Hewitt vs Roddick, who will have the better overall Slam results? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Hewitt vs Roddick, who will have the better overall Slam results?

Pages : [1] 2

Action Jackson
01-05-2004, 03:07 AM
Which one of these players will have the better overall Slam results this year?

This came about from a discussion between WyverN and myself. He says Roddick and I say Hewitt, the best thing that neither of these players are our favourites.

I thought it would be good to ask the people on MTF who they believe will have the better overall results.

We have nearly all scenarios covered like if one player is injured and misses a Slam, we will only count the Slams they played in. If the points are equal then it would go to which player had the higher finishes in the other rounds.

The points that we agreed on are
W: 1200
RU: 500
SF: 280
QF: 140
R4: 80
R3 : 40
R2: 20
R1: 0

Leo
01-05-2004, 03:08 AM
Oooh, fun. But don't make me guess, though. I think both can win at least one this year.

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 03:10 AM
Oooh, fun. But don't make me guess, though. I think both can win at least one this year.
I agree. Hopefully neither of them actually do, though.

I guess that Roddick will have better results overall, though.

I'll discuss that at greater length, tomorrow. After I sleep ;)

Action Jackson
01-05-2004, 03:13 AM
Neither do I Rebecca, but this is something I am not taking too seriously. In a perfect world I would like them to lose all their 1st round matches at the Slams. But since when have we ever lived in a perfect world?

Leo
01-05-2004, 03:15 AM
I'm currently leaning towards Hewitt for better over-all results in Slams this year. I think they're pretty even in terms of opportunity at the Aussie Open, Wimbledon, and US Open, but I'd give Hewitt the definite edge on clay at Roland Garros. After all, he's reached the quarterfinals there before while Roddick has failed to surpass the first round the past two years. Based on the match I saw Roddick play against Hrbaty last fall in Davis Cup, he still needs a great deal of improvement with his clay court game before he even reaches the Final 8 in Paris.

MisterQ
01-05-2004, 03:18 AM
I would go with Roddick, based on this past year. Andy has finally figured out how to make good use of his weapons. But I never underestimate Hewitt --- I don't think we've seen the end of his tough fighting style!

On a related note, too bad we haven't seen them play each other since 2001! :eek: All three of their matches were that year, and all were won by Hewitt. But Roddick has improved greatly since then, so who knows how they would match up today! In 2003 Roddick was able to defeat other quick, consistent players like Schuettler, Coria, Ferrero, and Nalbandian, whereas I think he would have had more trouble in the past.

Action Jackson
01-05-2004, 03:20 AM
Leo, the only way Roddick would do that on his past clay form would be if they had 10 days of very hot and dry weather in Paris to make the courts faster, and if he played players that weren't very good on clay, by the draw opening up.

Though Roddick might have an advantage at Wimbledon, the other two are fairly even and could go either way.

Action Jackson
01-05-2004, 03:26 AM
Of course Mister Q you forget that Schuettler leads him 3-1 overall and beat him the last time they played. No, tiredness is not an excuse.

Hewitt's mental toughness would drive Roddick mad, and he's not intimidated by Roddick's game then or now.

There is a chance that they mightn't meet in any of the Slams this year, Roddick has yet to beat him, and if even he does, that doesn't mean he will be able to do so consistently.

J. Corwin
01-05-2004, 03:29 AM
MisterQ, I don't think Andy has beaten Rainer in 2003.

If I had to choose someone in this poll, I'd go with Roddick. I'm a lot more confident in him now that Brad Gilbert's at the helm.

Leo
01-05-2004, 03:34 AM
That's right, Roddick lost to Schuettler all three times they met this year. And Hewitt is a beefed-up, more talented version of Schuettler...

Leo
01-05-2004, 03:35 AM
Everyone congratulate me on 1,000 posts :p

MisterQ
01-05-2004, 03:41 AM
That's right, Roddick lost to Schuettler all three times they met this year. And Hewitt is a beefed-up, more talented version of Schuettler...

You're totally right. My bad! :)

Action Jackson
01-05-2004, 03:43 AM
Congrats Leo for 1000 posts :drink:

MisterQ
01-05-2004, 03:46 AM
Of course Mister Q you forget that Schuettler leads him 3-1 overall and beat him the last time they played. No, tiredness is not an excuse.


I wouldn't have offered an excuse, George.

You all are right, I made an error including Schuettler in that list. However, I stand by my assertion that Roddick is getting better than he used to be at dealing with steady, consistent players. For this reason I cannot predict the outcome of the next Hewitt/Roddick match with any certainty.

MisterQ
01-05-2004, 03:46 AM
Congrats on 1K posts, Leo! :) :yippee:

J. Corwin
01-05-2004, 03:51 AM
Congrats Leo. :)

Deboogle!.
01-05-2004, 04:02 AM
I hate predictions, so I won't vote.

Yep Hewitt is a lot stronger/fitter than he was, since he had a lot of off time to work on it. But supposedly Andy has as well, and we have no clue what he and Brad worked on during their first real time to tweak stuff. Guess we'll find out soon enough what will happen.

I'll thoroughly enjoy watching you two all season though.

Leo
01-05-2004, 04:04 AM
I was actually joking with that comment but, okay, I'll take the congrats. And I'll also take that beer away from Georgie. :D :drink:

Action Jackson
01-05-2004, 04:09 AM
No problem Leo, that beer definitely wasn't Bud I have more class than that.

Come on Bunk, you don't have the courage of your convictions to back your man Roddick this contest?

Fedex
01-05-2004, 04:13 AM
I dont like either player, believe me! But it would be tough to say with Hewitt's mental strength, & Roddick has brad gilbert. I'd give Roddick the edge at Wimbledon & the US Open. But Hewitt would have the edge at RG & Aussie Open

star
01-05-2004, 04:19 AM
I dont like either player, believe me! But it would be tough to say with Hewitt's mental strength, & Roddick has brad gilbert. I'd give Roddick the edge at Wimbledon & the US Open. But Hewitt would have the edge at RG & Aussie Open

I did not know that Brad was allowed to play with Andy in a singles match. ;)

Deboogle!.
01-05-2004, 04:20 AM
Considering Hewitt's results at AO and the fact that Andy got to the semis, I'd say at this point it'd be hard to be sure that Lleyton will do better than Andy there. Anything's possible and I'd like to see them both do well at all the slams, just going on past performance :)

star
01-05-2004, 04:20 AM
That's right, Roddick lost to Schuettler all three times they met this year. And Hewitt is a beefed-up, more talented version of Schuettler...

I'm sorry, but seeing Hewitt described as "beefed-up" just made me :lol:

Fedex
01-05-2004, 04:43 AM
Actually if youre talking about physical strength, Shuettler is much more "beefed up" than Lleyton

Fedex
01-05-2004, 04:47 AM
I'm not exactly expecting Lleyton to win there becuse he wont be seeded high, & will likely have to play Federer, Roddick ro Ferrero, before the QF. i truthfully think Andre will win The Aussie Open

Action Jackson
01-05-2004, 05:01 AM
Come September we will see soon enough as to who is the more successful. You never know Roddick might actually get some tough early round matches this time.

Lee
01-05-2004, 05:12 AM
It's a bit late but http://www.mainzelahr.de/smile/party/sekt.gif Leo for your 1,000th posts. Oops, Leo is not yet at the legal age for alcohol in US ;)

And George, beers in US sucks. Closely followed by Australia ;) Have you tried the Canadian ones?

Back to tennis. I'm not going to vote but I believe Roddick will have big trouble vs Hewitt. Hewitt will not be intimidated by Roddick's big serve, thus, neutralizing his biggest weapon. And I agree Rainer is more "beef-up" than Hewitt but I think Hewitt is faster and has better serve.

WyverN
01-05-2004, 05:25 AM
Come September we will see soon enough as to who is the more successful. You never know Roddick might actually get some tough early round matches this time.

Roddick got Henman at USO round 1, got Rusedski early at Wimbledon and Youzhny early at AO. Hardly very easy draws.

Roddick has the advantage at AO as Hewitt simply does not play well there, the surface does not suit him + expectations.

At Wimbledon I believe there are more players capable of beating Hewitt then Roddick, amazingly in 2002 Hewitt did not play 1 power player like Karlovic.

At USO, after last year, Roddick is definetly favourite there. The surface is perfect for his game, it is probably the one surface where he would be fairly confident of beating Federer.

FO, probably edge to Hewitt but it will depend on the draw as they will both be out as soon as they face some clay court specialist.

Action Jackson
01-05-2004, 05:46 AM
Youzhny was in the fourth round at the AO and that is not exactly early Wyver.

Your points are fair ones, but I don't see Roddick having the same overall success in the Slams this year, as he did last season. Obviously he is a chance in 3 of them as is Hewitt, but for some reason I see him having an early loss in a Slam besides the French. Of course I could be totally wrong, but come September we'll find out.

lsy
01-05-2004, 05:52 AM
I second WynerN analysis above. Yes, Many dislike his style of play (including me) and discredit his win at US open, but the fact is that he did play with a desire to win and handle the huge expectations extremely well, same in Wimbledon till he met Federer...(I mean who can win vs Federer with that type of performance then). More importantly he seems to be the type who's really keen on improving and have the strong urge to win each time he plays (oh ok, except the matches in TMC as what Bunk thought...hehe, sorry bunk, can't help it :p ...pls don't come after me again :bolt: )

What I'm saying is that he matches up with Hewitt equally in mental aspects and on top of that, Roddick does have glaring weapons that does him huge advantages against most players compare to hewitt.

Action Jackson
01-05-2004, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by by lsy
What I'm saying is that he matches up with Hewitt equally in mental aspects and on top of that, Roddick does have glaring weapons that does him huge advantages against most players compare to hewitt.

There is absolutely no way he matches up to Hewitt in the mental aspect of the game. I don't like Hewitt much but to suggest that Roddick matches him mentally isn't true, how many examples would you like to see of Hewitt's mental strength?

Roddick has glaring weaknesses as well to go with his strengths, the question is which opponents will be good enough to take advantage of these. Of course there are going to be certain intagibles that will help or hinder both players and yes there is less that can go wrong with Hewitt's game than Roddick's.

WyverN
01-05-2004, 06:21 AM
There is absolutely no way he matches up to Hewitt in the mental aspect of the game. I don't like Hewitt much but to suggest that Roddick matches him mentally isn't true, how many examples would you like to see of Hewitt's mental strength?

Roddick has glaring weaknesses as well to go with his strengths, the question is which opponents will be good enough to take advantage of these. Of course there are going to be certain intagibles that will help or hinder both players and yes there is less that can go wrong with Hewitt's game than Roddick's.

Roddick has won from match points down 3 times this year, as well as a escape against Federer in Montreal, he seems strong mentally.

Your comment that there is less that can go wrong with Hewitt's game then Roddick's is silly. Hewitt has the type of weaponless game where he has to be at 100% to beat most players, everyone has to be working for him or he gets blown away like he did at the slams last year.

Roddick's game is very simple and not much can go wrong, that is, serve + big forehand. Hewitt has to be close to 100% to win matches (just as all the Schuettler, Hewitt type players) while Roddick can be at 75% and still win matches due to his serve and forehand.

lsy
01-05-2004, 06:25 AM
Well I don't have the best way to quantify who's mentally stronger. But my impression is that both have the eagerness to win and seldom let it slip away for no reasons.

Yes, Roddick has glaring weaknesses (which is why I don't enjoy watching him), but fortunately for him his glaring strength comes as the first weapon in this game, serves. Before his opponents can force out his weaknesses, they got to survive through his huge weapon. What I mean is that psychologically it's a huge advantage if you can hold serves much easier than your opponents.

