Roddick was a better player than Hewitt

[tennisaddict]

Hewitt needed Roddick's serve.

Roddick needed Hewitt's groundstrokes.

It is to Roddick's credit he achieved so much with his main weapon being serve. Roddick could have stayed top 10 for 5 more years, whereas Hewitt can only dream of top 10 now.

Achievement wise both are same.

If there was a player who was a hybrid of Roddick and Hewitt, then Nadal and Novak may not be winning as much.

 

[Mainad]

Actually Roddick finished 2003 as #1.

Yes, he did and I meant to say so. I have amended my post accordingly. Thanks.

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.

I think that anniversary bash was for all the players who had achieved the #1 ranking not just the Y/E #1s.

 

[TMF]

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.

You only say that because Hewitt kicked Pete's ***, and it makes Pete look better if Hewitt is better.

Roddick also has a positive H2H against Sampras.

 

[Mustard]

Roddick also has a positive H2H against Sampras.

But got battered at the 2002 US Open.

 

[NatF]

But got battered at the 2002 US Open.

He was injured IIRC.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

If Hewitt had Roddick's serve, just imagine how the GS tallies of Rodge and Rafa would be apportioned, no kidding!

LOL, absolutely none. Federer had no issues returning Roddick's serve and he made like Hewitt look like a practice partner during baseline rallies. So, no. Now, if you gave Hewitt Roddick's serve and Safin's groundstrokes then he will become unbeatable.

 

[wy2sl0]

lol what?

Roddick has winning h2h over Djokovic.
Beats murray and hewitt B2B at 09 wimbledon.
Few months before retirement, beats Federer in Miami during the season Federer regained number 1.
Beats rafa during his best HC season in 2010.


No way on his best day is Hewitt pushing Federer to 16-14 in a 5th on grass. Get real.


I would take Roddick's career. Who wants to grind to 600 victories? Not me holy crap.

Moreover, stolen from Mens T Forum, look at the winning percentage versus the field....unreal good IMO (as of 2012).

Roddick: 1 slam, 4 slam finals, 5 slam SF, 30 career titles from 50 finals, 571-184 career record (75.66%), 13 weeks as World #1, led the USA Davis Cup team to the 2007 title, 5 Masters from 9 finals, 33-12 Davis Cup record.

Safin: 2 slams, 2 slam finals, 2 slam SF, 15 career titles from 27 finals, 421-266 career record (61.3%), 9 weeks as World #1, 5 Masters from 8 finals, helped Russia to the Davis Cup in 2002, 21-15 Davis Cup record.

Hewitt: 2 slams, 2 slam finals, 4 slam SF, 28 career titles from 42 finals, 546-197 career record (68.85%), 80 weeks as World #1, 2 Year-End Championships from 3 finals, helped Aussies to 2 Davis Cups from 4 finals, however, just 2 Masters titles from 7 finals, 38-11 Davis Cup record.

Ferrero: 1 slam, 2 slam finals, 3 slam SF, 16 career titles from 34 finals, 475-255 career record (65.07%), 8 weeks as World #1, 1 Year-End Final, aided the Spanish team in the 04 and 09 Davis Cups, 4 Masters from 6 finals, 18-6 Davis Cup record.

 

[Steve0904]

lol what?

Roddick has winning h2h over Djokovic.
Beats murray and hewitt B2B at 09 wimbledon.
Few months before retirement, beats Federer in Miami during the season Federer regained number 1.
Beats rafa during his best HC season in 2010.

I would take Roddick's career. Who wants to grind to 600 victories? Not me holy crap.

I wouldn't take Roddick's career results wise but I agree. Hewitt was a great player, but in terms of who had a better chance against peak Federer in a slam, it was probably Roddick even though he never did win.

In that sense, Hewitt just got luckier that he peaked and won a couple slams in between Sampras and Federer. I won't say he beat Sampras solely because Sampras was "old" although that has to be part of it, but Sampras also played S&V which Hewitt loved because he had/has great passing shots.

Hewitt was a much better player than someone like Ferrer, no doubt, but it's as I've already said, who would you pick if you wanted someone to get "hot" and win a slam, Ferrer or any of Berdych, Tsonga, or Del Potro.

It's much the same with Hewitt vs Roddick against prime Federer. Neither ever did win of course, but if someone put a gun to my head and forced me to pick one, I'd pick Roddick because he had the serve and FH combo. Hewitt was good at everything, but in comparison to Roddick he doesn't have a weapon.

 

[MTF07]

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.

Roddick definitely had moments where he controlled that 2004 Wimbledon final and looked like he could win it, but he never had that in the 2006 US Open final. That was a rather decisive Federer win.

