Who will end up with a better career: Lleyton Hewitt or Dominic Thiem?

Patogen

Rookie
Hewitt regularly took sets off prime Federer though he couldn't beat him.

Let me tell you what Hewitt regularly took from prime Federer.

World class beating.

He got bageled 5 times in 6 matches they played in 2004 alone. Between his DC win over Federer in late 03 (a match Federer should have won rather easily, but choked away) and the Halle 2010 upset, they faced each other 15 times.

In that span, Hewitt "took" a whopping 5 sets from prime Federer. Between the ugly US Open 04 annihilation and another US Open defeat in 05, Hewitt lost 17 straight sets to Roger.

17. Can you count?

So much for regularly taking... world class beating from prime Roger.

Not even Ferrer ever lost that many straight sets to Roger, not even David Ferrer got bageled as many times by Federer.

Prime Federer toyed with Hewitt, and he beat him badly many, many times. The more I look at the numbers, the more the Ferrer comparison is a bit insulting towards David and way too merciful to Lleyton and his misinformed/ deluded / paranoid fans.

And yes, you bogan down the ranks, I actually was a fan. I loved Hewitt's energy, jumping, fist pumping and come on's. It's just that I'm not an Aussie, so I probably don't get as sentimental seeing how unspectacular his talent really was.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Let me tell you what Hewitt regularly took from prime Federer.

World class beating.

He got bageled 5 times in 6 matches they played in 2004 alone. Between his DC win over Federer in late 03 (a match Federer should have won rather easily, but choked away) and the Halle 2010 upset, they faced each other 15 times.

In that span, Hewitt "took" a whopping 5 sets from prime Federer. Between the ugly US Open 04 annihilation and another US Open defeat in 05, Hewitt lost 17 straight sets to Roger.

17. Can you count?

So much for regularly taking... world class beating from prime Roger.

Not even Ferrer ever lost that many straight sets to Roger, not even David Ferrer got bageled as many times by Federer.

Prime Federer toyed with Hewitt, and he beat him badly many, many times. The more I look at the numbers, the more the Ferrer comparison is a bit insulting towards David and way too merciful to Lleyton and his deluded / paranoid fans.

Hewitt has 9 wins vs Federer including DC in 2003 and TMC 2002 SF
Ferrer has ZERO

2004 was the only year in which Federer ever bagelled Hewitt


Ferrer lost 17 out of his first 18 sets vs Federer, reaching only 1 TB in the sets he lost


Hewitt = 66 wins in 139 matches vs top 10 = 47.48%
Ferrer = 54 wins in 178 matches vs top 10 = 30.33%

1 measly grand slam final for Ferrer, compared to 2 wins and 2 more finals for Hewitt.
0 YECs for Ferrer to 2 for Hewitt.

you are a JOKE man.

59275344.jpg
 
Last edited:

Patogen

Rookie
Hewitt has 9 wins vs Federer including DC in 2003 and TMC 2002 SF
Ferrer has ZERO

2004 was the only year in which Federer ever bagelled Hewitt


Ferrer lost 17 out of his first 18 sets vs Federer, reaching only 1 TB in the sets he lost


Hewitt = 66 wins in 139 matches vs top 10 = 47.48%
Ferrer = 54 wins in 178 matches vs top 10 = 30.33%

1 measly grand slam final for Ferrer, compared to 2 wins and 2 more finals for Hewitt.
0 YECs for Ferrer to 2 for Hewitt.

you are a JOKE man.

But the joke's on you, because you completely lost the plot of the debate, which often happens to intellectually challenged individuals cursed with subpar short term memory.

