Why do people trash Hewitt so much?

[Pheasant]

Hewitt was really good during his prime. He feasted on previous champions, especially serve and volley players.

Here are Hewitt’s HTH records vs all of the slam title winners from 1996-2001:

Krajicek 1-0
Moyá 7-5
Martin 3-1
Sampras 5-4
Safin 7-7
Kafelnikov 7-1
Ivanesivic 3-0
Rafter 3-1
Agassi 4-4
Total: 40-23

This is quite remarkable. From 2004-2005, Hewitt ran into some buzz saws.
2004 AO: lost to eventual champion Federer in 4R
2004 FO: lost to eventual champ Gaudio in QF
2004 WI: lost to eventual champ Federer in QF
2004 USO: lost to Federer in the final
2005 AO: lost to Safin in the final
2005 FO: didn’t play
2005 WI: lost to eventual champ Federer in semis
2005 USO: lost to eventual champ Federer in semis

Hewitt was quite good at passing serve and volley players at the net. He schooled Henman by going 9-1 against him.

I don’t see why this guy gets so much disrespect. He was quite the player until the peakiest version of Fed showed up. Afterwards, injuries wrecked him for good

 

[bluetrain4]

Historically on TT, he was seen as taking advantage of a weak time as he was "between generations." But, collectively TT seems to have come around to him quite a bit over the years. Not everyone of course, but he seems to get more respect now. There was a thread not even that long ago extolling his virtues (or maybe it was a part of a non-Hewitt specific thread, not sure).

 

[flutzingitaway]

Probably a variety of reasons.

-He ended his career with a huge wimper rather than in fairly strong shape, and that wimper lasted an awfully long time. He was considerably past his prime for so many years when he retired, despite having a decent lengthed prime.

-His playing style isn't as appreciated it seems by tennis fans on the whole as some others.

-He isn't seen as that likeable. Things like the U.S Open incident with Blake hurt how he is perceived.

-Being so useless against Federer who is just a horrendous match up for him. Far more hopeless than Roddick even is. Is a bad look for him and his rep, similar to Vilas against Borg. He actually did fairly well vs pre prime Federer who was still really good, but a lot completely forget that now.

-He had the fortune or misfortune to have one of his best years in what is seen as a fairly weak year where both Johansson and Costa won majors. Some (arguably unfairly) see him as just plugging a transitional era.

 

[WestboroChe]

He was a primarily defensive player coming on the heels of one of the best attacking players of all time.

already mentioned but he just doesn’t seem like a very nice person. I personally don’t care about that (I think the sport benefits from having a heel) but I honestly think that’s a big part of it. A blond handsome guy who generally is seen as a disrespectful jerk? People line up to hate on someone like that.

 

[King No1e]

a. Weak era-ism. 2001 and 2002 weren't the strongest years in terms of competition, with players like Johansson and Costa winning Slams, but achievements are achievements regardless. Getting owned by Peak Fed didn't help his case either, it made him look like a weak era champ who got exposed when a real ATG came along (which isn't actually the case, he used to beat up on champions like Sampras and Kafelnikov)
b. Not having dangerous weapons. He didn't have Roddick's serve, Federer's forehand, or Safin's backhand. He was just very good at counterpunching and taking down servebots and net rushers (which makes the Karlovic upset all the more shocking and mystifying to this day).
c. His personality. Hewitt couldn't stop fighting everything and everyone in his younger days. Over time that confrontational attitude faded away and he became the highly respected elder statesman of the game, but many fans still remember him for his on-court antics.

 

[Rosstour]

He was a primarily defensive player coming on the heels of one of the best attacking players of all time.

already mentioned but he just doesn’t seem like a very nice person. I personally don’t care about that (I think the sport benefits from having a heel) but I honestly think that’s a big part of it. A blond handsome guy who generally is seen as a disrespectful jerk? People line up to hate on someone like that.

Yeah, he’s like the villain in a Happy Gilmore-type movie about tennis with Will Smith as the hero

 

[flutzingitaway]

a. Weak era-ism. 2001 and 2002 weren't the strongest years in terms of competition, with players like Johansson and Costa winning Slams, but achievements are achievements regardless. Getting owned by Peak Fed didn't help his case either, it made him look like a weak era champ who got exposed when a real ATG came along (which isn't actually the case, he used to beat up on champions like Sampras and Kafelnikov)
b. Not having dangerous weapons. He didn't have Roddick's serve, Federer's forehand, or Safin's backhand. He was just very good at counterpunching and taking down servebots and net rushers (which makes the Karlovic upset all the more shocking and mystifying to this day).
c. His personality. Hewitt couldn't stop fighting everything and everyone in his younger days. Over time that confrontational attitude faded away and he became the highly respected elder statesman of the game, but many fans still remember him for his on-court antics.

Yeah while I think Hewitt is underappreciated by some fans these days for how good he was, at the same time someone with his personality, unlikeability, and playing style would only be appreciated if he a)was a semi dominant #1 longer than he was, b)had more longevity as a top 10 player atleast than he did. Essentialy all the contributing factors make him easy to forget and not be that interested in other than when evaluating players greatness comes up in which case he is discussed with the more accomplished 2 or 3 slam winners, but that is it.

 

[WestboroChe]

I honestly think people just didn't like him as a person. In all seriousness he should have been someone we all cheered for. Someone who wasn't overpowering but played his *** off to win every match. But his whole demeanor just reeked of being an entitled jerk.

I'm sure in Australia he's tennis royalty along with Pat Rafter, Pat Cash, Laver and all them, but in the rest of the world he's just not liked.

 

[WestboroChe]

Yeah, he’s like the villain in a Happy Gilmore-type movie about tennis with Will Smith as the hero

Like the tennis version of Shooter McGavin? Yeah I can see that.

 

[Deleted member 769694]

Hewitt was really good during his prime. He feasted on previous champions, especially serve and volley players.

Here are Hewitt’s HTH records vs all of the slam title winners from 1996-2001:

Krajicek 1-0
Moyá 7-5
Martin 3-1
Sampras 5-4
Safin 7-7
Kafelnikov 7-1
Ivanesivic 3-0
Rafter 3-1
Agassi 4-4
Total: 40-23

This is quite remarkable. From 2004-2005, Hewitt ran into some buzz saws.
2004 AO: lost to eventual champion Federer in 4R
2004 FO: lost to eventual champ Gaudio in QF
2004 WI: lost to eventual champ Federer in QF
2004 USO: lost to Federer in the final
2005 AO: lost to Safin in the final
2005 FO: didn’t play
2005 WI: lost to eventual champ Federer in semis
2005 USO: lost to eventual champ Federer in semis

Hewitt was quite good at passing serve and volley players at the net. He schooled Henman by going 9-1 against him.

I don’t see why this guy gets so much disrespect. He was quite the player until the peakiest version of Fed showed up. Afterwards, injuries wrecked him for good

Because they dont understand anything about tennis except what they were told, nothing new here.

Hewitt only faded because he sued the atp for the espn interview and won. He then played fed in like 16-17 qtrs at grand slams because fed was a terrible match up for him. He could beat the others but atp was mad

 

[Dan Lobb]

The problem for Hewitt was the same problem that Hoad had...perception.

They both started their careers with a bang, Hoad ranked world number one at the end of 1953, Hewitt ranked world number one in 2002.

Hoad was just 19 years old, Hewitt was still 20 years old...the two youngest world number one ranked players EVER. (except for Baddeley in 1891).

So, what could they do for an encore? Hewitt peaked at that achievement, and although Hoad had his best years ahead of him, his reputation was let down by a

perceived (but not real) inconsistency.

So that was it....high expectations from a fast early start, and misperceived achievements.

 

[Arzivu]

Ask Chela!

 

[King No1e]

I honestly think people just didn't like him as a person. In all seriousness he should have been someone we all cheered for. Someone who wasn't overpowering but played his *** off to win every match. But his whole demeanor just reeked of being an entitled jerk.

I'm sure in Australia he's tennis royalty along with Pat Rafter, Pat Cash, Laver and all them, but in the rest of the world he's just not liked.

That's what made Nadal a bigger star than Hewitt; while Lleyton's fighting spirit spilled over into his personality and made him rather annoying, Nadal always remained a class act off the court. Same with Djokovic; although he could get heated on the court, he never showed a hint of it off court..