 

[90's Clay]

Some will argue when Hewitt's "peak" was. Im sure he could have pushed Fed to the limit a few times had they met prime for prime peak for peak in late 2001-2003 (IMO Hewitt's true peak ) under Cahill.

Roddick's peak/prime was longer but Hewitt's was better

 

[Mustard]

Darren Cahill left his position as Hewitt's coach in December 2001, and became Agassi's new coach in February 2002 after Agassi had parted with Brad Gilbert. Jason Stoltenberg was Hewitt's coach from December 2001 until after the 2003 French Open. Then Roger Rasheed until January 2007.

I think Hewitt's prime in terms of his level of play was 2004-2005. Unfortunately, peak Federer was around at this time.

 

[Candide]

Totally agree with OP here. The Rusty love on these boards is a little over the top. He was/is an ultra passive player and a golden retriever of the calibre of Chang. He was insanely quick and hungry and played the percentages better than anyone but as a tennis player I'd say he more than fulfilled his potential. Roddick on the other hand was a hair's breath away from being an all time great in many regards.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

Darren Cahill left his position as Hewitt's coach in December 2001, and became Agassi's new coach in February 2002 after Agassi had parted with Brad Gilbert. Jason Stoltenberg was Hewitt's coach from December 2001 until after the 2003 French Open. Then Roger Rasheed until January 2007.

I think Hewitt's prime in terms of his level of play was 2004-2005. Unfortunately, peak Federer was around at this time.

This is a great point, good to see that there are still people who realize what a "prime" in tennis actually means.
His result in Slams confirms your claim: he lost five times to Federer (eventual Slam champion), to Safin (AO 2005 champion) and to Gaudio (FO 2004 champion).

And, yeah, unfortunately he had to face peak Federer so many times during that period...

 

[Bertie B]

Astrology says, Hewitt.

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.

Hewitt by a nose. Hewitt & Nadal started competing with the big bogs early. Given Roddick's serve & forehand he should've done the same. Andy Roddick played too much junior tennis for his unique (early bloomer) lifepath.

Says, William Shakespeare:

...There is a tide in the affairs of men,

Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;

Omitted, all the voyage of their life

Is bound in shallows and in miseries...

Timing is what separates the greats from near greats; Clijsters/Henin, 17yo S.Williams/USO/Hingis vs. 17yo V.Williams/USO/Hingis, Roddick/Hewitt. Timing isn't some mystical concept either, it's simply being ready to answer the call when opportunity knocks.

Coincidentally at the 2001 USO the planets were aligned individually for both Andy Roddick & Lleyton Hewitt. That Tournament, and as it turned out their quarterfinal match was the defining moment in both their careers. Hewitt won and went on to great fortune in spite of Federer. Roddick lost/missed the tide and thus Federer was seen as the impediment to his success.

As an astrologist I'm able to see things from a higher vantage point. Here's what I see; the planets moved into alignment for Roger Federer in 2003. For Hewitt 2001 - years before Federer could be a threat. For Roddick 2000 & 2001, again years before Federer would/could be a threat.

To further illustrate my point I'd like to point to Federer v. Nadal. The planets were aligned for Federer in 2003, and 2005 for Nadal. Despite their h2h it would be difficult to make a case that one prevented the other from reaching his full potential.

In summary, the 2001 USO quarterfinal sums up the comparison for me. Hewitt by a nose.

 

[hoosierbr]

Not really a competition IMO. Take away Roddick's serve and he had no Plan B. Hewitt had to grind his way to victories. Hewitt has become a first class volleyer and transition player in an effort to keep finding new ways to win. Roddick made several attempts to develop a more rounded game but would get frustrated and go back to basics. A shame since he had an incredible kick serve and could have come in behind it a lot more.

Roddick began to fade when he started getting injured, his shoulder in particular. As a result his serve lost sting but also the quality of returns improved dramatically during his time on the tour.

That being said no one should deny Roddick was one of the most consistent players when he was healthy and deserves respect for being a Top 10 guy year in, year out.

Hewitt is the better overall player with a more impressive resume and his grit and guts to still be going hard today is a credit to him.

 

[Candide]

Not really a competition IMO. Take away Roddick's serve and he had no Plan B. Hewitt had to grind his way to victories. Hewitt has become a first class volleyer and transition player in an effort to keep finding new ways to win. Roddick made several attempts to develop a more rounded game but would get frustrated and go back to basics. A shame since he had an incredible kick serve and could have come in behind it a lot more.