Action Jackson
01-05-2004, 06:41 AM
Originally Posted by WyverN
Your comment that there is less that can go wrong with Hewitt's game then Roddick's is silly. Hewitt has the type of weaponless game where he has to be at 100% to beat most players, everyone has to be working for him or he gets blown away like he did at the slams last year.

No, Hewitt doesn't blow people away, he just does the same things consistently, and he has won more matches than he has lost by playing at less than 100%. That is where his excellent fitness and the mental strength come into it. He doesn't serve that particularly well, solid groundshots and he should get blown away more often than he has.

Just remember your friend has won 2 Slams, 2 TMC championships, 2 TMS, 2 DCs, made 2 TMS finals, not bad for a guy you don't rate very highly.

It's interesting that after 1 bad year people think Hewitt is totally finished and after an outstanding six months Roddick is already one of the best ever. How quickly people forget?

If Roddick doesn't consistently serve well, you don't think that is going to affect his game? What does he have to fall back on when his serve and forehand isn't working? At the moment he lacks options that could get him out of potential difficulties.

FanOfHewitt
01-05-2004, 06:43 AM
Back to tennis. I'm not going to vote but I believe Roddick will have big trouble vs Hewitt. Hewitt will not be intimidated by Roddick's big serve, thus, neutralizing his biggest weapon. And I agree Rainer is more "beef-up" than Hewitt but I think Hewitt is faster and has better serve.

I agree Lee. Roddick has been able to dominate most players over the past year because they haven't been able to find an answer to his serve. If you can neutralise his serve you can beat him. As far as groundstrokes go, there are probably ten if not more players that have better groundstrokes.

Since Hewitt has a great return of serve he will always trouble Roddick, and his groundstrokes are slightly more solid than Roddick's.

Having said that, Roddick may end up having the better results at grand slams since he can easily win games with his weapons. Not many players have the ability to beat him unless he is having a terrible day serving. Hewitt gets engaged in life and death struggles in just about every match he plays so its hard to see him having any consistency over the four slams.

lsy
01-05-2004, 06:49 AM
I think your post is who's gonna do better in this year slams instead of who's the better/best player, that's why I chose Roddick. Nothing to take away what Hewitt had achieved or will achieve in future.

You're right that it can be dangerous when he doesn't serve well, that's why I was going to add that to his credit (if my memories serve me well), he had been serving quite consistently in most matches, having minimal double faults. Which is why it makes his serves a more glaring weapon than it already can be. But yes, he does have lots to improve on especially when facing players who are not intimidated by his serves.

Action Jackson
01-05-2004, 06:57 AM
Yes, both WyverN and I know exactly what the question is, who will have the better results over the year in the Slams? We don't particularly like either player and in a perfect world it would be good if they lost all their 1st round matches.

For me it's a bit of fun, but for Wyver I am not so sure, at the same time a bit of jousting before the event isn't a bad thing.

WyverN
01-05-2004, 07:03 AM
No, Hewitt doesn't blow people away, he just does the same things consistently, and he has won more matches than he has lost by playing at less than 100%. That is where his excellent fitness and the mental strength come into it. He doesn't serve that particularly well, solid groundshots and he should get blown away more often than he has.


Yes Hewitts mental strength ensures he plays close to his best often but as soon as he is of the boil he can be beaten by just about anyone.


Just remember your friend has won 2 Slams, 2 TMC championships, 2 TMS, 2 DCs, made 2 TMS finals, not bad for a guy you don't rate very highly.


In my opinion Hewitt took advantage of a transition period, just like Hingis did for a while in the women's game. We will see if that is true. Should be proven one way or the other over the next 2 years.


It's interesting that after 1 bad year people think Hewitt is totally finished and after an outstanding six months Roddick is already one of the best ever. How quickly people forget?


I never rated Hewitt as a long term #1 just like I never rated Safin as a long term #1. Safin because his game is very high risk and will not pay off consistently, throw in his mental problems and you don't get a very complete player.


If Roddick doesn't consistently serve well, you don't think that is going to affect his game? What does he have to fall back on when his serve and forehand isn't working? At the moment he lacks options that could get him out of potential difficulties.

He has more weapons then 99.9% of the tour, if his serve and forehands are not working then he deserves to lose - besides Roddick is still improving, I think you fail to see that.

WyverN
01-05-2004, 07:06 AM
For me it's a bit of fun, but for Wyver I am not so sure,

I thought you would realise for me it is a matter of life and death. Every night I go through a praying ritual just so that I win this bet, as soon as it gets a bit closer to AO I have to stop slacking of and start sacrificing chickens as well.

Not to mention I have a Hewitt voodoo doll ready for use just as soon as he starts his slam campaign.

Action Jackson
01-05-2004, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by WyverN
I thought you would realise for me it is a matter of life and death. Every night I go through a praying ritual just so that I win this bet, as soon as it gets a bit closer to AO I have to stop slacking of and start sacrificing chickens as well.

Actually I thought it was goats that you sacrificed and your rituals were held in cemeteries at 2am. Thanks for correcting me.

rogicomel
01-05-2004, 07:22 AM
To see them lose early in the slams is the best thing I can hope for... but I still give Roddick the edge but with Hewitt's determination and grit, u never know.

Action Jackson
01-05-2004, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by WyverN
Yes Hewitts mental strength ensures he plays close to his best often but as soon as he is of the boil he can be beaten by just about anyone.


That's true, but at the same time too many players don't take advantages of the chances they have against him.

The transiton period where Hewitt took advantage, as you said I think 2 years should be a fair enough time to see whether he is still one of the elite players, but at the moment with his achievements over that time he should be given the benefit of the doubt.

I never rated Hewitt as a long term #1 just like I never rated Safin as a long term #1. Safin because his game is very high risk and will not pay off consistently, throw in his mental problems and you don't get a very complete played.


Hewitt has lasted longer than many better players at #1 and just like you never rated Safin as a long-termer, at the moment I don't see anyone who is a long-term #1. That may and probably change in the future, just not this year.

He has more weapons then 99.9% of the tour, if his serve and forehands are not working then he deserves to lose - besides Roddick is still improving, I think you fail to see that.


Your percentages are out, lol. Actually there are quite a number of players with 2 weapons or more ie Federer, Ferrero, Agassi, Nalbandian, and Haas.

Good to see your bias has clouded your judgement again, I have said previously on a few occassions that Roddick is trying to improve the weaker aspects of his game, and has a long way to go, but the effort is there.

It's just like you are sceptical about some players, I am sceptical about Roddick and I am looking forward to see how he backs up in 2004 from his outstanding season last year.

WyverN
01-05-2004, 07:40 AM
Your percentages are out, lol. Actually there are quite a number of players with 2 weapons or more ie Federer, Ferrero, Agassi, Nalbandian, and Haas.


Of that list only Federer has more effective weapons then Roddick on grass and hard courts. Agassi use to but now he is to old.

yanchr
01-05-2004, 09:13 AM
Yup we are talking about who will have better slam results, so analysing how Hewitt could well cope with Roddick's serve or whatever doesn't make good sense, and their HtoH records might not tell a thing. Though I think Hewitt will still have an advantage over Roddick when they meet cos Roddick seems often having problems with good returners, Roddick will for sure do better jobs in slams IMO. The reasons are quite clearly listed here already, Roddick undoubtedly wins his games much more easily with his serve while Hewitt has to struggle almost every point. Not many players really own Roddick's serve while many if not most can be a challenge to Hewitt.

J. Corwin
01-05-2004, 10:01 AM
Great points brought up by some posters. I'm enjoying reading this thread.

WyverN
01-05-2004, 10:16 AM
well said yanchr

heya
01-05-2004, 10:45 AM
yanch-1 good post among biased ones.

Leo
01-05-2004, 10:52 AM
Roddick has the advantage at AO as Hewitt simply does not play well there, the surface does not suit him + expectations.

At Wimbledon I believe there are more players capable of beating Hewitt then Roddick, amazingly in 2002 Hewitt did not play 1 power player like Karlovic.

At USO, after last year, Roddick is definetly favourite there. The surface is perfect for his game, it is probably the one surface where he would be fairly confident of beating Federer.

FO, probably edge to Hewitt but it will depend on the draw as they will both be out as soon as they face some clay court specialist.

I wouldn't say that the surface of the Aussie Open is what has held him back there over the years. After all, he's won a ton of rebound ace tournaments, it seems, including Adelaide, Sydney, and Perth. The national pressure seemed to get the best of him the past few years (not to mention he ran into nemesises Moya in 2001 and El Aynaoui in 2003) but I think that could change this year.

And I wouldn't give Roddick an edge at the US open, since Hewitt's record in New York since 2000 is superior to everyone else's on tour. He loves the courts and the atmosphere there.

Maybe I'd give Roddick a slight edge at Wimbledon, seeing the way he played there last year.

WyverN
01-05-2004, 11:37 AM
And I wouldn't give Roddick an edge at the US open, since Hewitt's record in New York since 2000 is superior to everyone else's on tour.


No it isn't.

WyverN
01-05-2004, 11:40 AM
The national pressure seemed to get the best of him the past few years (not to mention he ran into nemesises Moya in 2001 and El Aynaoui in 2003) but I think that could change this year.


Not to mention Magnus Norman and that terrific player Alberto Martin.

You sound so confident, you should join Hitler's side of the bet.

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 11:47 AM
Not to mention Magnus Norman and that terrific player Alberto Martin.

You sound so confident, you should join Hitler's side of the bet.
I'm tempted to, if only to disagree with you, because you're an asshole.

But alas, I really don't see how Roddick is just going to start losing early off of clay, where I can see it happening to Hewitt. Hopefully it happens the other way around, though. Or better yet... they BOTH lose early. Erm, yeah. That's going to happen.

WyverN
01-05-2004, 12:11 PM
I'm tempted to, if only to disagree with you, because you're an asshole.


You would give a far better impression of not caring about me if you stopped replying to my posts just to call me a asshole.

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 12:15 PM
You would give a far better impression of not caring about me if you stopped replying to my posts just to call me a asshole.
You're my source of amusement.

You seem to have confused "caring about you" with "liking to point and laugh at you".

Not that this surprises me.

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 12:16 PM
And to be honest, you're almost pathetic enough to make me want to not post here. Which is saying a lot, considering that fact that I've learned to tolerate heya...

So instead of just not posting here so that I don't have to read your sorry ass, I make fun of you.

It actually makes perfect sense.

But continue to rub your little ego anyways. You obviously need it.

WyverN
01-05-2004, 12:17 PM
You're my source of amusement.

You seem to have confused "caring about you" with "liking to point and laugh at you".



Seems your amused very easily.

You on the other hand are plain boring which is why I wont bother replying to your hysterics.

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 12:24 PM
Seems your amused very easily.

You on the other hand are plain boring which is why I wont bother replying to your hysterics.
I am amused easily. You say that like it's a bad thing. It's better than being a crotchety old man with his head so far up his ass that he hasn't seen the sun shine in ten years.

As for not replying to my "hysterics"... i would suggest that you look the word up and use it where it's actually applicable, and learn to hold your promises. You said somethign similar weeks ago, if memory serves. Yet here you are, replying to my "hysterics" again.

Little ego needed a rub again? How many times must I tell you... go rub it against somebody who actually likes you! I find you neither intelligent nor insightful. You're the most closedminded poster that I've ever encountered on this board.

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 12:26 PM
In fact, i can't even figure out what the hell you are doing on a messageboard. You clearly think that your opinion is the final say on ALL matters tennis, so what the heck is it that you think there is to discuss with us nobodies? You're clearly extremely important! You should be in a commentating booth! Not talking to us dummies!

WyverN
01-05-2004, 12:46 PM
and learn to hold your promises. You said somethign similar weeks ago, if memory serves. Yet here you are, replying to my "hysterics" again.


fault. Have a second serve.

star
01-05-2004, 02:09 PM
:haha:

This whole discussion makes me laugh. People trying to decide which player they hate the most. It must be very difficult, not to mention bile producing.

