Roddick was a better player than Hewitt

Federer20042006

Federer20042006

Banned
For some reason, the folks on this board love to give Roddick grief but then treat Hewitt as though he was a more legitimate tennis player than Roddick. To me, this is absolutely baffling.

Hewitt has/had absolutely no weapons. Honestly, I think Ferrer is a better player than Hewitt ever was. At least he has a very good forehand and can take control of points with it. Hewitt was really quick, a good returner (so is Ferrer), and fights to the death, but he's got absolutely nothing to hurt you with.

Roddick, on the other hand, when he was going after his forehand, was scary. For some reason, tennis fans think that hitting 140+ MPH serves and 100+ MPH forehands doesn't require "talent." Certainly not as much "talent" as Federer hitting a "flick" pass.

How would history have been written if Roddick had taken advantage of his excellent opportunities at Wimbledon 04 and the US Open 06? Right smack in the middle of Federer's peak, Roddick looked like he was going to power through Federer in two Grand Slam finals. Think about that. Credit to Federer for being mentally strong and versatile enough to find a way to turn it around/edge it, but Roddick has nothing to be ashamed of.

And at Wimbledon 2009, he was far past his best, yet we all know he should have won that one.

So give me the huge serve and big forehand over finesse any day. If Federer only had Hewitt's power, he'd be Santoro.
 
Personally, I think Roddick was the better and more consistent one of the two but Hewitt is the greater and more accomplished player.
 
Then fact that Hewitt could accomplish so much with so little talent, is arguably what makes him better than Roddick...
 
Hewitt's overall ground game was better than Roddick's, there's probably at least as much difference in their backhands as there is in their forehands. Plus he moved better.

Hewitt has a much better return, better movement and also superior net game. He had more variety than Roddick. I think at their bests they were pretty equal in terms of level of play.

Roddick obviously had 2 shots which were some of the very best in the game. But Hewitt was a very strong player all round IMO.
 
No, he wasn't. Roddick had a big serve + big forehand. Hewitt's ground game was better. Hewitt could attack and defend equally well. Roddick's defense wasn't that good and it kept getting exposed by Federer.
 
As usual, Roddick gets almost no respect on these boards. Just because Hewitt achieved a career milestone with 600 wins last week, all of a sudden, people talk about him like he's one of the greatest tennis talents, which he isn't. Hewitt isn't a bad player by any means, but I don't see why he's considered superior to Roddick. Hewitt captured 2 slams in the transitional period between Sampras and Federer, nothing out of this world. And only 2 MS-1000 titles? Not very impressive.

Fact is, the H2H between the 2 is even, Roddick made more slam finals than Hewitt, won more MS-1000 and stayed in the top 10 for a lot longer than Hewitt. Roddick serve is one of the greatest of all time, his 1st serve was not only fast, but also pretty high % for a serve that big. His 2nd serve also had a nasty kick that made it very hard to return. During his prime years, his forehand was one of the greatest in the game, not many players were able to deal with how hard he was able hit it.

If you look back at Hewitt, what shots really stand out and makes him more talented than Roddick? Sure he did everything rather well, but nothing really stood out. He's good in some areas where Roddick is mediocre, but did he have a shot like Roddick, that was considered one of the best in the game even at his peak? Nope. Hewitt had speed and was a better returner than Roddick was, but that doesn't make him a better player than Roddick. Fact that Hewitt was good in all areas vs Roddick who was great in some areas and weak in others doesn't translate in Hewitt being a better player.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what "better" player means here, so I'll use the term "more complete" player -- Hewitt. No one dazzling shot, but no weaknesses either. Roddick had an ineffective backhand, usually hit his forehand from ten feet behind the baseline, was a very awkward volleyer, and made dubious shot selections. These "if" questions about Roddick speak to his weaknesses.
 
^ quality post.

Roddick got the shaft in terms of the years he peaked, as well as how he is remembered. Great description of Roddick's forehand in the op.. 'scary'

They to me seem like somewhat comparable players overall, if for nothing else then by how we remember them (great players who could have done more in a time where there were less greater players, fed etc.) Another way to compare perhaps.. what was the state of AUS tennis when Hewitt was huge.. I know Roddick was hailed as the next big thing basically from the time he was a teenager, was Hewitt's early career much the same down under in this regard?


