Was Hewitt any worse during 04-05 than 01-02?

[Slingshot]

To be clear, I'm offering no opinion on this, for I have none. I haven't watched much of Hewitt during his period at number one since...well since it happened.

But a fact I assume well known by most on here is that in every slam tournament he entered through 2004 and 2005 — all bar the French Open of 05 when he was injured — he was beaten by the eventual champion. That's prime Federer five times, Safin and Gaudio the other two.

To be beaten by Federer, and a mostly imperious Federer at that, is no disgrace; to lose to Safin playing that well is surely no disgrace either; and Hewitt never made it past the quarters of the French anyway so losing at that stage in 2004 to a specialist like Gaudio was not exactly a sign of decline.

So, for anyone who remembers and/or has gone back and watched Hewitt during that spell of him reaching and maintaining his spot at no.1 and being a nearly-man in 04-05 — how different was his general level of play between both periods, in what ways, and was it or was it not the case of just coming up against one of the greatest of all time reaching an almost unassailable level?

 

[mike danny]

Hewitt was gold enough for a couple more slams in 2004-2005, but his opponents were tougher, IMO.

You could argue Hewitt was quicker in 2001-2002.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Hewitt actually probably peaked in 2004 and 2005. He also wins one or two slams with no Federer around and he didn't have bad losses at slams while he did have them before.

 

[NatF]

I think it depends, his year around consistency was better in 2004 and 2005 and he had he best slam results at the AO in that period. His best Wimbledon and USO were in 2001-2002 though. I think he had two peaks, one was the USO 2001 to Wimbledon 2002, the other was probably Wimbledon 2004 to IW in 2005 - the summer of 2005 was probable peak as well, though I think he was a little worse than earlier in the year after his injury in the spring.

 

[NatF]

Hewitt actually probably peaked in 2004 and 2005. He also wins one or two slams with no Federer around and he didn't have bad losses at slams while he did have them before.

Hewitt probably has a peak AO in 2002 if not for chicken pox.

 

[Galvermegs]

Hewitt probably has a peak AO in 2002 if not for chicken pox.

Very hard to know. He came off the yec having played well there, and indeed was playing ok in the davis cup final that went to a 5th rubber.
But the entire ao 02 was upset ridden. Only safin out of the semifinalists was an obvious candidate for the title, then haas may have been somewhat seen as a potential option for a good run (eventually he got high in the rankings later on in 02) Johansson and novak would not have been anyones picks pre event.
Many australians underperformed at the event, including pat rafter. The last to show any consistent form was cash, and he was quite unlucky to have 2 inspired swedes edge him in back to back events.

 

[NatF]

Very hard to know. He came off the yec having played well there, and indeed was playing ok in the davis cup final that went to a 5th rubber.
But the entire ao 02 was upset ridden. Only safin out of the semifinalists was an obvious candidate for the title, then haas may have been somewhat seen as a potential option for a good run (eventually he got high in the rankings later on in 02) Johansson and novak would not have been anyones picks pre event.
Many australians underperformed at the event, including pat rafter. The last to show any consistent form was cash, and he was quite unlucky to have 2 inspired swedes edge him in back to back events.

Hewitt was in either the best or second best period of his career, I think he was ready to perform well at the AO that year. Agassi had withdrawn so he would have been the favorite. He was in the tougher half of the draw so be had his work cut out for him but he was capable of beating Haas to at least make the SF. If he got through Safin no way he loses the final either.

 

[Galvermegs]

Hewitt was in either the best or second best period of his career, I think he was ready to perform well at the AO that year. Agassi had withdrawn so he would have been the favorite. He was in the tougher half of the draw so be had his work cut out for him but he was capable of beating Haas to at least make the SF. If he got through Safin no way he loses the final either.

That all makes sense but i see all of 2002 (bar the us open) as a season where the underdog had his day in the majors. Hewitt was imperious for the most part at wimbledon but even his qf ended up being decided by a few points in the fifth set, against a very good 2nd tier talent who never would make a major final. Then federer started getting his act together after a strange loss to Horna at rg 03, and order was restored with pete happily on his way out of the endless monopoly board.

 

[jl809]

I don’t think Hewitt of 01-02 does any better against the 04-05 field than 01-02 Hewitt. People forget that he was one of the weakest number 1s ever until Alcaraz (all relative ofc, as number 1 is still a fantastic achievement).

He had this epic performance against a knackered Sampras, for which I think his game was ideally suited (and continued to be suited in 04-05), but there was no Sampras around in 04/05. We saw in the 02 Open that even an elite baseliner with an incredible movement disadvantage could still be too much for him… so prime Federer moving like a panther was just a nightmare for him. Goes without saying that no Hewitt beats peak Fed on grass. I think Hewitt played perfectly well at Wimbledon and the US Open in 05 vs Fed, as well as could reasonably be expected without redlining… and just got dismissed for his troubles

 

[NatF]

That all makes sense but i see all of 2002 (bar the us open) as a season where the underdog had his day in the majors. Hewitt was imperious for the most part at wimbledon but even his qf ended up being decided by a few points in the fifth set, against a very good 2nd tier talent who never would make a major final. Then federer started getting his act together after a strange loss to Horna at rg 03, and order was restored with pete happily on his way out of the endless monopoly board.

Hewitt really should have won the Wimbledon QF in 3. Was the better player in the third set but lost intensity in the TB which was unusual for him. He had 11 BP's that set (to Schalken's 1) but couldn't convert.

 

[NatF]

I don’t think Hewitt of 01-02 does any better against the 04-05 field than 01-02 Hewitt. People forget that he was one of the weakest number 1s ever until Alcaraz (all relative ofc, as number 1 is still a fantastic achievement).

