered for it.

Another thing, had someone at the time said that Hewitt would never win another major after 2002 Wimbledon and that Roddick would never win another major after the 2003 US Open, they would have carted off by the men in white coats.

 

[Gizo]

Both Hewitt and Roddick will retire with one major career regret, Hewitt not being able to win the Australian Open, and Roddick not being able to Wimbledon. Had Hewitt beaten Safin the 2005 Australian Open final, and Roddick beaten Federer at Wimbledon in 2009, then they both could have retired knowing that they achieved everything they set out to do.

Roddick's career regret will be bigger than Hewitt's because of his 'so close but yet so far' 2009 Wimbledon heartbreak, and well because Wimbledon is Wimbledon. Regardless of timing, transitional eras etc, Hewitt is won the Wimbledon title while Roddick didn't, a tournament that they both dreamt about winning long before they turned professional. Thus Hewitt will retire more satisfied with what he accomplished in the sport than Roddick.

If Hewitt did underachieve at all during his career, it was at the Australian Open. 2005 was the only time that he progressed beyond the 4th round at Melbourne in 16 attempts (so far). Yes his hatred of rebound ace was well known and he was past his prime when the surface there was changed to Plexicushion. Still was his game really that unsuited to rebound ace? Not really. He had a strong game for all specifications of hard courts.

Maybe it was a similar story to his ex-girlfriend Clijsters with clay. They both had the games to do well and achieve more than they ended up doing on their hated surfaces, but they both tried so hard to convince themselves that those surfaces simply weren't for them.

 

[NadalAgassi]

One question we should also ask is, would Hewitt or Roddick have the most regrets about their career? I think it's clearly Roddick.

I concur entirely and that is exactly why the correct answer to this thread question "who got more out of their talent" is also Roddick.

 

[BeHappy]

The same, Hewitt has been ruined by injuries since 2006, the same year Roddick started pushing.

Next year Murray and Djoker emerged and pusher-Roddick was a non factor and in 2008 when Nadal got good on hard courts it was all over.

 

[rdis10093]

so many hewitt threads, I like it

 

[dominikk1985]

Two things.

1) Hewitt had more talent, and achieved more. However, Roddick worked hard with what he had, and got the most out of it. I think he made more use of his talent, although that could've been a different story had lleyton stayed healthy.

2) Roddicks old forehand is not overrated. It was one of the best in the game, and a huge weapon. Roddick held serve with his bombs, and broke serve by rippin his forehand, given the chance. That's how he stayed at the top. If he still had that forehand he'd be in the top 10.

I agree with that. hewitt had more talent and achieved more. roddick actually did have a powerfull forehand and a nuclear serve but the same applies for John isner and nobody calls him a super talent. other than that he was not particularly talented.

but roddick was a lot more consistent then hewitt. till 2010 he never had a big dropoff in his level. hewitt burned out quite early although he had some shorter comeback periods.

 

[TTMR]

Since when is footspeed considered "talent"? I've been told for years that players who rely on footspeed are usually talentless pushers/grinders benefiting from slow court standardization.

 

[10is]

but roddick was a lot more consistent then hewitt. till 2010 he never had a big dropoff in his level. hewitt burned out quite early although he had some shorter comeback periods.

BLASPHEMY!!!!!!!!!
I can't believe you just compared Roddick to Isner! Isner is not even 1/10th of the player Roddick was in his prime. and to say he did not have drop off in his level until 2010? What? His level dropping after 2006/2007 was clear to all and sundry.

 

[roberttennis54]

The same, Hewitt has been ruined by injuries since 2006, the same year Roddick started pushing.

Next year Murray and Djoker emerged and pusher-Roddick was a non factor and in 2008 when Nadal got good on hard courts it was all over.

Hewitt was ruined by injuries at the end of 05. I would say Hewitt got the most of his career and in the end his body fell apart.

Roddick made poor decisions, but he gave it his all and did everything possible to win slams. If he had made wiser decision maybe things would have been better, but hindsight is 20/20.

Roddick did not start pushing in 06. He started leaning towards his pushing game in the middle of 05. It was due to Federer and Hewitt constantly beating him. He needed to change or so he thought to compete with them.