FWIW, I agree, Roddick is the much better player. I loved watching him while I was growing up.
 
Hewitt was the more accomplished. He won more slams, he was number one much longer, he won the year end champoinships twice. He was also a well rounded player, winning without any big weapons, just all court play. Hewitt was a better tennis player overall.
 
Cfidave said:
Hewitt was the more accomplished. He won more slams, he was number one much longer, he won the year end champoinships twice. He was also a well rounded player, winning without any big weapons, just all court play. Hewitt was a better tennis player overall.
Click to expand...

roddick has more wins, less losses, more titles, and more weeks in the top 10. Although Hewitt won more GS, it was only one more and Roddick made it to three more finals then Hewitt did. The only thing that compels me to think Hewitt had the edge was his WTF results and the one doubles gs, but that is the problem with going based soley on stats, especially when players are so close. The argument could be made that either is superior. However, Imo, if you just watched the two play, you would conclude roddick to be a stronger player.
 
Remember Roddick quipped, I just needed to learn one stroke, well it turns out relying singularly on his super duper serve wasn't enough. Hewitt's points construction was what made him a better player.
 
Bdarb said:
roddick has more wins, less losses, more titles, and more weeks in the top 10. Although Hewitt won more GS, it was only one more and Roddick made it to three more finals then Hewitt did. The only thing that compels me to think Hewitt had the edge was his WTF results and the one doubles gs, but that is the problem with going based soley on stats, especially when players are so close. The argument could be made that either is superior. However, Imo, if you just watched the two play, you would conclude roddick to be a stronger player.
Click to expand...

Throw in Davis Cup wins.
 
I wonder if we would be asking this same question had Roddick won just 1 or 2 out of the 4 other Slams he lost in against god mode Federer. All credit to Hewitt, (he's still freaking playing!). But all things considered, the H2H gives the verdict between these two greats. It's a tie. http://www.matchstat.com/Compare/89/7/8034
 
People on this forum criminally underrate Roddick and overrate Hewitt so much it's not even funny.

It's also curious how people here praise Hewitt so much; his attacking game relied heavily on the surfaces being fast, yet this aspect of Hewitt's game is completely ignored when we talk about his game. He lambasted the AO when they switched surfaces, no? Hewitt had no weapons from the baseline, and although he had no obvious weaknesses like Roddick, having fewer weaknesses =/= better player. Djokovic's ground game is far more stable than peak Federer's but I doubt anyone here in the right mind thinks that Djokovic is better overall than peak Federer from the baseline.

Anyway, Roddick had a great forehand and serve. His movement was actually okay IMO. His game plan later on in his career though was terrible; never could understand why he completely ditched his old style, when it worked so well. He was also unfortunate that he met peak Federer in all of his slam finals. Hewitt had ageing Sampras and Nalbandian. Personally, I think Hewitt was the real beneficiary of a weak era. Had Roddick peaked when Hewitt did, I'm sure he'd have a Wimbledon or two by now as well.

Plus, I think Roddick's volleys are far underrated. Not saying they're better than Hewitt's, because they weren't. I just think his volleys were fine, but were wasted on crappy approach shots most of the time. And no, stop bringing up that stupid missed volley at Wimbledon 2009 as proof that his volleys sucked, because one missed volley doesn't represent his volleying skills, any more than a video of him pulling off some ridiculous volley doesn't make him the best volleyer of all time.
 
With a serve like Roddick's, he should've made sure he work double hard on his volleys but he didn't. His forehand while good, was often predictable, thus he can not dictate the game even if he wanted to--goodbye to points construction too.
 
phnx90 said:
Hewitt had ageing Sampras and Nalbandian. Personally, I think Hewitt was the real beneficiary of a weak era. Had Roddick peaked when Hewitt did, I'm sure he'd have a Wimbledon or two by now as well.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point, he won his slams in the transitional period which has a weaker opposition than what Roddick had to deal with while he was in the top 10. That's why I see the 2 vs 1 slam argument as rather weak.
 
