Roddick was a better player than Hewitt

[Steve0904]

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.

I agree with you about Roddick. I think he was "better" by a nose. Results do count, but in this instance I don't think they tell us who's "better."

That said, it can easily be argued that if you switched Hewitt's and Roddick's places in the draw in 2004 and 2005 then Hewitt would've made the final in those years since he actually lost to Federer in both years.

At the end of the day, I think Roddick's game was more suited to winning GS than Hewitt's, the main problem for Andy was Federer, so he's "better" even though Hewitt is better results wise.

 

[Mustard]

At the end of the day, I think Roddick's game was more suited to winning GS than Hewitt's, the main problem for Andy was Federer, so he's "better" even though Hewitt is better results wise.

How can you say this? Firstly, Hewitt won more majors than Roddick. Secondly, Hewitt was beaten by Federer in 5 majors in 2004-2005, not to mention twice in a Masters Cup as well, so Federer was a big problem for Hewitt also.

 

[NatF]

Without Federer standing in his way Hewitt probably would have been #1 in 2004 and potentially 2005 as well depending on Nadal.

 

[mike danny]

Without Federer standing in his way Hewitt probably would have been #1 in 2004 and potentially 2005 as well depending on Nadal.

Nadal most likely would have ended no.1. He was brilliant in 2005

 

[Mustard]

Without Federer standing in his way Hewitt probably would have been #1 in 2004 and potentially 2005 as well depending on Nadal.

2004, certainly. What counted against Hewitt in 2004 was that he began the year ranked at world number 17, so was facing Federer earlier in tournaments, while Roddick was always in the top 2 throughout the year. Hewitt needed to beat Federer in the 2004 Masters Cup final to clinch the year-end number 2 ranking, and failed. Hewitt had just beaten Roddick 6-3, 6-2, after winning the last 20 points of the match.

Regarding 2005, that was the year when Hewitt's injury problems began. He missed the clay-court season, and the latter months of the year, but when he did play (especially in the first half of the year), he was as good as ever.

When he came back in early 2006 from his injury lay-off, it was clear to see that he had lost his fast pace and the consistent timing on his shots.

 

[NatF]

Nadal most likely would have ended no.1. He was brilliant in 2005

Hewitt played few matches in 2005, if was #1 in the world again perhaps he'd enter more tournaments win a couple of slams at his peak and end the world #1. Hewitt was the better all surface player at that time. It depends on whether he gets injured or not.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

Its a great thing that Federer showed up when he did. I would hate to see a guy like Hewitt win 5-6 slams.


2 slams is more than enough for a player like him. I watched his match against Karlovic at Wimbledon 2003 and was laughing at how badly he got his butt kicked. It was embarrassing to see the world number 1 getting smashed off the court by the Karlovic baseline game, yes , baseline game. Karlovic was swinging away at returns, forehands, backhands, cleaning up at the net and Hewitt couldn't do a thing about it. He lost the last 2 sets 6-3 6-4. It's not even a one off thing, the guy is owned by Karlovic. Their h2h is 4-1 in Karlovic's favor. 2 of Karlovic's wins came in Hewitt's prime as well: Wimbledon 2003 and Queens 2005.


So yeah, thank goodness Federer showed up. Hewitt should stay far away from Djokovic-Edberg-Becker greatness territory.

 

[Steve0904]

How can you say this? Firstly, Hewitt won more majors than Roddick. Secondly, Hewitt was beaten by Federer in 5 majors in 2004-2005, not to mention twice in a Masters Cup as well, so Federer was a big problem for Hewitt also.

Yes, but Andy was beaten in 3 Wimbledon finals and a USO final so even though Hewitt also lost to Federer, only one of those losses was in a major final. Otherwise it's not a guarantee Hewitt would've won Wimbledon 2004, AO 2004, or USO or Wimby 05.

This has to do with the draw partly, as I said, but credit should still be given to Andy for not losing before the final on his side of the draw. And Andy was more consistent over his career. Injuries, unfortunately are a part of sport.

I also think Hewitt got a little "luckier" to pick up 2 majors when he did. You could also call that a credit to Hewitt too though because he was more mentally ready than Andy at 19-20 years of age, but I don't think Roddick should be bashed for this. Overall, both are great players, and I'm not trying to put down either, but I do agree with the first few posts of this thread in that Roddick doesn't get enough credit while Hewitt gets a little too much.

 

[Mustard]

Yes, but Andy was beaten in 3 Wimbledon finals and a USO final so even though Hewitt also lost to Federer, only one of those losses was in a major final.

Like I said in my previous post, the biggest reason for that was Hewitt's ranking of world number 17 at the start of 2004, so was facing Federer earlier in the draws. Roddick was in the top 2 throughout 2004, yet Hewitt was one match away from getting the year-end number 2 ranking. At that time, he had just beaten Roddick 6-3, 6-2, in the Masters Cup semi final after winning the last 20 points of the match.

In 2005, going against Hewitt were his injury problems where he missed the clay-court season and the latter months of the year, plus the terrible decision to seed then world number 2, Hewitt (a former Wimbledon champion), below then world number 4, Roddick. To make matters worse, Roddick wasn't in great form himself during the tournament. Yet Hewitt had to face Federer in the semi finals. That left a bad taste in my mouth, I must say.

 

[Mustard]

Its a great thing that Federer showed up when he did. I would hate to see a guy like Hewitt win 5-6 slams.


2 slams is more than enough for a player like him. I watched his match against Karlovic at Wimbledon 2003 and was laughing at how badly he got his butt kicked. It was embarrassing to see the world number 1 getting smashed off the court by the Karlovic baseline game, yes , baseline game. Karlovic was swinging away at returns, forehands, backhands, cleaning up at the net and Hewitt couldn't do a thing about it. He lost the last 2 sets 6-3 6-4. It's not even a one off thing, the guy is owned by Karlovic. Their h2h is 4-1 in Karlovic's favor. 2 of Karlovic's wins came in Hewitt's prime as well: Wimbledon 2003 and Queens 2005.


So yeah, thank goodness Federer showed up. Hewitt should stay far away from Djokovic-Edberg-Becker greatness territory.

When I first saw Hewitt, I thought he would win around 10 majors. He was mentally ready for the tennis elite even as a teenager and an incredible fighter.

 

[President]

Its a great thing that Federer showed up when he did. I would hate to see a guy like Hewitt win 5-6 slams.


2 slams is more than enough for a player like him. I watched his match against Karlovic at Wimbledon 2003 and was laughing at how badly he got his butt kicked. It was embarrassing to see the world number 1 getting smashed off the court by the Karlovic baseline game, yes , baseline game. Karlovic was swinging away at returns, forehands, backhands, cleaning up at the net and Hewitt couldn't do a thing about it. He lost the last 2 sets 6-3 6-4. It's not even a one off thing, the guy is owned by Karlovic. Their h2h is 4-1 in Karlovic's favor. 2 of Karlovic's wins came in Hewitt's prime as well: Wimbledon 2003 and Queens 2005.


So yeah, thank goodness Federer showed up. Hewitt should stay far away from Djokovic-Edberg-Becker greatness territory.

One match or even one matchup doesn't say much about a players greatness or talent IMO..

 

[Mustard]

Karlovic seems to be the only player of that style that Hewitt has had problems with. Karlovic's height enables him to hit his serves with a downward power trajectory that Hewitt finds difficult to deal with. In their 2003 Wimbledon match, Hewitt had a set point for a 2-set lead, and his failure to take it changed everything.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

One match or even one matchup doesn't say much about a players greatness or talent IMO..

Karlovic is not the only journeyman player who has kicked Hewitt's butt in his prime.

Hewitt was a great player, but he doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as player like Edberg, Becker, and Djokovic. Sometimes you hear people talking nonsense about how Hewitt should be up there with them and only got unlucky because of prime Federer beating him like a drum every other week.

Back when I used to watch tennis in 2004-2005, I absolutely hated seeing Hewitt in the SF and Finals playing against Federer. It was like the Ferrer-Nadal matchup of that time. Some of those beatings were pure savagery where Hewitt used to lose the rally the moment Federer hit a strong forehand shot. Federer was pretty much unbeatable for everyone on tour, but you always were more entertained seeing him play Henman, Safin, and even Moya because you knew they had some firepower and offense in their game to make a match out it.

 

[Steve0904]

Like I said in my previous post, the biggest reason for that was Hewitt's ranking of world number 17 at the start of 2004, so was facing Federer earlier in the draws. Roddick was in the top 2 throughout 2004, yet Hewitt was one match away from getting the year-end number 2 ranking. At that time, he had just beaten Roddick 6-3, 6-2, in the Masters Cup semi final after winning the last 20 points of the match.

In 2005, going against Hewitt were his injury problems where he missed the clay-court season and the latter months of the year, plus the terrible decision to seed then world number 2, Hewitt (a former Wimbledon champion), below then world number 4, Roddick. To make matters worse, Roddick wasn't in great form himself during the tournament. Yet Hewitt had to face Federer in the semi finals. That left a bad taste in my mouth, I must say.

True, but injuries are a part of tennis and any sport, and as I said, credit has to be given to Andy for not losing before the final at the tournaments I mentioned. Otherwise the scenario that Roddick lost directly to Federer in the finals at GS and legitimately hurt Andy more than Lleyton is not possible. But I think Andy lost more in terms of achievement to Federer than Hewitt did since Andy lost in 4 GS finals whereas Hewitt only lost in 1. It is not at all clear that Hewitt would've won the tournaments he lost without Federer in his way.

 

[mike danny]

Karlovic is not the only journeyman player who has kicked Hewitt's butt in his prime.

