AO R4: Fed d. Hewitt 6-2, 6-3, 6-4 [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

AO R4: Fed d. Hewitt 6-2, 6-3, 6-4

LocoPorElTenis
01-25-2010, 10:47 AM
Expected.

MrChopin
01-25-2010, 10:47 AM
Fed dominated early. When Hewitt started going for broke and stopped serving so often to Fed's FH, he had a better chance. Still, first time Fed has really showed up, in a while actually. He moved remarkably well by his current standards and was punishing with the FH, particularly the CC and the off-IO from the middle of the court. BH looked pretty sharp as well.

KolyaLegend
01-25-2010, 10:47 AM
Mugwitt, always the same

LocoPorElTenis
01-25-2010, 10:48 AM
Hewitt is a slow pusher nowadays.

SerenaFederer
01-25-2010, 10:48 AM
beatdown...keep it going :drive:

nsidhan
01-25-2010, 10:49 AM
Awesome display by Fed :worship:

Kolya must be shitting his pants

ballbasher101
01-25-2010, 10:50 AM
One word: Genius :worship:.

jonas
01-25-2010, 10:51 AM
That was pretty brilliant.

Clydey
01-25-2010, 10:51 AM
Federer was immense. Hewitt was in trouble every time he went to Federer's forehand, which was on fire. He couldn't deal with the pace of shot coming at him and he was constantly off balance unless he went to the backhand.

madmax
01-25-2010, 10:51 AM
3 more lambs to slaughter champ:bowdown: Rogi seems to be peaking at the right time

StevoTG
01-25-2010, 10:52 AM
First serve was missing for Lleyton at key moments. But Roger was streets ahead, and the better player won (stating the obvious!). Painful for me to watch, but congratulations to Roger. Sublime performance, great champion.

Voo de Mar
01-25-2010, 10:53 AM
Hewitt has such a primitive game for Federer's standards :o It's humiliating to lose 15 matches in a row for a guy who was No. 1 in the world.

dombrfc
01-25-2010, 10:54 AM
As passive as Hewitt was, nobody who watched that can deny that was brilliant from Fed.

MrChopin
01-25-2010, 10:54 AM
Fed's movement was arguably his best since the Soderling match at USO. He was taking the FH early and playing confident, moving it wherever he wanted like the earlier days. His CC FH had sting and his IO FH was consistently deep. He was even hitting the off-IO FH from the middle of the court.

brithater
01-25-2010, 10:54 AM
Tonights match shows why Hewitt is legend. Keep your chin up Leyton you did good.

elessar
01-25-2010, 10:55 AM
Only saw the last two games but I think it's safe to say Roger played better than he did at their USO match :o
Glad Roger won :rocker2:
Glad HEwitt lost :rocker2:

StevoTG
01-25-2010, 10:56 AM
As passive as Hewitt was, nobody who watched that can deny that was brilliant from Fed.

Yeah, it reminded me of Fed's win over Roddick in the semis a few years back. He beat Hewitt down out there.

saniapower
01-25-2010, 10:56 AM
too easy for fed

Beat
01-25-2010, 10:56 AM
so easy? didn't expect this. well done! :D

Clydey
01-25-2010, 10:57 AM
Tonights match shows why Hewitt is legend. Keep your chin up Leyton you did good.

This match showed a lot about Federer's form. However, it is not a match you would use to demonstrate that Hewitt is a legend. He was blown away by a much, much better player.

dodo
01-25-2010, 10:57 AM
backhand didn't look half shabby either. this was a good warm-up for davy.
Feds for the title!

green25814
01-25-2010, 10:58 AM
Poor Hewitt. He just keeps on running into Fed.

Davydenko is going to get slaughtered.

sammy01
01-25-2010, 10:58 AM
as expected, hewitt has nothing to hurt fed, thus fed feels relaxed and he plays great when hes not pressured at all. even hit backhand winners DTL cus he was so relaxed and in his comfort zone.