But, I like both of them, so I'm very happy. :dance:

Deboogle!.
01-05-2004, 02:19 PM
me too star! :) 'tis fun to watch for many reasons.

tangerine_dream
01-05-2004, 03:51 PM
ROTFL! :haha:

Listen to yourselves. Can you all possibly sound more ridiculous?

Hitler: "In a perfect world, they would both LOSE because I HATE their annoying fans!!" :cuckoo:

Rebecca: "I hate Hewitt more than Roddick so my vote is for Roddick. Oh, and Wyver, you're an asshole." :ignore:

Wyvner: “You’re both wrong.” :nerner:

Leo: “I can’t decide who I kinda sorta hate more...?” :unsure:

Everyone else: “Gee, I hate both these dickwads equally but here’s my idea of an unbiased opinion anyways...” :banghead:

Thanks for the laugh peoples. Keep ‘em coming! :kiss: ;) :rolls:

lsy
01-05-2004, 04:14 PM
Talking about putting words into "Everyone else" 's mouth and giving "unbiased" opinions... :rolleyes:

Havok
01-05-2004, 04:19 PM
well imo its very simple. Andy has 2 of some ofthe biggest weapons out of all the tennis players: the serve and the forehand
Lleyton: yeah his mental side is a huge weapon, but is mentality a shot in tennis? :tape:
Lleyton will always fight but he's gonna use his oponent's errors for himself. if Hewitt meets someone who isnt hitting errors, he might lose. As for Andy he can hit winners freely so he'll be able to do battle with someone else who is hitting winners

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 04:35 PM
Rebecca: "I hate Hewitt more than Roddick so my vote is for Roddick. Oh, and Wyver, you're an asshole."

Learn to read, jackass. I've never said that I "hate" Hewitt more than Roddick. In fact, that couldn't be further from the truth. I'm truly embarassed for you.

If you want ridiculous, consider yourself.

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 04:36 PM
I owe an apology to Wyver here. As much as he bothers me, his reading comprehenion is far more impressive than that which tangerine has just demonstrated. How embarassing.

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 04:38 PM
:haha:

This whole discussion makes me laugh. People trying to decide which player they hate the most. It must be very difficult, not to mention bile producing.

But, I like both of them, so I'm very happy. :dance:
I apparently missed an entire conversation, one that only you, bunk, and tangerine read.

My bad.

Had I known that I was supposed to be discussing which one I "hated" wrong, I might have actually participated. Instead, I was busy poster "hating".

Is there anybody here that I actually like? Jesus. Why do I post here?

Deboogle!.
01-05-2004, 04:39 PM
ok, then, bye! :wavey:

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 04:40 PM
fault. Have a second serve.
That was sort of funny!

After being reminded of what star and tangerine shit out on a regular basis, I'm actually beginning to appreciate you!

Well... not really.

But you're no worse than these people, who truly are idiots.

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 04:40 PM
ok, then, bye! :wavey:
Oh, look. Another person who can't read!

You people should start a club. Oh ... my bad. You already have.

Deboogle!.
01-05-2004, 04:42 PM
Yes I can read thankyouverymuch. if I can decipher Shakespeare I should think I'd be able to comprehend what anyone writes here.

you said "Is there anybody here that I actually like? Jesus. Why do I post here?"

I wouldn't want to be someone keeping you here :rolleyes: so I waved goodbye. Damn, get off your high horse. You do know how to suck all the fun out of a conversation by insulting people, don't you? You wonder why you don't have anyone to chat with here? Well you've insulted pretty much everyone you come across. Duh.

tangerine_dream
01-05-2004, 04:50 PM
Learn to read, jackass. I've never said that I "hate" Hewitt more than Roddick. In fact, that couldn't be further from the truth.

ROTFL!!! :haha: Keep it up, Rebecca. The unmitigated rage in your posts is hardly becoming of such a tennis seer as you. :yeah:

I'm truly embarassed for you.

Oh, but not as much as I'm embarassed for YOU, dear. :rolls:

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 04:51 PM
Yes I can read thankyouverymuch. if I can decipher Shakespeare I should think I'd be able to comprehend what anyone writes here.

You would think.

Oooohhh! You can read Shakespeare! If that doesn't make me respect your intelligence, I don't know what will!

You could be a bloody rocket scientist in real life for all I care. If you come across as a knob on the internet, that's all I see, thus that is what I judge you on.

you said "Is there anybody here that I actually like? Jesus. Why do I post here?"

Erm, yes. I realize that I wrote that. What I don't understand is how exactly one could interpret that as "I'm leaving!". I was trying to justify to myself why I spend my sparetime on a board where 50% of the people are complete imbeciles.

I wouldn't want to be someone keeping you here :rolleyes: so I waved goodbye.

Erm? You? Keeping me here? I assure you that my staying here has nothing to do with you. I happen to have a lot of free time on my hands. No need to see me off. Go rub egos with Wyver for a while.

Damn, get off your high horse.

You first, maddam.

You do know how to suck all the fun out of a conversation by insulting people, don't you?

I only "suck the fun" out of conversations that have already been ruined, by imbeciles. Except for the occasions where I go off because I'm bored. More often than not, there was no meangingful conversation going on at the time.

[quote[You wonder why you don't have anyone to chat with here? Well you've insulted pretty much everyone you come across. Duh.[/QUOTE]

Erm? Where have I ever wondered why I don't have anybody to "chat with" here? In case you haven't noticed, I have no interest in 50% of the people here. Thus, I insult them.

What part of this are you not understanding?

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 04:53 PM
ROTFL!!! :haha: Keep it up, Rebecca. The unmitigated rage in your posts is hardly becoming of such a tennis seer as you. :yeah:



Oh, but not as much as I'm embarassed for YOU, dear. :rolls:
Oh, look bunk! Your army of dweebs has come to help you out!

Tangerine... if you can not see your much of an idiot you are, there is nothing more that i can do to help you.

I'm still struggling to understand how a functioning human being could have read any of my posts and understood from them that I "hate Hewitt more than Roddick"... or indeed, that I hate either.

Jesus.

If you were 5, that might be forgivable.

I'm not the only one who thinks you're a bunch of tools, by the way. I'm just the only one rude enough to say it.

Havok
01-05-2004, 04:54 PM
uhoh its :drive: Rebecca time :drive:
i love doing this :lol: (isnt meant to be funny, but Rebecca you know this already;) )

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 04:57 PM
uhoh its :drive: Rebecca time :drive:
i love doing this :lol: (isnt meant to be funny, but Rebecca you know this already;) )
Hello, Naldo :kiss:

Join the fun! Tangerine and Bunk need all the help they can get.

star
01-05-2004, 05:03 PM
There must have been a pea underneath her highness's mattress last night. :)

MisterQ
01-05-2004, 05:20 PM
wow, a good discussion has rapidly deteriorated. :sad:

Can't we all consider that those who choose Hewitt in this debate are not necessarily Roddick "haters", and those who choose Roddick are not necessarily fanatics either?

lsy
01-05-2004, 05:27 PM
Exactly MisterQ, I don't know how the previous posts were seen as "haters" really... :confused:

And I also honestly don't understand how some normal discussion ended up such way :shrug: ...oh well

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 05:33 PM
wow, a good discussion has rapidly deteriorated. :sad:

Can't we all consider that those who choose Hewitt in this debate are not necessarily Roddick "haters", and those who choose Roddick are not necessarily fanatics either?
NO! That would make way too much sense.

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 05:35 PM
Exactly MisterQ, I don't know how the previous posts were seen as "haters" really... :confused:

And I also honestly don't understand how some normal discussion ended up such way :shrug: ...oh well
I think it started when Wyner and I started going at it, but I might have missed something. Then a few people who can't read decided to deteriorate the thread further with their "I'd actually read the thread before replying, but that would require too many braincells!" comments.

Thus, you have the mess that is the last page.

I don't suppose you were really expecting an explanation, though?

lsy
01-05-2004, 05:41 PM
Oh no, your highness...wouldn't be so naive

having been here for the past few months already, may I dare to say I'd "known" some of you pretty well to know what to expect ;)

tangerine_dream
01-05-2004, 05:43 PM
Can't we all consider that those who choose Hewitt in this debate are not necessarily Roddick "haters", and those who choose Roddick are not necessarily fanatics either?

It is a shame. But perhaps if people didn't preface their posts with "I hate him . . ." or "I hope they both lose . . ." etc., then perhaps no one would have assumed they were "haters"? I think there were maybe two honestly unbiased comments made in the whole thread.

But when it comes to such divisive personalities as Hewitt and Roddick, that's to be expected in GM, I suppose. :angel:

lsy
01-05-2004, 05:49 PM
Then maybe next time you should be more careful in quoting "everyone else's as haters" as much as others who quoted "I hate" or "I hope they both lose"...

Deboogle!.
01-05-2004, 05:50 PM
wow Rebecca. I've never seen such a superiority complex. Sorry that we all aren't as brilliant as you.

You really should be talking about people's intelligence/common sense/whatever when you obviously don't even have the common sense or courtesy to respect other people.

star
01-05-2004, 05:51 PM
I don't really like the term "haters."

But what I do see here are people who don't like either Roddick or Hewitt trying to decide which one they like the least. It makes me smile.

I guess in my first post, I shouldn't have said "hate" and I'll refrain from doing that from now on. :)

tangerine_dream
01-05-2004, 05:54 PM
But what I do see here are people who don't like either Roddick or Hewitt trying to decide which one they like the least. It makes me smile.


This is exactly how I interpreted it, too. :)

lsy
01-05-2004, 05:56 PM
again...Star, you're so in your own opinion. I'm so not one of those people you categorise. Only posted thought it was quite a fun comparison as it was meant to see who can do BETTER ("positive" thread), but not WORSE.

Deboogle!.
01-05-2004, 05:57 PM
but that's what people are doing, lsy.... they're saying well I don't like Roddick but I don't like Hewitt even more, or whatever. It's a race to the bottom, not to the top. lol. I'd rather see people want to see them both do well, but whatever. Many people on this board would rather be negative about people they don't like than positive about people they do like, whatever.

I just wish there was more respect for everyone's opinion, the personal insults and stuff get really tiring.

star
01-05-2004, 06:00 PM
Plus, this reaction is part of the history of this board where dreadful things have been said about both Roddick and Hewitt. Afterall, those are the only two players who have had threads posted specifcally for the purpose of cheering for them to lose.

I think much of that has dissipated in recent months, and so perhaps I should take that into consideration and not be reactive.

star
01-05-2004, 06:01 PM
again...Star, you're so in your own opinion. I'm so not one of those people you categorise. Only posted thought it was quite a fun comparison as it was meant to see who can do BETTER ("positive" thread), but not WORSE.

Oh no, Isy. I don't think you are. I'm sorry if you thought I did. But many of the posts here are of that nature.

lsy
01-05-2004, 06:02 PM
then maybe you guys should also start respecting other's opinion as well instead of generalising them as "Roddick" haters. I know they are many Roddick haters out there, but there are also many who's willing to give honest two cents opinion even it might seems they don't like his style of playing.

Ma. Estefania
01-05-2004, 06:05 PM
I think that probably Lleyton....

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 06:05 PM
It is a shame. But perhaps if people didn't preface their posts with "I hate him . . ." or "I hope they both lose . . ." etc., then perhaps no one would have assumed they were "haters"? I think there were maybe two honestly unbiased comments made in the whole thread.

But when it comes to such divisive personalities as Hewitt and Roddick, that's to be expected in GM, I suppose. :angel:
Right. Like I'm going to listen to lecture on how to post respectfully from the same tool who started her christmas wish list by bagging on Nalbandian.