 

[Dan Lobb]

Just for the sake of completeness, here are the ages of the three youngest players ever to win a world number one ranking in tennis, listed chronologically,

1) Baddeley, Wilfred 1891....... Age:19 years 354 days

2) Hoad, Lewis 1953........Age: 19 years 38 days

3) Hewitt, Lleyton 2001.............Age: 20 years 310 days

Reaching the top at such a young age creates all sorts of pressures, like what do you do for an encore?

Hoad had a bad year in 1954, Hewitt did better with a win at Wimbledon.

 

[WestboroChe]

That's what made Nadal a bigger star than Hewitt; while Lleyton's fighting spirit spilled over into his personality and made him rather annoying, Nadal always remained a class act off the court. Same with Djokovic; although he could get heated on the court, he never showed a hint of it off court..

Even McEnroe never seemed to be anything but a normal guy off the court.

Nadal actually comes across as incredibly shy and a bit goofy.

Djokovic should probably keep his mouth shut though. Every time he talks I just sort of shake my head. It’s like he was educated at the Alex Jones school for Boys.

 

[WestboroChe]

Because they dont understand anything about tennis except what they were told, nothing new here.

Hewitt only faded because he sued the atp for the espn interview and won. He then played fed in like 16-17 qtrs at grand slams because fed was a terrible match up for him. He could beat the others but atp was mad

So he started losing to top players because the ATP didn’t like him?

 

[WestboroChe]

Just for the sake of completeness, here are the ages of the three youngest players ever to win a world number one ranking in tennis, listed chronologically,

1) Baddeley, Wilfred 1891....... Age:19 years 354 days

2) Hoad, Lewis 1953........Age: 19 years 38 days

3) Hewitt, Lleyton 2001.............Age: 20 years 310 days

Reaching the top at such a young age creates all sorts of pressures, like what do you do for an encore?

Hoad had a bad year in 1954, Hewitt did better with a win at Wimbledon.

You’re a fountain of tennis stats. So how does this compare to say a young Nadal who won the French open the first time he played won it on his 19th birthday. Or winning Davis cup as an 18 year old?

I think we can throw out your first listing there. But Hoad and Hewitt have a lot of similarities. I think the issue isn’t where do you go for an encore but does all that success so young mean that your peak is just earlier and you break down physically sooner?

 

[Dan Lobb]

You’re a fountain of tennis stats. So how does this compare to say a young Nadal who won the French open the first time he played won it on his 19th birthday. Or winning Davis cup as an 18 year old?

I think we can throw out your first listing there. But Hoad and Hewitt have a lot of similarities. I think the issue isn’t where do you go for an encore but does all that success so young mean that your peak is just earlier and you break down physically sooner?

Well, I can see something of this "early success syndrome" with Nadal's career profile, in that his ability on grass faded after winning his second Wimbledon. He

has struggled at Wimbledon ever since. Of course, on clay he has dominated what there is in the way of clay players, a weaker era on clay than in the past.

Good point on Hoad and Hewitt having physical problems early in their careers, they may have overdone the heavy lifting off the court.

 

[WestboroChe]

Well, I can see something of this "early success syndrome" with Nadal's career profile, in that his ability on grass faded after winning his second Wimbledon. He

has struggled at Wimbledon ever since. Of course, on clay he has dominated what there is in the way of clay players, a weaker era on clay than in the past.

Good point on Hoad and Hewitt having physical problems early in their careers, they may have overdone the heavy lifting off the court.

The post is about why he doesn’t get more love. So I’m not sure if this really is answering the question.

But I think Hewitts game just wasn’t really built for a long career. He had no real weapons save his defense nothing he could really hurt you with. Pete had his serve. Roger had his laser FH. Djokovic has his killer BH and Nadal has killer spin that just forces you back.

if you’re primary weapon is defense Once you lose even a step then it’s game over at the world level. See Murray as another example.

 

[125downthemiddle]

I used to be a fan of Lleyton as a lad, had yonex racquets and all.. Anyway the guy was not nice and he was an effective counter puncher, but he is just totally not on the level of a Fedovical, which is obvious and uncontroversial.