Yeah, Hewitt looked great in the deaf era where he padded and inflated his still unspectacular stats. Once the courts slowed down, new strings became prevalent, Hewitt and his grinding became obsolete. And he couldn't really cope with new challenges, as his style and talent were so limited. Once Federer became the Federer, Hewitt turned into his little bunny Roger teased and toyed and twisted upside down, to a far worse extent than he ever toyed with Ferrer. The fact that Hewitt actually used to lead their H2H only made this fact more obvious. And that's why it was so painful to Hewitt's fans who, throughout 2004, hoped Lleyton would somehow figure it out and regain the upper hand -- only to see him bageled in four matches in a row, which culminated in the 04 US Open tomato squash, a match in which Federer made Hewitt look like a little kid.

Basically, Hewitt was a transitional aberration.

Meanwhile Ferrer managed to stay relevant during a far longer span in a way more challenging era.

Again, the joke is on you.
 

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
Good thread idea. I think, as a Thiem fan, that Hewitt has clear edge. Thiem has been an underachiever at slams and in big finals generally until 2020.
He needs at least 2-3 more seasons like 2020 before he can eclipse a guy like Hewitt.

I think Roddick a better comparison currently.
What Thiem has going for him is that he is not being dominated by a rival the way Roddick and Hewitt were. Maybe nobody on tour comparable to peak Fed but he’s had numerous matches against Djokodal and has fared well.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
But the joke's on you, because you completely lost the plot of the debate, which often happens to intellectually challenged individuals cursed with subpar short term memory.

Yeah, Hewitt looked great in the deaf era where he padded and inflated his still unspectacular stats. Once the courts slowed down, new strings became prevalent, Hewitt and his grinding became obsolete. And he couldn't really cope with new challenges, as his style and talent were so limited. Once Federer became the Federer, Hewitt turned into his little bunny Roger teased and toyed and twisted upside down, to a far worse extent than he ever toyed with Ferrer. The fact that Hewitt actually used to lead their H2H only made this fact more obvious. And that's why it was so painful to Hewitt's fans who, throughout 2004, hoped Lleyton would somehow figure it out and regain the upper hand -- only to see him bageled in four matches in a row, which culminated in the 04 US Open tomato squash, a match in which Federer made Hewitt look like a little kid.

Basically, Hewitt was a transitional aberration.

Meanwhile Ferrer managed to stay relevant during a far longer span in a way more challenging era.

Again, the joke is on you.

hey joker,

Hewitt has 9 wins vs Federer including DC in 2003 and TMC 2002 SF.
Ferrer has ZERO

Federer was playing well in TMC 2002 and had already won a slam at the time of DC 2003.

Ferrer lost 17 out of his first 18 sets vs Federer, reaching only 1 TB in the sets he lost.
Prime ferrer can't get even one win vs even well past his prime federer. even past his prime Hewitt got 2 wins (Halle 10 and Brisbane 14)

Hewitt was at his prime in 2004-05 as well, not just 2001-02.

2 slam finals in 2004-05 itself, more than ferrer in his entire career. 12 was tougher than 2004&2005, but 13 was weaker.
also reached Wim 04 QF (federer) and SF at both Wim&USO in 05. was already adapting to the newer conditions much better than Ferrer ever has in his career.

Ferrer can only dream of reaching the level that Hewitt did in USO 01 SF/F or USO 05 SF or USO 04 before the final.
Also can only dream of making a tough run at the AO like Hewitt did in AO 05
can only dream of playing on grass like Hewitt can
can only dream of winning the YEC like Hewitt

only thing he has on Hewitt is clay.

I know you are bitter Hewitt wiped the floor with your hero Sampras in USO 01 final, but learn to deal with it better.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Let me tell you what Hewitt regularly took from prime Federer.

World class beating.

He got bageled 5 times in 6 matches they played in 2004 alone. Between his DC win over Federer in late 03 (a match Federer should have won rather easily, but choked away) and the Halle 2010 upset, they faced each other 15 times.

In that span, Hewitt "took" a whopping 5 sets from prime Federer. Between the ugly US Open 04 annihilation and another US Open defeat in 05, Hewitt lost 17 straight sets to Roger.

17. Can you count?

So much for regularly taking... world class beating from prime Roger.

