Can someone please explain to me why Hewitt hasn't done anything on clay? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Can someone please explain to me why Hewitt hasn't done anything on clay?

sarciness
02-20-2007, 06:20 PM
He's a baseliner who hits with big loopy shots with topspin, and is very quick around the court, and his serve should be less disadvantage on clay.

What am I missing?

R.Federer
02-20-2007, 06:21 PM
Poor slide technique :)

Action Jackson
02-20-2007, 06:22 PM
You don't watch much clay tennis, do you?

Basic reasons are that he doesn't know how to move on clay and he lacks a finishing shot and the surface being slow doesn't suit his game as he likes the bounce lower and faster.

He has had good wins on the surface without a doubt, he is not a hack on clay at all.

Sjengster
02-20-2007, 06:28 PM
"Big loopy shots with topspin" is where your analysis falls down completely. This is precisely why it was so dumb when someone labelled Nadal nothing more than a left-handed Hewitt during the 2005 clay season, when they hit the ball totally differently.

Merton
02-20-2007, 06:32 PM
Hewitt is not terrible by any means on clay, but in his prime he was feeding from pace and he didn't get this on clay. Also his flat shots gave more time to his opponents to take the initiative on clay.

R.Federer
02-20-2007, 06:36 PM
I distinctly remember a Federer interview where he said that Hewitt could win the French. Judging from his usual interview style, I don't think this was tongue in cheek.

Action Jackson
02-20-2007, 06:38 PM
If they changed it to a hardcourt.

For anyone who wants to see why Hewitt struggles against the best players on clay consistenly, it was his performance against Gaudio at RG 2004. The difference between a player who is natural on clay and another one who is manufactured.

sarciness
02-20-2007, 06:40 PM
So basically, what I'm hearing is:

1. Hits too flat
2. Not a natural/great clay court mover

Anything else?

Hendu
02-20-2007, 06:49 PM
So basically, what I'm hearing is:

1. Hits too flat
2. Not a natural/great clay court mover

Anything else?

prefers the bounce faster and lower.

Jim Courier
02-20-2007, 07:05 PM
Also the fact that there are so many clay specialists. Sure Americans are typically hard court specialists, but there are clayists from much manier countries. This depth makes RG very tough to win for a non-clay courter, every Spanish or South-American floater is dangerous.

Hendu
02-20-2007, 07:30 PM
Also the fact that there are so many clay specialists. Sure Americans are typically hard court specialists, but there are clayists from much manier countries. This depth makes RG very tough to win for a non-clay courter, every Spanish or South-American floater is dangerous.

He only lost to a "floater" in RG in his first appearance, when he was 18.

99 - lost to Martín Rodriguez.
00 - lost to Albert Costa
01 - lost to Ferrero
02 - lost to Cańas
03 - lost to Robredo
04 - lost to Gaudio
06 - lost to Nadal

Jim Courier
02-20-2007, 07:49 PM
You're right, i wasn't thinking about just Hewitt though, but any unspecified hard-courter like Hewitt. And in the end Hewitt did end up losing against a clay specialist all those years.

RonE
02-20-2007, 08:39 PM
You don't watch much clay tennis, do you?

Basic reasons are that he doesn't know how to move on clay and he lacks a finishing shot and the surface being slow doesn't suit his game as he likes the bounce lower and faster.

He has had good wins on the surface without a doubt, he is not a hack on clay at all.

Right on the money- he has made the quarters of RG a couple of times and also the semis of both Rome and Hamburg so he has had some pretty decent results on the surface. He also beat Guga in DC on clay in Brazil in front of a very hostile crowd.

GWH has accurately listed his limitations on the surface. Hewitt is at his most effective when he can counterpunch using the opponent's pace giving it back to them. On clay this is much harder to do.

GlennMirnyi
02-20-2007, 08:44 PM
"Big loopy shots with topspin" is where your analysis falls down completely. This is precisely why it was so dumb when someone labelled Nadal nothing more than a left-handed Hewitt during the 2005 clay season, when they hit the ball totally differently.