Speed of Light
01-25-2010, 10:58 AM
Every time an opponent chokes against Frauderer
tennis DIES a little.
Hewitt almost killed tennis today...

Commander Data
01-25-2010, 10:58 AM
Fed forms seems getting better as he marches on. hope he can keep the trend.

Only cocnern: Is it just me or are Feds volleys kinda bad? I'm not impressed by him at the net.

Sophocles
01-25-2010, 10:59 AM
Federer was hitting his cross-court forehand from out wide better than he usually does these days, but it'll be interesting to see if he can do that against Davydenko's much pacier shots.

Commander Data
01-25-2010, 11:00 AM
Every time an opponent chokes against Frauderer
tennis DIES a little.
Hewitt almost killed tennis today...

Everytime you post MTF DIES a little.

superslam77
01-25-2010, 11:00 AM
Superslam the Predictor said:

7-5 6-3 6-4

awfully close :wavey:

Sophocles
01-25-2010, 11:00 AM
Fed forms seems getting better as he marches on. hope he can keep the trend.

Only cocnern: Is it just me or are Feds volleys kinda bad? I'm not impressed by him at the net.

Hewitt is a nightmare to volley against. His passing shots have real dip on them.

Samuel
01-25-2010, 11:01 AM
Just watched the swiss post-match interview with Federer. He didn't state anything new really just that he knows that the next match will be difficult again especially considering his two recent losses against Davy, but at the same time he said he felt more confident here than in London or Doha also because it was a five setter.

Besides that great match Rogi. :wavey:

nsidhan
01-25-2010, 11:01 AM
Haha...ESPN interviewer asked Fed why he matches up so well against Hewitt since he beat him 15 times straight. Fed said...maybe because I have better raw talent than Lleyton.

StevoTG
01-25-2010, 11:02 AM
Fed forms seems getting better as he marches on. hope he can keep the trend.

Only cocnern: Is it just me or are Feds volleys kinda bad? I'm not impressed by him at the net.

When Fed was ahead in games he was coming into the net, Hewitt is probably the best in the world in dealing with net players and Federer usually beats him from the baseline. But Federer is always looking to improve and felt confident enough to test himself at the net against Lleyton today. I wouldn't worry too much about how many points he lost at net today.

bad gambler
01-25-2010, 11:05 AM
Fed's forehand was working beautifully tonight.

Should be a good match against Davydenko

scoobs
01-25-2010, 11:07 AM
Tedious. I cleaned my kitchen.

General Suburbia
01-25-2010, 11:10 AM
Nice try Lleyton. Unfortunately, your shots (pace, spin, etc) are fodder for Federer.

Rumour
01-25-2010, 11:13 AM
Was hoping to catch some of this match once lunch was ready but Federer was as efficient agaist Hewitt as widely predicted :p Glad to see his form is apparently on the rise and hope he stays sharp against Davydenko.

brithater
01-25-2010, 11:20 AM
This match showed a lot about Federer's form. However, it is not a match you would use to demonstrate that Hewitt is a legend. He was blown away by a much, much better player.


Wrong. You know little about champions and what makes them great. Worst player for Hewitt on the worst possible surface. He knows that his chances of beating Fed are slim to none. Every time Hewitt plays fed it is like a test of how many times you can get knock down before you give up. Hewitt never ever gives in. Its not in him to quit. Its what separates him from players like Murray, Djokavich and the others. Its what he has in common with legendary players like Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Edberg, Conners etc. As I said in the commentary thread...

Every tennis player with tanking or competitive issues should watch these encounters where Fed blitzes Hewitt. Its more than just winning matches or tournaments.Its what kind of attitude it takes to be a true champion.

Hewitt is the biggest overachiever ever in the history of tennis and these matches show why. Relentless competitor that we will probably never see the likes of again. No weapons to utilize just blood and guts. The guy is the very definition of Warrior on the tennis court.

brithater
01-25-2010, 11:25 AM
Haha...ESPN interviewer asked Fed why he matches up so well against Hewitt since he beat him 15 times straight. Fed said...maybe because I have better raw talent than Lleyton.