So you're saying a guy whose best shot in his arsenal - if, in another reality, he did not have that shot would act like the guy in the first reality but who had lost this shot in the second reality and still play like a big server - but without a big serve.

You make a perfectly legitimate point I guess. This would be a very poor player.

 

[wy2sl0]

So you're saying a guy whose best shot in his arsenal - if, in another reality, he did not have that shot would act like the guy in the first reality but who had lost this shot in the second reality and still play like a big server - but without a big serve.

You make a perfectly legitimate point I guess. This would be a very poor player.

No it is a terrible argument. Take away Federers forehand, i.e a high level but not elite, he wins maybe 2-4 slams. Some goes for Nadal, maybe even less because his serve is less effective.

You can't say "remove the their best shot and..."

You can base an entire career around 1-2 elite shots.

It has also been proven that to beat the best in this era, you need a weapon. You cannot grind your way to a slam anyways, I.E hewitt and chang.

 

[jg153040]

So you're saying a guy whose best shot in his arsenal - if, in another reality, he did not have that shot would act like the guy in the first reality but who had lost this shot in the second reality and still play like a big server - but without a big serve.

You make a perfectly legitimate point I guess. This would be a very poor player.

Yeah, lol. Let's take away Hewitt's legs and he also doesn't have a plan B.

Those taking away threads and posts are silly.

Back on topic. It's hard to compare Roddick and Hewitt. Hewitt was an early bloomer due to his style, and he won most without Federer. In Fed's prime Hewitt and Roddick, both weren't able to do anything.

I think in the end they are about equal. Roddick did better in Fed's prime than Hewitt and Fed stopped Roddick more times.

I would put those 2 at the same level as Safin, Murray. Murray also took advantage of old Fed. Before 2012 in Fed's prime Murray also like Roddick and Hewitt did nothing at majors. And with an age advantage too.

I put Djokovic on a higher level. Because Nole also did damage even against Nadal and Fed both playing good tennis. He also is great indoor and clay.

While Safin, Hewitt, Murray, Roddick all have weak surfaces and they don't stand a chance vs prime Fedal. While Nole can and also doesn't have a weak surface.

 

[hoosierbr]

So you're saying a guy whose best shot in his arsenal - if, in another reality, he did not have that shot would act like the guy in the first reality but who had lost this shot in the second reality and still play like a big server - but without a big serve.

You make a perfectly legitimate point I guess. This would be a very poor player.

You missed the point completely. Simply, Roddick was not a world number one w/o his serve, much less a Slam winner. He himself is the first to admit that. He isn't the only one. Krajicek, though he was better all around than many give him credit for, would never have won Wimbledon if he didn't have a huge serve.

I would argue Sampras could have won Slams w/o his serve although not nearly as many. That's the difference I was pointing to.

Hewitt would not win a Slam today if he were in his prime. Davydenko and Ferrer remind me some of Hewitt in terms of what a game w/o a weapon can look like. Top 10, contenders for a Slam but just not enough against the very best.

To argue "take away Hewitt's legs and he isn't the same player" again misses the point of my post. Hewitt never had a kill shot like Roddick but still managed to achieve more. Had Agassi a serve like Sampras there's no telling how many more Slams he could have won.

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

For some reason,

the folks on this board love to give Roddick grief...

Say wha'???

Fed20042006, back during the 2004-2006 period (before you joined, so I don't mean to include you) this board was littered with Fed fans who mocked and put down Roddick at every turn. "For some reason?" ..... well, you'd have to bring that up with the hardline fedfanboy clique to tell you the truth. just sayin'

 

[jg153040]

Well, that's all Nadal fans have left. Discrediting Fed's competition.

While ironically we discovered that Fed's competition was tougher than today.

We had much surfaces / style variety. Tougher to be consistent. That's why nobody was consistent except for Fed.

I mean guys from Fed's era are doing the best today. Wawrinka, Ferrer. And in Fed's era younger guys were coming: Delpo, Rafa, Nole, Murray. Compared that to Dimitrov generation lol. Also Fed had to deal with older guys from Pete's generation.

Weak era guys dug their own hole. After close scrutiny we have discovered that actually Fed's majors are even more impressive due to competition, surface variety and style variety.

 

[Lukhas]

I think that anniversary bash was for all the players who had achieved the #1 ranking not just the Y/E #1s.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2013/08/34/Heritage-No1-Celebration.aspx

They did the book with the YE #1, but it seems that you're correct in that they celebrate all 25 ever ranked #1 players. The wording is a bit disorienting TBH.

 

[Federer20042006]

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.

The serve is the most important shot in men's tennis.

