The Fall of Chang and the Rise of Hewitt

[lordmanji]

both these two have similar games. theyre both retrieving counter punchers with amazing wheels but nothing other than their consistency as their weapons. so what im wondering is how chang lost his competitive ability yet hewitt was able to win two majors and hit world number 1 around the same time chang was retiring in 01 and 02? i assume chang was being hit off the court but then why not was hewitt even though hewitt played and beat guys like sampras, davydenko, blake, haas, nalbandian and hewitt beat these same guys chang had lost to: federer, krajicek, roddick, scrichphan, phillipoussis, moya, and schalken.

chang was older and slower than hewitt but i wonder if that was the reason. now hewitt is falling off as chang did and i start to think there will never be another retriever type player who can win a major or become number one BUT if hewitt could replace chang, then it stands to reason another player could replace hewitt. could the complete dominance of heavy hitters from here on just be a myth? i think so if you look at the rise and fall of chang and hewitt.

thoughts?

 

[deme08]

now hewitt is falling off as chang did and i think there will never be another retriever type player who can win a major or become number one

In a way Nadal is their perfect successor carrying over their mental toughness and taking retrieving/ counter punching to another new level.

 

[Morrissey]

In a way Nadal is their perfect successor carrying over their mental toughness and taking retrieving/ counter punching to another new level.

I wouldn't put him in relation to those 2 because they had no power game whatsoever and were undersized men who relied solely on their legs. Players who are similar today are Ferrer, Simon and Clement (when he was good yrs ago). Nadal is more like a Borg or even Muster.

 

[Moose Malloy]

You shouldn't underestimate the role of injuries in either players career. Chang was #3 in '97, had a serious injury(tore his knee up on a wet court in Indian Wells I think) in 'early 98 & dropped way down in the rankings. His decline wasn't really just about 'big hitters,' he no longer had the same speed to compete with them.

Hewitt was #4 in '05, got married & had a kid in '06, started dropping in the rankings, then had some serious injuries to deal with starting in summer '06.

The game doesn't 'pass' any top player by in just one year, there was some bad luck involved. Guys that need to be 100% all the time to be top 10 can drop very quickly if they are at only 80% physically. While someone like Sampras or Federer can win majors at 80%.

theyre both retrieving counter punchers with amazing wheels but nothing other than their consistency as their weapons.

People forget that Chang came to net a lot(more than anyone in the top 10 today actually), that was a major part of his success(he made a big change in his game from '91 to '92, becoming more agressive & his ranking moved way up) Also his return was 2nd to only Agassi's in the 90s, I've seen him hit many return winners off Sampras & the other big servers of the 90s, he took it very early.

Hewitt in comparison didnt really come in much(but he was much bigger than Chang, so he didn't need to)

 

[lordmanji]

I wouldn't put him in relation to those 2 because they had no power game whatsoever and were undersized men who relied solely on their legs. Players who are similar today are Ferrer, Simon and Clement (when he was good yrs ago). Nadal is more like a Borg or even Muster.

id say power-wise, chang and hewitt are more similar to borg than nadal is. nadal can at times hit an opponent off the court while borg never missed and could hit passing shots like chang and hewitt. i wouldnt put ferrer and simon in the borg category either but a less powerful and less consistent version of nadal.

 

[FlamEnemY]

You do realise that borg didn't have today's equipment IMO Nadal is closer to Borg than Hewitt or Chang.

As for those two - they have no major weapon and must work hard for every point. This is only possible to a certain time, as seen with Hewitt. Nevertheless, both players achieved great feats and showed that you don't have to be extremely talented to compete with the best.


Do you consider Hewitt or Chang better? I'd like to see them both at their peaks, one on one.

 

[Moose Malloy]

id say power-wise, chang and hewitt are more similar to borg than nadal is. nadal can at times hit an opponent off the court while borg never missed and could hit passing shots like chang and hewitt. i wouldnt put ferrer and simon in the borg category either but a less powerful and less consistent version of nadal.