Hewitt was a great player, but he doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as player like Edberg, Becker, and Djokovic. Sometimes you hear people talking nonsense about how Hewitt should be up there with them and only got unlucky because of prime Federer beating him like a drum every other week.

Back when I used to watch tennis in 2004-2005, I absolutely hated seeing Hewitt in the SF and Finals playing against Federer. It was like the Ferrer-Nadal matchup of that time. Some of those beatings were pure savagery where Hewitt used to lose the rally the moment Federer hit a strong forehand shot. Federer was pretty much unbeatable for everyone on tour, but you always were more entertained seeing him play Henman, Safin, and even Moya because you knew they had some firepower and offense in their game to make a match out it.

Well in 2005 he took a different approach against Federer. Their W and USO matches were not blowouts anymore. Especillay the USO match.

Their USO 2005 SF IMO shows Hewitt's different strategy against Federer, which was working very well. The guy was very close to a 2 sets to 1 lead. It took Federer hitting outright winners on set points to save himself.

USO 2005 SF was the best match Hewitt played against Federer during those 2 years (2004 and 2005) they met a lot

 

[Sid_Vicious]

Well in 2005 he took a different approach against Federer. Their W and USO matches were not blowouts anymore. Especillay the USO match.

Their USO 2005 SF IMO shows Hewitt's different strategy against Federer, which was working very well. The guy was very close to a 2 sets to 1 lead. It took Federer hitting outright winners on set points to save himself.

USO 2005 SF was the best match Hewitt played against Federer during those 2 years (2004 and 2005) they met a lot

That wasn't a different strategy. That was Federer shanking backhands throughout the whole match, which Federer did in the final against Agassi. Go read the match thread on this forum and read all the posts describing the sad quality of that match. Hewitt didn't bother Federer anymore than Kiefer did a few matches earlier. There was no pressure on Federer. That 2nd set tiebreaker says it all. Hewitt goes through hell and high tide to push to a tiebreaker and Federer crushed him 7-0 in it.

About the Wimbledon 2005 match. 6-3 6-4 7-6 and you are making it seem like a heroic effort. None of their matches in 2004 or 2005 were particularly riveting. The sad thing is that at the start of 2005, Hewitt told the press that the Wimbledon title was between him and Federer; and then he was dismissed as ruthlessly as Roddick was.

 

[mike danny]

That wasn't a different strategy. That was Federer shanking backhands throughout the whole match, which Federer did in the final against Agassi. Go read the match thread on this forum and read all the posts describing the sad quality of that match. Hewitt didn't bother Federer anymore than Kiefer did a few matches earlier. There was no pressure on Federer. That 2nd set tiebreaker says it all. Hewitt goes through hell and high tide to push to a tiebreaker and Federer crushed him 7-0 in it.

About the Wimbledon 2005 match. 6-3 6-4 7-6 and you are making it seem like a heroic effort. None of their matches in 2004 or 2005 were particularly riveting. The sad thing is that at the start of 2005, Hewitt told the press that the Wimbledon title was between him and Federer; and then he was dismissed as ruthlessly as Roddick was.

Actually i did read the match thread. And they were saying the Federer-Hewitt match was pretty good

 

[Sid_Vicious]

Actually i did read the match thread. And they were saying the Federer-Hewitt match was pretty good

You either don't know how to read or went on MTF archives and read the posts about Federer vs Hewitt in Shanghai 2002.


There are people here who think Simon vs Monfils AO 13 was entertaining. So you must have decided to look at one positive review for the match and generalized about everything else. Overall, that match was not outstanding by any means, it had some entertaining moments but the same can be said for Federer's matches against Santoro, Kiefer, and Agassi that year. Just a good fight but Federer wasn't anywhere as tense or anxious as he looked at AO 2005 vs Safin or RG 2005 against Nadal.

 

[Mustard]

Karlovic is not the only journeyman player who has kicked Hewitt's butt in his prime.

Oh? Who else are we talking about? The only other player that comes immediately to my mind is Moya, and Hewitt eventually figured that problem out. Moya is hardly a journeyman.

Anyway, I wish to mention one of the best Hewitt moments. It was April 2001 in a Davis Cup quarter final tie between Brazil and Australia in Kuerten's hometown of Florianopolis, on clay. Kuerten at this time was at the peak of his powers, and Hewitt beat him 7-6, 6-3, 7-6.

 

[President]

Karlovic is not the only journeyman player who has kicked Hewitt's butt in his prime.

Hewitt was a great player, but he doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as player like Edberg, Becker, and Djokovic. Sometimes you hear people talking nonsense about how Hewitt should be up there with them and only got unlucky because of prime Federer beating him like a drum every other week.

Back when I used to watch tennis in 2004-2005, I absolutely hated seeing Hewitt in the SF and Finals playing against Federer. It was like the Ferrer-Nadal matchup of that time. Some of those beatings were pure savagery where Hewitt used to lose the rally the moment Federer hit a strong forehand shot. Federer was pretty much unbeatable for everyone on tour, but you always were more entertained seeing him play Henman, Safin, and even Moya because you knew they had some firepower and offense in their game to make a match out it.