And Roddick didn't have a horrible backhand. That's one of those things people love to say but it just isn't actually true. His backhand was generally a pretty steady shot. Not the greatest, but far from terrible. It was better than Tsonga's, for example. And Tsonga's isn't terrible either, just mediocre for a top player.

Karlovic's backhand is terrible.

 

[jhhachamp]

I think Roddick was a better overall player, but Hewitt was fortunate to hit his peak slightly before Federer. If Roddick had hit his peak same time as Hewitt, he would have won more slams than Hewitt, IMO.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

Its extremely close IMO. If you had asked me in 2007-2008 who was greater, I would have said Hewitt for sure. However, Roddick's career revival in 2009 and his run at Wimbledon 2009 and win at Miami 2010 completely changed everything for me. I now think they are equal or Hewitt is very slighty greater, but Roddick's peak level was higher by quite a margin.

 

[Anaconda]

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.

Uh, Roddick's backhand became a very good stroke once he hooked up with Connors.



Roddick's court positioning was due to him being a very defensive player as a junior; Let's face it, Roddick had a long backswing but I've seen him rip his forehand on top of the baseline in quite a few of his good wins in Miami. Whilst some people think Roddick traded power for court positioning on the FH due to his takeback and pronation, I believe Roddick still had time to unleash on the FH on top of the baseline.



Besides, did you not see Roddick's fh in 03/04, regardless of where he was on court it was still a far superior shot to anything Hewitt had (maybe except his footwork - which was truly great). However, I think it speaks volumes for how good the Roddick forehand was given he could crank 105mph forehand winners from (in your words) 'ten feet behind the baseline'.






Roddick's volleying technique is accused as being criminal, when really the only poor thing about Roddick's net game was the approaches. His volleying eclipses Hewitt's IMO. When dialed in, I've seen him win matches against the best passers in the game (Murray at W, Marat at AO, Djokovic in some matches). His anticipation might not have been the best either, but in terms of pure volleying, he is rather good - I suppose it had to be with crap approaches. Seriously, I've seen him hit some of the most ridiculous volleys.







I'd say Roddick has the better serve and fh without any thought. Hewitt on the other hand had better anticipation, movement and footspeed along with a better backhand. Hewitt had a better ros too. Roddick was better physically and was always in the conversation in tournaments until 2011 really (when he really dropped off).





However, I do believe Roddick's BH from 06+ was better than Hewitts, but his moonball forehand was so bad it pretty much made his ground game redundant.




I don't think this is a silly argument to make. Hewitt has two slams and Roddick has one. Roddick scored victories over the top opponents late on in his career against guys in their primes, Hewitt normally just got killed every time by Nadal and Djokovic, whilst at least Roddick was beating them and scored wins over Murray and Ferrer. Besides the JMDP game and Halle in 2010, Hewitt hasn't really done anything of note since AO 2005 I swear!

 

[Anaconda]

Darren Cahill left his position as Hewitt's coach in December 2001, and became Agassi's new coach in February 2002 after Agassi had parted with Brad Gilbert. Jason Stoltenberg was Hewitt's coach from December 2001 until after the 2003 French Open. Then Roger Rasheed until January 2007.

I think Hewitt's prime in terms of his level of play was 2004-2005. Unfortunately, peak Federer was around at this time.

Can't blame it on Federer. Remember AO 2005?

 

[mike danny]

Uh, Roddick's backhand became a very good stroke once he hooked up with Connors.



Roddick's court positioning was due to him being a very defensive player as a junior; Let's face it, Roddick had a long backswing but I've seen him rip his forehand on top of the baseline in quite a few of his good wins in Miami. Whilst some people think Roddick traded power for court positioning on the FH due to his takeback and pronation, I believe Roddick still had time to unleash on the FH on top of the baseline.



Besides, did you not see Roddick's fh in 03/04, regardless of where he was on court it was still a far superior shot to anything Hewitt had (maybe except his footwork - which was truly great). However, I think it speaks volumes for how good the Roddick forehand was given he could crank 105mph forehand winners from (in your words) 'ten feet behind the baseline'.






Roddick's volleying technique is accused as being criminal, when really the only poor thing about Roddick's net game was the approaches. His volleying eclipses Hewitt's IMO. When dialed in, I've seen him win matches against the best passers in the game (Murray at W, Marat at AO, Djokovic in some matches). His anticipation might not have been the best either, but in terms of pure volleying, he is rather good - I suppose it had to be with crap approaches. Seriously, I've seen him hit some of the most ridiculous volleys.







I'd say Roddick has the better serve and fh without any thought. Hewitt on the other hand had better anticipation, movement and footspeed along with a better backhand. Hewitt had a better ros too. Roddick was better physically and was always in the conversation in tournaments until 2011 really (when he really dropped off).