He had this epic performance against a knackered Sampras, for which I think his game was ideally suited (and continued to be suited in 04-05), but there was no Sampras around in 04/05. We saw in the 02 Open that even an elite baseliner with an incredible movement disadvantage could still be too much for him… so prime Federer moving like a panther was just a nightmare for him. Goes without saying that no Hewitt beats peak Fed on grass. I think Hewitt played perfectly well at Wimbledon and the US Open in 05 vs Fed, as well as could reasonably be expected without redlining… and just got dismissed for his troubles

Hewitt choked that SF against Agassi, gave up leads in two of the sets he lost. He served poorly, off the ground he could go toe to toe with Agassi.

Considering the revolving door of number ones in the late 90's and recent number ones like Medvedev, I think you're exaggerating a bit by saying he's one of the worst number ones too. He's in the bottom half, below any ATG's but better than many still.

 

[jl809]

Hewitt choked that SF against Agassi, gave up leads in two of the sets he lost. He served poorly, off the ground he could go toe to toe with Agassi.

Considering the revolving door of number ones in the late 90's and recent number ones like Medvedev, I think you're exaggerating a bit by saying he's one of the worst number ones too. He's in the bottom half, below any ATG's but better than many still.

I actually totally forgot about Meddy holy crap

 

[Galvermegs]

Hewitt really should have won the Wimbledon QF in 3. Was the better player in the third set but lost intensity in the TB which was unusual for him. He had 11 BP's that set (to Schalken's 1) but couldn't convert.

But schalken has won grass events and was good on all surfaces, and played well across the tour. Second tier but not an easy out for many players. My point stands that hewitt almost lost in an upset.. he did well to fight the trends of transitional 2002.

 

[pierceforehands]

He played even better. Without Federer he has the chance of another 5 majors, and probably wins atleast 2.

2004 Australian Open- without Federer either Nalbandian or Hewitt win, although I suppose Safin or Roddick have a chance with a redone draw. Both Nalbandian and Hewitt lost in tough 4 setters to Federer. Ferrero was injured and weak in the semis, and Safin too gassed out in the final.

2004 Wimbledon- Has a good shot, although I slightly favor Roddick. It is probably between them now.

2004 US Open- no Federer, and it is 50/50 with Agassi, but slightly favoring Hewitt.

2005 Wimbledon- Likely wins, he was playing better than Roddick here.

2005 US Open- no Federer, he wins.

So come to think he wins 2 almost for sure- Wimbledon 2005, US Open 2004, with a good shot of winning US Open 2004 and Australian 2004, and some chance of WImbledon 2004. Without Federer. So probably atleast 3 more majors.

 

[Mustard]

Hewitt really should have won the Wimbledon QF in 3. Was the better player in the third set but lost intensity in the TB which was unusual for him. He had 11 BP's that set (to Schalken's 1) but couldn't convert.

In that 2002 Wimbledon quarter final match between Hewitt and Schalken, I believe Hewitt had 20 or 21 break points from the third set and early in the fourth set, and he failed to take a single one of those. It was incredible. Hewitt had won the first 2 sets 6-2, 6-2, and was cruising throughout the third set too when failing to convert all those break points, and then Schalken won the third set tiebreak. When Hewitt again failed to take break points early in the fourth set, Schalken suddenly went up a gear, winning the fourth set 6-1, and Schalken was twice a break up in the fifth set only for Hewitt to break straight back both times. Hewitt eventually won 6-2, 6-2, 6-7, 1-6, 7-5. It was a match that Hewitt could have won easily in straight sets, or could have even lost in 5 sets.

Hewitt's semi final and final matches at the 2002 YEC, against Federer and Ferrero respectively, had some similar dynamics going on. Hewitt, on his own serve, had match point against Federer, which would have won him the match 7-5, 6-4, but Federer saved the match point, broke back, and it became an epic, with Hewitt eventually winning 7-5, 5-7, 7-5. In the final against Ferrero, Hewitt won the first two sets 7-5, 7-5, but then seemed tired as Ferrero came back, won the third and fourth sets 6-2, 6-2, and then Ferrero went 3-1 up in the fifth set. Hewitt somehow dug deep, overcame the tiredness and flatness, and won 7-5, 7-5, 2-6, 2-6, 6-4.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

Hewitt choked that SF against Agassi, gave up leads in two of the sets he lost. He served poorly, off the ground he could go toe to toe with Agassi.

Considering the revolving door of number ones in the late 90's and recent number ones like Medvedev, I think you're exaggerating a bit by saying he's one of the worst number ones too. He's in the bottom half, below any ATG's but better than many still.

Off the top of my head Kafelnikov, Medvedev, Moya, Rios, Rafter, Roddick, Muster, are all clearly worse, and probably Safin and Stan Smith too even if their peak play is probably higher.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

Ferrero also is clearly weaker.

 

[NatF]

Off the top of my head Kafelnikov, Medvedev, Moya, Rios, Rafter, Roddick, Muster, are all clearly worse, and probably Safin and Stan Smith too even if their peak play is probably higher.

Ferrero and I would put Hewitt about Kuerten as well, though I guess that mine be contentious.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

Ferrero and I would put Hewitt about Kuerten as well, though I guess that mine be contentious.

Yes there is a very good case for him to be over Kuerten despite 1 fewer slam. You could even say Alcarez and Sinber ATM even though both are guaranteed to wind up clearly again eventually. So 9-12 people as worse #1s in the Open Era alone.

 

[NatF]

Yes there is a very good case for him to be over Kuerten despite 1 fewer slam. You could even say Alcarez and Sinber ATM even though both are guaranteed to wind up clearly again eventually. So 9-12 people as worse #1s in the Open Era alone.

Yeah I'm not super high on Alcaraz and Sinner compared to some but their careers aren't over so it's premature to have that discussion. But yes Hewitt is far from the worser number one.