Not even Ferrer ever lost that many straight sets to Roger, not even David Ferrer got bageled as many times by Federer.

Prime Federer toyed with Hewitt, and he beat him badly many, many times. The more I look at the numbers, the more the Ferrer comparison is a bit insulting towards David and way too merciful to Lleyton and his misinformed/ deluded / paranoid fans.

And yes, you bogan down the ranks, I actually was a fan. I loved Hewitt's energy, jumping, fist pumping and come on's. It's just that I'm not an Aussie, so I probably don't get as sentimental seeing how unspectacular his talent really was.

Yeah Ferrer played a worse Federer who was much less apt to bagel his opponents for example, check that out. It's actually remarkable Hewitt was more competitive with prime 2004-09 Federer in slams (took a set in 4 matches and forced a tiebreak in 3 other matches) then outside of slams (took a set and forced a tiebreak in 1 match, otherwise lost in straight break sets 6 times). Compare this to how 'well' Ferrer did against Fedalovic in his peak years 2011-13. Two wins over visibly injured Nadal/Djokovic in 2011 and how many sets taken otherwise... how many in slams? one.

Don't get sucked in with abe btw, he likes to be an ass when he doesn't like what you're saying, still you're certainly underrating Hewitt here and I can't see why.
 

Patogen

Rookie
hey joker,

Hewitt has 9 wins vs Federer including DC in 2003 and TMC 2002 SF.
Ferrer has ZERO

Federer was playing well in TMC 2002 and had already won a slam at the time of DC 2003.

Ferrer lost 17 out of his first 18 sets vs Federer, reaching only 1 TB in the sets he lost.
Prime ferrer can't get even one win vs federer. even past his prime Hewitt got 2 wins (Halle 10 and Brisbane 14)

Hewitt was at his prime in 2004-05 as well, not just 2001-02.

2 slam finals in 2004-05 itself, more than ferrer in his entire career. 12 was tougher than 2004&2005, but 13 was weaker.
also reached Wim 04 QF (federer) and SF at both Wim&USO in 05. was already adapting to the newer conditions much better than Ferrer ever has in his career.

Ferrer can only dream of reaching the level that Hewitt did in USO 01 SF/F or USO 05 SF or USO 04 before the final.
Also can only dream of making a tough run at the AO like Hewitt did in AO 05
can only dream of playing on grass like Hewitt can
can only dream of winning the YEC like Hewitt

only thing he has on Hewitt is clay.

I know you are bitter Hewitt wiped the floor with your hero Sampras in USO 01 final, but learn to deal with it better.

See. Lleyton's results are actually incredibly impressive given how little talent he had. But even at his best, when I thought he was gonna rule the tour for years to come, there was one thing that didn't sit well with me. Even at his best, during his major-winning years in the deaf era, as a No.1, he had a real iffy W-L percentage. Here was a guy who could give the old guard a hard time, who was mentally ahead of his more talented peers, but he was capable of losing to just about anyone as well.

Even at his best, his W-L percentage topped out at 82%. Basically, even at his best, Hewitt lost every fifth match, which is laughable for a lasting No.1 and it shows you what state the tour was in when a guy like that could sit on top longer than a couple of weeks.

And guess what. Ferrer 2012 reached 84%. In a far more competitive era. Again, when you overcome the obstacle of understanding context, we should actually apologize to Ferrer for the Hewitt comparison.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Yeah Ferrer played a worse Federer who was much less apt to bagel his opponents for example, check that out. It's actually remarkable Hewitt was more competitive with prime 2004-09 Federer in slams (took a set in 4 matches and forced a tiebreak in 3 other matches) then outside of slams (took a set and forced a tiebreak in 1 match, otherwise lost in straight break sets 6 times). Compare this to how 'well' Ferrer did against Fedalovic in his peak years 2011-13. Two wins over visibly injured Nadal/Djokovic in 2011 and how many sets taken otherwise... how many in slams? one.