Absolute truth. That is the difference. Raw tallent vs manufactured game. Roger finally giving some no BS answers to questions.

feuselino
01-25-2010, 11:30 AM
Hopefully Roger can repeat this form against Kolya, it will be tough though.

Lopez
01-25-2010, 11:32 AM
People who thought Hewitt had a chance are deluded IMO. This was always going to be an easy 3-setter for Fed IMO.

Commander Data
01-25-2010, 11:38 AM
Wrong. You know little about champions and what makes them great. Worst player for Hewitt on the worst possible surface. He knows that his chances of beating Fed are slim to none. Every time Hewitt plays fed it is like a test of how many times you can get knock down before you give up. Hewitt never ever gives in. Its not in him to quit. Its what separates him from players like Murray, Djokavich and the others. Its what he has in common with legendary players like Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Edberg, Conners etc. As I said in the commentary thread...

Every tennis player with tanking or competitive issues should watch these encounters where Fed blitzes Hewitt. Its more than just winning matches or tournaments.Its what kind of attitude it takes to be a true champion.

Hewitt is the biggest overachiever ever in the history of tennis and these matches show why. Relentless competitor that we will probably never see the likes of again. No weapons to utilize just blood and guts. The guy is the very definition of Warrior on the tennis court.

That is well said. I agree. Hewitt has the heart of a champion.

Corey Feldman
01-25-2010, 11:41 AM
seriously, someone take that mic from Courier

just awful ass kissing stuff

lleytonfan!
01-25-2010, 11:42 AM
Wrong. You know little about champions and what makes them great. Worst player for Hewitt on the worst possible surface. He knows that his chances of beating Fed are slim to none. Every time Hewitt plays fed it is like a test of how many times you can get knock down before you give up. Hewitt never ever gives in. Its not in him to quit. Its what separates him from players like Murray, Djokavich and the others. Its what he has in common with legendary players like Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Edberg, Conners etc. As I said in the commentary thread...

Every tennis player with tanking or competitive issues should watch these encounters where Fed blitzes Hewitt. Its more than just winning matches or tournaments.Its what kind of attitude it takes to be a true champion.

Hewitt is the biggest overachiever ever in the history of tennis and these matches show why. Relentless competitor that we will probably never see the likes of again. No weapons to utilize just blood and guts. The guy is the very definition of Warrior on the tennis court.

WOW! What a post. I agree 100%. Lleyton knew he had no chance, but still tried.

Lleyton just can't beat Federer. It's plain and simple. It's the same case for Roddick. The only chance either one has of ever winning another Slam is for someone to knock out Federer first. Mark my words, Lleyton and Roddick will never ever again beat Federer. Like it needed to be said anyway.

Good luck against Davydneko, Roger.

Deivid23
01-25-2010, 11:46 AM
Vintage Federer night session that was. Now don´t dare to lose to that dirty fixer

Sean
01-25-2010, 11:48 AM
seriously, someone take that mic from Courier

just awful ass kissing stuff

That guy is gross openly drooling over men like that on TV just not right.

brithater
01-25-2010, 11:51 AM
That guy is gross openly drooling over men like that on TV just not right.


Courier has become the creapy stalker of the mens Tour. Waiting for him to start wearing Rainbow lapel pins on his jacket.

TennisLurker
01-25-2010, 11:51 AM
Hewitt has nothing to hurt Fed, it was like watching Serena Williams play Amanda Coetzer, painful to watch

paseo
01-25-2010, 11:53 AM
Can someone post highlights and on-court interview, please. Didn't watch this one.

brithater
01-25-2010, 11:54 AM
WOW! What a post. I agree 100%.

Thanks! Its too bad in this day and age people dont appreciate him more.