Practice a little self awareness, and you might be worth listening to.

star
01-05-2004, 06:06 PM
then maybe you guys should also start respecting other's opinion as well instead of generalising them as "Roddick" haters. I know they are many Roddick haters out there, but there are also many who's willing to give honest two cents opinion even it might seems they don't like his style of playing.

But don't you see that you have just done the same thing when you said "you guys?"

Who generalized "them" as "Roddick Haters?" I know I did not, because I don't use the word "haters."

I agree with you that the word upsets people who simply dislike Roddick, because it makes them feel that they are called irrational or lumped in with irrational people. But please, don't start doing the same yourself, when you say things like "you guys."

lsy
01-05-2004, 06:07 PM
Apologies accepted, Star. I just hate to think that I'd manage to become one of those "haters" here so soon...but in the meantime I'm actually still quite confuse who did I actually hate :p

Deboogle!.
01-05-2004, 06:10 PM
oh we love people's opinions. With Dirk, we had a great thread going in the Andy forum until a couple of really immature "anti-Andy" people came in and ruined the thread. When ideas are presented fairly and stuff, we have no problem with it, or at least I don't. It's not like I think Andy's perfect or anything lol.

but when we're called imbeciles and stupid and every other word in the book, there's no way the discussion is going to be valuable. And invariably, as past experience has consistently shown, someone comes into one of these threads on GM and says "Andy sucks I hope he loses in the first round I just hate hate hate him" or something similar and it's all downhill.

I can only speak for myself, but yes I get defensive when I think Andy, myself, or another fan that I'm friends with is being attacked. But there are people here who also instigate it and show absolutely no tact or respect for the fact that some of us like Andy and might get upset if a really mean comment is made.

I mean, please think about it. How would you like it if your fave, who you invest in energy in liking and supporting and thinking positively about is called not only every name in the book but many of the people not only openly dislike him but they vociferously cheer for him to lose no matter who he is playing or whatever. I mean there are players I don't like, but WHY BOTHER talking about it? Where does it get anything? Why can't we all just support our faves and just ignore the ones we don't like? If so many people here weren't so openly negative, I think many of us would actually agree on a whole lot more than some people might think. But when PERSONAL INSULTS start flying like they have in this thread.... there's just no basis for a mature respectful discussion. You wanna talk about Andy's weaknesses in his game? You wanna talk about how annoying his on-court behavior can be? Fine, let's talk, but I expect it to be fair from both sides and that just doesn't seem to be possible here 95% of the time.

lsy
01-05-2004, 06:11 PM
well, my "you guys" here meant you, bunk and tangerinedream, solely for the purpose of this thread when you started generalisng people who posted in this thread as all haters and tangerinedream categorising "everyone else's" are haters.

Didn't meant for any other meaning or purpose, so pls stop "bending" or "scrutinising" my words.

Deboogle!.
01-05-2004, 06:13 PM
no one categorized everyone in this thread as doing anything. star never said EVERYONE was doing what she said, but if you read the thread, a lot of people ARE.

tangerine_dream
01-05-2004, 06:17 PM
Practice a little self awareness, and you might be worth listening to.

Taking your own advice is proving to be a tough medicine to take, isn't it Queenie?

lsy
01-05-2004, 06:17 PM
bunk, I agree what you will react about when getting posts from "bashers", I'm not posting here to disagree you with that. I'm just giving my opinion that maybe there are others (perharps minority) here who's just giving their honest opinions and in no way are they hating the players. But by getting post from tangerinedream of generalising "everyone else's" as haters is not a good sight and by no way a fair way to comment as well.

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 06:24 PM
It is a shame. But perhaps if people didn't preface their posts with "I hate him . . ." or "I hope they both lose . . ." etc., then perhaps no one would have assumed they were "haters"? I think there were maybe two honestly unbiased comments made in the whole thread.

But when it comes to such divisive personalities as Hewitt and Roddick, that's to be expected in GM, I suppose. :angel:

There are NO unbiased comments in this thread. Or in any thread.

However, that doesn't stop some of us from being able to carry on productive conversation about players that we don't want to take home with us on the weekends.

Granted, I've done little of that myself in this thread. There wasn't much opportunity, seeing as we haven't been on topic since page two.

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 06:26 PM
wow Rebecca. I've never seen such a superiority complex. Sorry that we all aren't as brilliant as you.

You really should be talking about people's intelligence/common sense/whatever when you obviously don't even have the common sense or courtesy to respect other people.

Thanks, Dr Bunk. I just can't get enough of this cyber psychology!

Do you need a hug or something?

Deboogle!.
01-05-2004, 06:26 PM
well I can't speak for tangerine and I don't know what she's thinking so I don't know. I can definitely tell who's a basher/hater/anti-fan/whatever you want to call it, and who clearly isn't, and I don't think of everyone who simply does not like Andy are all the same and all think about it the same way. I've had some good discussions via PMs with people about it, and I again point to the thread in the Andy forum for an example of Andy fans reacting perfectly fine to people saying mature things about Andy that are still respectful :) But, I don't even think I was here for more than a day or two before I was called dumb/stupid/unintelligent/immature/etc and pretty much solely b/c I'm an Andy fan. Yep, I know I can probably work on my defensive reactions and stuff, and I try (by putting some of the worst people on ignore, staying out of certain threads, etc.) but I can't always help it. And obviously someone who doesn't like Andy can't help but voice their opinions once in a while, but there's a nice way of doing it and a really mean, tactless way of doing it and there are several people here who just don't really seem to care that they hurt people's feelings. And with that kind of atmosphere, I don't see how it can really improve.

Deboogle!.
01-05-2004, 06:27 PM
Thanks, Dr Bunk. I just can't get enough of this cyber psychology!

Do you need a hug or something?

No, I get plenty of affection thanks. That's why I'm a positive, upbeat person. You're the one with all the negativity lol

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 06:27 PM
I don't really like the term "haters."

But what I do see here are people who don't like either Roddick or Hewitt trying to decide which one they like the least. It makes me smile.

I guess in my first post, I shouldn't have said "hate" and I'll refrain from doing that from now on. :)

Well Star, it's nice to know that you have something in life to smile about.

I smiled today because my food tasted good, and cause I looked cute in my new pants. You needed the internet. To each his own.

(I still have no idea where this alledged "who do I hate more" conversation occured, but I'll let you babble on)

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 06:30 PM
but that's what people are doing, lsy.... they're saying well I don't like Roddick but I don't like Hewitt even more, or whatever. It's a race to the bottom, not to the top. lol. I'd rather see people want to see them both do well, but whatever. Many people on this board would rather be negative about people they don't like than positive about people they do like, whatever.

Funny. I thought that I was saying I thought Roddick would do better, but that it was a shame they couldn't both lose all the time! As in - my opinion on the matter is this, but my personal opinion of both is a different story! A few people said similar things. I'm not sure how this translated to the above. But I've already covered your lack of reading comprehension, so I won't go there again.

I just wish there was more respect for everyone's opinion, the personal insults and stuff get really tiring.*sniff*

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 06:33 PM
Plus, this reaction is part of the history of this board where dreadful things have been said about both Roddick and Hewitt. Afterall, those are the only two players who have had threads posted specifcally for the purpose of cheering for them to lose.

I think much of that has dissipated in recent months, and so perhaps I should take that into consideration and not be reactive.

Those threads are, and always have been, light hearted and amusing.

If people created one for my favourite player, I'd likely participate in those as well.

Certain people around here are just unable to deal with negative comments about "their" player. It's not my fault that we can't all separate reality from the internet as well as I can ;)

lsy
01-05-2004, 06:33 PM
Well to be honest bunk as far as I had seen how the thread had been going, it seemed like it had been a pretty fair discussion going on only until some outbursts from Rebecca and Wyvern which I honestly didn't read too much as there're too "deep" sarcaticms there for me to understand. Maybe there're 1 or 2 posts did mention they want Andy to lose in first round of sth like that, but they did back up with other discussion favouring him.

I honestly understand how you feel about many other posts who had been bashing Andy (but he's not the only one got bashed, though seems like the most), but in this thread??? I though there had been many positive things being talked about for both players than negative, so why don't you just take the most out of the positive instead of paying attenting to the minimal negative one here for once? Perharps that can be the reason why you seem to see most things being said about Andy as negative instead of positive.

If I were you, I won't give a damn or even replying those posts who bluntly as they hate Andy, want him to lose, want him to be injured blah blah blah...there're bound to be such people, so why bother? Andy did end up as year end no 1 and won a slam this year, so what if people kept saying he doesn't deserve it coz he's a one weapon player etc...??? People who said that are only degrading their own favourite players who can actually let someone like Andy ended up being no 1. So why not stop being so defensive (you know defensive sometimes just show insecurity...) over every single post you saw about Andy, but just take the postive comments out of it.

tangerine_dream
01-05-2004, 06:35 PM
Getting back on topic, I didn't vote in Hitler's poll because I can't see how anyone can predict who will be tops in slams this year: Hewitt or Roddick. The only predictable thing about them both is their unpredictability! Did anyone look into their glass ball last year and predict that Hewitt would take a dive out of the Top 15? Did anybody forsee Roddick taking hold of year-end No. 1 after he crashed out of RG?

Not only that, but Hewitt and Roddick haven't met since 2001 and Hewitt won all three matches!

Two years makes a big difference when you're young and it's obvious that neither one of them are the same players now as they were in 2001.

All I can say is: the one match-up I'm dying to see this year is between Hewitt and Roddick. Then I think we'll get a better idea of who stands where. :)

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 06:36 PM
Apologies accepted, Star. I just hate to think that I'd manage to become one of those "haters" here so soon...but in the meantime I'm actually still quite confuse who did I actually hate :p

I never used to realise that I "hated" anybody. Then others told me that I "hated" this player or that. You'll learn eventually!

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 06:40 PM
but when we're called imbeciles and stupid and every other word in the book, there's no way the discussion is going to be valuable. And invariably, as past experience has consistently shown, someone comes into one of these threads on GM and says "Andy sucks I hope he loses in the first round I just hate hate hate him" or something similar and it's all downhill.

Erm, back the truck up! When I called people in this thread stupid, or imbecile, I thought that I made it very clear who I was speaking to. Unless "Bunk", "Star" and "Tangerine" are synonyms for "Andy Fans", then sit down and shut the fuck up.

I can only speak for myself, but yes I get defensive when I think Andy, myself, or another fan that I'm friends with is being attacked. But there are people here who also instigate it and show absolutely no tact or respect for the fact that some of us like Andy and might get upset if a really mean comment is made.

Perhaps you shouldn't be so sensitive. You don't really know these people, and unless you've been keeping it to yourself, you don't really know Andy either.

I mean, please think about it. How would you like it if your fave, who you invest in energy in liking and supporting and thinking positively about is called not only every name in the book but many of the people not only openly dislike him but they vociferously cheer for him to lose no matter who he is playing or whatever.

I post on another board that has several people who openly hate on Ferrero and Coria. Sometimes I join them, because occasionally it's funny. I'm also not easily offended or over sensitive. Hint Hint.

I mean there are players I don't like, but WHY BOTHER talking about it?

I'm not going to ignore top players that I don't like to support, just because it would make you feel better.

Where does it get anything? Why can't we all just support our faves and just ignore the ones we don't like?

Why can't we all just get along!??!?!?!

What is this, Sesame Street?

tangerine_dream
01-05-2004, 06:44 PM
What is this, Sesame Street?

No, this is "Seinfeld" where we seem to be talking about nothing. ;) :p

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 06:48 PM
Taking your own advice is proving to be a tough medicine to take, isn't it Queenie?

Gee, that was clever.

What's next up your sleeve of tricks? "I'm rubber you you're glue!"?

lsy
01-05-2004, 06:48 PM
Well, your highness, the problem is...I don't want to be like you...I want to be liked by all here... :p

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 06:49 PM
I can definitely tell who's a basher/hater/anti-fan/whatever you want to call it, and who clearly isn't

You can't tell shit, bunk.