All of Borg's peers said he was one of the hardest hitters on tour in his prime. They talked about how Borg's shots felt like rocks. He was no Chang or Hewitt.

Its hard to really understand older players today(memories are very unrealiable, as are clips on youtube with no context) unless you read what was written, said about them at the time they played & watch some entire matches involving them. Borg hit many, many players off the court.

And Borg's serve was considered one of the biggest serves on tour at the time, clocked at 124 in 1981(with very primitive equipment, they could only get a reading on like 10 serves in an entire match) When Chang won the French in '89, he was hitting 1st serves at 90 mph max(of course he did work on beefing that up over the years)

The big serve/big forehand combo was a play used a lot by Borg, especially on hardcourts/indoors.

 

[deme08]

both players achieved great feats and showed that you don't have to be extremely talented to compete with the best.

They both ARE extremely talented alright. It makes more sense to say you don't have to be physically gifted (as in tall with long arms) to compete with the best.

 

[FlamEnemY]

They both ARE extremely talented alright. It makes more sense to say you don't have to be physically gifted (as in tall with long arms) to compete with the best.

Ok, my bad. Indeed it's about their physicall talent, not mentality or shotmaking. Without his never-die attitude, Hewitt wouldn't be himself.

 

[PCXL-Fan]

Well there is Ferrer and Davydenko. They are both under 6,0ft tall.

 

[Moose Malloy]

It makes more sense to say you don't have to be physically gifted (as in tall with long arms) to compete with the best.

I think Hewitt had pretty long arms actually, he could get a piece of some great serves when stretched out. Contrast that to Agassi who had limited reach.

Michael Chang is 5'6' max, which was a major hindrence(I think Mac said he would have multiple majors if he was just a few inches taller)

 

[380pistol]

both these two have similar games. theyre both retrieving counter punchers with amazing wheels but nothing other than their consistency as their weapons. so what im wondering is how chang lost his competitive ability yet hewitt was able to win two majors and hit world number 1 around the same time chang was retiring in 01 and 02? i assume chang was being hit off the court but then why not was hewitt even though hewitt played and beat guys like sampras, davydenko, blake, haas, nalbandian and hewitt beat these same guys chang had lost to: federer, krajicek, roddick, scrichphan, phillipoussis, moya, and schalken.

chang was older and slower than hewitt but i wonder if that was the reason. now hewitt is falling off as chang did and i start to think there will never be another retriever type player who can win a major or become number one BUT if hewitt could replace chang, then it stands to reason another player could replace hewitt. could the complete dominance of heavy hitters from here on just be a myth? i think so if you look at the rise and fall of chang and hewitt.

thoughts?

Analysis of games is alright but the reasons for success is off.

Hewitt won his 2 slams when Sampras was aging and Federer was young. Hewitt won the US Open over a 10th seeded 30 yr old Sampras, and a 19 yr old Roddick, and Wimbledon beating Henman in SF and 19-20yr old Nalbandian in F (in his in 2nd or so grasscourt tournament he played in).

Chang on the other hand beat #1 Lendl and #3 Edberg to win his only slam. But from 1991-1997 6 of the 7 US Open Champs went through Chang....

1991 Edberg 4th (on fire Stefan)
1992 Edberg SF (in 5 hr 26 min)
1993 Sampras QF (Nastase called the last 2 sets of the match the best he saw anyone play n hardcourts)
1994 Agassi 4th (Andre called that match his Bar Mitzvah of tennis, "the match that made him a man")
1996 Sampras (Again)
1997 Rafter (who came of age)

And in 1995 he lost to Courier in the QF, and JC lost to the evntual champ Sampras in the SF. Also Chang lost the 1995 French Open F (Muster, during his 40 win claycourt streak) and the 1996 Australian Open (Becker).