Don't get sucked in with abe btw, he likes to be an ass when he doesn't like what you're saying, still you're certainly underrating Hewitt here and I can't see why.

I don't like BS propagandists.
I don't like that the fact that federer was extra sharp and got up vs Hewitt in 04/05 after his earlier losses is being used to make Hewitt look like a chump and put down how well Federer had to play&be clutch to do so.

Sure, there was Hamburg 04/USO 04 where Hewitt was below par and IW 05 where he wasn't that good, but I'm not going to blame Hewitt for a match like YEC 04 final where Hewitt didn't do much wrong - simply came across fed at his very best.
And USO 05 where it could've easily gone 5 - federer had to be real clutch to save like 6 SPs.
Wim 05 semi could also have gone to a 4th set. Hewitt didn't play below par in any of the sets. In fact, played fairly well/better in sets 2 and 3.
 

Patogen

Rookie
Yeah Ferrer played a worse Federer who was much less apt to bagel his opponents for example, check that out. It's actually remarkable Hewitt was more competitive with prime 2004-09 Federer in slams (took a set in 4 matches and forced a tiebreak in 3 other matches) then outside of slams (took a set and forced a tiebreak in 1 match, otherwise lost in straight break sets 6 times). Compare this to how 'well' Ferrer did against Fedalovic in his peak years 2011-13. Two wins over visibly injured Nadal/Djokovic in 2011 and how many sets taken otherwise... how many in slams? one.

Don't get sucked in with abe btw, he likes to be an ass when he doesn't like what you're saying, still you're certainly underrating Hewitt here and I can't see why.

I actually was a big fan. He was my hero. I was just a couple of years younger and he, a teenager, was giving hard time to Sampras/Agassi who were considered deity. So I told everyone this Hewitt kid would be great and he would be a No.1, and he was for a while, but then he slipped down the ranks and so on. Of course I feel he was better than Ferrer, but when you run into a... uh... why not tease/troll him a bit? Of course I don't wanna rub decent people the wrong way. Sorry.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
See. Lleyton's results are actually incredibly impressive given how little talent he had. But even at his best, when I thought he was gonna rule the tour for years to come, there was one thing that didn't sit well with me. Even at his best, during his major-winning years in the deaf era, as a No.1, he had a real iffy W-L percentage. Here was a guy who could give the old guard a hard time, who was mentally ahead of his more talented peers, but he was capable of losing to just about anyone as well.

Even at his best, his W-L percentage topped out at 82%. Basically, even at his best, Hewitt lost every fifth match, which is laughable for a lasting No.1 and it shows you what state the tour was in when a guy like that could sit on top longer than a couple of weeks.

And guess what. Ferrer 2012 reached 84%. In a far more competitive era. Again, when you overcome the obstacle of understanding context, we should actually apologize to Ferrer for the Hewitt comparison.

Sampras was #1 in 98 with 78 win%

Homogenization helped Ferrer in 2012 get to that%. Ferrer could never come through a draw like Hewitt did in USO 01 - Blake, Haas, Roddick, Kafelnikov&Sampras.
He's not beating Henman on grass in Wim 02 either FTR.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I actually was a big fan. He was my hero. I was just a couple of years younger and he, a teenager, was giving hard time to Sampras/Agassi who were considered deity. So I told everyone this Hewitt kid would be great and he would be a No.1, and he was for a while, but then he slipped down the ranks and so on. Of course I feel he was better than Ferrer, but when you run into a... uh... why not tease/troll him a bit? Of course I don't wanna rub decent people the wrong way. Sorry.

Nice try after your BS was throughly exposed.
More likely you are just bitter Hewitt wiped the floor with your hero Sampras.

You say Hewitt was your hero and in the same breath say he had very little talent. LMAO.

If you actually bother to apologize for your BS, I might re-consider.

You made the below post before I ever responded to you. returning is not a talent/strength?

So the bold part at the top is just a whole load of hogwash.

I'm not that sure Hewitt was inherently more talented. He had exactly two strengths -- legs and head.