I know this, because you've incorrectly generalized me on more than one occasion.

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 06:51 PM
No, I get plenty of affection thanks. That's why I'm a positive, upbeat person. You're the one with all the negativity lol

You're inability to separate the internet from reality is disturbing.

But yes... I'm sure that you're *really* special. I also don't care.

star
01-05-2004, 06:51 PM
well, my "you guys" here meant you, bunk and tangerinedream, solely for the purpose of this thread when you started generalisng people who posted in this thread as all haters and tangerinedream categorising "everyone else's" are haters.

Didn't meant for any other meaning or purpose, so pls stop "bending" or "scrutinising" my words.

I'm sorry, that you felt I was bending your words.
However since I never used the word "haters" I sort of felt that I was being lumped in with people who had.

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 06:55 PM
Well to be honest bunk as far as I had seen how the thread had been going, it seemed like it had been a pretty fair discussion going on only until some outbursts from Rebecca and Wyvern which I honestly didn't read too much as there're too "deep" sarcaticms there for me to understand. Maybe there're 1 or 2 posts did mention they want Andy to lose in first round of sth like that, but they did back up with other discussion favouring him.

DING! DING! DING!

Here is what bunk, star, and tangerine all failed to understand. DESPITE the occasionally snicker of "yeah, heh, I don't like him either!" there were some honest opinions thrown in there.

Yet these tools come back at me with "you just say that because you hate Hewitt more!". Um? WHAT? Seriously. I would like to know what messageboard Tangerine has been reading. Except that I wouldn't. Because it's likely not a very good one, and my altero ego clearly has me all wrong.

I alread acknowleged my role in derailing this thread, so I agree with you that that is where the whole mess started. (See Tangerine? It's called self awareness. Go get some.)

I honestly understand how you feel about many other posts who had been bashing Andy (but he's not the only one got bashed, though seems like the most), but in this thread??? I though there had been many positive things being talked about for both players than negative, so why don't you just take the most out of the positive instead of paying attenting to the minimal negative one here for once? Perharps that can be the reason why you seem to see most things being said about Andy as negative instead of positive.

Interesting.

I'd think that Miss Positive Person, bunk, would have no problem finding the positive comments. But Miss Positive Person, bunk, has only been focussing on the negatives.

STRANGE. CONTRADICTORY.

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 06:56 PM
No, this is "Seinfeld" where we seem to be talking about nothing. ;) :p
Ha! Good one.

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 06:58 PM
Well, your highness, the problem is...I don't want to be like you...I want to be liked by all here... :p
No worries. I'm not trying to pretend that you're "on my side" here. You just happen to have said a few things that are useful, so I quoted them ;)

Sjengster
01-05-2004, 06:59 PM
It occurs to me that Roddick is getting so much excessive negative attention (and a lot of it is rather pointless) because he is the man at the top right now - if we see a resurgence from Hewitt and he gets back to his former glory, all the hatred will be directed at him. It'll be interesting to see when, if ever, we get a world no. 1 who doesn't divide fan opinion through their fiery personality, which is why I'm considering starting the "Sjeng Schalken for no. 1" campaign right here and now.

On topic... I think it's a given that Roddick will have good results at the fast-court Slams, since he has learnt the art of winning ugly from Gilbert - indeed, that ability to scrape through when playing poorly is a significant reason why he and Hewitt have finished as year-end no. 1 for the last two years (winning the last Slam of the year, thereby gaining a last-minute lead in the rankings, has certainly helped of course). So it's really a question of whether Hewitt can get up to the same level as Roddick and the same level he had two years ago, and if he can I envisage him having the better overall Slam results. Someone asked whether mentality is a weapon, and the answer is most certainly yes; it's what separates talented Top 100 players from the elite.

star
01-05-2004, 07:01 PM
Isy, I think you had good advice about ignoring negative things and not reacting to them.

I think this board has a history of posters saying really outrageous things about both Hewitt and Roddick. Afterall those are the only two players who have threads dedicated to cheering for them to lose. I don't think there are any players who have had the sort of name calling that these two players have gotten. In addition, if anyone wanted to stand up and be counted as a fan, those people also were ridiculed for liking them.

So when you read this thread you probably read it with a different background than I, and I probably see things that you don't. That's ok. But I'll take care to exempt you. All I was trying to do in my previous post was to point out that when typing on a message board sometimes things do get lumped together and we are all guilty of it.

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 07:01 PM
Isy - I used to be nice and tried to be likable too :p I wasn't always like this. You know what happened? I lost patience. After the 234234th time that I got called a "hater" for suggesting that Hewitt wasn't as good as Marat, or Roddick wasn't the hottest man on earth; the 700th time that somebody responded to me as if they had read my post... yet clearly had not, because what they said had nothing to do with anything that I had said ever; and the 600th time that somebody responded to my constructive critism of a player with "oh yeah, well Ferrero blah blah blah" (as if it was a competition to see who could "bash" the other persons favourite player better)... I just said fuck it. I can't bother being patient and polite with people who clearly aren't worth the effort.

Unfortunately, there are a few people that I have been very rude to who didn't necessarily deserve it... but for the most part, I have no regrets.

This is just the internet to me ;)

lsy
01-05-2004, 07:03 PM
well star, unfortunately you did start it by saying "people" here posting to decide which players they hate the most, maybe you meant it for fun (then again perharps so can other posters who posts stupid things such as "I hate somebody...just for fun). By now, I guess you'd realised if you go back and read this thread from page 1 till probably mid page 4, there's really nothing about hatred there. The only hatred is probably between your highness and Mr.most knowledgeable in tennis (as awarded by your highness) and that's probably how they like to communicate.

Anyway, you probably got carried away reading 1 or 2 posts. But no problem. I just want to do some justice to other posts here who had put up some fair and honest comments...(ya right... :p ). So this topic is closed with you :D

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 07:03 PM
It occurs to me that Roddick is getting so much excessive negative attention (and a lot of it is rather pointless) because he is the man at the top right now - if we see a resurgence from Hewitt and he gets back to his former glory, all the hatred will be directed at him. It'll be interesting to see when, if ever, we get a world no. 1 who doesn't divide fan opinion through their fiery personality, which is why I'm considering starting the "Sjeng Schalken for no. 1" campaign right here and now.

On topic... I think it's a given that Roddick will have good results at the fast-court Slams, since he has learnt the art of winning ugly from Gilbert - indeed, that ability to scrape through when playing poorly is a significant reason why he and Hewitt have finished as year-end no. 1 for the last two years (winning the last Slam of the year, thereby gaining a last-minute lead in the rankings, has certainly helped of course). So it's really a question of whether Hewitt can get up to the same level as Roddick and the same level he had two years ago, and if he can I envisage him having the better overall Slam results. Someone asked whether mentality is a weapon, and the answer is most certainly yes; it's what separates talented Top 100 players from the elite.
Funny, I thought that Roddick had been getting negative attention for years.

star
01-05-2004, 07:03 PM
It occurs to me that Roddick is getting so much excessive negative attention (and a lot of it is rather pointless) because he is the man at the top right now - if we see a resurgence from Hewitt and he gets back to his former glory, all the hatred will be directed at him. It'll be interesting to see when, if ever, we get a world no. 1 who doesn't divide fan opinion through their fiery personality, which is why I'm considering starting the "Sjeng Schalken for no. 1" campaign right here and now.

On topic... I think it's a given that Roddick will have good results at the fast-court Slams, since he has learnt the art of winning ugly from Gilbert - indeed, that ability to scrape through when playing poorly is a significant reason why he and Hewitt have finished as year-end no. 1 for the last two years (winning the last Slam of the year, thereby gaining a last-minute lead in the rankings, has certainly helped of course). So it's really a question of whether Hewitt can get up to the same level as Roddick and the same level he had two years ago, and if he can I envisage him having the better overall Slam results. Someone asked whether mentality is a weapon, and the answer is most certainly yes; it's what separates talented Top 100 players from the elite.

:lol: I will jump on the Sjeng bandwagon.

But, I think that both Hewitt and Roddick took a lot of grief before becoming number one. I think there are people who genuinely don't care for their disposition on the court. That's ok with me. :)

I just don't understand the obsessive nature of the dislike.

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 07:04 PM
The only hatred is probably between your highness and Mr.most knowledgeable in tennis (as awarded by your highness) and that's probably how they like to communicate.

This is true. That's how we make love!

star
01-05-2004, 07:05 PM
Mentality........ That's the name of the game. I love Hewitts mental toughness. I don't think Andy is quite even with him in that department.

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 07:06 PM
A final note to the board police before I go do something else for a while: I will say negative or positive things about whoever I want, whenever i want, wherever I want. If you are too over sensitive and easily offended to deal with it, then don't read me. I won't lose sleep over it. 121321830 posts telling me how I should act, isn't going to change a bloody thing. I'm my own person... I don't need instruction from internet people, thanks ;)

star
01-05-2004, 07:07 PM
well star, unfortunately you did start it by saying "people" here posting to decide which players they hate the most, maybe you meant it for fun (then again perharps so can other posters who posts stupid things such as "I hate somebody...just for fun). By now, I guess you'd realised if you go back and read this thread from page 1 till probably mid page 4, there's really nothing about hatred there. The only hatred is probably between your highness and Mr.most knowledgeable in tennis (as awarded by your highness) and that's probably how they like to communicate.

Anyway, you probably got carried away reading 1 or 2 posts. But no problem. I just want to do some justice to other posts here who had put up some fair and honest comments...(ya right... :p ). So this topic is closed with you :D
Please refer to the post I just posted before yours. :)

And :wavey: See you around more, I hope.

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 07:08 PM
:lol: I will jump on the Sjeng bandwagon.

But, I think that both Hewitt and Roddick took a lot of grief before becoming number one. I think there are people who genuinely don't care for their disposition on the court. That's ok with me. :)

I just don't understand the obsessive nature of the dislike.
This coming from the woman who can't talk about Nalbandian without calling him "nasty".

Hypocrite! Hypocrite!

Bloody hell... it's okay to be a hypocrite, you know. It's all about self awareness! You don't have any, though. So: AHAHHA!

Hypocrite.

Erm... now I'm really going to do something else.

lsy
01-05-2004, 07:08 PM
ya, I know I must have missed quite some history over here, both Star and Rebecca. So perharps I can appreciate points from both sides (at this moment). And yes, Rebecca, I have visions of becoming like you after 234678923 posts here too, though it might be too far away for me to worry about. But if Star had been willing to listen to my side of stories so far, I see some hope.

Sjengster
01-05-2004, 07:09 PM
Funny, I thought that Roddick had been getting negative attention for years.

Oh certainly, Hewitt as well given his less than diplomatic relationship with the Aussie public a few years ago, but that kind of criticism always escalates when someone becomes really high-profile and consistently successful. I know that, while I always found Roddick annoying, I never really started disliking him until the summer hardcourt season last year when I was just praying for him to lose to give anyone else a chance of winning for a change. As is always the case, some criticism is deserved, some not; the potato peeling and duck hunting threads are an art form, I believe, but posts like "Rodduck... 10 000 :rolleyes: " when predicting this year's final rankings are just ridiculous.

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 07:10 PM
ya, I know I must have missed quite some history over here, both Star and Rebecca. So perharps I can appreciate points from both sides (at this moment). And yes, Rebecca, I have visions of becoming like you after 234678923 posts here too, though it might be too far away for me to worry about. But if Star had been willing to listen to my side of stories so far, I see some hope.
That's nice.