The comparison is about being a fast defensive player that will have good results when young and then will burn away quickly. Even Stevie Wonder can see the difference game-wise.

stebs
02-20-2007, 08:48 PM
First things first. He doesn't have loopy topspin shots. He hits fairly flat. After that, his movement on clay is not top notch which puts him at an immidiate disadvantage. Then, the fact that he preferes to play with the pace his opponent gives him, he may look like a defensive player and so he is but he prefers to be able to be counter-offensive rather than passive.

SushiMinimal
02-20-2007, 08:51 PM
because his forehand doesn't have any acceleration. He's got the assets of being a great roadrunner and having an excellent backhand, but without a forehand there's no much what he can do on clay.

GlennMirnyi
02-20-2007, 08:52 PM
because his forehand doesn't have any acceleration. He's got the assets of being a great roadrunner and having an excellent backhand, but without a forehand there's no much what he can do on clay.

That explains why Gaudio and his monster forehand won RG. Thank you. :rolleyes:

Andre'sNo1Fan
02-20-2007, 08:57 PM
That explains why Gaudio and his monster forehand won RG. Thank you. :rolleyes:
No, he won because Coria cramped and choked the title to him.

TennisLurker
02-20-2007, 08:58 PM
You dont need a monster forehand but you need to be able to generate your own power on clay, Hewitt counterpunches using the power of his opponents.

t0x
02-20-2007, 11:12 PM
He's good on clay, but not brilliant.

He doesn't move naturally. He prefers courts where he can soak up pace. Also he doesn't have a huge weapon to finish points off with.

I mean I can see where the Nadal thing comes into it. Buuut Nadal is a very natural mover on the clay, his shots are WAY more spinny which causes havoc on clay, and he has his forehand for finishing points. Although granted both players like to generally play defensively, wear opponents down and such.

oz_boz
02-21-2007, 08:58 AM
You dont need a monster forehand but you need to be able to generate your own power on clay, Hewitt counterpunches using the power of his opponents.

Another difference from Nadal, who can generate a huge amount of power from both wings.

Kolya
02-21-2007, 09:24 AM
The clay inhibits his finishing shot from the baseline and plus his groundstrokes aren't not that powerful so clay specialists have a lot more time to move him around and hit winners.

SushiMinimal
02-21-2007, 02:54 PM
That explains why Gaudio and his monster forehand won RG. Thank you. :rolleyes:

Who said gaudio's forehand doesn't have acceleration?? Obviously he doesn't have the power of, for instance, gonzalez, but still has a good acceleration. The problem with hewitt's is that this one doesn't have any, not little, but any acceleration. We have to remember that the acceleration comes from break and snap the wrist and it's precisely this movement which hewitt doesn't make whatsoever. He just blocks the ball.

GlennMirnyi
02-21-2007, 03:15 PM
No, he won because Coria cramped and choked the title to him.

It's not Gaudio's fault that Coria is a monster choker and loser. Anyway, Gaudio deserved a lot more.

Who said gaudio's forehand doesn't have acceleration?? Obviously he doesn't have the power of, for instance, gonzalez, but still has a good acceleration. The problem with hewitt's is that this one doesn't have any, not little, but any acceleration. We have to remember that the acceleration comes from break and snap the wrist and it's precisely this movement which hewitt doesn't make whatsoever. He just blocks the ball.

Don't change what you said. You said that without a forehand there's nothing he can do on clay. I'm just giving you a great clay player that has a mediocre forehand.

TennisGrandSlam
02-21-2007, 04:31 PM
He's a baseliner who hits with big loopy shots with topspin, and is very quick around the court, and his serve should be less disadvantage on clay.

What am I missing?

1. C'mon grew in Australia, which lacks of claycourt and claycourt culture, Australian players usually play well in fast court.

2. C'mon is a counterpuncher, but his merit is using opponent's power to be his counter-power. Obviously, claycourt will demolish the returner's power. So, fast court give more advantage to C'mon.

alfonsojose
02-21-2007, 06:48 PM
I tought that size or frame could be a factor, but Davydenko and Coria are sucessfull on clay so it is not. BTW, Why Kolya sucks on grass ? :scratch: