Hewitt extremely underrated? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Hewitt extremely underrated?

Liverpool4ever
12-05-2005, 01:12 AM
This is my first post on this forum and so i would like to say hello to everyone.

Personally I am not much of a Hewitt fan, but I feel that perhaps due to his on court behaviour he is often dismissed unfairly. An example of this would be for those, who live in the UK, Barry Cowan and Flemming both discarding his chances of winning the US open. However, when you analyse the slam results this year Hewitt is second only to Federer. At the Australian open he defeated Nadal (although it was in 5 sets) and only lost to an on form Safin on his best surface, which is perhaps one of the hardest matches in the history of the game. At Wimbledon and the US only Federer could stop him at the semis and we all know the match up problems Hewitt has with Federer. It is my humble opinion that Hewitt is the immediate favourite for any slam (obviously not the French) following a Federer injury or elimination. I would even go as far as to say that at the moment Hewitt can lay claim to being the second best player in the world despite Nadal's 11 titles.

I know that this is strictly hypothetical, but I believe that had Hewitt played in any previous era, he would have amassed a career to rival that of Conners and Agassi at the and maybe even someone like Borg.

Does anyone else feel that Hewitt is becoming an overlooked great of tennis.

etiage
12-05-2005, 01:17 AM
i don't think anyone is underestimating hewitt. most know what he can do, it's just that at this point in time, tennis on the men's side is viewed as who can challenge federer consistently, esp. at the big ones, and hewitt is usually not viewed as one of them.

i think people are thinking: federer, then marat, nadal, and the younger guys

Liverpool4ever
12-05-2005, 01:36 AM
I agree with you Etiage that if you are talking about, who could beat federer then the list is as follows Marat, Nadal etc. However, i don't think that is the way tennis will go. Federer is my favourite player, but he has just had the two greatest consecitive years in tennis history. It seems far more likely that he will experience a dip in form at some point or hopefully not an injury to keep him out of a slam. Even Sampras had a dip in 96. I just can't see Federer keeping up the same level of dominance and he will probably experience a few losses in early rounds.

If that is the case, who is going to stop Hewitt, he leads Nadal 3-0, Nalbandian 3-1 and has not played the any of the other young guns. Federer cannot dominate forever and though Hewitt can't dominate federer he can definately beat every other player on tour.

wcr
12-05-2005, 01:42 AM
Thoughtful analysis, Liverpool. Hewitt reminds me more of the likes of Michael 'step-n-fetch-it' Chang. Hewitt's got more bite in his game and, in the end, it's still all about the wheels and not about any weapons.

Hewitt's no Conners or Agassi. He's managed to distract himself from his game in his prime years, more than once. Odds are against his winning another GS title as only one man in the open era with a child has done it - Agassi. Just think about who they chose to be their spouse. Bec is no Steffi.

Hewitt's careless; with this talent, with his temper and with his focus.

Federerthebest
12-05-2005, 01:43 AM
He is the second-best player in the world on surfaces other than clay.

People rave on rave on about Nadal's 11 titles but how many top players did Nadal have to beat in order to win those titles? He has not had to face Safin or Roddick, nor has he had to face Hewitt apart from the Australian Open five-set loss, which people proclaim to be an impressive result for Nadal, forgetting the fact that Hewitt was injured in that match and for a large portion of it could barely even move properly. Most of Nadal's titles have come through the absence of top-tier players. Nadal deserves to be in the top five, but it's questionable as to whether his number-two ranking really reflects his ability. And apart from Nadal, Hewitt has the most consistently-excellent results.

Hewitt will win more grand slams, I don't think that deserves worrying about; I suspect that sooner or later he will turn the tide against Federer.

sigmagirl91
12-05-2005, 01:44 AM
No one's underestimating Hewitt. For him, the off-court distractions prove to be a greater challenge than the on-court ones.

thelma
12-05-2005, 01:45 AM
If that is the case, who is going to stop Hewitt, he leads Nadal 3-0, Nalbandian 3-1 and has not played the any of the other young guns. Federer cannot dominate forever and though Hewitt can't dominate federer he can definately beat every other player on tour.

:yeah:

C'mon Lleyton :devil:

its.like.that
12-05-2005, 01:56 AM
no, not underrated, overrated.

gsm
12-05-2005, 02:18 AM
still all about the wheels and not about any weapons.
:rolls:
"not about any weapons"...

what about;

- return of serve
- lob
- passing shot
- bh down the line

gsm
12-05-2005, 02:20 AM
No one's underestimating Hewitt.
:rolleyes: its.like.that is

R.Federer
12-05-2005, 02:26 AM
I dont think anyone goes in playing him thinking they can play less than 100 per cent and win

shotgun
12-05-2005, 02:27 AM
If that is the case, who is going to stop Hewitt, he leads Nadal 3-0, Nalbandian 3-1 and has not played the any of the other young guns.

So what. Squillari leads Federer 2-0.

wcr
12-05-2005, 02:41 AM
:rolls:
"not about any weapons"...

what about;

- return of serve
- lob
- passing shot
- bh down the line

Can you name a player in the top 10/20/30 ... that can't hit any of the four shots you just listed?

Hewitt's made the most of everything he's got but his strengths are his feet and his determination which is now even more suspect.

rexman
12-05-2005, 02:44 AM
And yet playing as limited a schedule as he has, he's put in the second most consistant major results, behind only Roger, and finished the year ranked number 4.

Not bad for someone with no weapons and suspect dedication.

wcr
12-05-2005, 02:53 AM
And yet playing as limited a schedule as he has, he's put in the second most consistant major results, behind only Roger, and finished the year ranked number 4.

Not bad for someone with no weapons and suspect dedication.

Hewitt gets side tracked by battles with the ATP. Comes back and finishes the 2005 ranked number 4 and then has a baby. Maybe he likes monumental challenges. Will he defy the odds and come back and play even better with Bec and baby travelling at his side? Perhaps but I don't see the odds in his favor.

gsm
12-05-2005, 02:56 AM
Can you name a player in the top 10/20/30 ... that can't hit any of the four shots you just listed?
most top 30 players can hit the four shots i listed well, but very few can hit them better than hewitt.

i think most would agree that hewitts return of serve is easily top 3 standard.

the other shots i mentioned its hard to rate statistically without igniting debates.

but again i would rate his lob, passing shot and bh down the line as easily top 3 standard.

Tennis_Passion
12-05-2005, 03:13 AM
Of course he is underrated, I mean, no one anticipates shots as well as Lleyton. I think those years of dominance took too much out of him so he just fell rock bottom 2 years ago. But he had made such an impressive comeback I dont think any other former #1 can match. Just look at Safin and Kuerton, I mean, ya, Safin played well against an off-form Federer to win his second slam, but Lleyton is definitely underrated because after being #1 for so long, maybe his other achievements after then would become less significant.

GonzoFan
12-05-2005, 04:34 AM
:yeah:

C'mon Lleyton :devil:

:yeah: ! :rocker2:

Skyward
12-05-2005, 05:14 AM
Odds are against his winning another GS title as only one man in the open era with a child has done it - Agassi.

Kafelnikov?

Socket
12-05-2005, 05:20 AM
Costa was the father of very young twins when he won Roland Garros.

HottAsHellHEWITT
12-05-2005, 11:14 AM
he will definitely win more slams i hope he can win aussie next month but its gonna be hard especially with the fasct thast he now has got a baby which will take up a lot of his time and his preperations will be less than usual i just hope he can beat federer next year

yomike
12-05-2005, 11:18 AM
Hewitt extremely annoying? :)
________________________

bad gambler
12-05-2005, 11:22 AM
This is my first post on this forum and so i would like to say hello to everyone.