Roddick85 said:
As usual, Roddick gets almost no respect on these boards. Just because Hewitt achieved a career milestone with 600 wins last week, all of a sudden, people talk about him like he's one of the greatest tennis talents, which he isn't. Hewitt isn't a bad player by any means, but I don't see why he's considered superior to Roddick. Hewitt captured 2 slams in the transitional period between Sampras and Federer, nothing out of this world. And only 2 MS-1000 titles? Not very impressive.

Fact is, the H2H between the 2 is even, Roddick made more slam finals than Hewitt, won more MS-1000 and stayed in the top 10 for a lot longer than Hewitt. Roddick serve is one of the greatest of all time, his 1st serve was not only fast, but also pretty high % for a serve that big. His 2nd serve also had a nasty kick that made it very hard to return. During his prime years, his forehand was one of the greatest in the game, not many players were able to deal with how hard he was able hit it.

If you look back at Hewitt, what shots really stand out and makes him more talented than Roddick? Sure he did everything rather well, but nothing really stood out. He's good in some areas where Roddick is mediocre, but did he have a shot like Roddick, that was considered one of the best in the game even at his peak? Nope. Hewitt had speed and was a better returner than Roddick was, but that doesn't make him a better player than Roddick. Fact that Hewitt was good in all areas vs Roddick who was great in some areas and weak in others doesn't translate in Hewitt being a better player.
Click to expand...

i fully expect every single supporter of the "fed > nadal" argument to not agree with you. after all, the fed vs nadal situation parallels the hewitt vs roddick situation almost exactly.

GS titles: hewitt > roddick , fed > nadal
WTF: hewitt > roddick, fed > nadal
weeks as no. 1: hewitt > roddick, fed > nadal

MS1000: roddick > hewitt, nadal > fed

but MS1000 doesn't matter at all to the fed > nadal supporters.

anyway by induction, given that you subscribe to your argument, by parallelism, i assume you too agree that nadal > fed.
 
Roddick85 said:
That's exactly my point, he won his slams in the transitional period which has a weaker opposition than what Roddick had to deal with while he was in the top 10. That's why I see the 2 vs 1 slam argument as rather weak.
Click to expand...

Every slam Federer won from 04-05 he went through Hewitt. That's 5 potential slams he had denied to him. Hewitt would have be ranked above Roddick in 04 if he hadn't taken a lot of 2003 off. Roddick's longevity is underrated, he spent a decade in the top 10, that's impressive! I don't know if Hewitt would have lasted so long without injuries.

Hewitt achieved more and I consider their peak levels about the same.
 
NatF said:
Every slam Federer won from 04-05 he went through Hewitt. That's 5 potential slams he had denied to him. Hewitt would have be ranked above Roddick in 04 if he hadn't taken a lot of 2003 off. Roddick's longevity is underrated, he spent a decade in the top 10, that's impressive! I don't know if Hewitt would have lasted so long without injuries.

Hewitt achieved more and I consider their peak levels about the same.
Click to expand...
The point is that Hewitt won his two slams in 2001 and 2002.

How many slam finals did he make after 2002? How many of them were lost to Federer? What about Roddick?
 
objectivity said:
i fully expect every single supporter of the "fed > nadal" argument to not agree with you. after all, the fed vs nadal situation parallels the hewitt vs roddick situation almost exactly.

GS titles: hewitt > roddick , fed > nadal
WTF: hewitt > roddick, fed > nadal
weeks as no. 1: hewitt > roddick, fed > nadal

MS1000: roddick > hewitt, nadal > fed

but MS1000 doesn't matter at all to the fed > nadal supporters.

anyway by induction, given that you subscribe to your argument, by parallelism, i assume you too agree that nadal > fed.
Click to expand...

also "weak era" been brought up in support of Roddick/Nadal when they won their first slams barely two years apart (Hewitt 2001 - Roddick 2003, Federer 2003 - Nadal 2005)
 
phnx90 said:
The point is that Hewitt won his two slams in 2001 and 2002.

How many slam finals did he make after 2002? How many of them were lost to Federer? What about Roddick?
Click to expand...