He got worse and worse with an ultimate low at Wimbledon 06. Connors came and resurrected his career. Roddick stopped pushing and went back to the power player he used to be. He was not as ferocious or powerful and in truth not as good as 03-04, but was still playing at a high level. He won Cinci, would have won 06 US Open without Fed, would have won 07 Aussie without Fed (I know Gonzo was playing better, but he cant return Roddick's serve), probably would have won 07 US Open without Fed too. In 09 he made a come back. He got to the semi of Aussie. Now even without Fed, Nadal would probably have beaten him here, but he should have won 09 Wimbly.

 

[Joseph L. Barrow]

Ok it is easy to say Hewitt got more out of his talent, because people immediately think that Hewitt was smaller and had much less power and no big weapons and yet he won 2 slams to Roddick's 1 slam.

Roddick only has one Grand Slam because he faced Federer in four of his five Grand Slam finals; if Hewitt had had to face Federer every time he reached a final after the '01 US Open, he would also have only one title.

But when you look at their games in their primes, Hewitt was more talented. He had a much better backhand, much better return of serve, was faster around the court, better tennis brain, better lob. Roddick had a much better serve and much more power, but his forehand was overrated and he had a very poor backhand. So in their primes, Hewitt had more talent especially with his incredible court speed.

As has been stated earlier in this thread, Roddick's prime forehand is not overrated; it was an absolute gunshot. Watch the 2004 Wimbledon final, or, say, this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDYsdEzp9is
I think they were essentially equal in talent, though obviously in much different areas.

In terms of intangibles, yes Roddick had incredible determination and grit to achieve what he did with his limited talent, but for me Hewitt was mentally stronger and had even more grit. Roddick could easily lose focus on the court and get into pointless arguements with umpires. Hewitt was annoying with his "Come on's", but atleast he didn't get into pointless arguements with umpires and never lost his focus.

Hewitt had a few outbursts and extended "conversations" in his day, though I don't think it ever seriously effected his tennis. Both of these guys are amazing warriors, but I would probably give Hewitt the mental edge, as I think he was usually a little better as a "big point" player.

Looking at their careers, I would say Hewitt got more out of his talent because his prime was shorter and once he lost the court speed, he lost much of his talent and he had lots of injury problems. Roddick was not as talented as prime Hewitt, but Roddick's prime lasted longer because he had the big serve and the power. Roddick's decline was more to do with lack of confidence after losing so many times(he even admitted this) whereas Hewitt's decline was more to do with injuries and being burnt out - Hewitt turned pro at a very young age and chased down every ball in every match and this is bound to take a big physical toll on you. Hewitt's superior mental strength is what allowed him to get even more out of his game than Roddick got out of his game.

So even though prime Hewitt had more talent than prime Roddick, I still think Hewitt got even more out of his game due to his superior mental strength. But they were both Federer's pigeons especially Roddick. Atleast Hewitt can say he beat Federer a lot in Federer's younger days. But Roddick was owned by Federer even before Federer won a slam. Federer didn't start to own Hewitt until 2004. He owned Roddick from the start.

Federer owned Roddick from the start because Federer and Roddick progressed at roughly the same rate and both reached the top of the game at the same time; Hewitt, who was slightly older and had a very early peak, had the advantage of a couple years in which he was an elite-level player and Federer was still only a prospect, giving him the opportunity to beat Federer several times and win a couple Majors. It is surely the case that if you put a 2003-2005 Roddick in there against a 2000-2002 Federer (the period in which Hewitt was beating him), Roddick would win far more often than not.

In truth, I think Roddick has actually had a slightly better career than Hewitt but for the fact that he was eclipsed more directly by Federer, lacking a couple-year period in which to shine without Roger blotting him out. Roddick has reached five Grand Slam finals to Hewitt's four, holds 32 career titles to Hewitt's 28, has had nine year-end top 10 finishes to Hewitt's five, etc. If you gave Roddick a Wimbledon final against Nalbandian (who Hewitt beat to win the 2002 title), Roddick would almost surely have won; in point of fact, he nearly beat Federer at 2009 Wimbledon, and pushed him very hard at the 2004 Wimbledon final as well.