He was fast and he could slide towards the ball even on hard courts. He was precocious. He had the focus and maturity to fight for every fifteen very few teenage/early twenties players possess. He hit the ground running with a winner mentality. Plenty of grit, plenty of resilience.

The rest of his repertoire couldn't really be considered weapons. Yes, he had good passing shots, yes, he had a good lob, yes, he had some finesse, but it's not like he was indescribably otherworldly, and the new string technology+slower courts rendered these qualities nearly useless once most top cats dropped the S&V nonsense. He was very, very limited, and that's why he got pushed from the baseline. As limited as he was, he tried to turn the tides via bulking up, which meant gaining weight, getting slower, becoming more prone to injuries.

Once he lost his legs, he was done as a major winner/contender.

I have never seen him display a tennis as impressive as I have seen Thiem. On the other hand, I saw him get squashed like a bug and completely annihilated. As in the 04 US Open finals.

I was a fan too, but by now, one should see how limited Lleyton was.
 
Last edited:

Patogen

Rookie
Sampras was #1 in 98 with 78 win%

Homogenization helped Ferrer in 2012 get to that%. Ferrer could never come through a draw like Hewitt did in USO 01 - Blake, Haas, Roddick, Kafelnikov&Sampras.
He's not beating Henman on grass in Wim 02 either FTR.

But not for 75 straight weeks. He stole a dozen here and there.

Blake? Haas? Roddick?

Henman the mighty?

Who's next -- Dom Hrbaty?
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
I actually was a big fan. He was my hero. I was just a couple of years younger and he, a teenager, was giving hard time to Sampras/Agassi who were considered deity. So I told everyone this Hewitt kid would be great and he would be a No.1, and he was for a while, but then he slipped down the ranks and so on. Of course I feel he was better than Ferrer, but when you run into a... uh... why not tease/troll him a bit? Of course I don't wanna rub decent people the wrong way. Sorry.

Sure Hewitt's achievements somewhat overrate him compared to players who peaked squarely in 2004-15 but he's still better than anyone who came since other than Big4. At this point I think we can safely say Thiem will never be better, he has to be at his peak now aged 27 and his game is clearly worse overall, if perhaps largely because of the mental difference. We'll see what others can do.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
But not for 75 straight weeks. He stole a dozen here and there.

I said YE#1. Didn't keep track of # of weeks. Sampras had to scramble to get that YE#1.
Did Sampras win YEC in 98? No
Any masters titles in 98? No
Hewitt did win YEC in 01 and 02. Also won IW in 02.

Blake? Haas? Roddick?

blake and haas are easy 3R, 4R opponents for you? which la la land are you in?
Roddick played fairly well.

Henman the mighty?

not mighty, but sure as hell better than ferrer on any grass
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
You are an idiot. I cheered for Hewitt. I repeat, you're an idiot. Paranoid, but an idiot. Legend has it right. Unlike you.

You made this post ignoring Hewitt's returning before I ever responded to you. (keeping aside the passing shots+lobs part for a minute). So like I said, disingenous propagandist.
@ bold part: Ignoring Hewitt's impressive display in USO 01 SF/F and Wim 02 in general (minus couple of sets) or for example that he tore apart Roddick in YEC 04 semi.

I'm not that sure Hewitt was inherently more talented. He had exactly two strengths -- legs and head.

He was fast and he could slide towards the ball even on hard courts. He was precocious. He had the focus and maturity to fight for every fifteen very few teenage/early twenties players possess. He hit the ground running with a winner mentality. Plenty of grit, plenty of resilience.

The rest of his repertoire couldn't really be considered weapons. Yes, he had good passing shots, yes, he had a good lob, yes, he had some finesse, but it's not like he was indescribably otherworldly, and the new string technology+slower courts rendered these qualities nearly useless once most top cats dropped the S&V nonsense. He was very, very limited, and that's why he got pushed from the baseline. As limited as he was, he tried to turn the tides via bulking up, which meant gaining weight, getting slower, becoming more prone to injuries.