Personally I am not much of a Hewitt fan, but I feel that perhaps due to his on court behaviour he is often dismissed unfairly. An example of this would be for those, who live in the UK, Barry Cowan and Flemming both discarding his chances of winning the US open. However, when you analyse the slam results this year Hewitt is second only to Federer. At the Australian open he defeated Nadal (although it was in 5 sets) and only lost to an on form Safin on his best surface, which is perhaps one of the hardest matches in the history of the game. At Wimbledon and the US only Federer could stop him at the semis and we all know the match up problems Hewitt has with Federer. It is my humble opinion that Hewitt is the immediate favourite for any slam (obviously not the French) following a Federer injury or elimination. I would even go as far as to say that at the moment Hewitt can lay claim to being the second best player in the world despite Nadal's 11 titles.

I know that this is strictly hypothetical, but I believe that had Hewitt played in any previous era, he would have amassed a career to rival that of Conners and Agassi at the and maybe even someone like Borg.

Does anyone else feel that Hewitt is becoming an overlooked great of tennis.


i am good repping you because of your username :rocker:

R.Federer
12-05-2005, 12:39 PM
I know that this is strictly hypothetical, but I believe that had Hewitt played in any previous era, he would have amassed a career to rival that of Conners and Agassi at the and maybe even someone like Borg.

Does anyone else feel that Hewitt is becoming an overlooked great of tennis.
I dont think that it is matter of "previous era". In this era when he is playing, he has reached the last round or close to last round in the slams so many times. 5 time he has been stopped by Roge, 1 time by marat.
If Roge was not around, very good chance (better than 50/50) that he would have gone on to win the slam
So I don't think it is question of another era at all :shrug:

Raquel
12-05-2005, 06:34 PM
This is my first post on this forum and so i would like to say hello to everyone.

Personally I am not much of a Hewitt fan, but I feel that perhaps due to his on court behaviour he is often dismissed unfairly. An example of this would be for those, who live in the UK, Barry Cowan and Flemming both discarding his chances of winning the US open

Hi :)

I've been a big fan of Lleyton for years and I think he does get a lot of respect within the tennis community for his achievements. He doesn't always here though. I think he is overlooked sometimes when people say things like "he has no weapons", but as his results have shown, he clearly does.

As for Barry Cowan, I wouldn't put much stock in his opinions. He somehow gets worse. And I think he's spent too long with Peter Fleming if that Mid Atlantic accent during the Davis Cup commentary was anything to go by.

Xytraguptorh
12-05-2005, 07:04 PM
I always find it sad how many people are trying to undermine Hewitt's years of dominance, and I think it's the result of this impossibly high bar Federer has set of "what a dominant player should be." True, 79-17 is not 81-4, but it's still a stellar number, and so is 897 (the amount of points Hewitt picked up in the 2002 race). Everyone should take a stroll over to the ATP site and read his extensive list of career highlights, including his being the youngest player ever to assume the #1 ranking. Aside from that, he has recovered extraordinarily well from injuries, often making great appearances in major events after long layoffs.

What's most amazing about Hewitt is that he's a better player than he was during the years he dominated. Only Federer knocks this guy out of Slams, aside from brilliant play by Safin in Oz and an equally phenomenal performance by Gaudio at the 2004 French. Yet, people are always trying to write him off as overrated, largely due to their dislike of his character, so it's nice to finally see some people acknowledging what a great player Hewitt is.

Hewitt's man problem is that Federer's game simply handles his so well. But there's a reason Federer labeled Hewitt his biggest rival in 2004, and though the emergence of Nadal has complicated matters, I have no doubt that Hewitt rounds out the top 3.

mongo
12-05-2005, 07:22 PM
I ain't seein' it.

FWIW, even Tennis magazine has him ranked #19 among men (and likely to move up on the list), ahead of:
NR Yevgeny Kafelnikov
22. Patrick Rafter
21. Gustavo Kuerten
20. Stan Smith

...and just behind:

18. Arthur Ashe
17. Ilie Nastase
16. Jim Courier

He's already put together quite an impressive body of work at such a young age.

Socket
12-05-2005, 08:25 PM
I always find it sad how many people are trying to undermine Hewitt's years of dominance, and I think it's the result of this impossibly high bar Federer has set of "what a dominant player should be." True, 79-17 is not 81-4, but it's still a stellar number, and so is 897 (the amount of points Hewitt picked up in the 2002 race). Everyone should take a stroll over to the ATP site and read his extensive list of career highlights, including his being the youngest player ever to assume the #1 ranking. Aside from that, he has recovered extraordinarily well from injuries, often making great appearances in major events after long layoffs.

What's most amazing about Hewitt is that he's a better player than he was during the years he dominated. Only Federer knocks this guy out of Slams, aside from brilliant play by Safin in Oz and an equally phenomenal performance by Gaudio at the 2004 French. Yet, people are always trying to write him off as overrated, largely due to their dislike of his character, so it's nice to finally see some people acknowledging what a great player Hewitt is.

Hewitt's man problem is that Federer's game simply handles his so well. But there's a reason Federer labeled Hewitt his biggest rival in 2004, and though the emergence of Nadal has complicated matters, I have no doubt that Hewitt rounds out the top 3.
:worship: :worship:

You just increased the intelligence level on MTF by a factor of seven or so.

I always :rolleyes: when I read people mocking Lleyton for being knocked out of slams by the eventual winner. If you have to lose, that's the player you should lose to.

DrJules
12-05-2005, 10:51 PM
Reality:

AO(Rebound Ace) probably 3rd best behind Federer and Safin, and slightly ahead of Roddick.
FO (Clay) probably around 10-15th; 2 quarter finals in career at FO.
Wim (Grass) probably 3rd behind Federer and Roddick.
US Open(Decoturf) probably 2nd behind Federer.

Hewitt is in many ways considering all 4 grand slams the 2nd best player in the world (in 2005 a final and 2 semi finals always losing to winner). Overall Hewitt had a better grand slam record than Nadal doing better in 3 of the 4 grand slams which I keep hearing are the ultimate test in tennis. I agree Nadal won a slam, but did little else in the other 3.

Galaxystorm
12-05-2005, 10:53 PM
The persons who underrate him are the same than think that talent just means technique , hard-hitting and to hit a lot of winners showing their great tennistic knowledge :retard:

DrJules
12-05-2005, 10:54 PM
Hi :)

As for Barry Cowan, I wouldn't put much stock in his opinions. He somehow gets worse. And I think he's spent too long with Peter Fleming if that Mid Atlantic accent during the Davis Cup commentary was anything to go by.

Barry Cowan is totally consumed by Roger Federer and does not rate any of the other players in comparison. To him there is Roger and the rest.

jacobhiggins
12-05-2005, 11:00 PM
Hewitt is good but Federer and Safin and Roddick have bigger weapons then him! Hewitt is of course very very good, but he sort of is a player from yester year, dosen't have one big imposing shot unlike most players these days! This will always put Hewitt a little behind the pack in my book! I'm not saying he isn't better then Roddick or Safin right now, but I just think that is WHY people don't usually pick him to win the big ones when everybody does know Hewitt is one of the toughest and consistant players on the tour!

Galaxystorm
12-05-2005, 11:08 PM
Hewitt is good but Federer and Safin and Roddick have bigger weapons then him! Hewitt is of course very very good, but he sort of is a player from yester year, dosen't have one big imposing shot unlike most players these days! This will always put Hewitt a little behind the pack in my book! I'm not saying he isn't better then Roddick or Safin right now, but I just think that is WHY people don't usually pick him to win the big ones when everybody does know Hewitt is one of the toughest and consistant players on the tour!