 

[West Coast Ace]

I'm voting Roddick. And I know I will get flamed but....

when you watch him move, he doesn't look that incredibly gifted. And his backhand, once he developed one, looks very mechanical - no flow whatsoever. His serve, by his own accounts, is 'made up' - he has an abbreviated motion and just launches himself (very effectively and powerfully) into it. I know they say he and Fish played basketball and were pretty good in high school - probably just bigger than their opponents.

Hewitt, on the other hand, moves fluidly and looks like an athlete - just not a very big one. Based on his return of serve, the toughest shot in tennis, his hand/eye coordination is off the charts good.

So assuming you don't include 'size' in talent, then Roddick. And I think Roddick will someday regret not getting more serious about his fitness earlier - he still could lose 5 or so pounds.

 

[90's Clay]

Tough to say:

Hewitt wasn't an extreme talent or anything.. Great returner and counterpuncher but not a guy with weapons but he had a good stint at #1 (even if it was a transitional era) and won some big titles

Roddick- Had weapons ( serve and FH) He could have worked on his speed and movement and transition game from baseline to the net.. He went away from his strengths to become some useless grinder which was so far from his strengths it was ridiculous. His game left just too many holes to exploit.. But some of those things you are either born with or you aren't


Both were good talents but neither GREAT talents. I think both did well considering neither had an overall dominating package.

Both really accomplished really what they had for talent.. Roddick was NEVER going to overcome guys who were superior to him talent wise (Agassi, Sampras, Federer etc). Hewitt was more on their level kind of but not enough. Hewitt had a game to hurt you but injury derailed him pretty quickly

 

[ChanceEncounter]

I wonder how some people are defining 'talent.' For example, they claim that Hewitt had a better backhand. Well, did his better backhand come from some god-given ability (i.e. 'talent'), such as having incredible racquethead speed? Or did it come from his ability to consistently get it back in play? I'd say it's more the latter, and that has more to do with skill, mentality, and hard work than it does to do with talent.

 

[Paul Murphy]

Hewitt for me.
He was a wonderful returner and mover but Roddick had the classic attributes for success - the huge serve and big forehand.
He brought a lot of firepower to the table, much more than Lleyton.
I'll always wonder what happened to Roddick's forehand.

 

[tennisplayer1993]

I'll always wonder what happened to Roddick's forehand.

it changed after he fired brad gilbert. he started putting more topspin on it. making it more consistent but not as penetrative.

i think it was a big mistake

 

[MTF07]

Roddick only has one Grand Slam because he faced Federer in four of his five Grand Slam finals; if Hewitt had had to face Federer every time he reached a final after the '01 US Open, he would also have only one title.

.

That's not really fair. Hewitt was taken out by the eventual champion in almost every major from 2004-2005. Federer and Hewitt weren't playing in the finals, but Federer was still preventing Hewitt from having numerous other chances to win more grand slams.

 

[Joseph L. Barrow]

That's not really fair.

I think it is, and will expound on this below.

Hewitt was taken out by the eventual champion in almost every major from 2004-2005. Federer and Hewitt weren't playing in the finals, but Federer was still preventing Hewitt from having numerous other chances to win more grand slams.

This doesn't really address my point; Hewitt had a couple-year-long window (2001-2002) in which he was in top form and was not being thwarted by a prime Roger Federer, giving him the opportunity to win multiple Slams. Roddick did not. None of that changes because also lost to Federer in the Slams in '04-'05.

Furthermore, there isn't nearly so direct a connection between the loss to Federer and the hypothetical title in the case of Hewitt going down to him in the fourth round or the quarterfinals as there is in losing to him in the final; we can't ascertain from the fact that Hewitt reached the Round of 16 or the quarterfinals of a Slam that he was necessarily playing well enough at that event to have had a strong likelihood of winning the title in Federer's absence. Roddick, in reaching finals on a regular basis, more than demonstrated that he was playing well enough to be winning Slams but for the presence of that certain ultra-consistent greatest-player-of-all-time; this is true of Hewitt to a lesser extent, since he did lose a Major final and a couple semifinals to Federer, but I think it is very much clear that Roddick was, on the whole, much more directly thwarted from winning Grand Slam titles by Federer than was Hewitt.