Sophocles
01-25-2010, 11:55 AM
Is this match really a good demonstration of Hewitt's fighting qualities? He turned up & he played, & good for him, but so did Montanes, who also had zero chance of winning. I'd rather pick one of his stirring comebacks from 2 sets down.

sammy01
01-25-2010, 11:57 AM
seriously, someone take that mic from Courier

just awful ass kissing stuff

he is so crap, the worst thing is he asks such obscure things and thinks hes funny. get rid please!

WOW! What a post. I agree 100%. Lleyton knew he had no chance, but still tried.

Lleyton just can't beat Federer. It's plain and simple. It's the same case for Roddick. The only chance either one has of ever winning another Slam is for someone to knock out Federer first. Mark my words, Lleyton and Roddick will never ever again beat Federer. Like it needed to be said anyway.

Good luck against Davydneko, Roger.

you mean like 95% of the rest of the tour when they face fed in slams, they still try does that make them legends to.

what this match showed for me was hewitt's peak came at just the right time, he found a transitional period in tennis and took full advantage of it. it is no coincidence that durring the 2000 - 2004 period there was many things that happened only once, like roddick winning a slam, ferrero winning a slam, both becoming world #1's, hewitt winning slams, agassi becoming the oldest ATP #1 ever, fat dave making a slam final.

mens tennis was changing its guard and there were some players who made the most of it. im not saying it was a bad thing, but for me if you look at it unbiasedly you cant deny it.

swebright
01-25-2010, 11:59 AM
Roger Federer outclasses Australian Lleyton Hewitt in straight sets
By Darren Walton in Melbourne
January 25, 2010 .Ruthless Roger Federer dealt Lleyton Hewitt his worst-ever Australian Open defeat to move majestically into his 23rd successive grand slam quarter-final.

The world No.1 stunned the capacity crowd at Rod Laver Arena with a sublime display, destroying Hewitt 6-2 6-3 6-4 in a mere one hour, 55 minutes.

Federer's 15th straight victory over Hewitt, a remarkable streak stretching back to the South Australian's famous five-set Davis Cup triumph over the Swiss marvel at Melbourne Park in 2003, completed a dreadful night for local hopes.

Hewitt entered his eagerly-awaited match with high hopes after reaching the last 16 without dropping a set and having pushed Federer to four tight sets in their most recent meeting at the US Open last September.

But lacking the firepower and class of Federer, Australia's former world No.1 must have realised quickly he was up against it.

"There's nothing he can do," said coach Brad Gilbert.

Hewitt started positively enough, matching Federer's two aces in his opening service game and then holding for love for 2-2.

But the South Australian had to scrap for every point from then on.

The pressure told in the sixth game when Hewitt gifted Federer the first break of the match with four lame unforced errors.

The top seed held to love for 5-2 and then drilled a crosscourt forehand to break Hewitt again to pocket the opening set in 32 minutes.

It was more of the same in the second set, with Federer smoking a backhand down the line to break Hewitt and charge to a 4-1 lead.

Hanging on for dear life, Hewitt staved off further break points in the sixth game.

There was no stopping the Swiss juggernaut, though, as he eventually served out the set to take a stranglehold on the match.

Typically, Hewitt put up a fight in the third set, breaking Federer back for 4-4 after dropping his serve for a fourth time in the seventh game.

But Federer broke back immediately with another beautiful crosscourt forehand pass before finally putting Hewitt out of his misery the next game to book a quarter-final date with in-form Russian Nikolay Davydenko.

The victory extended Federer's flawless record over Hewitt in grand slam encounters to 8-0.

Daniel
01-25-2010, 12:01 PM
Well done Roger :kiss: :worship:

brithater
01-25-2010, 12:06 PM
Is this match really a good demonstration of Hewitt's fighting qualities? He turned up & he played, & good for him, but so did Montanes, who also had zero chance of winning. I'd rather pick one of his stirring comebacks from 2 sets down.