It is also surface homogenization. Upsets were more common across the board in the the 90's and early 2000's. Hewtt was also really young then, I think his real prime was in 2004 and 2005. He stopped losing to random nobodies and pretty much lost to Federer in every major for two years. That can be considered his real prime, IMO (makes sense age-wise too), and its just unfortunate he got injured at the end of 2005. If he had maintained the standard he showed in those two years then I think it wouldn't be unfeasible for him to be regarded as a Becker/Edberg level player (if Federer hadn't existed).

 

[Sid_Vicious]

if he had maintained the standard he showed in those two years then I think it wouldn't be unfeasible for him to be regarded as a Becker/Edberg level player (if Federer hadn't existed).

True, but I'm saying that I'm happy it didn't. Becker and Edberg are far more talented than Hewitt was and watching them play at their best was a far better experience than watching Hewitt. Hewitt and Roddick were great players, but neither of them deserved to a spot up there with Becker and Edberg. Becker and Edberg were great talents and had some stiff competition at the top. If you remove Federer from the equation in 2004-2005, you only have great players like Roddick and Hewitt fighting for slams, but no real great talent.

 

[abmk]

Karlovic is not the only journeyman player who has kicked Hewitt's butt in his prime.

Hewitt was a great player, but he doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as player like Edberg, Becker, and Djokovic. Sometimes you hear people talking nonsense about how Hewitt should be up there with them and only got unlucky because of prime Federer beating him like a drum every other week.

Back when I used to watch tennis in 2004-2005, I absolutely hated seeing Hewitt in the SF and Finals playing against Federer. It was like the Ferrer-Nadal matchup of that time. Some of those beatings were pure savagery where Hewitt used to lose the rally the moment Federer hit a strong forehand shot. Federer was pretty much unbeatable for everyone on tour, but you always were more entertained seeing him play Henman, Safin, and even Moya because you knew they had some firepower and offense in their game to make a match out it.

I don't think hewitt should be up there with edberg, becker, djoker. But you are under-rating him considerably IMO.

 

[abmk]

Its a great thing that Federer showed up when he did. I would hate to see a guy like Hewitt win 5-6 slams.


2 slams is more than enough for a player like him. I watched his match against Karlovic at Wimbledon 2003 and was laughing at how badly he got his butt kicked. It was embarrassing to see the world number 1 getting smashed off the court by the Karlovic baseline game, yes , baseline game. Karlovic was swinging away at returns, forehands, backhands, cleaning up at the net and Hewitt couldn't do a thing about it. He lost the last 2 sets 6-3 6-4. It's not even a one off thing, the guy is owned by Karlovic. Their h2h is 4-1 in Karlovic's favor. 2 of Karlovic's wins came in Hewitt's prime as well: Wimbledon 2003 and Queens 2005.


So yeah, thank goodness Federer showed up. Hewitt should stay far away from Djokovic-Edberg-Becker greatness territory.

oh, how about we insert nadal in place of hewitt, darcis in place of Karlovic and substitute 2013 for 2003 ?

 

[Sid_Vicious]

oh, how about we insert nadal in place of hewitt, darcis in place of Karlovic and substitute 2013 for 2003 ?

Nadal wasn't number 1 one though in his match against Rosol or Darcis nor the defending champion, and both of those guys actually have decent ground games.Still, you have a point that Nadal's losses were as embarrassing, but I think everyone can agree that Nadal has lost it on grass.

Hewitt was considered one of the best baseliners and returners in the world and for him to get smashed by Karlovic 6-3 6-4 in the last 2 sets was a ridiculous sight to see.

I'm not underrating Hewitt. He is a 2 time slam winner and I already said I think he is greater than Roddick, but what I see more often is people overrating him and acting like he was some all-time great who got stopped in his tracks by Federer. You can see many people try to put Hewitt light years ahead of Murray and justify it by saying "He played prime Federer" while not extending the same consideration to Murray, who had to deal with Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, or the various other players who had tough competition in the past.

So, I don't see how I'm underrating Hewitt in that particular post you quoted. Federer and Hewitt's matches were indeed very poor in 2004. You can go to youtube and watch them again and see how dull the atmosphere was. Winner after winner used to fly from Federer's racquet; Federer's shotmaking was the only reason to tune in. He was the kind of player who used to get to the final against Federer and then lose even worse than Federer's early round opponents did to him.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

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.

I am not familiar with this case. Why it was scandalously? Don't they have a formula used to calculate the seeds numbers, taking into account the grass results from two previous seasons and the current rankings?

 

[Chopin]

I really disagree with people here. Hewitt was the best player in tennis for a brief period of time, and he defeated Sampras in a huge match (and Sampras would go on to win slams). Hewitt's problems were A) his injury and B) that the courts were slowed down (Roddick's problem, too).