Nothing against Hewitt as ne made the most of what he had, but I don't think Lleyton would have faired better than Michael, wlaking in Michael's shoes. Chang may (it's possible) that he ma have faired better in Hewitt's position (post Sampras, pre Federer), but I don't know if it would that much of a significant increse to his career #'s.

 

[lordmanji]

You do realise that borg didn't have today's equipment IMO Nadal is closer to Borg than Hewitt or Chang.

As for those two - they have no major weapon and must work hard for every point. This is only possible to a certain time, as seen with Hewitt. Nevertheless, both players achieved great feats and showed that you don't have to be extremely talented to compete with the best.


Do you consider Hewitt or Chang better? I'd like to see them both at their peaks, one on one.

the chang to hewitt head to head is 2-0 in favor of hewitt, both matches played in 02:

2002

Tokyo
Japan

Hard

R32

Hewitt

6-2 6-2
Stats
2002

's-Hertogenbosch
The Netherlands

Grass

R32

Hewitt

7-6(2) 7-6(4)
Stats

 

[lordmanji]

Analysis of games is alright but the reasons for success is off.

Hewitt won his 2 slams when Sampras was aging and Federer was young. Hewitt won the US Open over a 10th seeded 30 yr old Sampras, and a 19 yr old Roddick, and Wimbledon beating Henman in SF and 19-20yr old Nalbandian in F (in his in 2nd or so grasscourt tournament he played in).

Chang on the other hand beat #1 Lendl and #3 Edberg to win his only slam. But from 1991-1997 6 of the 7 US Open Champs went through Chang....

1991 Edberg 4th (on fire Stefan)
1992 Edberg SF (in 5 hr 26 min)
1993 Sampras QF (Nastase called the last 2 sets of the match the best he saw anyone play n hardcourts)
1994 Agassi 4th (Andre called that match his Bar Mitzvah of tennis, "the match that made him a man")
1996 Sampras (Again)
1997 Rafter (who came of age)

And in 1995 he lost to Courier in the QF, and JC lost to the evntual champ Sampras in the SF. Also Chang lost the 1995 French Open F (Muster, during his 40 win claycourt streak) and the 1996 Australian Open (Becker).

Nothing against Hewitt as ne made the most of what he had, but I don't think Lleyton would have faired better than Michael, wlaking in Michael's shoes. Chang may (it's possible) that he ma have faired better in Hewitt's position (post Sampras, pre Federer), but I don't know if it would that much of a significant increse to his career #'s.

i have to disagree the popular belief these days that hewitt snuck in his two slams. yes, he won it between the sampras and federer eras but that is more incidental. think of it this way: he rose to the top of all the players who were jostling to be top player in 01-02. that is a feat that is respectable as any.

 

[lordmanji]

I think Hewitt had pretty long arms actually, he could get a piece of some great serves when stretched out. Contrast that to Agassi who had limited reach.

Michael Chang is 5'6' max, which was a major hindrence(I think Mac said he would have multiple majors if he was just a few inches taller)

hey moose, im 5'7 and ive seen michael in person. he is definitely a couple inches taller than me and before you say maybe im overestimating my own height, other people i know are 5'9 and they are about michael's height. plus, seeing him on tv his height's comparable to ferrer.

 

[lordmanji]

All of Borg's peers said he was one of the hardest hitters on tour in his prime. They talked about how Borg's shots felt like rocks. He was no Chang or Hewitt.

Its hard to really understand older players today(memories are very unrealiable, as are clips on youtube with no context) unless you read what was written, said about them at the time they played & watch some entire matches involving them. Borg hit many, many players off the court.

And Borg's serve was considered one of the biggest serves on tour at the time, clocked at 124 in 1981(with very primitive equipment, they could only get a reading on like 10 serves in an entire match) When Chang won the French in '89, he was hitting 1st serves at 90 mph max(of course he did work on beefing that up over the years)

The big serve/big forehand combo was a play used a lot by Borg, especially on hardcourts/indoors.

perhaps you're right about borg hitting pretty hard. i have only seen his wimbledon and french open youtube matches and in those matches, he won points by consistency and passing shots. especially at the french he'd hit many loopers waiting for the opponent to make a mistake. also, ive read that borg is the progenitor of the topspin forehand and that in itself means less power. but my experience is limited so i'll consider what youve said as well.