Star doesn't respond to my posts, but quite obviously reads them ;)

HYPOCRITE! :D (for Star)

lsy
01-05-2004, 07:14 PM
come on Rebecca...go back to that sweet, lovely self. Wveryn is not here, you don't have to be your mean self to turn him on

tangerine_dream
01-05-2004, 07:26 PM
Hurray! An on-topic post! Sjengster :bowdown:

It occurs to me that Roddick is getting so much excessive negative attention (and a lot of it is rather pointless) because he is the man at the top right now - if we see a resurgence from Hewitt and he gets back to his former glory, all the hatred will be directed at him.

LOL. I think a lot of it also has to do with the massive press hype about him (which tends to turn a lot of people off). As for Hewitt, I don't think he ever recovered from that "racist comment" incident a few years back involving James Blake.

Someone asked whether mentality is a weapon, and the answer is most certainly yes; it's what separates talented Top 100 players from the elite.

Absolutely. I've heard people say that Hewitt has no weapons; but his fierce determination seems to be a formidable weapon all in itself. I think Roddick is mentally tough, too, but damn, Hewitt can be a real force sometimes and his on-court rage can be intimidating. :eek:

lsy
01-05-2004, 07:31 PM
and Rebecca, no I don't want to be on anybody's side, but I did see your point in this thread (though can't say about other threads or the foreplay between you and wveryn), just that god you really like being "hated" here. Now I'm really curious to dig out all the 234379879 posts that I'd missed...but I must admit though I wish I had your guts to fire off some idiots who really pissed me off in my real life...(and no anybody who read this that sentence doesn't in anyway translate to "rebecca is so right in her outbursts because of your stupid comments"... :p )

Sjengster
01-05-2004, 07:32 PM
The bottom line is, posters here will always have different opinions because they like and dislike different players according to personal taste. No one player is liked and admired by everybody (despite what Dirk insists on stating about Federer over in the Roddick forum, I note). There are two kinds of good criticism: constructive, accurate criticism of someone's game or attitude, and fun, light-hearted criticism as in the peeling/hunting threads. It's only when people have nothing better to do than post the latest Roddick/Hewitt polemic that it becomes really tedious (ooh, nice word that, polemic...).

Havok
01-05-2004, 08:12 PM
It occurs to me that Roddick is getting so much excessive negative attention (and a lot of it is rather pointless) because he is the man at the top right now - if we see a resurgence from Hewitt and he gets back to his former glory, all the hatred will be directed at him. It'll be interesting to see when, if ever, we get a world no. 1 who doesn't divide fan opinion through their fiery personality, which is why I'm considering starting the "Sjeng Schalken for no. 1" campaign right here and now.

On topic... I think it's a given that Roddick will have good results at the fast-court Slams, since he has learnt the art of winning ugly from Gilbert - indeed, that ability to scrape through when playing poorly is a significant reason why he and Hewitt have finished as year-end no. 1 for the last two years (winning the last Slam of the year, thereby gaining a last-minute lead in the rankings, has certainly helped of course). So it's really a question of whether Hewitt can get up to the same level as Roddick and the same level he had two years ago, and if he can I envisage him having the better overall Slam results. Someone asked whether mentality is a weapon, and the answer is most certainly yes; it's what separates talented Top 100 players from the elite.
sjengster that was me with the mentality being a weapon. i didnt mean it in that sense, but i worded it not as a weapon but as an actual shot in tennis. you won't here people say oh let me blast my mentality shot down the line that way i'll win the point :haha: i know the mental side of tennis IS a weapon and it does separate the elite from the rest, but the mental side of tennis isn't an actual shot, which was what i was trying to say:)

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 08:51 PM
Well that was a fun hour and a half of doing ... nothing of note. I'm having computer problems. And stressing over a number of things. You know when you spend a lot of time working on something, but get nothing done? That's been my last hour and a half. I think that I need to reformat my harddrive or something. Um. Yay!

Anyways, I'm ready to kiss and make up now. Form a line up. Let's make this as fast and as efficient as possible.

*gets into position and looks cute*

Deboogle!.
01-05-2004, 08:59 PM
lsy, you are right. I'm going to try to ignore everything from now on. Anyway, it's the personal insults that get me going far more than anything about Andy.

Plus I just went shopping and got new clothes 2 sizes smaller than last time I bought clothes so I'm pretty happy right now :)

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 09:15 PM
If I dropped 2 sizes I'd be a little concerned. Then again, if I dropped 2 sizes, I'd be smaller than I was when I was 15. Because I really don't have 2 sizes to drop. But if I did? I'd be excited, and not concerned.

Deboogle!.
01-05-2004, 09:28 PM
If I dropped 2 sizes I'd be a little concerned. Then again, if I dropped 2 sizes, I'd be smaller than I was when I was 15. Because I really don't have 2 sizes to drop. But if I did? I'd be excited, and not concerned.

Well the last time I actually went out and bought clothes was a few months ago (I can only be trusted in Old Navy once or twice a year or I need a loan lol)... if it'd been three weeks ago then yes, I'm sure my mother the dietitian would've been up my ass. Plus, I didn't start out a size 4 LMAO.


Anyway.... to the topic of the thread. I think Lleyton and Andy will have similar results in the slams. They both have a good shot of winning one and doing well in the others, so yeah. And I still maintain it'll be fun to watch GWH and Wyver battle it out all year ;)

J. Corwin
01-05-2004, 10:14 PM
Wow, what have I missed in this thread. ;)
Amusing to read pages of internet babble directed back and forth.

GWH needs to come in here and post more. ;)

WyverN
01-05-2004, 10:49 PM
I only "suck the fun" out of conversations that have already been ruined, by imbeciles. Except for the occasions where I go off because I'm bored. More often than not, there was no meangingful conversation going on at the time.

I think it started when Wyner and I started going at it, but I might have missed something.


I think your memory is serving faults again.

You spectacularly arrived in this thread by calling me a asshole even though you agreed with me :rolleyes:, up until that poiint there was actually a tennis discussion in here.

I actually thought me not replying to you would raise the thread out of the garbage but you decided to combat another half dozen people over another 8 pages.

WyverN
01-05-2004, 10:50 PM
I don't really like the term "haters."

But what I do see here are people who don't like either Roddick or Hewitt trying to decide which one they like the least. It makes me smile.


Over the first 3-4 pages most people were actually offering reasons as to why they chose Roddick or Hewitt. Some people probably chose out of hate but they were the minority.

Leo
01-05-2004, 11:41 PM
No it isn't.

I'm not talking about retired players, dumbass. Sampras doesn't count. Hewitt's record at the US Open since 2000 is unmatched by every current player on tour. Semis, Win, Semis, Quarters. Not even Agassi has done that well.

Leo
01-05-2004, 11:42 PM
Leo: “I can’t decide who I kinda sorta hate more...?” :unsure:

Hey, I've been a good boy. Haven't said a single negative comment on the two. So next time you have something "funny" to say, don't say it.

Gonzo Hates Me!
01-05-2004, 11:47 PM
Andy... because I slightly like him better, lol

Leo
01-06-2004, 12:00 AM
Jeez, talk about good thread turned bad. I guess there's really not much more to say on the Hewitt-Roddick issue, unless someone else would like to offer their opinion. We've all made our points (although they've been drowned out by all the bitching) so we'll just have to wait and see what happens at the Slams this year.

Fedex
01-06-2004, 12:26 AM
Cant believe i missed this battle!!

WyverN
01-06-2004, 12:27 AM
I'm not talking about retired players, dumbass. Sampras doesn't count. Hewitt's record at the US Open since 2000 is unmatched by every current player on tour. Semis, Win, Semis, Quarters. Not even Agassi has done that well.

Well he sure should have counted as sampras's presence detracted from other current players doing better at the US Open

Action Jackson
01-06-2004, 01:14 AM
Well look what happened when I was away actually doing something constructive, then I come back and have just finished reading all these literary masterpieces.

Originally posted by Tangerine_dream
Hitler: "In a perfect world, they would both LOSE because I HATE their annoying fans!!"

That was as funny as dental root canal surgery without anaesthetic. Yes, I said that and once again you are incorrect it wasn't because of their annoying fans that I said that. One, because it won't happen and two if it did, it would exhaust the countback rules.

Originally posted by MisterQ
wow, a good discussion has rapidly deteriorated.

Can't we all consider that those who choose Hewitt in this debate are not necessarily Roddick "haters", and those who choose Roddick are not necessarily fanatics either?

Well said it was funny that we were all having a tennis discussion originally with differing points of view, and then some comments of course were taken out of context, and this was the result.

Gonzo Hates Me!
01-06-2004, 02:12 AM
Cant believe i missed this battle!!

Haha! Yeah!

michelleg
01-06-2004, 02:32 AM
meeeeoooowwwww

yanchr
01-06-2004, 09:10 AM
Geeeeeeeee
If only man needn't sleep~~

Crazy_Fool
01-07-2004, 12:33 PM
Roddick will be very consistent in the slams so u have got to go for him. After the yr Lleyton had last yr, not even a die hard fan like myself could be that confident.

Experimentee
01-07-2004, 01:30 PM
I'm going with Roddick. He's improved since last year and Hewitt has only gone down. I cant see Hewitt outperforming him at Slams.

JeLuliA88
01-08-2004, 12:12 AM
Roddick will get a grand slam this year and hewitt won't... just doesn't really have that attacking game to beat the top players. The draw is also going to be harder on him this year compared to when he was no. 1, he's not going to be getting easy opponents. I guess as talent goes, they're pretty much even, so it all depends on who can play to their potential.

Fedex
01-08-2004, 12:18 AM
I dont think either will win a slam this year,[or hopefully ever again ;) ] I think Roddick's chances are better though, since Hewitt will have to face tough high seeded players in a row to win.

Vass
01-10-2004, 07:39 PM
How about Hewitt taking Wimby again? And how come he doesn't have the game to beat top players anymore? Isn't he a top player, and didn't he beat them before?

star
01-10-2004, 07:43 PM
No. Hewitt is a no talent who was just an interim number one for two years, and will never win a slam again.

Don't you read this board? ;)

Leo
01-10-2004, 07:52 PM
How about Hewitt taking Wimby again? And how come he doesn't have the game to beat top players anymore? Isn't he a top player, and didn't he beat them before?

Yes, in fact he's beaten both Ferrero and Federer recently - both times in 5 sets - proving that he remains the mentally toughest "new ball" on tour and that he reamins a major threat for the Slams.

Fedex
01-10-2004, 08:03 PM
Only a threat if the other top players choke it away(aka. DC Match against Federer) The Australian seems unlikely that he'll even get to the semis since he'll have to get by higher seeds first! You know, Hewitt's attitude on the court hasnt changed, while Roddicks has atleast improved. He overreacts to everything hewitt, jumping up & down like someone who needs to be put into a mental hospital. I really cant stand Hewitt. He's a skinny little punk, really. Hewitt wont take Wimbly again, Vass ;)

WyverN
01-10-2004, 11:11 PM
Part of the reason for Hewitt's DC success is his ability to pump himself up for those 1 or 2 matches. Far harder to do in a 7 match slam.
Also he has the captain next to him which is a huge advantage for several players.

WyverN
01-10-2004, 11:17 PM
No. Hewitt is a no talent who was just an interim number one for two years, and will never win a slam again.

Don't you read this board? ;)

tennis is full of examples of that happening though......Courier collapsed at 24/25 years of age after winning 4 slams and making another few slam finals

J. Corwin
01-11-2004, 01:42 AM
So you're saying that Courier was an interim number one?

star
01-11-2004, 02:05 AM
tennis is full of examples of that happening though......Courier collapsed at 24/25 years of age after winning 4 slams and making another few slam finals


Yeah, Borg and McEnroe never won a slam after age 25 either. Freakin' losers.

J. Corwin
01-11-2004, 02:07 AM
They're all losers.

WyverN
01-11-2004, 03:51 AM
Yeah, Borg and McEnroe never won a slam after age 25 either. Freakin' losers.

Borg retired

Mac got married and distracted, missed plenty of slams at peak age.