Roddick and Hewitt, in their primes, would certainly compete with Djokovic, Murray and to an extent, Nadal, on the faster surfaces. If the courts were like they were in the 90s, these guys might have respectable records against Murray and Djokovic. I'm not saying they're at the level of Djokovic or Murray, but they're much better players than people give them credit for.

Federer, Nadal, Agassi, Sampras, Djokovic, Murray, Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin might all play good matches against each other in their best years.

 

[jg153040]

I really disagree with people here. Hewitt was the best player in tennis for a brief period of time, and he defeated Sampras in a huge match (and Sampras would go on to win slams). Hewitt's problems were A) his injury and B) that the courts were slowed down (Roddick's problem, too).

Roddick and Hewitt, in their primes, would certainly compete with Djokovic, Murray and to an extent, Nadal, on the faster surfaces. If the courts were like they were in the 90s, these guys might have respectable records against Murray and Djokovic. I'm not saying they're at the level of Djokovic or Murray, but they're much better players than people give them credit for.

Federer, Nadal, Agassi, Sampras, Djokovic, Murray, Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin might all play good matches against each other in their best years.

I put Safin, Roddick, Murray, Hewitt on the same level. Fed robbed them all a bit, so maybe they are about Courier level. Comparing them with Djokovic, Becker is not fair. They are a tier below. Even if we Remove Fed, I don't see them winning 6-8 majors. Courier level is about the same.

The reason I put them below Nole. They all have two common flaws. They all have one very weak surface and they can't consistently beat top guys on big matches.

I mean Nole was able to consistently beat Fedal at their best surfaces and also doesn't have a weak surface.

So, the differences between Murray, Safin, Roddick and Hewitt are so small, we can't really put anyone above the rest by some margins.

They all have pros and cons. Roddick just won 1 slam, but he was so consistent at the top. Safin's peak is probably the highest defeating Fed and Sampras, but he was so inconsistent. Murray is very consistent, but he is helped by homogenization and didn't go trough Fedal to win his titles.
Hewitt is amazing player, but he doesn't have any real weapons that stand out, to hurt players with.

So, this is my reasoning why I can't really put anyone above the rest.

 

[mike danny]

I put Safin, Roddick, Murray, Hewitt on the same level. Fed robbed them all a bit, so maybe they are about Courier level. Comparing them with Djokovic, Becker is not fair. They are a tier below. Even if we Remove Fed, I don't see them winning 6-8 majors. Courier level is about the same.

The reason I put them below Nole. They all have two common flaws. They all have one very weak surface and they can't consistently beat top guys on big matches.

I mean Nole was able to consistently beat Fedal at their best surfaces and also doesn't have a weak surface.

So, the differences between Murray, Safin, Roddick and Hewitt are so small, we can't really put anyone above the rest by some margins.

They all have pros and cons. Roddick just won 1 slam, but he was so consistent at the top. Safin's peak is probably the highest defeating Fed and Sampras, but he was so inconsistent. Murray is very consistent, but he is helped by homogenization and didn't go trough Fedal to win his titles.
Hewitt is amazing player, but he doesn't have any real weapons that stand out, to hurt players with.

So, this is my reasoning why I can't really put anyone above the rest.

Actually i put Murray above Roddick and Hewitt. During 2001-2003 (before Federer's arrival) i am sure Murray would win more slams than Hewitt. During these years the only slams i do not see him winning are the FO's and other exceptions like W 2001, USO 2002 and W 2003. But at the others i see him as a huge favorite. So 4-5 majors seems reasonable.Way more than Hewitt.

He would also finish no.1 one of those years as well. In 2003 there were 4 people who were no.1 during the year. So it was not that difficult to become no.1. I givd Murray chance to end 2003 no.1.

Hewitt and Roddick were good players and on their day were very much capable of giving the best players a run for their money. But they still are a level below today's top players

 

[jg153040]

Actually i put Murray above Roddick and Hewitt. During 2001-2003 (before Federer's arrival) i am sure Murray would win more slams than Hewitt. During these years the only slams i do not see him winning are the FO's and other exceptions like W 2001, USO 2002 and W 2003. But at the others i see him as a huge favorite. So 4-5 majors seems reasonable.Way more than Hewitt.

He would also finish no.1 one of those years as well. In 2003 there were 4 people who were no.1 during the year. So it was not that difficult to become no.1. I givd Murray chance to end 2003 no.1.

Hewitt and Roddick were good players and on their day were very much capable of giving the best players a run for their money. But they still are a level below today's top players

Doesn't work this way. This goes both ways. I can say Roddick and Hewitt would win more majors now, not dealing with peak Fed. I mean on grass and HC and indoor they don't have problems with Nole. Roddick even leads the h2h with Nole. They didn't have problems with Rafa on HC either. Rafa wasn't very good on HC when HC had fast conditions. He was losing to all sorts of players on fast HC. Only after AO and USO got slower and top HC guys declined/retired he won. So, I see Roddick and Hewitt winning on HC/grass much easier than Murray if we put peak Fed out of the equation.