I consider a big return also a big weapon , and in fact Hewitt's return neutralizes Roddick's serve

DrJules
12-05-2005, 11:08 PM
Hewitt is good but Federer and Safin and Roddick have bigger weapons then him! Hewitt is of course very very good, but he sort of is a player from yester year, dosen't have one big imposing shot unlike most players these days! This will always put Hewitt a little behind the pack in my book! I'm not saying he isn't better then Roddick or Safin right now, but I just think that is WHY people don't usually pick him to win the big ones when everybody does know Hewitt is one of the toughest and consistant players on the tour!

Federer has been the real problem; Hewitt has lost to Roger 5 times in his last 7 grand slams.

jacobhiggins
12-05-2005, 11:26 PM
Oh I know, that's why I listed Federer as one of the people he will most of the time lose too, if Safin and Roddick have an on day while they play Hewitt, I believe they are just physically tougher then him and will beat them with there powerful shots!

acdbx
12-06-2005, 02:44 AM
Can you name a player in the top 10/20/30 ... that can't hit any of the four shots you just listed?

Hewitt's made the most of everything he's got but his strengths are his feet and his determination which is now even more suspect.



Can you name a single player in the top 1000/2000/3000 who can't hit a forehand? serve? backhand?

Seems like Fed has "no weapons" either.. but I'll give him credit and say he's made the most of everything he's got.. but his feet seem to be slightly injury-prone.. so Hewitt may have an edge in that regard..

BlackSilver
12-06-2005, 03:19 AM
I consider a big return also a big weapon , and in fact Hewitt's return neutralizes Roddick's serve

Neutralize is far exaggerated. Deaden it is more correct.

madmanfool
12-06-2005, 05:49 PM
Let's not forget that in a so called less good year(2003) he still won the davis cup, which meant a lot for him

tangerine_dream
12-06-2005, 06:57 PM
Hewitt has always been underrated simply because many think he lacks weapons. But tenacity, speed, mental strength, and excellent physical conditioning are also weapons in tennis.

He's a very good returner and also has a brilliant lob, which comes in handy when a 6'5" player is waiting at the net. ;)

Hagar
12-06-2005, 08:23 PM
Looking purely at the tennis talent and capabilities, I think Safin is the 2nd best player after Federer. But Safin is a headcase whereas Lleyton is very consistent. That's why I do indeed think that Hewitt is the 2nd best player on the ATP (pure tennis and match approach combined). People tend to underestimate him because he is less spectacular than some other guys, at least he is to those who do not know a lot about tennis. If you play some tennis yourself, you can't but find Hewitt awesome; such great, regular strokes. I find it so exciting to watch him.

The only problem I have with Hewitt right now is that I haven't seen him on a tennis court for too long. :(

So I want him to pick a name for his daughter and get that fotoshoot with Bec and the baby over with so that he start practising again. :devil:

guy in sf
12-06-2005, 10:45 PM
Not at all extremely underrated, just extremely bratty and racist! Probably my least favorite player, personality-wise, but a freakin' damn fine player and most players acknowledge that and fear him quite a bit so that's why I don't think he's underrated, well maybe with the American press he is.

roxomash4
12-07-2005, 12:50 AM
i missed chance to see hewitt live.... altho i have seen him in person from a good few feet away

2 bad i had to catch my train home

well played 3 peat champion

:)

Hagar
12-07-2005, 09:18 AM
I always love it when Hewitt is slowly but surely creeping under the skin of his opponent. He's rarely overwhelming his opponent with a series of flashy shots like Federer does. It's more gradually building up the tension until the other guy collapses and you just know it will happen.

its.like.that
12-07-2005, 10:02 AM
:rolls:
"not about any weapons"...

what about;

- return of serve
- lob
- passing shot
- bh down the line

:worship:

that backhand is amazing, most reliable shot on tour. :silly:

its.like.that
12-07-2005, 10:04 AM
:rolleyes: its.like.that is

I'm not underestimating him.

He's just not that good.

its.like.that
12-07-2005, 10:07 AM
I always find it sad how many people are trying to undermine Hewitt's years of dominance, and I think it's the result of this impossibly high bar Federer has set of "what a dominant player should be." True, 79-17 is not 81-4, but it's still a stellar number, and so is 897 (the amount of points Hewitt picked up in the 2002 race). Everyone should take a stroll over to the ATP site and read his extensive list of career highlights, including his being the youngest player ever to assume the #1 ranking. Aside from that, he has recovered extraordinarily well from injuries, often making great appearances in major events after long layoffs.

What's most amazing about Hewitt is that he's a better player than he was during the years he dominated. Only Federer knocks this guy out of Slams, aside from brilliant play by Safin in Oz and an equally phenomenal performance by Gaudio at the 2004 French. Yet, people are always trying to write him off as overrated, largely due to their dislike of his character, so it's nice to finally see some people acknowledging what a great player Hewitt is.

Hewitt's man problem is that Federer's game simply handles his so well. But there's a reason Federer labeled Hewitt his biggest rival in 2004, and though the emergence of Nadal has complicated matters, I have no doubt that Hewitt rounds out the top 3.

lol... sniffing acid really isn't good for the brain. ;)

gsm
12-07-2005, 10:14 AM
I'm not underestimating him.
my mistake.

and yes you have convinced me, i now think hewitt's bh down the line is a pile of crud.

DrJules
12-07-2005, 12:50 PM
my mistake.

and yes you have convinced me, i now think hewitt's bh down the line is a pile of crud.
:cuckoo: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Experimentee
12-07-2005, 01:58 PM
Safin and Nadal are better players than Hewitt. Roddick at his best is about equal.

Socket
12-07-2005, 02:02 PM
my mistake.

and yes you have convinced me, i now think hewitt's bh down the line is a pile of crud.

:worship: :worship:

Don't make me laugh so hard this early in the morning! :yeah:

Sjengster
12-07-2005, 08:00 PM
Barry Cowan is totally consumed by Roger Federer and does not rate any of the other players in comparison. To him there is Roger and the rest.

YES!!! Finally, someone else acknowledges this in public on MTF! Here's a suggestion: the next time Barry Cowan is commentating a match of any kind for Sky, no matter who the players are, get some mates round and play the Roger Federer Drinking Game. I'm willing to bet you'll be downing vodka and tequila shots before the umpire announces new balls.

He did it again recently, either in Paris or the TMC, when he mentioned a weakness of the player on screen and then said in comparison, "I know we always bring up Federer, but..." And I thought, nope, you always bring him up, Barry! He really doesn't rate Hewitt at all, although I get the feeling that during 2002, when he started working for Sky, he didn't regard him as a "transitional no. 1" as he does now.

Galaxystorm is right that people always overlook Hewitt's talent because it's not flashy and obvious. I don't underrate him at all, he's obviously one of the best mentally but he also has Top 5 technique and court strategy which shows itself when he's embroiled in a battle; that doesn't mean I like him any more than I did when he was on top, though. :p

au_sports_opinion
12-08-2005, 12:59 AM
I think those years of dominance took too much out of him so he just fell rock bottom 2 years ago.

Oh gosh, I must have missed this rock bottom.

When was he rock bottom??

ugotlobbed
12-08-2005, 01:31 AM
ill still take hewitt over nalbandian any day

gsm
12-08-2005, 01:35 AM
Safin and Nadal are better players than Hewitt. Roddick at his best is about equal.

hmm, nadal better than hewitt? IMO, the jurys still out.

hewitt-nadal H2H; 3-0 hewitt

seems roddick has rarely been at his best.

hewitt-roddick H2H; 6-2 hewitt

on most occasions safin has been better than hewitt, but not always.

hewitt-safin H2H; 6-5 safin

sydney 06 should be great, a possible hewitt-nadal final, hewitt going for his 3rd straight sydney title and 5th overall.