Courier virtually never missed a slam but just fell apart because the other players figured him out, what is amazing is he totally stopped making semis and eventually quarter finals.

star
01-11-2004, 03:59 AM
Freakin' loser. Could only win a crapy 4 slams. Makes me sick.

Havok
01-11-2004, 05:29 AM
pfff, freakin dumbasses:rocker2:

Chloe le Bopper
01-11-2004, 06:17 AM
So you're saying that Courier was an interim number one?
Everybody is an interim number one ;)

Action Jackson
01-12-2004, 03:30 AM
The only thing that is permanent is death.

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 04:07 AM
The only thing that is permanent is death.

Not if you believe in reincarnation!

Action Jackson
01-12-2004, 04:10 AM
Well I don't believe in it, and if someone can come up with a good argument that reincarnation exists the feel free to spout these ideals.

undomiele
01-12-2004, 04:58 AM
a good chunk of the world believes in reincarnation (hindis) ;) Thats probably just as valid as another chunk believing in Christ. the key word in what Ive written so far is "believing" . Theres no argument to belief George ;)

Action Jackson
01-12-2004, 05:23 AM
Yes, these beliefs are as valid as each other, then again as an atheist I am not convinced by any of them, though I do know that I don't like fundamentalists in any form.

CooCooCachoo
01-12-2004, 04:14 PM
Roddick, by far. I don't think Hewitt will make a comeback and I most definitely hope he won't.

WyverN
01-16-2004, 10:42 AM
The points that we agreed on are
W: 1200
RU: 500
SF: 280
QF: 140
R4: 80
R3 : 40
R2: 20
R1: 0


Roddick will be ahead comfortably after AO. Dent and Gonzalez got a outside chance of blasting him of the court but really so many things will have to go their way that it is very unlikely.

Nothing to stop him getting to the quarters

I wont be surprised if Hewitt doesnt make it to Federer (Malisse/Nadal).

Semis: Roddick d Agassi
2nd semi: Nalbandian d Novak
Final: Roddick d Nalbandian

Althoguh I am hoping Federer wins

Action Jackson
01-27-2004, 11:16 PM
Wyver we have a points update.
Roddick : 140
Hewitt : 80

sigmagirl91
01-27-2004, 11:40 PM
I would go with Roddick, based on this past year. Andy has finally figured out how to make good use of his weapons. But I never underestimate Hewitt --- I don't think we've seen the end of his tough fighting style!

On a related note, too bad we haven't seen them play each other since 2001! :eek: All three of their matches were that year, and all were won by Hewitt. But Roddick has improved greatly since then, so who knows how they would match up today! In 2003 Roddick was able to defeat other quick, consistent players like Schuettler, Coria, Ferrero, and Nalbandian, whereas I think he would have had more trouble in the past.

Hey misterQ, Schuettler had beaten Roddick 3 times in 2003. I don't know their overall H2H, but beating Roddick three times in one year is no small feat.

MisterQ
01-27-2004, 11:44 PM
Hey misterQ, Schuettler had beaten Roddick 3 times in 2003. I don't know their overall H2H, but beating Roddick three times in one year is no small feat.

I know, I stand corrected. It was an error in a quickly-written post. This was already discussed earlier in the thread...

WyverN
01-27-2004, 11:58 PM
Wyver we have a points update.
Roddick : 140
Hewitt : 80

couldnt have worked out any better for me. Roddick lost 1 round ahead of Hewitt

If it stays like this all year I will be happy (unless they meet in the final ;))

Chloe le Bopper
01-28-2004, 12:17 AM
Hey misterQ, Schuettler had beaten Roddick 3 times in 2003. I don't know their overall H2H, but beating Roddick three times in one year is no small feat.
That win over Ferrero also came on the back of Ferrero's 800th day in a row. Something people always neglect to mention.

That's not to say that Roddick wouldn't have won anyways. I think he would have. He's just the sort of player that Ferrero will struggle with.

But it's worth noting.

MisterQ
01-28-2004, 12:24 AM
I won't deny that Ferrero was a little "flat" that day. He wasn't moving as well as usual.

If he had been able to pull out that second set tiebreak, it could have turned into a very different match. I still think Andy would have won, but that's just speculation of course.

tangerine_dream
01-28-2004, 01:07 AM
couldnt have worked out any better for me. Roddick lost 1 round ahead of Hewitt
If it stays like this all year I will be happy (unless they meet in the final ;))

If Roddick and Hewitt meet again in either a QF, SF, or F on a fast court this year, do you think Hewitt will still have the best of Roddick?

Leo
01-28-2004, 01:19 AM
Not if you believe in reincarnation!

Or cryogenic freezing ;)

So, Roddick with the early lead. Roland Garros will be important for Hewitt if he is to win this race; he must take advantage of Roddick's weakness on clay if he is going to be the better Slam player this year.

Leo
01-28-2004, 01:25 AM
That win over Ferrero also came on the back of Ferrero's 800th day in a row. Something people always neglect to mention.

That's not to say that Roddick wouldn't have won anyways. I think he would have. He's just the sort of player that Ferrero will struggle with.

But it's worth noting.

Not really. Roddick played more tennis that summer. Ferrero's young and didn't expect that much energy in the Agassi match (Juan Carlos was dictating most of the play).

Ferrero should have been clear-headed enough to have realized that his return strategy was not working and should have changed it up mid-match. Thankfully he is a good strategist on clay to make up for his occassional stupidity on hard courts.

WyverN
01-28-2004, 03:57 AM
If Roddick and Hewitt meet again in either a QF, SF, or F on a fast court this year, do you think Hewitt will still have the best of Roddick?

Re-read what you wrote. I dont even understand what your talking about

Leo
01-28-2004, 04:04 AM
Re-read what you wrote. I dont even understand what your talking about

I understand what she means. She's just asking who would win if Hewitt and Roddick were to face in the latter stages of a Grand Slam on a faster surface (i.e. Wimbledon, US Open).

WyverN
01-28-2004, 05:56 AM
umm yeah
Roddick should beat Hewitt 9 out of 10 times on any surface apart from clay.
Hewitt is no Safin ;)

Action Jackson
01-29-2004, 01:53 AM
Wyver I thought you were in Melbourne? I was looking forward to running to you, where you at the Open any days?

On to the subject well Hewitt needs a very good performance at the French Open to get it back on track. I think we will see soon enough with the Davis Cup a Hewitt v Roddick match.

tangerine_dream
01-29-2004, 02:01 AM
umm yeah Roddick should beat Hewitt 9 out of 10 times on any surface apart from clay. Hewitt is no Safin ;)

Hewitt is 3-0 over Roddick and they haven't met since 2001. So I was asking you if you thought Hewitt would still get the best of him if they were to meet up again this year. That's all I was asking.

WyverN
01-29-2004, 02:03 AM
Wyver I thought you were in Melbourne? I was looking forward to running to you, where you at the Open any days?


I am the guy with Wyvern written on my forehand, how could you miss me?

I went on 5 days, mostly outside courts. Highlights would be
Martin v Safin
Grosjean v Hrbarty
Arthurs v Costa

Had a chat to Brad Gilbert to and a few other players, brad was very confident in Roddick winning the whole thing.

Deboogle!.
01-29-2004, 02:03 AM
I don't know that Davis Cup would be a great indicator. It would be in Australia, with the Fanatics or whatever they're called that Lleyton hires, plus Lleyton's freakish passion for DC and if they put it on clay??? Anyone who thinks Andy WOULD win that match would be :cuckoo:

I'll reserve judgement til they play in a Slam, TMS, or something like that which at least a bit more neutral.

Deboogle!.
01-29-2004, 02:06 AM
Had a chat to Brad Gilbert to and a few other players, brad was very confident in Roddick winning the whole thing.

well he could have, there's a good argument that he should've won the other night, but that's a different story and a conversion in which I do not want to engage.... if I were paying a coach over $100,000/yr I'd sure as hell want them to tell everyone I was definitely gonna win :p

WyverN
01-29-2004, 02:07 AM
Hewitt is 3-0 over Roddick and they haven't met since 2001. So I was asking you if you thought Hewitt would still get the best of him if they were to meet up again this year. That's all I was asking.

Oh ok, sorry I just got confused

I expect all the new balls to constantly beat him and Roddick should certainly just overpower him, he is far more consistent from the baseline then before and Hewitt will not be able to just consistently get the ball back with virtually no pace.

It is amazing how simple Hewitt's game is, he really is just a lightweight Nalbandian

Action Jackson
01-29-2004, 02:09 AM
We probably passed each other at some points, two very distnictive characters. Then again we were probably at the same matches, just at different times.

Anyway Wyver I will be returning there next year, and I will look for the distinctive WyverN next season.

Yes the Arthurs v Costa match was good especially that big backhand up the line to win the match. Though there were others I have enjoyed as well.

No one has ever said Hewitt plays a complex game, a lightweight Nalbandian that is an interesting comparison. Nalbandian just needs to beat him now.

WyverN
01-29-2004, 02:12 AM
I don't know that Davis Cup would be a great indicator. It would be in Australia, with the Fanatics or whatever they're called that Lleyton hires, plus Lleyton's freakish passion for DC and if they put it on clay??? Anyone who thinks Andy WOULD win that match would be :cuckoo:


Yep a clay match wont tell us anything. Thats one thing I hate about DC, potentially terrific ties are spoiled by the surface. It gets worse when the host country dont pick their best surface but pick the opponents worst surface.

It would be better if each country chose a surface for the tie and it was played on 2 surfaces.

TennisLurker
01-29-2004, 02:14 AM
Wyvern, the screw you factor is what makes davis cup fun.

The russians made us play on a very fast indoors carpet, we made them play on mud.

Tthat is how the world works.

WyverN
01-29-2004, 02:16 AM
Yes the Arthurs v Costa match was good especially that big backhand up the line to win the match. Though there were others I have enjoyed as well.

I saw plenty of other good matches just those stick out because I had good viewing positions and the atmosphere was great.
Would be funny if we sat next to each other without knowing

what matches have you seen?

Biggest disapointment was my friend buying tickets for a night session a while back, and guess who we got? Ginepri v Guccione........BORING

Deboogle!.
01-29-2004, 02:16 AM
Yep a clay match wont tell us anything. Thats one thing I hate about DC, potentially terrific ties are spoiled by the surface. It gets worse when the host country dont pick their best surface but pick the opponents worst surface.

It would be better if each country chose a surface for the tie and it was played on 2 surfaces.

Interesting thought...

and what determines who gets home advantage? It seems like the higher ranked country should, but it doesn't seem to.

WyverN
01-29-2004, 02:18 AM
Wyvern, the screw you factor is what makes davis cup fun.

The russians made us play on a very fast indoors carpet, we made them play on mud.

Tthat is how the world works.

But argentine best surface is clay and russians best surface is fast indoor.
if aus and usa meet then all roddick, ginepri, phillipoussis and hewitt will all be on their worst surface of clay...........amusing actually

WyverN
01-29-2004, 02:22 AM
Interesting thought...

and what determines who gets home advantage? It seems like the higher ranked country should, but it doesn't seem to.

I think the system is fair in determening home country position, not sure

what i meant is last years final could be like this

Ferrero v Hewitt on grass
Hewitt v Moya on clay
doubles on grass
Moya v Hewitt on grass
Ferrero v Phillipoussis on clay

Action Jackson
01-29-2004, 02:22 AM
Interesting suggestion Wyver about the surfaces, but I don't think it's practical.

As Lurker said it makes it more fun, and also these guys are professionals it's good that they are going to get tested in conditions that are not their favourite. A great example of is France when they won the Davis Cup in 2001 and played all their ties away.

Originally posted by WyverN
what matches have you seen?

I have been there for the first 10 days, so I have seen plenty of matches and only left this morning. I am spending 6 months down here, and then travelling and coming back again.