Every Person who beat Hewitt pretty much made the final or won the tournament.
 
phnx90 said:
The point is that Hewitt won his two slams in 2001 and 2002.

How many slam finals did he make after 2002? How many of them were lost to Federer? What about Roddick?
Click to expand...

He made 2, but that's because his ranking dropped in 2003 and he was drawn in the same half/quarter as Federer multiple times. He only lost to the eventual winner at every slam he competed at in 04-05. He also squashed Roddick at the YEC and gave him a tough loss at the AO. Both made 2 slam finals in 04-05, after which time injuries ruined Hewitt's game.

Notice that the 2 times he wasn't put on Federer's side of the draw (on hardcourts) he made the final. At his best events he was stopped only by Federer.

Roddick and Hewitt are both two of my favorites. But Hewitt had better results.
 
I agree with the OP. I think he's jumping the gun a little bit on the slams Roddick "should've" won, and I think Hewitt is a better player than Ferrer but besides that, I agree. In short, it's better to have a couple huge weapons and some weaknesses than it is to be "good" at everything. Of course, neither one of the those options was good enough to beat prime Federer, but I always think it's better to have more power.

I mean look at Ferrer, or even if we took Hewitt in his prime he'd have trouble competing in this era even if the surfaces were faster. Who do you think has more potential to win a slam? Any of Del Potro (who already has one) Berdych, or Tsonga, or Ferrer. Obviously the answer is one of the first 3, mainly because they have at least one weapon.
 
Interesting trivia:

Hewitt lost to the eventual winner of a slam 13 times. He lost another 10 times to the eventual runner-up.

Roddick lost to the eventual winner 9 times, and 7 times to the eventual runner-up.

In 2004-2005, Hewitt only lost against the eventual winner in slam: Fed, Gaudio, Fed, Fed, Safin, didn't play (would certainly have played Nadal like in 4 of the next 5 years), Fed, Fed.

Tough luck.

In random comparison:

Djokovic won 6 slams, lost the the eventual winner 15 times, lost to the RU 5 times.
Murray won 2 slams, lost to the eventual winner 9 times, to the runner-up 5 times.
Nadal won 13 slams, lost to the eventual champion 7 times, to the runner-up 5 times.
Federer won 17 times, lost to the eventual champion 10 times, to the runner-up 9 times.
 
Last edited:
This view of Hewitt as a player with no weapons isn't based on reality, I remember several matches where his ground strokes were praised as weapons...
 
Roddick had better weapons (who can argue against that serve and forehand?) than Hewitt but Hewitt had a better all-court game and was a better returner.

In terms of the stats:

Hewitt:

Grand Slams = 2
Other Slam Finals reached = 2
WTFs = 2
Masters 1000s = 2
Other Titles = 23
Total titles = 29
Highest Ranking = #1
*Edit: Time Spent at #1 = 80 weeks.
*Edit: Year End #1 = 2.

Roddick:

Grand Slams = 1
Other Grand Slam finals reached = 4
WTFs = 0
Masters 1000s = 5
Other Titles = 26
Total titles = 32
Highest Ranking = #1
*Edit: Time Spent at #1 = 13 weeks.
*Edit: Year End #1 = 1.


It's close but Hewitt has 1 more Slam and 2 WTFs to balance out his lack of Masters 1000s v Roddick. He is clearly the more accomplished player. Whether this means the same as 'better' I'm not entirely sure!

IMO, it's no good arguing about Slams and other titles Player X could and should have won if not for Player Y. The fact of the matter is that they didn't whether that was solely down to Player Y or not. Everything else is pure speculation and what ifs and maybes. You can only play against the opposition that was around at the time.
 
Last edited:
Mainad said:
Roddick had better weapons (who can argue against that serve and forehand?) than Hewitt but Hewitt had a better all-court game and was a better returner.

In terms of the stats:

Hewitt:

Grand Slams = 2
Other Slam Finals reached = 2
WTFs = 2
Masters 1000s = 2
Other Titles = 23
Total titles = 29
Highest Ranking = #1

Roddick:

Grand Slams = 1
Other Grand Slam finals reached = 4
WTFs = 0
Masters 1000s = 5
Other Titles = 26
Total titles = 32
Highest Ranking = #1

It's close but Hewitt has 1 more Slam and 2 WTFs to balance out his lack of Masters 1000s v Roddick. He is clearly the more accomplished player. Whether this means the same as 'better' I'm not entirely sure!