That's not trashing him though, I mean it's just accurate, but maybe because he was unlikeable people like to pile on and make him out to be total trash. He was sort of on the level below Murray but above maybe some other 2 slam winners. I don't think his peak was ever as high as 3 slam winner Wawrinka though. Some of the hate comes from the overeating of peak Hewitt imo, I think some want to think he was better than he was for reasons relating to era arguments etc...

 

[WestboroChe]

I used to be a fan of Lleyton as a lad, had yonex racquets and all.. Anyway the guy was not nice and he was an effective counter puncher, but he is just totally not on the level of a Fedovical, which is obvious and uncontroversial.

That's not trashing him though, I mean it's just accurate, but maybe because he was unlikeable people like to pile on and make him out to be total trash. He was sort of on the level below Murray but above maybe some other 2 slam winners. I don't think his peak was ever as high as 3 slam winner Wawrinka though. Some of the hate comes from the overeating of peak Hewitt imo, I think some want to think he was better than he was for reasons relating to era arguments etc...

I generally discount weak era arguments although in his case its somewhat fitting. He had the luck of being at his peak when Pete amd the other 90s greats were passed theirs and no one could have guessed that would have in quick succession 3 of the best players ever to come into existence just a few years later. So it makes his achievements seem like a blip.

but we shouldn’t forget that winning multiple major titles and reaching a number 1 rating are nothing to sneeze at. Imagine being able to say that you were recognized as the best in the world at anything for even a day!

 

[Pheasant]

Sampras on Hewitt in 2001 after getting blown off of the court at the USO:

"The kid is so quick it's unbelievable," the 30–year–old Sampras said. "I wish I had some of those legs for this old guy. I lost to a great champion. You're going to see this Lleyton Hewitt guy for the next 10 years like you saw me."

1999 Queens: Sampras won this tourney. But in the semis, 18 year old Hewitt pushed him to a final set tiebreaker. Hewitt proved at a very young age that he was already dangerous. Sampras went on to win Wimbledon and regain the #1 ranking in the world. He was still 27 years old.

Hewitt played serve and volley players tough. Baseline players like Agassi and Safin gave him more trouble, although he was still .500 against both of those guys.

 

[WestboroChe]

Sampras on Hewitt in 2001 after getting blown off of the court at the USO:

"The kid is so quick it's unbelievable," the 30–year–old Sampras said. "I wish I had some of those legs for this old guy. I lost to a great champion. You're going to see this Lleyton Hewitt guy for the next 10 years like you saw me."

1999 Queens: Sampras won this tourney. But in the semis, 18 year old Hewitt pushed him to a final set tiebreaker. Hewitt proved at a very young age that he was already dangerous. Sampras went on to win Wimbledon and regain the #1 ranking in the world. He was still 27 years old.

Hewitt played serve and volley players tough. Baseline players like Agassi and Safin gave him more trouble, although he was still .500 against both of those guys.

Hewitt and Murray are both good examples of how counter-punchers can be very effective on grass (or the then quick USO hard courts) since it encourages attacking. However, if you don't come forward they can't pass you and as a Counter-puncher they aren't going to overpower you either.

 

[1stVolley]

Why do people trash Hewitt? Don't forget the "golden" principle of "follow the leader" (the criticizer, that is). Counterpunchers come in for a lot of criticism, too, because of the feeling that feeding off another's energy is akin to theft.

 

[WestboroChe]

Why do people trash Hewitt? Don't forget the "golden" principle of "follow the leader" (the criticizer, that is). Counterpunchers come in for a lot of criticism, too, because of the feeling that feeding off another's energy is akin to theft.

Have you read the thread? It seems like the consensus is just that people didn't like him as a person. Now, we don't know him personally so it's not an indictment on his value as a human, but if you're going to be a public figure I think you need to be a little more cognizant of the image you project. Compare his public persona with say Nadal and I think you get the idea.

Sampras also didn't get the love in his day for a different reason. He had no personality and seemingly no interest in playing the media game. This may have benefitted his game, but it probably hurt his earning potential.