However, I do believe Roddick's BH from 06+ was better than Hewitts, but his moonball forehand was so bad it pretty much made his ground game redundant.




I don't think this is a silly argument to make. Hewitt has two slams and Roddick has one. Roddick scored victories over the top opponents late on in his career against guys in their primes, Hewitt normally just got killed every time by Nadal and Djokovic, whilst at least Roddick was beating them and scored wins over Murray and Ferrer. Besides the JMDP game and Halle in 2010, Hewitt hasn't really done anything of note since AO 2005 I swear!

Has not done anything of note? W 2005 SF? USO 2005 SF? IW final?

 

[mike danny]

Can't blame it on Federer. Remember AO 2005?

I remember. But W and USO that same year 2005? He had chances at both without Federer. There was no peak Safin waiting for him

 

[Anaconda]

I remember. But W and USO that same year 2005? He had chances at both without Federer. There was no peak Safin waiting for him

Peak Safin? Lol. Safin was terrible at times in that final.



Wimbledon 2005 maybe, not beating Roddick at Wimbledon 2004. Even 2005 is 50/50, given that Roddick has beaten Hewitt every time they have stepped out on grass, and has beaten him at Wimbledon too. Not to mention they played at Queens 2004 where Hewitt could barely touch Roddick's serve. Mustard will say Hewitt based on opinions although I'm saying Roddick based on facts.




And without Federer, Hewitt gets a different draw due to moving up a place in the field meaning he would not play the same guys he played meaning taking players out of the field is pointless because we will never know.

 

[captainbryce]

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.

I agree that Roddick's overall talent is highly underrated by folks here and his achievements are generally minimized compared to Hewitt's (whose achievements are often inflated). However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that he was "better" than Hewitt. I'd say they were pretty much in the same league with each other, and I'd probably give the slight edge in talent to Hewitt.

I think Hewitt had more of a variety of shots than Roddick, and was more versatile in his ability to play from different parts of the court. Although both of them were fairly one dimensional in terms of their baseline game, Hewitt was a better volleyer than Roddick, and he at least has something approximating a transition game. His approach shots (though rare) were generally much better than Roddick's and he had better anticipation. Roddick had TERRIBLE approach shots and poor anticipation. He was more likely to put himself in a helpless situation which means he would often get passed at the net quite easily. As a result, he was more of a one trick pony that players could more easily figure out.

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.

I agree about Hewitt's lack of weaponry, however I think Hewitt is a better returner of serve than Ferrer, and in his prime he was more likely to break the serve of big servers.

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.

Here's the problem...Roddick's forehand declined after 2005. Early in his career he had one of the best forehands. Later on, he started "looping" it more, trying to be a consistent, baseline grinder. As a result, his forehand became less effective. If he had kept his forehand style/tendencies prior to 2005, I would have agreed with you.

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.

Roddick was able to push Federer more in the Grandslams than Hewitt was, but that's not really saying a whole lot. I give credit to Roddick for reaching 5 grandslam finals (losing all of them to perhaps the GOAT). To me, that's a more significant achievement than Hewitt finishing two years number one in a vacuum era. But that doesn't mean that Roddick was a more talented player than Hewitt. It just means that they had different strengths and weaknesses, and both of them were really good players, but neither of them was ever the "best" player of their generation.

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

Be that as it may, the fact is HE LOST. And people don't remember who "almost won" or "should have won". They only remember who WON!

If Federer only had Hewitt's power, he'd be Santoro.

I'm not really sure what this means.

 

[Anaconda]

I agree that Roddick's overall talent is highly underrated by folks here and his achievements are generally minimized compared to Hewitt's (whose achievements are often inflated). However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that he was "better" than Hewitt. I'd say they were pretty much in the same league with each other, and I'd probably give the slight edge in talent to Hewitt.

I think Hewitt had more of a variety of shots than Roddick, and was more versatile in his ability to play from different parts of the court. Although both of them were fairly one dimensional in terms of their baseline game, Hewitt was a better volleyer than Roddick, and he at least has something approximating a transition game. His approach shots (though rare) were generally much better than Roddick's and he had better anticipation. Roddick had TERRIBLE approach shots and poor anticipation. He was more likely to put himself in a helpless situation which means he would often get passed at the net quite easily. As a result, he was more of a one trick pony that players could more easily figure out.

I agree about Hewitt's lack of weaponry, however I think Hewitt is a better returner of serve than Ferrer, and in his prime he was more likely to break the serve of big servers.