Multiple slam winner, Year ending #1. 15 consecutive losses getting blitzed in slams. Harder when you have had it than never haveing had it at all. Its called fighting through pride.

Montanes did good too. Just an entirely different perspective when you have never been to the top of the game.

enrico
01-25-2010, 12:09 PM
"Lleyton just can't beat Federer. It's plain and simple. It's the same case for Roddick. The only chance either one has of ever winning another Slam is for someone to knock out Federer first. Mark my words, Lleyton and Roddick will never ever again beat Federer. Like it needed to be said anyway."

You could be right with Hewitt, but in opposite to Lleyton Roddick has a real weapon. If his serve is spot on, he is able to trouble Federer. He was very close at beating Fed at Wimbledon last year, so he at least has a chance (especially at Wimbledon and US Open).

samanosuke
01-25-2010, 12:14 PM
Hewitt has such a primitive game for Federer's standards :o It's humiliating to lose 15 matches in a row for a guy who was No. 1 in the world.


That is big question for me too . Recently I re-watch Hewitt's matches when he was in his best and I am in doubt . His game now is not that much dramatically worse then when he was at his best . Is it possible that game is now that much more faster and competition is bigger then only few years ago ???? :unsure:

brithater
01-25-2010, 12:16 PM
he is so crap, the worst thing is he asks such obscure things and thinks hes funny. get rid please!



you mean like 95% of the rest of the tour when they face fed in slams, they still try does that make them legends to.

what this match showed for me was hewitt's peak came at just the right time, he found a transitional period in tennis and took full advantage of it. it is no coincidence that durring the 2000 - 2004 period there was many things that happened only once, like roddick winning a slam, ferrero winning a slam, both becoming world #1's, hewitt winning slams, agassi becoming the oldest ATP #1 ever, fat dave making a slam final.

mens tennis was changing its guard and there were some players who made the most of it. im not saying it was a bad thing, but for me if you look at it unbiasedly you cant deny it.

Nope your wrong. There are no freebies in Tennis periods. Be sure hewitt earned every point he has ever gotton. Hewitt finished #1 the youngest player ever to do so. His game is shit. He has nothing. Except the intangables. What intangables he does have are the greatest the game has seen. Study his career. Compareing Hewitt to 95% of the tour is a joke. Hewitt comes from a different mold. More like the greats from the 70s/80s.

If there was any fluke in tennis it was probably Roddick. He really had no business getting to #1 and winning a Slam with his ability and Maturity level. He could not even contruct a point in a baseline exchange back then. Pretty tough when your a baseliner.

Azurebi
01-25-2010, 12:19 PM
It was good conditioning/hitting practice for Roger. Roge needed to gear him up only the last game for 2 minutes....

Voo de Mar
01-25-2010, 12:20 PM
That is big question for me too . Recently I re-watch Hewitt's matches when he was in his best and I am in doubt . His game now is not that much dramatically worse then when he was at his best . Is it possible that game is now that much more faster and competition is bigger then only few years ago ???? :unsure:

I think Hewitt was very lucky - took an advantage of the gap which suddenly appeared in 2001-2002 when the best players of the 90's (Agassi, Sampras, Kafelnikov and Rafter) declined and the best in the 00's (Fed, Rafa, A-Rod) didn't start peaking yet.

sammy01
01-25-2010, 12:21 PM
Nope your wrong. There are no freebies in Tennis periods. Be sure hewitt earned every point he has ever gotton. Hewitt finished #1 the youngest player ever to do so. His game is shit. He has nothing. Except the intangables. What intangables he does have are the greatest the game has seen. Study his career. Compareing Hewitt to 95% of the tour is a joke. Hewitt comes from a different mold. More like the greats from the 70s/80s.

If there was any fluke in tennis it was probably Roddick. He really had no business getting to #1 and winning a Slam with his ability and Maturity level. He could not even contruct a point in a baseline exchange back then. Pretty tough when your a baseliner.

i said unbiased which you obviously overlooked, not to mention you totally contradicted yourself.

i get you are a hewitt fan, and i fully admit hewitt is/was tough as nails, but he deffinately benefitted from that period of tennis being very unordered and in transition.