So, those slams you gift Murray in 2002, he would lose if he had to play peak Fed in his two slam wins.

So, they are about even.

 

[mike danny]

Doesn't work this way. This goes both ways. I can say Roddick and Hewitt would win more majors now, not dealing with peak Fed. I mean on grass and HC and indoor they don't have problems with Nole. Roddick even leads the h2h with Nole. They didn't have problems with Rafa on HC either. Rafa wasn't very good on HC when HC had fast conditions. He was losing to all sorts of players on fast HC. Only after AO and USO got slower and top HC guys declined/retired he won. So, I see Roddick and Hewitt winning on HC/grass much easier than Murray if we put peak Fed out of the equation.

So, those slams you gift Murray in 2002, he would lose if he had to play peak Fed in his two slam wins.

So, they are about even.

I was talking about the period before Fed's domination. Starting from 2004 yes Murray would struggle to win with peak Fed, but between 2001-2003 i see him winning more majors than Hewitt. He just had more weapons than the aussie

 

[jg153040]

I was talking about the period before Fed's domination. Starting from 2004 yes Murray would struggle to win with peak Fed, but between 2001-2003 i see him winning more majors than Hewitt. He just had more weapons than the aussie

I don't see Murray beating guys like Safin, Ferrero, old Agassi. And Goran in his run?

I don't see Murray winning any more slams than Hewitt during that time. About the same. Even without peak Fed, Murray still can't be nr.1 or even nr.2.

 

[mike danny]

I don't see Murray beating guys like Safin, Ferrero, old Agassi. And Goran in his run?

I don't see Murray winning any more slams than Hewitt during that time. About the same. Even without peak Fed, Murray still can't be nr.1 or even nr.2.

In 2003 4 guys were no.1 during the year. During his career Murray still was pretty consistent. Was reaching slam finals almost every year since he joined the top and was also winning masters almost every year. I think in 2003 such results would be enough to get him the no.1 ranking. Roddick ended the year no.1 only by winning 2 masters and a slam. Murray i am sure would be no.1 as well in 2003 with such results.

You are underrating Murray a lot. Without the other 3 guys, Nadal, Djokovic and Federer, Murray would definetely do a lot better. Even reach no.1. With his results in the last years, he would have become no.1 a long time ago. But the other 3 guys were simply consistent beasts

 

[NatF]

Actually i put Murray above Roddick and Hewitt. During 2001-2003 (before Federer's arrival) i am sure Murray would win more slams than Hewitt. During these years the only slams i do not see him winning are the FO's and other exceptions like W 2001, USO 2002 and W 2003. But at the others i see him as a huge favorite. So 4-5 majors seems reasonable.Way more than Hewitt.

He would also finish no.1 one of those years as well. In 2003 there were 4 people who were no.1 during the year. So it was not that difficult to become no.1. I givd Murray chance to end 2003 no.1.

Hewitt and Roddick were good players and on their day were very much capable of giving the best players a run for their money. But they still are a level below today's top players

Murray does nothing in 2003. Agassi, Ferrero, Federer and Roddick all disaplyed a higher level at their respective slams than I've seen from Murray. He goes slamless, though he probably mops up a lot of masters.

 

[mike danny]

Murray does nothing in 2003. Agassi, Ferrero, Federer and Roddick all disaplyed a higher level at their respective slams than I've seen from Murray. He goes slamless, though he probably mops up a lot of masters.

Agassi had very weak competition at the AO. He did not have to face anybody of Murray's level. Murray in the last 3 years pre surgery was only stopped by Djokovic at the AO. Murray in his 2012 and 2013 forms would be more than a match for old Agassi. I see him winning that title to be honest

 

[jg153040]

Agassi had very weak competition at the AO. He did not have to face anybody of Murray's level. Murray in the last 3 years pre surgery was only stopped by Djokovic at the AO. Murray in his 2012 and 2013 forms would be more than a match for old Agassi. I see him winning that title to be honest

I see peak Hewitt beating 2012 Fed at W. Murray failed. And Murray draw in W 13 till the final was a joke.

We can both play this game. If peak Hewitt get to play old Fed between 2010-2014 I see him winning more too. So, this even itself out and that's why I give them the same tier.

Some would even argue that Hewitt had tougher competition. He had peak Fed, old Agassi, Kuerten, Safin, Roddick... Plus later he had to deal with Rafa/Murray/Nole.

Now comparing that with Raonic generation is a joke. Murray doesn't have talented youngsters to deal with.

 

[mike danny]

I see peak Hewitt beating 2012 Fed at W. Murray failed. And Murray draw in W 13 till the final was a joke.

We can both play this game. If peak Hewitt get to play old Fed between 2010-2014 I see him winning more too. So, this even itself out and that's why I give them the same tier.