Here's the problem...Roddick's forehand declined after 2005. Early in his career he had one of the best forehands. Later on, he started "looping" it more, trying to be a consistent, baseline grinder. As a result, his forehand became less effective. If he had kept his forehand style/tendencies prior to 2005, I would have agreed with you.

Roddick was able to push Federer more in the Grandslams than Hewitt was, but that's not really saying a whole lot. I give credit to Roddick for reaching 5 grandslam finals (losing all of them to perhaps the GOAT). To me, that's a more significant achievement than Hewitt finishing two years number one in a vacuum era. But that doesn't mean that Roddick was a more talented player than Hewitt. It just means that they had different strengths and weaknesses, and both of them were really good players, but neither of them was ever the "best" player of their generation.

Be that as it may, the fact is HE LOST. And people don't remember who "almost won" or "should have won". They only remember who WON!

I'm not really sure what this means.

Stopped reading after that.

 

[captainbryce]

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.

With a serve like Roddick's, he should've made sure he work double hard on his volleys but he didn't.

Roddick was a solid volleyer, point blank! People who criticize his volleys tend to do so based on how effective (or lack there of) Roddick was at the net. But very little of that had to do with his volley technique, which was fine. His problem, as others have alluded to is that he had terrible approach shots. Instead of serving and volleying, or coming in behind a huge down the line ripper, he's mosey his way up to the net behind a mediocre slice that landed short in the box, and into his opponents strength, then get passed! This was a recurring theme with Roddick made evident by this match: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ikx0Du735Y

IF Roddick had come in behind BETTER approach shots, or occasionally tried to serve and volley after his big kick serve, he would have been much more successful up at net. And there are rare examples where he occaionally did that successfully, as was the case in this match: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u7D3iQxlUo

 

[Fiji]

He has the hotter wife.

 

[captainbryce]

Stopped reading after that.

You can't argue with facts. Hewitt is one of the best volleyers of the modern era (he did win the US Open doubles).

 

[Anaconda]

You can't argue with facts. Hewitt is one of the best volleyers of the modern era (he did win the US Open doubles).

No. Just no. He isn't even in the top 20. (Yes, I can provide names if need be)

 

[NatF]

No. Just no. He isn't even in the top 20. (Yes, I can provide names if need be)

For a mostly singles player in the last 15 years he is definitely near the top.

 

[Anaconda]

For a mostly singles player in the last 15 years he is definitely near the top.

Federer, Safin, Haas, Mahut, LLodra, Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Ancic, Nalbandian, Cilic, Ljubicic, Fish, Hanescu, Dent, Gimelstob without me thinking about it are better volleyers, or have a better net game than Hewitt

 

[Mustard]

Wimbledon 2005 maybe, not beating Roddick at Wimbledon 2004.

What do you base this on? Federer's 6-1, 6-7, 6-0, 6-4 win over Hewitt at 2004 Wimbledon was much closer than the scoreline suggests. There were a lot of close games in all the sets, and Hewitt was a break up at 4-3 in the fourth set.

Hewitt has a better mentality than Roddick, and a lot more in his game.

 

[President]

Federer, Safin, Haas, Mahut, LLodra, Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Ancic, Nalbandian, Cilic, Ljubicic, Fish, Hanescu, Dent, Gimelstob without me thinking about it are better volleyers, or have a better net game than Hewitt

Djokovic, Hanescu, Cilic, Safin, and Nadal are all clearly worse at the net than Hewitt....

 

[Anaconda]

Djokovic, Hanescu, Cilic, Safin, and Nadal are all clearly worse at the net than Hewitt....

Lol



Seriously, Safin does everything better than Hewitt bar move, and even then Marat was no slouch.

 

[President]

Lol



Seriously, Safin does everything better than Hewitt bar move, and even then Marat was no slouch.

How did I know you would single out Safin...ridiculous.

Why does every fan of Marat Safin think he was god on earth? The perfect tennis player? I watched both players extensively over the years and Hewitt DEFINITELY volleyed better than Safin. I remember you saying like 6 months ago that Safin moved better than MONFILS. You are crazy, man...

 

[mattennis]

They both were great players at their time. It is tough to choose just one of them.

Hewitt is a bit more accomplished, but they are really close.

Hewitt loved the (former) US OPEN conditions, and fast, skidding hard courts in general. He absolutely hated rebound ace (former Australian Open surface) and asked for it to be changed to mimick (former) US OPEN surface.

Unfortunately for him (and also for Roddick), all the hard courts changed to slower, grittier surfaces and it seriously hampered him.

Hewitt loved the free, easy pace of shots in the former really fast, skidding hard courts. He had just to redirect the ball, and he was great (absolutely great) at that. The flatter and speedier the coming ball, the better he answered it. He used to eat alive attacking players on fast courts.