Lleytonisthebest
12-08-2005, 11:55 AM
talent :
1. Federer
2. Safin ( of course n2 on talent even n1 but don't have mental toughness)
3. Hewitt ( he's not excellent in one shot but very good overall )
4. Nadal ( must improve his serve and his hard court game - he didn't play a lot against top5 players last year so his 11 titles are not so much but however big respect!!)
5. Roddick(cannot hit a backhand or a volley, on a normal day every one of the others top5 players will beat him)

reality:
1. Federer
2. Hewitt ( consistency and mental toughness + veryy solid shots)
3. Nadal ( consistency + invincible on clay)
4. Safin ( not consistent...how poor i like him very much he should be n1!!)
5. Roddick ( doesn't have the weapons...)

DrJules
12-08-2005, 03:39 PM
5. Roddick ( doesn't have the weapons...)


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
How many aces does Roddick serve a year and his serve is rarely broken.

Lleytonisthebest
12-08-2005, 04:51 PM
yes and how many times did Hewitt, Federer or Safin beat him ( i remember a 6-0 against roger and a defeat against lleyton with losing three straight love service games....)of course roddick is top5 but not higher

Galaxystorm
12-08-2005, 04:53 PM
( i remember a 6-0 against roger

Roddick was injured in that match

DrJules
12-08-2005, 10:51 PM
yes and how many times did Hewitt, Federer or Safin beat him ( i remember a 6-0 against roger and a defeat against lleyton with losing three straight love service games....)of course roddick is top5 but not higher

Always enjoyable watching somebody return the Roddick serve. Only Lleyton and Roger on the mens tour seem to do it successfully. Marat has struggled in his last 3 matches against Roddick.

prima donna
12-09-2005, 01:23 AM
Hewitt is overrated if anything, he is pretty good, but not that good.

Lleyton is a product of hard work, I don't think the word talent can ever be applied to him. He reminds me a lot of Justine Henin-Hardenne, concerning his work ethic atleast. They have games that are nothing alike, but much of the same fighting spirit/mentality and at times, can be equally as irritating with their allez and cmon's.

Fact is, Llleyton has molded himself into quite a player. He is undersized, not the best of shotmakers, but he's turned himself into a steady player and may win another Slam, if Roger or Safin are out of the picture.

Also, his career will most likely he shortened simply by his style of play. You wonder how long a defensive player, that cannot coast or "slack" through a match will last; eventually, his motor will simply run out.

So, in conclusion, until Hewitt beats Roger or Safin of current form, I don't really see any grounds to call him underrated. He's shown us that he is #1 material, but the competition at the time we questionable. We shall see.

Grinder
12-09-2005, 01:28 AM
yes and how many times did Hewitt, Federer or Safin beat him ( i remember a 6-0 against roger and a defeat against lleyton with losing three straight love service games....)of course roddick is top5 but not higher

Roddick and Safin played 4 times last year, Roddick won 3 of them, including three straight.

DrJules
12-09-2005, 01:36 AM
Hewitt is overrated if anything, he is pretty good, but not that good.

Lleyton is a product of hard work, I don't think the word talent can ever be applied to him. He reminds me a lot of Justine Henin-Hardenne, concerning his work ethic atleast. They have games that are nothing alike, but much of the same fighting spirit/mentality and at times, can be equally as irritating with their allez and cmon's.


Lleyton Hewitt does have impressive reaction speed and hand eye coordination. Both attributes contribute to him being one of the best returners of serve and a very underated volley. His major limitation is his size and lack of power. If he was Roger Federer's size he would be able match him on a more equal basis.

prima donna
12-09-2005, 01:42 AM
Lleyton Hewitt does have impressive reaction speed and hand eye coordination. Both attributes contribute to him being one of the best returners of serve and a very underated volley. His major limitation is his size and lack of power. If he was Roger Federer's size he would be able match him on a more equal basis.
If he was Roger's size, I don't think he'd be playing the same game he's playing and thus, his game would probably be less stable and have plenty of flaws in it.

Based on that ideology, you have to take into account that most of the time a player's game is a reflection of their physicality or lack there of.

It is no wonder that a player at 5'10" is so stable and plays such defensive tennis, well, what else ? His stability makes up for what he lacks in size. This brings up the question and only furtherly perplexes me about Nadal's style of play, but let's not go there.

Anyway, you're right. He does have rather quick reflexes, so I suppose that could be listed as a talent. Agassi is/was never biggest guy out there either, but that never stopped him from playing the most offensive style of defensive tennis I've seen in my life, make sense ?

gsm
12-09-2005, 04:28 AM
he is pretty good, but not that good.
where does that leave 99.99% of the tour, junk status?

I don't think the word talent can ever be applied to him.
your suggesting;

-the youngest player to ever finish the year as no 1.

-fourth player to rank no. 1 for every week during calendar year, joining connors, lendl and sampras.

-seventh player to finish no. 1 for at least two straight years, joining sampras, connors, mcenroe, lendl, borg, edberg.

should not be referred to as talented?

prima donna
12-09-2005, 05:28 AM
where does that leave 99.99% of the tour, junk status?


your suggesting;

-the youngest player to ever finish the year as no 1.

-fourth player to rank no. 1 for every week during calendar year, joining connors, lendl and sampras.

-seventh player to finish no. 1 for at least two straight years, joining sampras, connors, mcenroe, lendl, borg, edberg.

should not be referred to as talented?

Hewitt's success is not predicated on immense talent, talent is something you are born with.

His entire game is based on his great work ethic and repetition.

Talent would be for instance, Marat Safin. I bet he's put in about 2/3 of the work Lleyton has over the last few years and look who beat Roger last & ended up a Slam winner ?

Those accomplishments are nice, however you want to spin it, there are players that just have it and other that well ... just don't.

Hewitt just doesn't have it, he bulked up and his serve still is bologna, all due respect most players lose to Roger, but he gets toyed with and that's simply a sad thing to watch.

Is Hewitt consistent ? Yes
Was Hewitt #1 ? Yes, with questionable competition.
Can Hewitt beat any Top Players on their best day ? Aside from Roddick, no and it's because he really has no weapons. He is a defensive player, plain and simple. A serve that is a cupcake.
Has Hewitt maxed out his ability ? Yes and then some.

In conclusion, he's good enough to beat the players that he should beat, but once he reaches a certain point aside from Nadal there is just nothing he can do against Marat or Roger. I have higher expectations for a guy that's been the youngest #1 ever than to get toyed with time and time again, so he is overrated IMO.

gsm
12-09-2005, 06:04 AM
Talent would be for instance, Marat Safin.
i think your perspective on things can be concluded by you answering this question;

aside from marat and roger, who else on the tour has talent?

prima donna
12-09-2005, 06:09 AM
i think your perspective on things can be concluded by you answering this question;

aside from marat and roger, who else on the tour has talent?

Richard Gasquet, Tomas Berdych, Djokovic, Monfils are good examples of natural talent.

Hewitt may hammer them the first few matches, but by the time these players find their way he will be used as target practice. Seems like the only player unable to make the transition has been Andy Roddick, but to beat a player like Hewitt you must apply the most elementary of tactics: Use forehand and backhand. :)

gsm
12-09-2005, 06:46 AM
Richard Gasquet, Tomas Berdych, Djokovic, Monfils are good examples of natural talent.
yes these are perhaps the best examples of 'natural talent' on tour.

but does this mean the rest of the players on tour are not talented?

yes some have more talent than others, but i think its perhaps a bit intolerant to suggest that the majority of the tour is not talented.

anyway, each to their own.

prima donna
12-09-2005, 06:48 AM
but i think its perhaps a bit intolerant to suggest that the majority of the tour is not talented.


don't put words into my mouth, i said lleyton and not the rest of the tour.