Azurebi
01-25-2010, 12:21 PM
That guy is gross openly drooling over men like that on TV just not right.

Absolutely agree. Gross, gross....
Is he popular in Australila? I wonder.

Vida
01-25-2010, 12:29 PM
@the score - ah man.....

aussie_fan
01-25-2010, 12:31 PM
Passive Hewitt there tonight, just didn't look ready which was very disappointing, Fed played well though

Baghdatis72
01-25-2010, 12:34 PM
Hewitt has no weapons that will hurt Federer and in the mental department he suffers from all the H2H losses. It will take a miracle for Hewitt to beat Federer, since he had 7 years to change his game and beat him but failed every single time.

SetSampras
01-25-2010, 12:34 PM
Fed hasnt even been tested yet and here it is already deep in the tournament. Probably not good for him.. He should have at least one challenging match before he has to play one of the big dogs in Djoker or Nadal possibly

Auscon
01-25-2010, 12:36 PM
Fed looking great out there tonight, forehand on song

Looking forward to a good year from Lleyton as long as he can stay healthy - and I'll still go into his next matchup with Fed thinking he's got a chance to take a win. Delusional maybe, but you've gotta have hope..

Baghdatis72
01-25-2010, 12:36 PM
Fed hasnt even been tested yet and here it is already deep in the tournament. Probably not good for him.. He should have at least one challenging match before he has to play one of the big dogs in Djoker or Nadal possibly

If Kolya plays like he played in London then Federer will be seriously tested.

Auscon
01-25-2010, 12:37 PM
Fed hasnt even been tested yet and here it is already deep in the tournament. Probably not good for him.. He should have at least one challenging match before he has to play one of the big dogs in Djoker or Nadal possibly

Not counting his first round match where he was so close to being 2 sets to 1 down?

brithater
01-25-2010, 12:38 PM
i said unbiased which you obviously overlooked, not to mention you totally contradicted yourself.

i get you are a hewitt fan, and i fully admit hewitt is/was tough as nails, but he deffinately benefitted from that period of tennis being very unordered and in transition.

Not Biassed at all. I didnt say Roddick did not deserve it. I said it was a fluke. Roddick pretty much served his wat to that title and the #1 ranking. It shows you how unbelievable that serve was at the time. The reason he went down after that was because people adapted to his game and found ways around it. Whats a little sad with Roddick is that he actually has a pretty complete game compared to them and is a much better player but no. But He is not really in contention to win slams. He is more than just a serve now. He competes better and is more professional but it is just not enough. Almost had that wimbledon last year though and that was probably the best match he has ever played.

As far as Hewitt benefitting....you play the opponent in front of you and everyone is looking to win. There was more depth in the Game when Hewitt got to #1 than there is now. Look at the rankings between 98-04. The field was not weak. Right now is probably the weakest field tennis has seen in a long time. A lot of great athletes but very few mental warriors out there. Thats what happens though when you have the most skilled player of all time winning most the majors and the toughest mental player of all time winning the rest....your going to have a field of players that dont have the belief they can win slams.

freeandlonely
01-25-2010, 12:41 PM
routine:yeah:

SetSampras
01-25-2010, 12:51 PM
If Kolya plays like he played in London then Federer will be seriously tested.

Well Davy had to squeak by Verdasco playing 5 sets. And its slam time. Federer is a whole different animal at the slams. If Federer is off, Davy has a chance. If Federer's gears are clicking, Davy gets annihialated. Winning London is one thing. Beating Fed and Nadal at the slams are another. Neither are just going to go down without a fight.