On clay (and basically the same on current hard courts) the game is totally different, you have to create the pace with power top-spin shots. Hewitt never was good at that, and that is why he never advanced past the QF in Roland Garros and only once he advanced past the R16 in the Australian Open.

I think slower, grittier surfaces plus poly strings hindered Hewitt's chances in general. I would say the same of Roddick, though poly strings really enhanced his huge top-spin forehand (and kick serve).

Both players are dramatically belittled by Nadal's brigade, but they both were great players.

Past his prime Roddick was defeating peak Nadal sometimes (in 2008 Dubai and 2010 Miami) and he also was beating Djokovic more than not. Way past his prime (and after several surgeries) Hewitt was winning sets against Godly Djokovic in 2012 Australian Open under ultra slow conditions that favored Djokovic and hindered Hewitt's game.

Under more polarized (and varied) conditions without poly strings, with really different competitive styles, everything was more random. Some people denigrate Roddick and Hewitt saying they had many losses to random guys back then, but it was because of conditions and diversity of playing styles. Nadal, Djokovic, Federer and Murray would have suffered the same random losses here and there in that era, had they played then.

After 2005 both Hewitt and Roddick declined (and/or just didn't adapt to the new conditions + unique play style). Hewitt was really screwed by severe injuries more than anything, and once he lost his (AMAZING) speed, he was toasted.

Roddick, because of his amazing serve and lack of serious injuries, still held his top-10 status for more years, but he tried to be another "grinder". His body type and physical skills were not for a grinder type of baseliner (he was not quick enough), he became consistent in his baseline game but he was never again in the top-3. I loved the way 2003 and 2004 Roddick hammered the ball with his forehand. He should have improved his net game. His approach shots were awful in general.

But both were great champions with strong will.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Hewitt was the more accomplished. He won more slams, he was number one much longer, he won the year end champoinships twice...

The only one of these factors that really matters is that Hewitt won the Tour Finals 2x (whereas Roddick lost in the SFs 3x). While both won the the USO, Hewitt also won Wimbledon in his only final at that venue. Roddick, OTOH, reached the finals 3x at Wimbledon which, to my mind, is the greater accomplishment. On top of that, all 3 of ARod's losses in Wimbledon finals, came at the hands of Federer (even tho' Andy outplayed Roger in many respects in the 2009 final).

Hewitt's longer reign at #1 was primarily due to timing. He reached the #1 ranking late in 2001, after the decline of Sampras and prior to the rise of Federer and Roddick in 2003/2004. Hewitt who is older than Roddick (and Federer) turned pro 2 years prior to Roddick and, consequently, hit his peak sooner. He had the good fortune to reach the top ranking 2 years before Roddick did so late in 2003.

Federer, who also rose top the top 10 in 2002/2003, became dominant and took over the #1 spot early in 2004 (Feb 2), ending ARod's stay at the top position. Even tho' Hewitt was at the top spot longer than Roddick, Andy managed to stay in the top 10 much longer -- for the better part of a decade. Federer and Nadal are the only others to accomplish this in recent times.

Much has been made about Hewitt reaching 600 match wins. However, Roddick had already reached 612 before he retired in 2012 (and started 2 years later than Hewitt). Andy won 74% of his matches compared to 71% for Lleyton. Andy also won 32 titles compared to 29 titles for Lleyton even tho' the latter has played more total matches.

Even tho' Hewitt won an additional slam (compared to Roddick), Roddick has gone deeper in the slams more often. In the 4 majors, Lleyton has played 4 finals, 8 SFs and 15 QFs, Compare this to Andy with 5 finals, 10 SFs and 19 QFs. Except for Tour Finals, Roddick has better career stats for the most part. While both are accomplished players, I've gotta give the edge to Roddick.

 

[Mainad]

The only one of these factors that really matters is that Hewitt won the Tour Finals 2x (whereas Roddick lost in the SFs 3x). While both won the the USO, Hewitt also won Wimbledon in his only final at that venue. Roddick, OTOH, reached the finals 3x at Wimbledon which, to my mind, is the greater accomplishment. On top of that, all 3 of ARod's losses in Wimbledon finals, came at the hands of Federer (even tho' Andy outplayed Roger in many respects in the 2009 final).

Hewitt's longer reign at #1 was primarily due to timing. He reached the #1 ranking late in 2001, after the decline of Sampras and prior to the rise of Federer and Roddick in 2003/2004. Hewitt who is older than Roddick (and Federer) turned pro 2 years prior to Roddick and, consequently, hit his peak sooner. He had the good fortune to reach the top ranking 2 years before Roddick did so late in 2003.