Biggest disapointment was my friend buying tickets for a night session a while back, and guess who we got? Ginepri v Guccione........BORING

Poor friend that is horrible.

Deboogle!.
01-29-2004, 02:23 AM
oh I understand what you meant, I think that's an interesting idea!

but currently, it's random as to who gets home draw?

Action Jackson
01-29-2004, 02:27 AM
Bunk, an example is that the home draw it's rotated around.

Ok, Russia played at home against Argentnia, and the next time they played it was in Argentina. If the draw each other again then it will be played in Russia.

It's a toss of a coin or they draw lots if it's the first time that 2 countries have played, then it will alternate countries.

Deboogle!.
01-29-2004, 02:29 AM
Bunk, an example is that the home draw it's rotated around.

Ok, Russia played at home against Argentnia, and the next time they played it was in Argentina. If the draw each other again then it will be played in Russia.

It's a toss of a coin or they draw lots if it's the first time that 2 countries have played, then it will alternate countries.

ooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh I did not know that. thanks GWH

So, the (assuming) US/Australia tie would be in Australia is because the last time the US and Australia played it was held in the US?

WyverN
01-29-2004, 02:40 AM
ooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh I did not know that. thanks GWH

So, the (assuming) US/Australia tie would be in Australia is because the last time the US and Australia played it was held in the US?

Yes, in 1999 I think.

Action Jackson
01-29-2004, 03:00 AM
I think you are right Wyver.

oasis04
02-29-2004, 09:24 PM
Hewitt will naturally go further at the french but the us.open and wimbledon its pretty close, i would go for roddick by a whisker.

sigmagirl91
02-29-2004, 11:25 PM
Although I don't care for either player, I will give the slight edge to Roddick. Why? Because Roddick is more emotionally stable than Hewitt, that's why. I believe that Roddick has a more mature outlook and demeanor than Hewitt.

Havok
02-29-2004, 11:39 PM
Although I don't care for either player, I will give the slight edge to Roddick. Why? Because Roddick is more emotionally stable than Hewitt, that's why. I believe that Roddick has a more mature outlook and demeanor than Hewitt.
:eek: i think you're the very 1st person to actually write this

sigmagirl91
02-29-2004, 11:44 PM
Naldo, can't you see the controversy my comments will engender? LOL!!!!

renatoal
03-01-2004, 12:21 AM
I think Hewitt will do better ..

Havok
03-01-2004, 12:37 AM
oh definitely

Fedex
03-01-2004, 12:41 AM
Hewitt, will do slightly better at the french. Pretty crappy their too, almost as bad as Roddick at the French.

tangerine_dream
03-01-2004, 01:00 AM
Although I don't care for either player, I will give the slight edge to Roddick. Why? Because Roddick is more emotionally stable than Hewitt, that's why. I believe that Roddick has a more mature outlook and demeanor than Hewitt.

sigmagirl said this? :eek: I think I just died of shock.

Action Jackson
03-01-2004, 01:20 AM
Sigma, that is one of the best things I have ever read on MTF.

JeLuliA88
03-01-2004, 03:26 AM
Even though Hewitt is gradually and gradually improving, i still think Roddick will do better.

Smankyou
03-01-2004, 05:37 AM
You all seem to back Andy for stronger contest at Wimbledon. I know he won the Queens title... but I'd still have to back Lleyton for Wimbly. He's more agile and has better footwork.

I would never back Lleyton for the AO, though. It will always be the one title that will elude him. I sure as hell hope he proves me wrong.

sigmagirl91
03-01-2004, 10:55 AM
Hewitt will naturally go further at the french but the us.open and wimbledon its pretty close, i would go for roddick by a whisker.

I can see them both folding before the fourth round in the French, and Andy going further at Wimbledon and the US Open.

sigmagirl91
03-01-2004, 10:56 AM
sigmagirl said this? :eek: I think I just died of shock.Yes, I did say this. And I stand by it, too.

sigmagirl91
03-01-2004, 11:20 AM
Even though Hewitt is gradually and gradually improving, i still think Roddick will do better.

Hewitt gradually and gradually improving? We'll see....
Roddick is the one who would qualify for that honor. I can see him, long term, winning more slams than Hewitt overall before their careers are done.

Havok
03-01-2004, 12:54 PM
You all seem to back Andy for stronger contest at Wimbledon. I know he won the Queens title... but I'd still have to back Lleyton for Wimbly. He's more agile and has better footwork.

I would never back Lleyton for the AO, though. It will always be the one title that will elude him. I sure as hell hope he proves me wrong.
grasscourt tennis rewards serve/volley players, people with big serves, and people with big shots. Hewitt is a no go for all 3 mentioned. foot speed and agility is good for all surfaces, but grass rewards big shots because the surface is very quick. it's why people back up Roddick moreso than |Hewitt, especially now that he learned how to volley, serve/volley and contruct points better.
oh and Fedex, their record will be just about as good as federer's has been at RG right:retard: dum dum dum!!!:p

WyveN
03-01-2004, 01:31 PM
Fed & Hewitt have both made RG quarter finals

Sjengster
03-01-2004, 01:35 PM
Federer would kill for the days at RG when he lost to quality like Corretja (two years in a row), rather than luminaries like Luis Horna. I will certainly be watching the first round this year with keen interest to see whether he can snap that nine-set losing streak in Paris.

Grass being what it is these days, I see no reason why Hewitt can't do well at Wimbledon again - the days when just any big server could dominate a match are largely over. Besides, Roddick hardly has the same grass-court game and tactics as a Federer or a Henman, so Hewitt will fancy his chances against him.

Havok
03-01-2004, 01:40 PM
i didn't say Hewitt will suck on grass, i just pointed out maybe the reasons why posters here would back up Roddick at Wimbledon moreso than Hewitt. and obviously Roddick doesn't play the grasscourt tennis as Federer and henman do, but his serve is that much more effective on the grass, and his big stroked (pretty much the forehand only:lol: ) is helped by the grass as it moves along quicker. and Wyven i know both hewitt and Federer have made the Rg quarterfinals, i was mentioning his crap record of bombing out 1st round for the past 2 years same as Roddick. no more no less

Sjengster
03-01-2004, 01:49 PM
They've been weird losses all right - the last two years, they've both come in having won clay titles and with pretty decent form (Roddick did after all win St. Poelten despite his poor showing in the TMS events on clay last year), and then done absolutely nothing. Roddick's lost to Arthurs and Sargsian, two players whose styles couldn't be more contrasting, and Federer's opponents, Arazi and Horna, are both very different as well.

In the last four years, Hewitt has lost to Costa, Ferrero, Canas and Robredo, and the last two were very tough matches. He's achieved more at RG than the other two, but it's taken far more effort - the Canas match in particular was the most physically gruelling contest I've seen in all the time I've been following tennis (it took them three hours to split the first two sets).

Roddick's serve is certainly effective on grass, but it's not the best surface for his kind of high, kicking serve - the low bounce means that players with a good blocked return, ie Federer and Henman, can take advantage of it. The same with Rafter whose primary weapon was the kick serve, he always said that it was his constant netrushing and attacking that got him to the final rather than his serve. Of course, Hewitt doesn't generally block returns back, but he has amazing reach and can stretch to just about anything.

Action Jackson
06-27-2004, 07:59 AM
Bump, I forgot about this thread.

The points system in use is
W: 600
RU: 300
SF: 150
QF: 100
R16: 60
R32: 40
R64 : 20
R128 : 0

At the moment Hewitt is in lead with 160 points to Roddick who has 120 points.

AO FO Wimbledon USO
Hewitt 4R QF
Roddick QF R2

WyveN
06-27-2004, 08:06 AM
lol, pretty expected results so far...........Roddick should regain the lead after Wimbledon

Action Jackson
06-27-2004, 08:09 AM
Yes, if Hewitt makes the quarters and then Roddick makes the semi finals, then Roddick will have a 10 point lead, though I am still sticking with Hewitt, but if Roddick takes the lead now, then it won't be a surprise.

WyveN
07-05-2004, 06:25 AM
Roddick is ahead by 300 points isnt he?
Heading into each players best slam, USO

Action Jackson
07-05-2004, 06:27 AM
Roddick is ahead by 300 points isnt he?
Heading into each players best slam, USO

I think you are right, I am not sure at the moment, but that makes sense.

WyveN
07-05-2004, 06:56 AM
its strange, there are a couple of different point schemes so i am confused

CmonAussie
07-05-2004, 08:37 AM
@@ My mate Rocky Llegs Hewitt has been unlucky in 04 SLAMs!!!

--->> AO lost Rd4 to Champion Federer; FO lost QF to Champion Gaudio; Wimbledon lost QF to Champion Federer...

If he loses to the guy who wins USO then Hewitt will have the 'Calendar Slam bowing out to Champions'!!!

Please, please, please... don't let Lleyton Draw Federer in same quarter at USO..>_<.

Marc Rosset is Tall
07-05-2004, 08:47 AM
Roddick 420 points leads Hewitt 260 points.

Roddick has won 11/3.
Hewitt is 11/3 as well.

sem4
07-05-2004, 11:37 AM
Well I take Roddick to go further than Lleyton at this years us open although neither are players I particually like. An interesting thead as Roddick defending at flushing meadow would make it 2 slams each, and both have more slams to come I'm sure, so will be very evenly matched I expect over next 5 years.

Auscon
07-05-2004, 11:51 AM
I think Lleyton couldve possibly made at least one gs final this year if he hadnt run into the eventual champions before the semi's of each event

If he can keep his great form, and when he runs into the best, keep that form up for more than just half of the sets, then I really like his chances at the uso

Marc Rosset is Tall
09-09-2004, 09:58 PM
Bump

This is getting very close now and actually they have to play each other to see who the man is so far

Roddick 420 points leads Hewitt 260 points before the US Open, even though they have the same amount of wins in the Slams.

Hewitt is guaranteed at least 150 points, so come on PimPim win tonight.

Iheartandy&roger
09-09-2004, 10:24 PM
Who knows they're both very talented.

sol
09-10-2004, 03:52 AM
Bump

This is getting very close now and actually they have to play each other to see who the man is so far

Roddick 420 points leads Hewitt 260 points before the US Open, even though they have the same amount of wins in the Slams.

Hewitt is guaranteed at least 150 points, so come on PimPim win tonight.
You’re right: D ... and the poll results are OK as well ;)

Vladimir Poutine
09-10-2004, 08:16 AM
Roddick has finished with 520 points.
Hewitt is currently on 410 points, and if he beats PimPim, he will win as he is guaranteed 300 points.

So come on Hewitt.

sigmagirl91
09-10-2004, 12:21 PM
I personally think that Hewitt will have the better overall Slam results when their careers draw to a close.

Marc Rosset is Tall
09-10-2004, 12:24 PM
PimPim got the win for me, and now Hewitt has to beat him, so I can joke about being right on this one. :)

Hewitt just has to work on getting past the 4th round at the AO, and he is better than Roddick on clay, usually Roddick would have the advantage of Wimbledon, but the US Open it's neglible.

Richard Cranium
09-11-2004, 09:03 PM
Congratulations to all the people that voted Hewitt and he won this best as he got the better overall results.

Hewitt is currently 710 points
Roddick finished on 520 points

jtipson
09-11-2004, 10:52 PM
It's only 560 to 520 right now isn't it? See GWH's post 231 for the scoring. If Hewitt wins USO then it's a hefty 860 to 520, but otherwise that's pretty close.

FryslanBoppe
09-13-2004, 05:37 PM
The results are now formalised and it goes:

Lleyton Hewitt 560 points with 4R, QF, QF, RU
Andy Roddick 520 points with QF, R2, RU, QF

The poor French Open cost Roddick in this bet.

Roger-No.1
10-28-2004, 08:51 PM
Ok. Hewitt won. Who will win in 2005?