IMO, it's no good arguing about Slams and other titles Player X could and should have won if not for Player Y. The fact of the matter is that they didn't whether that was solely down to Player Y or not. Everything else is pure speculation and what ifs and maybes. You can only play against the opposition that was around at the time.
Click to expand...

Your stats are missing time spent at #1 in weeks and also YE #1 finishes.
 
Mainad said:
I tend to find them useful when backing up a point of view, don't you? Pity some others on here don't always check them out before weighing in with opinions about Player X or Player Y! ;)
Click to expand...

Doesn't really do much when they are so up to interpretation. How that grouping of stats shows you that Hewitt is clearly the better player is beyond me. If anything, seeing those only makes me see more clearly how comparable they were.
 
objectivity said:
i fully expect every single supporter of the "fed > nadal" argument to not agree with you. after all, the fed vs nadal situation parallels the hewitt vs roddick situation almost exactly.

GS titles: hewitt > roddick , fed > nadal
WTF: hewitt > roddick, fed > nadal
weeks as no. 1: hewitt > roddick, fed > nadal

MS1000: roddick > hewitt, nadal > fed

but MS1000 doesn't matter at all to the fed > nadal supporters.

anyway by induction, given that you subscribe to your argument, by parallelism, i assume you too agree that nadal > fed.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is you are talking about 3 total slams vs. 30. If Fed had 26 slams (double Rafa's) there wouldn't be much discussion, would there?

With such a smaller sample I think there are details to hash out. But on the whole, these are two extremely similar players, though from a standpoint of pure results there isn't much of an argument to be made for Roddick. Like you/others said, 1 more slam, WTF, many more weeks at #1. Also wasn't Hewitt the youngest #1 ever?

I also think both players in their prime were pretty even against one another. I don't know the h2h off the top of my head but I remember Hewitt handled Roddick with ease for awhile, then Andy sort of turned the tables.

Their (2009?) Wimbledon quarter sums up the comparison for me: two extremely committed players capable of beating the other, but when it truly comes down to it, its Andy by a nose.
 
Federer20042006 said:
For some reason, the folks on this board love to give Roddick grief but then treat Hewitt as though he was a more legitimate tennis player than Roddick. To me, this is absolutely baffling.

Hewitt has/had absolutely no weapons. Honestly, I think Ferrer is a better player than Hewitt ever was. At least he has a very good forehand and can take control of points with it. Hewitt was really quick, a good returner (so is Ferrer), and fights to the death, but he's got absolutely nothing to hurt you with.

Roddick, on the other hand, when he was going after his forehand, was scary. For some reason, tennis fans think that hitting 140+ MPH serves and 100+ MPH forehands doesn't require "talent." Certainly not as much "talent" as Federer hitting a "flick" pass.

How would history have been written if Roddick had taken advantage of his excellent opportunities at Wimbledon 04 and the US Open 06? Right smack in the middle of Federer's peak, Roddick looked like he was going to power through Federer in two Grand Slam finals. Think about that. Credit to Federer for being mentally strong and versatile enough to find a way to turn it around/edge it, but Roddick has nothing to be ashamed of.

And at Wimbledon 2009, he was far past his best, yet we all know he should have won that one.

So give me the huge serve and big forehand over finesse any day. If Federer only had Hewitt's power, he'd be Santoro.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Utter nonsense.
 
Bdarb said:
Doesn't really do much when they are so up to interpretation. How that grouping of stats shows you that Hewitt is clearly the better player is beyond me. If anything, seeing those only makes me see more clearly how comparable they were.
Click to expand...

Re-read my post. I said it was close and that they show Hewitt to be the more accomplished player, which is undeniably true, because he accomplished more but that I'm not sure if 'accomplished' automatically equates to 'better' although it has to be one interpretation!
 