Federer, who also rose top the top 10 in 2002/2003, became dominant and took over the #1 spot early in 2004 (Feb 2), ending ARod's stay at the top position. Even tho' Hewitt was at the top spot longer than Roddick, Andy managed to stay in the top 10 much longer -- for the better part of a decade. Federer and Nadal are the only others to accomplish this in recent times.

Much has been made about Hewitt reaching 600 match wins. However, Roddick had already reached 612 before he retired in 2012 (and started 2 years later than Hewitt). Andy won 74% of his matches compared to 71% for Lleyton. Andy also won 32 titles compared to 29 titles for Lleyton even tho' the latter has played more total matches.

Even tho' Hewitt won an additional slam (compared to Roddick), Roddick has gone deeper in the slams more often. In the 4 majors, Lleyton has played 4 finals, 8 SFs and 15 QFs, Compare this to Andy with 5 finals, 10 SFs and 19 QFs. Except for Tour Finals, Roddick has better career stats for the most part. While both are accomplished players, I've gotta give the edge to Roddick.

Results count, though. A win in a Slam final will always trump a runner-up finish, no matter how many of them there are. Facts are facts, no matter how we may wish to account for them. Hewitt has won one more Slam and his 2 WTF and 2 Masters titles balance out Roddick's 5 Masters titles. Plus he held the #1 ranking for much longer. While it is close in many respects, these factors will always give Hewitt the edge as the more accomplished player.

 

[Phoenix1983]

How did I know you would single out Safin...ridiculous.

Why does every fan of Marat Safin think he was god on earth? The perfect tennis player?

It's because:

a). When he did win big, he played God-like tennis and beat GOAT candidates when doing so (Sampras at USO 2000 and Federer at AO 2005).

b). He has a mystique of being an Adonis/ladies' man, who could have been the best tennis player ever if only he wasn't so interested in maintaining his prowess with the opposite sex.

It's the same phenomenon that causes some older tennis fans to drool over Lew Hoad.

Of course when we look at their actual records, neither Safin nor Hoad were anywhere near the dominant player of their generation, let alone GOAT.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Results count, though. A win in a Slam final will always trump a runner-up finish, no matter how many of them there are. Facts are facts, no matter how we may wish to account for them. Hewitt has won one more Slam and his 2 WTF and 2 Masters titles balance out Roddick's 5 Masters titles. Plus he held the #1 ranking for much longer. While it is close in many respects, these factors will always give Hewitt the edge as the more accomplished player.

Agreed.

10HewittisgreaterthanRoddicks

 

[Magnetite]

Roddick gets slack because he didn't often hit his forehand like everyone knows he could. He looped it back and got into to many rallies where his lack of movement was exploited.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Results count, though. A win in a Slam final will always trump a runner-up finish, no matter how many of them there are. Facts are facts, no matter how we may wish to account for them. Hewitt has won one more Slam and his 2 WTF and 2 Masters titles balance out Roddick's 5 Masters titles. Plus he held the #1 ranking for much longer. While it is close in many respects, these factors will always give Hewitt the edge as the more accomplished player.

Your opinion, not a universal truth. Reaching the finals 3x at Wimbledon is a result -- and a very worthwhile result in my estimation. For that matter, it is also a fact that Roddick made it to 3 finals at Wimbledon whereas Hewitt only made it to one. Too many people take an all-or-nothing view and do not give much weight for prevailing over 6 players in a row to make it to a slam final.

Hewitt's longer stay at #1 is not really all that meaningful in light of the considerations that I mentioned in post #94. Note also that Hewitt supplanted Kuerten as #1 in Nov of 2001. Subsequently, Kuerten fell out of the top 30 in 2002 due to injuries. Hewitt's other primary rivals in 2001 and 2002 were Agassi (in his early 30s at the time) and the talented, but inconsistent, Safin (who peaked in 2000). Hewitt's point lead over Kuerten (2001), Agassi and Safin (2002) was not huge by any measure. Hewitt was not dominant during his weeks at #1. He only reached 1 slam final in 2001 and 1 slam final in 2002.

 

[Mustard]

Your opinion, not a universal truth. Reaching the finals 3x at Wimbledon is a result -- and a very worthwhile result in my estimation. For that matter, it is also a fact that Roddick made it to 3 finals at Wimbledon whereas Hewitt only made it to one.

Too many people forget 2005 Wimbledon, where World number 2, Hewitt, was scandalously seeded below World number 4, Roddick, and ended up in the same half of the draw as Federer.