 

[RCizzle65]

He is 5'9" according to atptennis.com

http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/?playernumber=C274

 

[talock]

the head-to-head stats are meaningless...it was at the tail-end of Chang's career and the absolute height of hewitt's...plus it was only two matches.

chang has to be one of the most unique players in the history of the game, and one of the most fun to watch. chang's abilities disproved many of the "common knowledge" rules about tennis (and even tennis equipment). he was short for a pro, but will still often come to net successfully, despite a weak serve. he made of for a lack of power with excellent touch, yet in general, he was still a baseliner. His signature racquet was an oversize longbody, yet he used it effectively at net.

 

[David L]

Hewitt and Chang are both great players, but Hewitt is better. He has bigger, more penetrating groundstrokes and did overpower players when he was No.1. He could go toe to toe with Agassi and I remember his 6-0 6-0 6-1 annihilation of Corretja in the 2000 Australian Open. Even in some of his recent matches with Federer and Nadal, he has shown he still has it, but the game has gotten bigger off the ground since he was dominating, plus everyone is moving and retrieving much better, so it was always going to be hard to keep up. Both, of course, were quick, but Hewitt was much more intense. I think Hewitt would have faired well in Chang's era, but Chang would not have dominated the way Hewitt did in his.

 

[kelz]

both these two have similar games. theyre both retrieving counter punchers with amazing wheels but nothing other than their consistency as their weapons. so what im wondering is how chang lost his competitive ability yet hewitt was able to win two majors and hit world number 1 around the same time chang was retiring in 01 and 02? i assume chang was being hit off the court but then why not was hewitt even though hewitt played and beat guys like sampras, davydenko, blake, haas, nalbandian and hewitt beat these same guys chang had lost to: federer, krajicek, roddick, scrichphan, phillipoussis, moya, and schalken.

chang was older and slower than hewitt but i wonder if that was the reason. now hewitt is falling off as chang did and i start to think there will never be another retriever type player who can win a major or become number one BUT if hewitt could replace chang, then it stands to reason another player could replace hewitt. could the complete dominance of heavy hitters from here on just be a myth? i think so if you look at the rise and fall of chang and hewitt.

thoughts?

you dont make sense.

 

[FiveO]

I think they, Chang and Hewitt, are very similar. Injuries impacted both. Allowing real life to enter the picture also had an impact. There were also elements unique to each falling out.

Chang, who employed more all-court tactics had made a concerted effort to power up with an eye to making things easier and to compete with his era's two icons, Sampras and Agassi. Chang was one guy who, among other things, attempted to bulk up in search of more pace, particularly on his serve. In addition to the more obvious knee injury, most thought that had a negative impact on his speed, and overall on his game, i.e. slimmer margins, more errors, etc.

Hewitt was a very good player who excelled and benefitted from peaking in the flux between the Sampras and Federer eras. His strengths, beyond his speed, were his return and his passing ability. He was also far better in quick conditions than slow, prompting his annual complaint to tennis Australia about the speed of the courts there. Wimbledon only started slowing the courts in 2001, and they have progressively slowed since then as the courts get even harder with time. The US Open was intentionally slowed in 2001 and again in 2003. Those were the sites of his two Major wins. Coupled with that came the retirements of the best s&v and all-courters from the prior generation, meaning less top level, yet aging offensive players, meaning less targets for his returns and passes and his own strokes would have less impact in those slower conditions vs. more grinding styles.

5

 

[equinox]

Hewitt was #4 in '05, got married & had a kid in '06, started dropping in the rankings, then had some serious injuries to deal with starting in summer '06.

Don't forget to add hewitt breaking up ith aussie kim, falling out with his best mate, fine and lawsuit with atp.