Loremaster
12-09-2005, 07:16 AM
Richard Gasquet, Tomas Berdych, Djokovic, Monfils are good examples of natural talent.

Hewitt may hammer them the first few matches, but by the time these players find their way he will be used as target practice. Seems like the only player unable to make the transition has been Andy Roddick, but to beat a player like Hewitt you must apply the most elementary of tactics: Use forehand and backhand. :)

Oh Come on , last time they met Roddick won easly 6:3 7:6 and on surface which is considered the best for Hewitt , Roddick overpowered Hewitt and now has a mental power to do it again , I think that not being able to win over Hewitt was mental and now this aspect is gone so ... I am really looking forward to see their next encounter

prima donna
12-09-2005, 07:24 AM
Oh Come on , last time they met Roddick won easly 6:3 7:6 and on surface which is considered the best for Hewitt , Roddick overpowered Hewitt and now has a mental power to do it again , I think that not being able to win over Hewitt was mental and now this aspect is gone so ... I am really looking forward to see their next encounter
Actually, Andy incorporated a new tactic.

Coming to net on nearly every point.

Hewitt looked disinterested.

gsm
12-09-2005, 07:48 AM
i said lleyton and not the rest of the tour.
seriously, which one is it?

A) lleyton has no talent while most of the tour does.
or
B) most of the tour has no talent including lleyton.

prima donna
12-09-2005, 07:53 AM
seriously, which one is it?

A) lleyton has no talent while most of the tour does.
or
B) most of the tour has no talent including lleyton.

It's neither. Talent is a word that people misuse all the time, a talent is just something that you happen to be a natural at.

Hewitt is a nice and stable player, that does not make him talented. He has not done anything that I haven't seen any other player do, none of his strokes are amazing. He has superb reflexes and endurance, two things that can be improved upon by work.

He is all work ethic and a small amount of natural talent, unless of course you consider the result of 5-6 hours of training a day "talent", seems like an awful lot of time to spend working at something you are so talented at.

gsm
12-09-2005, 08:53 AM
at first i had the impression you thought lleyton had no talent;
I don't think the word talent can ever be applied to him.
this really blew my mind.

now i can see you think lleyton has talent;
He is all work ethic and a small amount of natural talent
i happen to think he has more talent than you, but we both agree, lleyton has talent.

heya
12-09-2005, 10:34 PM
prima claims that Hewitt beat Roddick when Roddick had his best days--
I bet prima also thinks that Roddick gave his best effort and that he was fit & trim at Masters Cup between 2003-2004.
Hewitt's so untalented and Federer can only lose because he's less than 100%.
How imaginative.

Sjengster
12-09-2005, 10:44 PM
prima claims that Hewitt beat Roddick when Roddick had his best days--
I bet prima also thinks that Roddick gave his best effort and that he was fit & trim at Masters Cup between 2003-2004.
Hewitt's so untalented and Federer can only lose because he's less than 100%.
How imaginative.

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrre's heyaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!! :eek: :worship:

tangerine_dream
12-09-2005, 10:44 PM
:haha: Wow. Are you for real?


5. Roddick ( doesn't have the weapons...)

:spit:

and then wrote:

of course roddick is top5 but not higher
:lol: Somebody tell the ATP they made a mistake ranking Roddick No. 1-2-3 for the past three years.

rexman
12-10-2005, 06:48 AM
Roddick's ranking has more to do with injuries from other players and winning lots of low tier events. Hewitt, Agassi and Federer all have dominating records against him and Nadal is the clay king.

I'd say #5 is accurate and possibly even generous considering Marat (though Roddick does have a good record against him)

Lleytonisthebest
12-10-2005, 10:23 AM
lol roddick is not better then n5

Loremaster
12-10-2005, 12:15 PM
Roddick condidering ranking and tournamnet is much better tennis player than Hewitt in last 3 years

2003 - no.1, grand slam, two masters shields, two times GS semifinal to no.15 hewitt who did not reach any semifinal and did not win antyhing big tournamnet only davis cup

2004 - Roddick no.2 (Hewiit no.3), 1 GS final(1 GS final), Hewitt has one more semifinal , but Roddick won masters shield and much more tournament and was DC finalist

2005 - Roddick no.3(Hewiit no.4 ), 1GS final(1 GS final ), Hewitt was much better in GS and again did not win anything special and Roddick won 5 tournaments each on different surface

If Hewitt was so good he would won more tournament and his last big win is in 2002 I bealieve he is only very consistent but nothing more for me now he is not even Top5

on Rebound Ace - he is maybe no.4 (after Federer, Safin , Roddick , Roddick is double semifianalist and QF, Hewitt was frequently loosing in very early rounds , not in 2005 but overal )
on Clay - he is very bad(but not as bad as Roddick) , he has never won a tournament on clay which is a little bit weird for player who want to be considered Top 3 player
on Grass - maybe no.3 (after Federer , Roddick) Federer and Roddick are much better here
on Hard - maybe no.2
on Carpet - not good at all but for sure Top8

Federerthebest
12-10-2005, 12:34 PM
on Clay - he is very bad

Yeah, Hewitt is so bad on clay that he beat Gustavo Kuerten, the then best claycourter in the world, on a slow claycourt in Brazil, in a Davis-Cup tie.

:retard:

Liverpool4ever
12-10-2005, 12:40 PM
Loremaster I don't know how you can put Roddick above Hewitt on Rebound Ace. Last year Hewitt lost to Federer, who won it so its hard to asses how far he would have gotten. Hewitt has also beat Roddick in four sets on rebound ace as well as reaching a final, which Roddick has never done. I would put him third behind Safin and Federer.

On grass Hewitt has won Queens three times just like Roddick. There only match the played on grass Roddick won, but Hewitt has actually won Wimbledon. Hewitt also has some very impressive scalps on grass such as Sampras, Ivanisevic. This year both loss to Federer at Wimbledon. Hence perhaps you could put Roddick above Hewitt, but it's by a very small margin not much better as you claim.

On hard I agree with your assesment that Hewitt is number 2.

As for clay I am not sure, but I think that Hewitt has won one tournament on clay. It's true that he is not great, but again he is better than Roddick.

Overall i would say that Hewitt is a better player than Roddick shown by his superior slam and master cup results.

Loremaster
12-10-2005, 01:08 PM
But I'am looking at results and Roddick's AO hsitory is better than Hewitt that's my point ,

on grass Hewitt is worse , Roddick won in their only meeting in straight sets and what more last 3 years, Roddick lost on grass only 3 times , in the same peroid of time Hewitt lost 7 times so it is huge difference and Roddick's 3 looses were to Federer Hewitt was loosing to diffrent guys (2xKarlovic, 3x Federer, 1xRoddick, 1xNalbandian)

look how many tournaments Roddick won recently and how many Hewiit thats huge difference and last big win by Hewiit was in 2002 , when considering amout of tournaments won by particular players in last 3 years Hewitt is not even a Top10 player I guess

If player has ambition to be considered Top3,5,10 he must win tournaments , big ones Hewitt can't do this why ?? Maybe he is not as good as other rate him , I know that Roddick in very bad 2005 won 5 tournaments and how many won Hewitt ??