Hewitt was better. Especially if we are comparing Prime/Peaks

Roddick supporters say Fed denied him so many slams, but by the same token you can say the same thing about Hewitt.
 
Mainad said:
Re-read my post. I said it was close and that they show Hewitt to be the more accomplished player, which is undeniably true, because he accomplished more but that I'm not sure if 'accomplished' automatically equates to 'better' although it has to be one interpretation!
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that up. Gptcha'
 
Federer20042006 said:
For some reason, the folks on this board love to give Roddick grief but then treat Hewitt as though he was a more legitimate tennis player than Roddick. To me, this is absolutely baffling.

Hewitt has/had absolutely no weapons. Honestly, I think Ferrer is a better player than Hewitt ever was. At least he has a very good forehand and can take control of points with it. Hewitt was really quick, a good returner (so is Ferrer), and fights to the death, but he's got absolutely nothing to hurt you with.

Roddick, on the other hand, when he was going after his forehand, was scary. For some reason, tennis fans think that hitting 140+ MPH serves and 100+ MPH forehands doesn't require "talent." Certainly not as much "talent" as Federer hitting a "flick" pass.

How would history have been written if Roddick had taken advantage of his excellent opportunities at Wimbledon 04 and the US Open 06? Right smack in the middle of Federer's peak, Roddick looked like he was going to power through Federer in two Grand Slam finals. Think about that. Credit to Federer for being mentally strong and versatile enough to find a way to turn it around/edge it, but Roddick has nothing to be ashamed of.

And at Wimbledon 2009, he was far past his best, yet we all know he should have won that one.

So give me the huge serve and big forehand over finesse any day. If Federer only had Hewitt's power, he'd be Santoro.
Click to expand...

I'd say the player with arguably the best movement of modern tennis, isn't really bereft of weapons. Do we know Roddick should have won Wimbledon '09? Or did he overachieve to contend in the first place? I genuinely liked Roddick, but I don't understand why Hewitt needs to be bashed. He is an undisputed champion, both in heart and ability.
 
90's Clay said:
Hewitt was better. Especially if we are comparing Prime/Peaks

Roddick supporters say Fed denied him so many slams, but by the same token you can say the same thing about Hewitt.
Click to expand...

You only say that because Hewitt kicked Pete's ***, and it makes Pete look better if Hewitt is better.
 
Mainad said:
Information just added. They put Hewitt even further ahead.
Click to expand...
Actually Roddick finished 2003 as #1. They had that 40 year anniversary thing last year with all YE #1 that wanted to attend; otherwise I'm not sure I would've remembered.
 
phnx90 said:
The point is that Hewitt won his two slams in 2001 and 2002.

How many slam finals did he make after 2002? How many of them were lost to Federer? What about Roddick?
Click to expand...
Had Hewitt not been placed in Fed's side of the draw, he would have made the W and USO finals in 2005
 
If Hewitt had Roddick's serve, just imagine how the GS tallies of Rodge and Rafa would be apportioned, no kidding!;)
 
Roddick had a horrible return of serve and a horrible backhand.
His serving was often negated by getting out-aced by Federer & others cause he couldn't return.

Obviously, Hewitt is the far better player. Didn't you see him destroy Sampras?

I'm pretty sure this thread is not serious.
 
heninfan99 said:
Roddick had a horrible return of serve and a horrible backhand.
His serving was often negated by getting out-aced by Federer & others cause he couldn't return.

Obviously, Hewitt is the far better player. Didn't you see him destroy Sampras?

I'm pretty sure this thread is not serious.
Click to expand...

Neither his return nor especially his backhand were terrible...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
  • Poll Poll
better player - hewitt or roddick
2
Replies
51
Views
2K
NAS
NAS
F
Roddick vs Hewitt, who got more out of their talent?
Replies
3
Views
722
NadalAgassi
N
F
Roddick vs Hewitt, who got more out of their talent?
Replies
24
Views
5K
Joseph L. Barrow
J
Kenshin
Is Hewitt a better player than Murray or Roddick?
2 3
Replies
135
Views
11K
Sunny014
Sunny014
D
Hewitt was right
Replies
23
Views
2K
SonicSpeed
S
Back
Top