 

[Mainad]

if you’re primary weapon is defense Once you lose even a step then it’s game over at the world level. See Murray as another example.

Hewitt and Murray were both done in by hip injuries, not because they had lost a step.

 

[WestboroChe]

Hewitt and Murray were both done in by hip injuries, not because they had lost a step.

You don't think a hip injury makes you lose a step or two?

 

[Mainad]

You don't think a hip injury makes you lose a step or two?

Of course but it was the injury that caused it, not because they slowed down naturally.

 

[WestboroChe]

Of course but it was the injury that caused it, not because they slowed down naturally.

Fair enough. But don’t you think most athletes start to slow a bit around age 30?

my point was more general. That if your biggest weapon is you speed then you won’t have other things to keep you around as you age. Serena is a good example. She is not and never was very fast. But she can serve and she can bash and that keeps her in thehunt even now when she runs out of gas in the second week of a major.

 

[dominikk1985]

Definitely an underrated player who was really good but also a bit annoying with his shouting and gestures.

I remember attending regional 12u championships in the early 00s and there were several mini Hewitts shouting come on and wearing their hat backwards.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Hewitt was really good during his prime. He feasted on previous champions, especially serve and volley players.

Here are Hewitt’s HTH records vs all of the slam title winners from 1996-2001:

Krajicek 1-0
Moyá 7-5
Martin 3-1
Sampras 5-4
Safin 7-7
Kafelnikov 7-1
Ivanesivic 3-0
Rafter 3-1
Agassi 4-4
Total: 40-23

This is quite remarkable. From 2004-2005, Hewitt ran into some buzz saws.
2004 AO: lost to eventual champion Federer in 4R
2004 FO: lost to eventual champ Gaudio in QF
2004 WI: lost to eventual champ Federer in QF
2004 USO: lost to Federer in the final
2005 AO: lost to Safin in the final
2005 FO: didn’t play
2005 WI: lost to eventual champ Federer in semis
2005 USO: lost to eventual champ Federer in semis

Hewitt was quite good at passing serve and volley players at the net. He schooled Henman by going 9-1 against him.

I don’t see why this guy gets so much disrespect. He was quite the player until the peakiest version of Fed showed up. Afterwards, injuries wrecked him for good

Not to be nitty critty here but if we are talking slam winners 96-2001, you are missing Hewitt - Becker 0-1.

 

[heninfan99]

because he came across as a mean little bugger and people got hurt in their feelies

they do the same to Lendl

 

[the green god]

Fits their agenda.

 

[buscemi]

I think it's b/c his accomplishments look worse than his numbers when you dig a bit:

-he won 2 WTFs...but they were against possibly the weakest WTF finals opponents in history: Grosjean and Ferrero;​

-he won Wimbledon...but with one of the weakest draws in the Open Era (maybe the weakest other than 1973);​

-he won the U.S. Open over Sampras...who was ranked #10 and didn't win a title all year; and​

-he was twice YE#1...but against one of the weaker Open Era fields in 2001-2002 and w/these Major results: 3R/QF/4R/W/1R/4R/W/SF.​

That said, as you note, he had good H2Hs and and good losses at Majors from 2004-2005.

I guess the question would be whether people really trash Hewitt. I think most agree he's better than any 0-1 Major winners, one of the better 2 Major winners, and probably even on par w/some of the 3 Major winners. And that seems like the right place for him.

 

[flutzingitaway]

I think it's b/c his accomplishments look worse than his numbers when you dig a bit:

-he won 2 WTFs...but they were against possibly the weakest WTF finals opponents in history: Grosjean and Ferrero;​

-he won Wimbledon...but with one of the weakest draws in the Open Era (maybe the weakest other than 1973);​

-he won the U.S. Open over Sampras...who was ranked #10 and didn't win a title all year; and​

-he was twice YE#1...but against one of the weaker Open Era fields in 2001-2002 and w/these Major results: 3R/QF/4R/W/1R/4R/W/SF.​

That said, as you note, he had good H2Hs and and good losses at Majors from 2004-2005.

I guess the question would be whether people really trash Hewitt. I think most agree he's better than any 0-1 Major winners, one of the better 2 Major winners, and probably even on par w/some of the 3 Major winners. And that seems like the right place for him.

Those are all very good points. Yet inspite of all that I clearly think he is better than say Kafelnikov who also has 2 majors. Just as one example. Kafelnikov is 1-7 vs him, and many of those matches in his prime and when Hewitt was an up and comer, and of course their overall credentials apart from 2 majors aren't even close.

And while he might have gotten fortunate to have some weaker competition for some of his wins, that is more than negated by running into the buzzsaw that was peak Federer in 2004-2005 in so many slams. Atleast a couple of which he might have wound up winning otherwise. I also am not sure if Ferrero was that weak an opponent in the WTF final. In 2002-2003 Ferrero was excellent, making 4 major finals including the WTF final. Was the best clay courter those 2 years of course, but also made the U.S Open final and won a Masters indoors, and got to #1, so he wasn't entirely just a clay courter. And it was a great 5 set final. So I agree on Grosjean, but I don't entirely agree on Ferrero being that weak.

 

[buscemi]

Those are all very good points. Yet inspite of all that I clearly think he is better than say Kafelnikov who also has 2 majors. Just as one example. Kafelnikov is 1-7 vs him, and many of those matches in his prime and when Hewitt was an up and comer, and of course their overall credentials apart from 2 majors aren't even close.

And while he might have gotten fortunate to have some weaker competition for some of his wins, that is more than negated by running into the buzzsaw that was peak Federer in 2004-2005 in so many slams. Atleast a couple of which he might have wound up winning otherwise. I also am not sure if Ferrero was that weak an opponent in the WTF final. In 2002-2003 Ferrero was excellent, making 4 major finals including the WTF final. Was the best clay courter those 2 years of course, but also made the U.S Open final and won a Masters indoors, and got to #1, so he wasn't entirely just a clay courter. And it was a great 5 set final. So I agree on Grosjean, but I don't entirely agree on Ferrero being that weak.

I agree (and I think most agree) that Hewitt > Kafelnikov.

I also agree that I underrated Ferrero.

 

[NatF]

I think it's b/c his accomplishments look worse than his numbers when you dig a bit:

-he won 2 WTFs...but they were against possibly the weakest WTF finals opponents in history: Grosjean and Ferrero;​

-he won Wimbledon...but with one of the weakest draws in the Open Era (maybe the weakest other than 1973);​

-he won the U.S. Open over Sampras...who was ranked #10 and didn't win a title all year; and​

-he was twice YE#1...but against one of the weaker Open Era fields in 2001-2002 and w/these Major results: 3R/QF/4R/W/1R/4R/W/SF.​

That said, as you note, he had good H2Hs and and good losses at Majors from 2004-2005.

I guess the question would be whether people really trash Hewitt. I think most agree he's better than any 0-1 Major winners, one of the better 2 Major winners, and probably even on par w/some of the 3 Major winners. And that seems like the right place for him.

Some of this is fair but to give some counter;

- He won the YEC in 2001 dropping no matches and only one set. Good dominance over a weaker field can still be impressive. Likewise in 2002 he did drop a match but he had a win over a good Federer in the SF and Ferrero was far from the weakest WTF final opponent in history - especially judging by the manner in which he competed. At this point in 2002 Hewitt was running on fumes and he gutted out those last two wins with sheer grit and willpower.
- His Wimbledon draw was indeed weak, but again he dominated it (aside from a blip in the QF) after underperforming at Wimbledon for years.
- His USO draw was not a weak one - no way, not the toughest draw someone has gone through but it was at least decent. Plus breadsticking even 2001 Sampras twice in a slam final is pretty impressive considering that was Pete's best tournament at that stage in his career.
- The field in 2001-2002 wasn't great but he was also only 20-21 years old, so with that context in mind I don't see how that could be a real knock on him. He might well have been number one in 2004 if not Federer as well...