How do you project 2005 Hewitt vs 2012 Fed at W?

 

[jg153040]

How do you project 2005 Hewitt vs 2012 Fed at W?

I project 2002 Hewitt. Your rules. You said we can use only 2001-2003.

 

[mike danny]

I project 2002 Hewitt. Your rules. You said we can use only 2001-2003.

I was just asking out of curiosity. To see your opinion

 

[NatF]

Agassi had very weak competition at the AO. He did not have to face anybody of Murray's level. Murray in the last 3 years pre surgery was only stopped by Djokovic at the AO. Murray in his 2012 and 2013 forms would be more than a match for old Agassi. I see him winning that title to be honest

Sorry but you're talking out of you backside lol. Regardless of his competition Agassi was in incredible form that year. People were commenting that he was at his very best. The finalist actually had a good year and ended in the top 8. Lets not forget a year later he was still extremely tough at the AO producing an all time classic with Safin.

Murray has to negotiate the draw anyway, might run into Roddick or El Aynaoui in which case I don't fancy his chances.

 

[PMChambers]

So, the differences between Murray, Safin, Roddick and Hewitt are so small, we can't really put anyone above the rest by some margins.

I'd go with that except peak Safin was better than the rest but you'd only see it a few times in his career.

 

[jg153040]

I was just asking out of curiosity. To see your opinion

I don't project. It's hypothetical. I was just giving you hypothetical counter arguments to your hypothetical ones.

For every phantom slam you give Murray, I can give to Hewitt.

You know my opinion : Hewitt, Murray are the same tier for me.

I guess, you still see Murray as better after our discussion, which is fine. I just gave you my reasons.

 

[Anaconda]

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...

Just going to leave these here


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKn6FJMe6Ao

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAOtHqAwajA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R79KI_LLkXc&list=PLD9970056B41A1FBE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY7sX3BWCd4


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUIAUOKFSDY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBcTHaRF8TQ






You'd have to be a total dunce to think Hewitt's net game ecplises Safin's. Safin is clearly the better volleyer and net player in general. However, I am willing to concede Hewitt's slice and Lob was better than Safin's, especially down the line, although Safin had a great running lob also, Hewitt's lob was arguably the best ever. Murray gets an honourable mention

 

[Anaconda]

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.

I'm basing this on 145mph serves backed up by 105mph forehands? Are you that biased to Hewitt that you think he would have beaten Roddick at W04, the results of the two games speaks volumes; Hewitt got taken to the bakery in two sets whilst Roddick was leading 4-2 in the 3rd before the rain delay. Sorry, but the 4-6 7-5 7-6 6-4 was a lot closer than the 6-1 6-7 6-0 6-4 semi final. The results doesn't lie, Hewitt, at no stage in the game was ever leading and never looked liked winning. Roddick, was only trailing until the end of the 3rd set and looked like winning. Even in the 4th set you still felt Roddick was still very much in the game with all those break point chances he was creating.




But hey, Hewitt's bakery was still more impressive :roll:.



And as regards to 2004 and 2005, neither player were the second best talent and players after Federer. 2005 Hewitt had no excuse of Federer, seeing as he didn't even face him at the AO 2005, still lost. None of us can prove it, but even 2004 he wouldn't have been #1 and 2005 Neither of Roddick. All I can say is though, Roddick was always in the conversation from 2003-2010, even though he would continue to deliver moonball forehands, there was always a little bit of fear from the fans due to seeing what Roddick was capable when he unleashed his forehand (Miami, Dubai, W09). Hewitt on the other hand hasn't really been considered a true contender since 2005.

 

[90's Clay]

The problem is you can't give guys like Roddick and Hewitt all the slams (in the absence of Federer) because who knows if they would have won them all or not.

Anything could have happened.. They could have lost to someone else just as easily (due to nerves, pressure, the opponent playing lights out tennis that day.. Whatever)

Roddick played in a ton of slams where Fed didn't stop him.. Yet he didn't make it far.

Hewitt only managed TWO slams from 2001-2003 during the transitional era (why didn't he win more? The field was for the taking)

Its not like giving Agassi slams in the absence of Sampras, giving Fed slams in the absence of Rafa or Rafa slams in the absence of Nole. Hewitt or Roddick didn't have as much talent and domination as these guys. Know what I mean?

Even without Fed, Hewitt or Roddick may have only won 3 slams. Again, you're a doing a disservice to someone else they could have played that could have gotten the job done. Roddick and Hewitt was definitely not "for sure" winners in every slam they lost to Fed. ROFLMAO

 

[Anaconda]

The problem is you can't give guys like Roddick and Hewitt all the slams (in the absence of Federer) because who knows if they would have won them all or not.

Anything could have happened.. They could have lost to someone else just as easily (due to nerves, pressure, the opponent playing lights out tennis that day.. Whatever)

Roddick played in a ton of slams where Fed didn't stop him.. Yet he didn't make it far.