Federerthebest winning over Guga means nothing it do not make him good on clay he sucks on clay and with his game he shouldn't he has never won a tournament on clay. And Roddick won with Sampras on hard does it makes him great hard-court players . I dont think so

Lleytonisthebest
12-10-2005, 02:39 PM
- hewitt-roddick 6-2
- hewitt has 2 GS
- hewitt has a better palmares on grass than Roddick ( he has won wimbledon)
- hewitt is better on hard
- hewitt with just 10 tournaments in 2005 is n4 and roddick with two times more tournaments is just one place above....
- Roddick has never reached the RG QF to hewitt's two appereances
- hewitt was n1 two years in a row
- in 2004 hewitt was also masters finalist ( easily beating u know who in the semis)
- in 2005 Roddick has won 5 tournaments but never beating a top10 player

Conclusion :
Hewitt is better than Roddick

bavaria100
12-10-2005, 03:31 PM
But I'am looking at results and Roddick's AO hsitory is better than Hewitt that's my point ,

on grass Hewitt is worse , Roddick won in their only meeting in straight sets and what more last 3 years, Roddick lost on grass only 3 times , in the same peroid of time Hewitt lost 7 times so it is huge difference and Roddick's 3 looses were to Federer Hewitt was loosing to diffrent guys (2xKarlovic, 3x Federer, 1xRoddick, 1xNalbandian)

look how many tournaments Roddick won recently and how many Hewiit thats huge difference and last big win by Hewiit was in 2002 , when considering amout of tournaments won by particular players in last 3 years Hewitt is not even a Top10 player I guess

If player has ambition to be considered Top3,5,10 he must win tournaments , big ones Hewitt can't do this why ?? Maybe he is not as good as other rate him , I know that Roddick in very bad 2005 won 5 tournaments and how many won Hewitt ??

Federerthebest winning over Guga means nothing it do not make him good on clay he sucks on clay and with his game he shouldn't he has never won a tournament on clay. And Roddick won with Sampras on hard does it makes him great hard-court players . I dont think so


Hewitt sucks on clay? Well, if you consider two quaterfinals at the French Open, 1 title on clay (Delray Beach 1999) and two semifinals in Hamburg (thats a TMS) as sucking, I dont want to know how you rate a few other players with worse records on this surface. Im sure, that Lleyton would already have won a few more titles on clay, if he would play the tournament in Houston. If he would face Andy on clay, he would beat him.

I agree with you that Andy had better results on grass in the last 3 years, but I would love to see them face each other next year on this surface. The only time they played against each other on grass was 2 years ago and Lleyton was still struggling to come back after his very bad year in 2003.

You are right that Andy has won more tourneys in the last few years, but many of his titles were in small tournaments with low ranked opponents (e.g. San Jose, Indianapolis, Houston just to name a few). Lleyton only played in 10 tourneys in 2005 (3 of them were GS and another 3 were Masters tourneys) and still he finished the year at number 4 only trailing Andy by a little more than 100 points in the CR. Im very sure that Lleyton will be back at number three after the clay season next year. Just for your information, Lleyton won the Indian Wells TMS in 2003 and if I remember correctly, this is a TMS. Andy has won more big titles since 2003, but still he wasnt able to win a Masters tourney for nearly 2 years (not even Madrid or Paris where many big guns were absent).

AgassiDomination
12-10-2005, 04:49 PM
- hewitt-roddick 6-2
- hewitt has 2 GS
- hewitt has a better palmares on grass than Roddick ( he has won wimbledon)
- hewitt is better on hard
- hewitt with just 10 tournaments in 2005 is n4 and roddick with two times more tournaments is just one place above....
- Roddick has never reached the RG QF to hewitt's two appereances
- hewitt was n1 two years in a row
- in 2004 hewitt was also masters finalist ( easily beating u know who in the semis)
- in 2005 Roddick has won 5 tournaments but never beating a top10 player

Conclusion :
Hewitt is better than Roddick

Indeed! :cool:

rexman
12-10-2005, 05:06 PM
Roddick did beat Hewitt in Cincy (though Hewitt was rusty) and beat Moya (who was top ten at the time) at Indian Wells, and Davydenko (ranked outside top 20 then, but #5 now,) at Australia. Plus Guillermo Coria, ranked #15 at the time, on grass.

Only really big win here is against the disinterested Hewitt, but he did win some.

Lleytonisthebest
12-10-2005, 05:11 PM
yes but he didn't manage to win this tournaments-in the only ones he won he didn't beat any top10

rexman
12-10-2005, 05:12 PM
But I'am looking at results and Roddick's AO hsitory is better than Hewitt that's my point ,

on grass Hewitt is worse , Roddick won in their only meeting in straight sets and what more last 3 years, Roddick lost on grass only 3 times , in the same peroid of time Hewitt lost 7 times so it is huge difference and Roddick's 3 looses were to Federer Hewitt was loosing to diffrent guys (2xKarlovic, 3x Federer, 1xRoddick, 1xNalbandian)

look how many tournaments Roddick won recently and how many Hewiit thats huge difference and last big win by Hewiit was in 2002 , when considering amout of tournaments won by particular players in last 3 years Hewitt is not even a Top10 player I guess

If player has ambition to be considered Top3,5,10 he must win tournaments , big ones Hewitt can't do this why ?? Maybe he is not as good as other rate him , I know that Roddick in very bad 2005 won 5 tournaments and how many won Hewitt ??

Federerthebest winning over Guga means nothing it do not make him good on clay he sucks on clay and with his game he shouldn't he has never won a tournament on clay. And Roddick won with Sampras on hard does it makes him great hard-court players . I dont think so

No matter how many Wimbledon finals Roddick loses to Federer, Hewitt will be considered to have the better grass court results due to his Wimbledon title.

And Hewitt thrashed Pete Sampras at the U.S. Open final in 2001.

Hewitt also didn't play as many little tournaments Roddick did this year, if he only had to beat guys outside the top 30 to win the title, I'd bet he would too.

I don't see how it's arguable, more major titles, a winning head to head, 2 masters cup titles to 0.

Freddi22cl
12-10-2005, 05:26 PM
"Lleyton is a product of hard work, I don't think the word talent can ever be applied to him."

what the hell are you talkign about, prima donna!?!?!? THE MAN is a former WORLD NUMBER 1 and you don't want to label him as having any 'talent'??---WHAT!!!..hilarious. Work ethic can ONLY TAKE YOU so far, then the TALENT MUST be there, or else..........well, you'll be posting on message boards in no time ;)

Freddi22cl
12-10-2005, 05:34 PM
at first i had the impression you thought lleyton had no talent;

this really blew my mind.

now i can see you think lleyton has talent;

i happen to think he has more talent than you, but we both agree, lleyton has talent.

;) ......funny, how did a player get to be world number 1 on work ethic alone?....does that mean Spadea is the next world number 1? ;)

BlackSilver
12-10-2005, 06:24 PM
Just for the record, Delray Beach used to be disputed on Har-tru and not in regular clay.

Lleytonisthebest
12-10-2005, 06:34 PM
what is Har-tru ?

prima donna
12-10-2005, 07:05 PM
Maybe I should have included this:

Relatively speaking, he's not the most talented of all players.

Compare him to Top 10 players, I don't see any difference aside from the fact that he simply outworks them.

A player like Nalbandian is a great example, David is a far superior athlete and player than Lleyton, yet has not even half of his accomplishments. The man has broken down under pressure and his physique before this year's TMC (Not that I saw a drastic change) was really nothing to write home about.

Hewitt's great return of serve is nice to boast about and all, but he did double-fault the most of anyone in 2004 and that to me sounds a bit odd. He outworks other player's in his preparation and so forth, of course you can't not have a certain level of talent and make it to this level.

Fact remains, he's a product of mental strength and endurance. I can name plenty of matches where it looked as if he were going to get blown off the court, he waited for the opponent's level to come down a bit and basically did what he always does ... outlast them.