Once he lost his legs, he was done as a major winner/contender.

I have never seen him display a tennis as impressive as I have seen Thiem. On the other hand, I saw him get squashed like a bug and completely annihilated. As in the 04 US Open finals.

I was a fan too, but by now, one should see how limited Lleyton was.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
But the joke's on you, because you completely lost the plot of the debate, which often happens to intellectually challenged individuals cursed with subpar short term memory.

Yeah, Hewitt looked great in the deaf era where he padded and inflated his still unspectacular stats. Once the courts slowed down, new strings became prevalent, Hewitt and his grinding became obsolete. And he couldn't really cope with new challenges, as his style and talent were so limited. Once Federer became the Federer, Hewitt turned into his little bunny Roger teased and toyed and twisted upside down, to a far worse extent than he ever toyed with Ferrer. The fact that Hewitt actually used to lead their H2H only made this fact more obvious. And that's why it was so painful to Hewitt's fans who, throughout 2004, hoped Lleyton would somehow figure it out and regain the upper hand -- only to see him bageled in four matches in a row, which culminated in the 04 US Open tomato squash, a match in which Federer made Hewitt look like a little kid.

Basically, Hewitt was a transitional aberration.

Meanwhile Ferrer managed to stay relevant during a far longer span in a way more challenging era.

Again, the joke is on you.
Ferrer didn't have Hewitt's injury problems. And he was pretty much irrelevant in 2000-2006. Now why was that if it was such a weaker period? :unsure:

Over the hill Hewitt won more sets against the Big 3 in 2012 than Ferrer did. How did that happen if it's such an insult to Ferrer to be compared to him? Even in that 2004 year he won more sets against Fed alone than Ferrer did against the entire Big 3 in 2012. And at the end of the day one year can't erase 9 total wins from Hewitt against Fed that Ferrer could only dream of.

You lost this one, just take the L.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Good thread idea. I think, as a Thiem fan, that Hewitt has clear edge. Thiem has been an underachiever at slams and in big finals generally until 2020.
He needs at least 2-3 more seasons like 2020 before he can eclipse a guy like Hewitt.

I think Roddick a better comparison currently.
What Thiem has going for him is that he is not being dominated by a rival the way Roddick and Hewitt were. Maybe nobody on tour comparable to peak Fed but he’s had numerous matches against Djokodal and has fared well.
Well, old Djokodal <<< peak Fed. Thiem hasn't had a single ATG in his prime to deal with. He won mostly on account of being a generation younger than Djokodal.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
See. Lleyton's results are actually incredibly impressive given how little talent he had. But even at his best, when I thought he was gonna rule the tour for years to come, there was one thing that didn't sit well with me. Even at his best, during his major-winning years in the deaf era, as a No.1, he had a real iffy W-L percentage. Here was a guy who could give the old guard a hard time, who was mentally ahead of his more talented peers, but he was capable of losing to just about anyone as well.

Even at his best, his W-L percentage topped out at 82%. Basically, even at his best, Hewitt lost every fifth match, which is laughable for a lasting No.1 and it shows you what state the tour was in when a guy like that could sit on top longer than a couple of weeks.

And guess what. Ferrer 2012 reached 84%. In a far more competitive era. Again, when you overcome the obstacle of understanding context, we should actually apologize to Ferrer for the Hewitt comparison.
Sampras was YE#1 6 times in a row with a lower win% in half those years.
 

Patogen

Rookie
Over the hill Hewitt won more sets against the Big 3 in 2012 than Ferrer did. How did that happen

Nobody took him seriously anymore. After dashing out so many bagels to him in early-to-mid 2004, Federer eased up on him as well. Everybody felt for him as he was so passionate and harmless. Why not make the man happy from time to time and help him remember his glory days from ten years ago.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
But not for 75 straight weeks. He stole a dozen here and there.

Blake? Haas? Roddick?

Henman the mighty?