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Some of this is fair but to give some counter;

- He won the YEC in 2001 dropping no matches and only one set. Good dominance over a weaker field can still be impressive. Likewise in 2002 he did drop a match but he had a win over a good Federer in the SF and Ferrero was far from the weakest WTF final opponent in history - especially judging by the manner in which he competed. At this point in 2002 Hewitt was running on fumes and he gutted out those last two wins with sheer grit and willpower.
- His Wimbledon draw was indeed weak, but again he dominated it (aside from a blip in the QF) after underperforming at Wimbledon for years.
- His USO draw was not a weak one - no way, not the toughest draw someone has gone through but it was at least decent. Plus breadsticking even 2001 Sampras twice in a slam final is pretty impressive considering that was Pete's best tournament at that stage in his career.
- The field in 2001-2002 wasn't great but he was also only 20-21 years old, so with that context in mind I don't see how that could be a real knock on him. He might well have been number one in 2004 if not Federer as well...

Double breadsticking Sampras of all players is insane. Even Lewlogic would pile the weight on the fact that Sampras' form was good enough to get him to the final, too (let alone considering his track record at that particular slam...) From what I've seen of Hewitt, he was such a difficult counter-puncher to read and one hell of a mover.

 

[NatF]

Double breadsticking Sampras of all players is insane. Even Lewlogic would pile the weight on the fact that Sampras' form was good enough to get him to the final, too (let alone considering his track record at that particular slam...) From what I've seen of Hewitt, he was such a difficult counter-puncher to read and one hell of a mover.

Sampras was a step slow in that match but Hewitt made him look 40 not 30. Hewitt had an uncanny ability to read the Sampras serve and return those bombs to his feet - making him play difficult volleys every time, 19 year old Hewitt was making Sampras' second serve look average at Queens. In terms of returning against a S&V player Hewitt is near the top of the pack.

 

[bluetrain4]

Hewitt was really good during his prime. He feasted on previous champions, especially serve and volley players.

Here are Hewitt’s HTH records vs all of the slam title winners from 1996-2001:

Krajicek 1-0
Moyá 7-5
Martin 3-1
Sampras 5-4
Safin 7-7
Kafelnikov 7-1
Ivanesivic 3-0
Rafter 3-1
Agassi 4-4
Total: 40-23

This is quite remarkable. From 2004-2005, Hewitt ran into some buzz saws.
2004 AO: lost to eventual champion Federer in 4R
2004 FO: lost to eventual champ Gaudio in QF
2004 WI: lost to eventual champ Federer in QF
2004 USO: lost to Federer in the final
2005 AO: lost to Safin in the final
2005 FO: didn’t play
2005 WI: lost to eventual champ Federer in semis
2005 USO: lost to eventual champ Federer in semis

Hewitt was quite good at passing serve and volley players at the net. He schooled Henman by going 9-1 against him.

I don’t see why this guy gets so much disrespect. He was quite the player until the peakiest version of Fed showed up. Afterwards, injuries wrecked him for good

I think he gets more dislike than disrespect.

 

[Subway Tennis]

Hewitt was really good during his prime. He feasted on previous champions, especially serve and volley players.

Here are Hewitt’s HTH records vs all of the slam title winners from 1996-2001:

Krajicek 1-0
Moyá 7-5
Martin 3-1
Sampras 5-4
Safin 7-7
Kafelnikov 7-1
Ivanesivic 3-0
Rafter 3-1
Agassi 4-4
Total: 40-23

This is quite remarkable. From 2004-2005, Hewitt ran into some buzz saws.
2004 AO: lost to eventual champion Federer in 4R
2004 FO: lost to eventual champ Gaudio in QF
2004 WI: lost to eventual champ Federer in QF
2004 USO: lost to Federer in the final
2005 AO: lost to Safin in the final
2005 FO: didn’t play
2005 WI: lost to eventual champ Federer in semis
2005 USO: lost to eventual champ Federer in semis

Hewitt was quite good at passing serve and volley players at the net. He schooled Henman by going 9-1 against him.

I don’t see why this guy gets so much disrespect. He was quite the player until the peakiest version of Fed showed up. Afterwards, injuries wrecked him for good

A big part of it is that a lot of people on here don't watch much tennis outside of what they have seen since maybe 2009, and even then everything is seen through a big 4 style looking glass.