James Blake match in Australia was a perfect example, also don't forget the fact James' conditioning wasn't quite all there; but he was giving Hewitt a spanking and the match wasn't in Lleyton's hands ... until Blake started to make careless UFE and boom ... it all came crashing down.

JCF
12-10-2005, 07:10 PM
Mental strength is talent.

prima donna
12-10-2005, 07:19 PM
Mental strength is talent.
I wouldn't quite use the word talent, but it is a strength.

Maybe I have a different view of talent, because I see plenty players that are far superior to Hewitt in that respect and lose to him daily or just never quite fulfill their potential.

In America, they like to describe Hewitt's attitude by attaching words like, lunch pale or meat & potatos to it, this guy shows up and just plays steadily. If you take him lightly, you will lose.

Fact remains, he's incapable of matching offensive players shot for shot on their extremely good days. He is really at their mercy, if their level simply does not come down then he will lose.

Not a suprise, shotmaking isn't necessarily his forte. :)

BlackSilver
12-10-2005, 08:39 PM
what is Har-tru ?

http://www.premiertenniscourts.com/images/queensharbor.jpg

DrJules
12-10-2005, 08:47 PM
I wouldn't quite use the word talent, but it is a strength.

Maybe I have a different view of talent, because I see plenty players that are far superior to Hewitt in that respect and lose to him daily or just never quite fulfill their potential.

In America, they like to describe Hewitt's attitude by attaching words like, lunch pale or meat & potatos to it, this guy shows up and just plays steadily. If you take him lightly, you will lose.

Fact remains, he's incapable of matching offensive players shot for shot on their extremely good days. He is really at their mercy, if their level simply does not come down then he will lose.

Not a suprise, shotmaking isn't necessarily his forte. :)

How do you actually measure talent because there does not seem to be any clear and objective way of doing so. Okay it was rather obvious that John McEnroe was much more talented than Ivan Lendl. I assume talent would measure qualities such as hand eye coordination, reaction speed and timing. Based on criteria such as these Lleyton Hewitt is very talented.

Galaxystorm
12-10-2005, 08:50 PM
Mental strength is talent.

:yeah:

Those persons who consider talent just as a synonym of technique they should consult a dictionary :o .

The talent include technical skills, physical skills , mental skills .....etc. , the talent is the whole player , and thus Nadal is a very talented player although technically isn't a top 20

The talent is the aptitude , capacity , ability for making a task , and as far as i know the task of any sportsman is to win matches, to be in the top part of the rankings, to win more titles , no matter if for making this task the player uses a technical playstyle, or a physical playstyle or any playstyle .

Unluckily in all the sports i know, the 90% of persons/fans use incorrectly the word " talent, " using it as synonym of technique or of " to hit a lot of winners " as i have said a lot times . :shrug:


So posting a simple example :

The player more talented isn't who hits 50 winners and 50 unforced errors but the player who hits 30 winners and only 20 unforced errors.

Lleytonisthebest
12-10-2005, 08:54 PM
prima donna :
Maybe I have a different view of talent, because I see plenty players that are far superior to Hewitt in that respect and lose to him daily or just never quite fulfill their potential.

a plenty of players ??and u sau nalbandian is a much better player and athlete than Hewitt : david's surely not a better athlete and his game is similar to Hewitt's but Hewitt does it better

Socket
12-10-2005, 09:03 PM
what is Har-tru ?
Green clay. It plays faster than red clay.

bad gambler
12-10-2005, 09:05 PM
you are kidding yourself if you think bandy is a better athlete than hewitt

shot making wise hands down but not general fitness and athleticism

DrJules
12-10-2005, 09:06 PM
Hewitt's great return of serve is nice to boast about and all, but he did double-fault the most of anyone in 2004 and that to me sounds a bit odd. He outworks other player's in his preparation and so forth, of course you can't not have a certain level of talent and make it to this level.


Interesting point. However, return of serve is more talent dependent than serving which is more of a mechanical skill that you can learn. It seem Lleyton is better at the return of serve which is much more dependent on abilities such as reaction speed, hand eye coordination, sensing the speed and direction of serve and moving the body to return the serve. Serving is a much more drilled process that the server has total control over with no dependence on the actions of the opponent.

prima donna
12-10-2005, 09:06 PM
prima donna :
Maybe I have a different view of talent, because I see plenty players that are far superior to Hewitt in that respect and lose to him daily or just never quite fulfill their potential.

a plenty of players ??and u sau nalbandian is a much better player and athlete than Hewitt : david's surely not a better athlete and his game is similar to Hewitt's but Hewitt does it better

Nalbandian is still competing with Roger Federer and Lleyton is simply being toyed with. Same deal as Safin. Hewitt has a superior record against the Swiss Champion, but clearly his results is based on beating the players he should beat, but he's shown us nothing lately against superior players.

Even Roddick beat him, be it disinterested or not, in their last meeting.

Hey, can't take anything away from Hewitt. I'm just sayin, it's not pretty how he got there and he needed a little help along the way. I respect him for being such a small guy and having such a big heart, simple fact is if you want to see talent: Watch AO Match, 2 sets, Blake making shot after shot, Lleyton reduced to shrugging his shoulders, like "What do I do, mate?!?"

Then, Blake's wheels came off and of course Lleyton was there to sort of push the ball back and fist pump. :)

Socket
12-10-2005, 09:07 PM
A lot of you are forgetting one of Lleyton's most subtle talents: his on-court smarts, including his excellent shot selection and ability to adapt his game to conditions and his opponents. Former pros like John McEnroe are always praising his shot selection, and Mac has said on more than one occasion that he rarely sees Lleyton hit the wrong shot. The match that Lleyton played at the US Open against Tommy Haas in very windy conditions is an excellent example of how he easily adapts his game. While Haas was flummoxed by the wind, Lleyton made it work for him.

rexman
12-10-2005, 09:10 PM
Nalbandian is still competing with Roger Federer and Lleyton is simply being toyed with. Same deal as Safin. Hewitt has a superior record against the Swiss Champion, but clearly his results is based on beating the players he should beat, but he's shown us nothing lately against superior players.

Even Roddick beat him, be it disinterested or not, in their last meeting.

Hey, can't take anything away from Hewitt. I'm just sayin, it's not pretty how he got there and he needed a little help along the way. I respect him for being such a small guy and having such a big heart, simple fact is if you want to see talent: Watch AO Match, 2 sets, Blake making shot after shot, Lleyton reduced to shrugging his shoulders, like "What do I do, mate?!?"

Then, Blake's wheels came off and of course Lleyton was there to sort of push the ball back and fist pump. :)

Nalbandian was destroyed by Federer in the four meetings prior to the master's cup, far worse than Hewitt has been. Hewitt also took a set off an in-form Federer at the U.S. Open.

hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard.

prima donna
12-10-2005, 09:11 PM
The match that Lleyton played at the US Open against Tommy Haas in very windy conditions is an excellent example of how he easily adapts his game. While Haas was flummoxed by the wind, Lleyton made it work for him.
Lleyton goes for safer shots and has more spin on his shots, windy conditions always prove more difficult for a shotmaker than a defensive strategist.

Much more margin for error, it's really quite simple what Lleyton's success is predicated on. People would be amazed what playing the percentage's will do for your winning percentage, just ask Gonzalez (CHI) once he stopped going for broke on every shot he actually had success.

prima donna
12-10-2005, 09:13 PM
Nalbandian was destroyed by Federer in the four meetings prior to the master's cup, far worse than Hewitt has been. Hewitt also took a set off an in-form Federer at the U.S. Open.

hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard.
Nalbandian was only truly healthy in 1 of those beatings, which is why I never got too enthused by Roger's success.