Hewitt only managed TWO slams from 2001-2003 during the transitional era (why didn't he win more? The field was for the taking)

Its not like giving Agassi slams in the absence of Sampras, giving Fed slams in the absence of Rafa or Rafa slams in the absence of Nole. Hewitt or Roddick didn't have as much talent and domination as these guys. Know what I mean?

Even without Fed, Hewitt or Roddick may have only won 3 slams. Again, you're a doing a disservice to someone else they could have played that could have gotten the job done. Roddick and Hewitt was definitely not "for sure" winners in every slam they lost to Fed. ROFLMAO

I understand you're dense, but do you really think anyone else would have beaten Roddick at Wimbledon 2003/2004 and 2009? Come to think of it, do you really think anyone would have beaten Roddick at 2006 US Open or 2007?



You can go ahead and say Haas would have beaten Roddick (although couldn't beat Roddick on clay that year) and Blake would have beaten Roddick in his first major final at the US Open (although Blake is a choker) and Djokovic at US Open 2007 (keep in mind prior to 2011, Djokovic couldn't even deal with pusher Roddick, let alone one who was actually playing good tennis at US07)





Please, I've had enough of your trolling. Gimme your honest answer. Who would have stopped Roddick at Wimbledon 2004 and 2009? Don't even bother trying to deduct hypothetical possibilities of W03 AO 2007, US Open 2006/07.

 

[jg153040]

The problem is you can't give guys like Roddick and Hewitt all the slams (in the absence of Federer) because who knows if they would have won them all or not.

Anything could have happened.. They could have lost to someone else just as easily (due to nerves, pressure, the opponent playing lights out tennis that day.. Whatever)

Roddick played in a ton of slams where Fed didn't stop him.. Yet he didn't make it far.

Hewitt only managed TWO slams from 2001-2003 during the transitional era (why didn't he win more? The field was for the taking)

Its not like giving Agassi slams in the absence of Sampras, giving Fed slams in the absence of Rafa or Rafa slams in the absence of Nole. Hewitt or Roddick didn't have as much talent and domination as these guys. Know what I mean?

Even without Fed, Hewitt or Roddick may have only won 3 slams. Again, you're a doing a disservice to someone else they could have played that could have gotten the job done. Roddick and Hewitt was definitely not "for sure" winners in every slam they lost to Fed. ROFLMAO

I don't give them that many slams. I said they are on par with Murray, maybe Courier. Not on par with Djokovic/Edberg/Becker.

 

[Anaconda]

I don't give them that many slams. I said they are on par with Murray, maybe Courier. Not on par with Djokovic/Edberg/Becker.

Roddick would certainly be able to beat Djokovic, not saying he is the better player because it's obvious he's not, but an aggressive Roddick would have chances against any player. The fact that Roddick was able to beat Nadal in his best two years (08 and 2010, if we are to believe his dearest fans), beat Murray at Wimbledon 2009, and led Djokovic h2h whilst being an out of prime moonballer, speaks volumes.

 

[jg153040]

Roddick would certainly be able to beat Djokovic, not saying he is the better player because it's obvious he's not, but an aggressive Roddick would have chances against any player. The fact that Roddick was able to beat Nadal in his best two years (08 and 2010, if we are to believe his dearest fans), beat Murray at Wimbledon 2009, and led Djokovic h2h whilst being an out of prime moonballer, speaks volumes.

Yeah, but leading h2h with Nole doesn't mean the same as being better. I think Nole ends up with a better career in any case.

I think Nole is a tier better than Roddick, Murray. I put those guys about the same tier as Courier along with Hewitt, Safin.

 

[Anti-Fedal]

The problem is you can't give guys like Roddick and Hewitt all the slams (in the absence of Federer) because who knows if they would have won them all or not.

Anything could have happened.. They could have lost to someone else just as easily (due to nerves, pressure, the opponent playing lights out tennis that day.. Whatever)

Roddick played in a ton of slams where Fed didn't stop him.. Yet he didn't make it far.

Hewitt only managed TWO slams from 2001-2003 during the transitional era (why didn't he win more? The field was for the taking)

Its not like giving Agassi slams in the absence of Sampras, giving Fed slams in the absence of Rafa or Rafa slams in the absence of Nole. Hewitt or Roddick didn't have as much talent and domination as these guys. Know what I mean?

Even without Fed, Hewitt or Roddick may have only won 3 slams. Again, you're a doing a disservice to someone else they could have played that could have gotten the job done. Roddick and Hewitt was definitely not "for sure" winners in every slam they lost to Fed. ROFLMAO

:-? 8-3 in majors in favor of Nadal

 

[90's Clay]

:-? 8-3 in majors in favor of Nadal

Right but if not for 2011 God Mode Nole, Nadal would already be close to Fed in the slam count (1 off) and easily would have broke this year or even last