Who's next -- Dom Hrbaty?
Ferrer couldn't even beat Ancic on grass by the way.

And what's so funny about those guys? Do you really see Ferrer beating all those guys in a row on a faster HC?
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Nobody took him seriously anymore. After dashing out so many bagels to him in early-to-mid 2004, Federer eased up on him as well. Everybody felt for him as he was so passionate and harmless. Why not make the man happy from time to time and help him remember his glory days from ten years ago.
Sure sure....

And why should they take Ferrer seriously? He was the Big 3 pigeon.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Ferrer pushing Murray in Wim 12 tho.

his only good perf in a slam in 2012 vs any of the top 4.
got beaten convincingly in straights by Djoko at AO.
mediocre&got thrashed by Nadal at the FO
got 1st set easily vs Windovic and then got dominated with wind gone.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
I don't like BS propagandists.
I don't like that the fact that federer was extra sharp and got up vs Hewitt in 04/05 after his earlier losses is being used to make Hewitt look like a chump and put down how well Federer had to play&be clutch to do so.

Sure, there was Hamburg 04/USO 04 where Hewitt was below par and IW 05 where he wasn't that good, but I'm not going to blame Hewitt for a match like YEC 04 final where Hewitt didn't do much wrong - simply came across fed at his very best.
And USO 05 where it could've easily gone 5 - federer had to be real clutch to save like 6 SPs.
Wim 05 semi could also have gone to a 4th set. Hewitt didn't play below par in any of the sets. In fact, played fairly well/better in sets 2 and 3.

Time to start disliking rude or wilfully biased people, oh well you can't because you'd have to dislike yourself and that's unfathomable.

I remember you using this exact "didn't do much wrong" phrasing commenting on Falla vs Federer Wimbledon 2004 2R, ha. Not making UEs is enough, doesn't matter if you let the opponent have his way with you... I thought Hewitt was actually better in the Hamburg match. Clay suits his game the least and gives the most excuse for inability to hit through Fed, I thought he did his bet by maintaining good depth on the ball, it just didn't bother Federer at all in the absence of massive pace or spin. Overall I thought Hewitt fought well initially but after Federer kept tearing him down, lost his belief for a while starting with faltering at the end of Wim 04 quarter and didn't regain it for a year, but USO 05 showed he found the will to fight Federer again, buckling up after Fred trolled him with the 2nd set to take the next. Shame that ended up being the last of prime Hewitt.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Oh I get. If you don't specify it, you mean it! :D Should I argue whatever you don't specify then? Cause the rest of it is a pile of, uh, Hewitt's achievements past 2005.

Address the actual points. Oh wait, you can't. Cause what you have is a steaming pile of BS and you got called out for it.

 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Nobody took him seriously anymore. After dashing out so many bagels to him in early-to-mid 2004, Federer eased up on him as well. Everybody felt for him as he was so passionate and harmless. Why not make the man happy from time to time and help him remember his glory days from ten years ago.

Nice trolling mate ecksdee.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
his only good perf in a slam in 2012 vs any of the top 4.
got beaten convincingly in straights by Djoko at AO.
mediocre&got thrashed by Nadal at the FO
got 1st set easily vs Windovic and then got dominated with wind gone.
Still funny that he pushed Murray quite hard in that match in his considered best Wim tho and not in a early round match.
 

Patogen

Rookie
Lol at "Hewitt pushing Federer at USO 09". He won one set, pumped his fist, looked at his coach for encouragement and proceeded to get trumped.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
I actually was a big fan. He was my hero. I was just a couple of years younger and he, a teenager, was giving hard time to Sampras/Agassi who were considered deity. So I told everyone this Hewitt kid would be great and he would be a No.1, and he was for a while, but then he slipped down the ranks and so on. Of course I feel he was better than Ferrer, but when you run into a... uh... why not tease/troll him a bit? Of course I don't wanna rub decent people the wrong way. Sorry.

:laughing: right.
 
Top