Hewitt, on the other hand, has been at 100% and looks like a deer caught in the headlights during his match-ups with Roger.

rexman
12-10-2005, 09:16 PM
Nalbandian was perfectly healthy in his 2-6 4-6 1-6 beating Federer gave to him at the U.S. Open. He was also perfectly healthy at the YEC 03' where Federer crushed him also.

prima donna
12-10-2005, 09:19 PM
Nalbandian was perfectly healthy in his 2-6 4-6 1-6 beating Federer gave to him at the U.S. Open. He was also perfectly healthy at the YEC 03' where Federer crushed him also.
Didn't Roger crush everyone at TMC 03 ?

If we base everything on who had success against Roger last, then that'd be an act in futility. Fact remains, Nalbandian beat Roger last and remains to be a difficult opponent for him, while Hewitt is looking more and more lost.

rexman
12-10-2005, 09:29 PM
Hewitt isn't looking more and more lost as he is IMPROVING against Federer. He took his first set off him in a long time at the U.S. Open, and their Wimbledon match was more competitive than the Indian Wells match, which was closer the the TMC 04 final.

prima donna
12-10-2005, 09:38 PM
Hewitt isn't looking more and more lost as he is IMPROVING against Federer. He took his first set off him in a long time at the U.S. Open, and their Wimbledon match was more competitive than the Indian Wells match, which was closer the the TMC 04 final.
Comparing losses to losses, while Nalbandian broke Roger's undefeated streak in finals.

Socket
12-10-2005, 09:41 PM
Nalbandian was destroyed by Federer in the four meetings prior to the master's cup, far worse than Hewitt has been. Hewitt also took a set off an in-form Federer at the U.S. Open.

hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard.
This explains almost every match that Mark Philippoussis has ever lost in his career.

rexman
12-10-2005, 10:04 PM
Comparing losses to losses, while Nalbandian broke Roger's undefeated streak in finals.

I love Nalbandian and he played great, but compare Fed's YEC form to his U.S. Open form.

prima donna
12-10-2005, 10:32 PM
I love Nalbandian and he played great, but compare Fed's YEC form to his U.S. Open form.
Roger was nowhere near 100%, but a win is a win. Right ?

JCF
12-10-2005, 11:40 PM
Hey, can't take anything away from Hewitt. I'm just sayin, it's not pretty how he got there and he needed a little help along the way. I respect him for being such a small guy and having such a big heart, simple fact is if you want to see talent: Watch AO Match, 2 sets, Blake making shot after shot, Lleyton reduced to shrugging his shoulders, like "What do I do, mate?!?"

Then, Blake's wheels came off and of course Lleyton was there to sort of push the ball back and fist pump. :)

Being a tennis player is not all about technique, its about other aspects of the game. At this level there is very little that seperates the top players, but someone who can hold it together under pressure is surely gonna make it futher than someone who can't even if they aren't as talented. What exactly is talent anyway, is it just confined to shot making? James Blake is a top player talent wise but he obviously isn't there mentally so he's obviously not as talented as Hewitt, Roddick etc. Fernando Gonzalez is prob top 5 talent wise but he has no brains at all - so what exactly do you define talent as.

Reality is Hewitt is where he is in tennis because he is better than most others, technique wise or otherwise.

Loremaster
12-10-2005, 11:45 PM
Hewitt is nothing against Federer , Roddick has better results recently than Hewiit(he is not bageled almost every time :devil: ) Hewitt took set off Federer but than he was destroyed 6:0 hehehe , and UsOpen final 6:0 7:6 6:0 he was destroyed like amateur not professional player , every time they met hewiitt is loosing so badly that I feel very very sorry for him , he is never as near as Nalbandian these year looses shouldn't be serious Nalbandian lost father and was mentaly down I could see it , and TMC 2003 Nalbandian was injured or after injury so it true that 3/4 looses David was unfit , and Hewitt was very fit and still has his ass kicked badly (two sets 6:0) any other Top5 player is not loosing in such bad style

rexman
12-11-2005, 12:15 AM
Newsflash, Roddick was bageled by Federer more recently than Hewitt.

Hewitt has been bageled since the U.S. Open final 15 months ago.

And Hewitt's last loss was 3-6 6-7 6-4 3-6. He's getting closer.

You wanna look up Nalbandian's head to head against Hewitt? You won't be pleased.

Freddi22cl
12-11-2005, 12:55 AM
there should be no discussion on who IS the better player--Nalbandian or Hewitt. NO COMPARISON between these two

check the records, accomplishments. Their NOT in the same league. One guy has 4 titles and 1 TMS event, the other has 24, 2 Grand Slams and 4 TMS events.

what's there to argue?

btw, Lleyton born in '81 and David in '82......window of opportunity is closing David.........tic toc tic toc tic toc........... ;)

tangerine_dream
12-11-2005, 02:44 AM
I like how some of you continue to make excuses for other players beating Hewitt ("he was disinterested"? that's a new one :lol: ) but not when the same lame excuses can be made for the other side.

I can play this game, too. For instance:

No matter how many Wimbledon finals Roddick loses to Federer, Hewitt will be considered to have the better grass court results due to his Wimbledon title.
Who did he beat to win the title? Nalbandian who wasn't even ranked in the top 20? 2002 was kind of dead year in terms of tennis talent wasn't it? Anyway, he didn't beat a REAL grass-courterer like Federer or Sampras so clearly his fluke Wimbledon win doesn't mean anything.

And Hewitt thrashed Pete Sampras at the U.S. Open final in 2001.
This was during Sampras' dark period when the "real" Sampras was not 100% and not on his game.

Plus, he was disinterested.

rexman
12-11-2005, 02:47 AM
ok that's cool.

heya
12-11-2005, 04:14 AM
Hewitt and Federer managed to dominate their indifferent
and physically weaker opponents. They kissed the ground & threw up their middle fingers too. I'm impressed.

Head-to-head records are so great!
This must mean that Henman, Hrbaty, Nadal and Nalbandian are superior to Federer.
Karlovic must be a legend because he had little trouble beating Hewitt.
Who isn't better than that media-shy, uninjured, hard-working, incredibly blessed Roddick?
Federer, Hewitt, Agassi, and non-athletic people can own hero medals!!

nkhera1
12-11-2005, 04:41 PM
you are kidding yourself if you think bandy is a better athlete than hewitt

shot making wise hands down but not general fitness and athleticism

I agree with you on that there is no way Nalbandian is more athletic or fit than Hewitt. Not many people are because thats a big part of Hewitt's game.

ReturnWinner
12-11-2005, 05:15 PM
nalbandian had a wrist injury at the yec 03 even he had surgery
Nalbandian was perfectly healthy in his 2-6 4-6 1-6 beating Federer gave to him at the U.S. Open. He was also perfectly healthy at the YEC 03' where Federer crushed him also.

Turkeyballs Paco
12-11-2005, 08:19 PM
The general apathetic attitude towards Hewitt coming from the press and tennis fans makes it seem like he's under-rated. Whether the players think that way is another thing.

He's not the new hot 18 year old, he's not the smiling popular guy kissing the press' ass, so that makes the press and fans pretty much forget about him altogether.

We'll see what happens in 2006, but my guess is if he has another bad year like 2005, he'll continue to be ignored.

Frederick16
12-11-2005, 09:03 PM
when i read some posts on other threads maybe is something very overrated!

roxomash4
12-12-2005, 01:39 PM
a bad year??? lol

the guy has got married and had a kid... and still he is in the top 10 in the world comfortably... he played gr8 at the 3 grand slams he took part in..

hewitt is a major contender... watch out roger 'dodgy feat' federer!!