Hewitt was a phenom in many respects (one of the last true men's phenoms we have seen since Nadal). That part of his career, essentially the greatest part of his time in the game, is lost on a lot of the Talk Tennis intelligenza in areas of the forum like General Pro Player Discussion.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Hewitt's record of being the youngest player ever to be ranked world No. 1 has now been adjusted to be only for the ATP era, not an all-time record.

The all-time record now belongs to Hoad, at 19 years and 38 days.

 

[fezer]

Hewitt was really good during his prime. He feasted on previous champions, especially serve and volley players.

Here are Hewitt’s HTH records vs all of the slam title winners from 1996-2001:

Krajicek 1-0
Moyá 7-5
Martin 3-1
Sampras 5-4
Safin 7-7
Kafelnikov 7-1
Ivanesivic 3-0
Rafter 3-1
Agassi 4-4
Total: 40-23

This is quite remarkable. From 2004-2005, Hewitt ran into some buzz saws.
2004 AO: lost to eventual champion Federer in 4R
2004 FO: lost to eventual champ Gaudio in QF
2004 WI: lost to eventual champ Federer in QF
2004 USO: lost to Federer in the final
2005 AO: lost to Safin in the final
2005 FO: didn’t play
2005 WI: lost to eventual champ Federer in semis
2005 USO: lost to eventual champ Federer in semis

Hewitt was quite good at passing serve and volley players at the net. He schooled Henman by going 9-1 against him.

I don’t see why this guy gets so much disrespect. He was quite the player until the peakiest version of Fed showed up. Afterwards, injuries wrecked him for good

he lost to very old Becker at wim99 who is the so champ96

 

[Winners or Errors]

The slowing of courts hurt Hewitt as much as it hurt the S&V players he ate for breakfast. His game was not built for homogenization.

Of course, when he was #1, the "c'mons" were annoying and he came across as an arrogant jerk. I began to like Hewitt once he began to have perspective on what he had lost and taken for granted. It cannot have been an easy transition.

 

[flutzingitaway]

The slowing of courts hurt Hewitt as much as it hurt the S&V players he ate for breakfast. His game was not built for homogenization.

Of course, when he was #1, the "c'mons" were annoying and he came across as an arrogant jerk. I began to like Hewitt once he began to have perspective on what he had lost and taken for granted. It cannot have been an easy transition.

100%. The slowed surfaces killed Hewitt's career, in addition to injuries of course. He needed some faster courts and he loved playing attacking players and net rushers.

 

[NatF]

he lost to very old Becker at wim99 who is the so champ96

Becker was 31, old and well past his best but Hewitt was only 18 as well...

 

[flutzingitaway]

Becker was 31, old and well past his best but Hewitt was only 18 as well...

Yeah and on grass, if both are well from their best, the experienced player has the edge. No surface requires experience more than grass. I don't see anyone saying Graf sucks since a 30 year old Navratilova destroyed her in the Wimbledon final in one of her best and most dominant years, but I think was only her 3rd tournament ever on grass.

 

[NatF]

Yeah and on grass, if both are well from their best, the experienced player has the edge. No surface requires experience more than grass. I don't see anyone saying Graf sucks since a 30 year old Navratilova destroyed her in the Wimbledon final in one of her best and most dominant years, but I think was only her 3rd tournament ever on grass.

Hewitt underperformed at Wimbledon for years. Was taking out big names at Queens as early as 99.

 

[flutzingitaway]

Hewitt underperformed at Wimbledon for years. Was taking out big names at Queens as early as 99.

Yeah, 99 he was never going to do much probably yet, even if he took out Becker, but 2000 and 2001 he should have done way better and could have been a real contender, maybe even for the title both years.

I think his reputation would be a bit better today too if he had a few more good Wimbledons, especialy if he got a 2nd title somewhere. There is even a very outside shot of that coming in 2004 since he played a bad game serving for the 4th set vs Federer. OK he probably still loses to Federer, and even if he beats him there is a good chance he loses to Roddick in the final, but was atleast a chance that year. 2005 no chance of beating Federer, and 2009 he was definitely not beating Roddick, Murray, Federer all in a row at that stage of his career, even if he won that amazing Roddick match.

 

[Ballmachine87]

I think above all it has to do with his antics and behavior on the court. It really was not easy to bear. His " come on " bahnte me till today.