Playing just a defesnsive, chipper counter punch style against Federer when everything is clicking for him is suicide. Im still waiting for Murray to start playing aggressively

brithater
01-25-2010, 01:01 PM
I think Hewitt was very lucky - took an advantage of the gap which suddenly appeared in 2001-2002 when the best players of the 90's (Agassi, Sampras, Kafelnikov and Rafter) declined and the best in the 00's (Fed, Rafa, A-Rod) didn't start peaking yet.


No that doesnt work. Its a BS theory. They said the same thing with Courier. You can say the same thing with any player that got to #1 for 2 years or less. There are no periods where getting to the top is easy. Nobody knows whats going to happen with certainty from one day to the next. You work hard and dedicate yourself. You fail, work hard, try again. Repeat, Repeat. Go talk to guys on the tour and the honest ones will tell you the same thing.

The reasons people dislike someone like Hewitt is that he is an overachiever that has achieved based on hard work and discipline where as most people in tennis or life in general are underachievers because they dont do the very thing that Hewitt does....work hard and committ themselves. The sooner an eunderachieving tennis player or person in general realizes this the better. Only at that point does an underachiver begin the journey of fulfilling their potential. The biggest hurdle is of course....failure. Fear of failure is the #1 killer in tennis. Is for the Juniors, is for the pros. Is for people in all walks of life trying to make something of themself. Hewitt has concquered fear of failure more than anyone. Why? Because he is still giving himself 100% of what he has (not much) while getting his clock cleaned by Fed over and over and over. When Hewitt plays Federer he may loose the match, but he always wins the important battle. Its the internal struggle within himself to give in when there is no hope of winning. Thats why Leyton plays. He has to prove it to himself.

I know this is all crazy but I study these guys and why they are the way they are. Leyton Hewitt is one of the all time role model for any tennis player whether people want to admit it or not. Respect Hewitt he is Legend status.

Acer
01-25-2010, 01:03 PM
Love them both! :awww:

Acer
01-25-2010, 01:04 PM
No that doesnt work. Its a BS theory. They said the same thing with Courier. You can say the same thing with any player that got to #1 for 2 years or less. There are no periods where getting to the top is easy. Nobody knows whats going to happen with certainty from one day to the next. You work hard and dedicate yourself. You fail, work hard, try again. Repeat, Repeat. Go talk to guys on the tour and the honest ones will tell you the same thing.

The reasons people dislike someone like Hewitt is that he is an overachiever that has achieved based on hard work and discipline where as most people in tennis or life in general are underachievers because they dont do the very thing that Hewitt does....work hard and committ themselves. The sooner an eunderachieving tennis player or person in general realizes this the better. Only at that point does an underachiver begin the journey of fulfilling their potential. The biggest hurdle is of course....failure. Fear of failure is the #1 killer in tennis. Is for the Juniors, is for the pros. Is for people in all walks of life trying to make something of themself. Hewitt has concquered fear of failure more than anyone. Why? Because he is still giving himself 100% of what he has (not much) while getting his clock cleaned by Fed over and over and over. When Hewitt plays Federer he may loose the match, but he always wins the important battle. Its the internal struggle within himself to give in when there is no hope of winning. Thats why Leyton plays. He has to prove it to himself.

I know this is all crazy but I study these guys and why they are the way they are. Leyton Hewitt is one of the all time role model for any tennis player whether people want to admit it or not. Respect Hewitt he is Legend status.
:worship:

SetSampras
01-25-2010, 01:05 PM
Not Biassed at all. I didnt say Roddick did not deserve it. I said it was a fluke. Roddick pretty much served his wat to that title and the #1 ranking. It shows you how unbelievable that serve was at the time. The reason he went down after that was because people adapted to his game and found ways around it. Whats a little sad with Roddick is that he actually has a pretty complete game compared to them and is a much better player but no. But He is not really in contention to win slams. He is more than just a serve now. He competes better and is more professional but it is just not enough. Almost had that wimbledon last year though and that was probably the best match he has ever played.

As far as Hewitt benefitting....you play the opponent in front of you and everyone is looking to win. There was more depth in the Game when Hewitt got to #1 than there is now. Look at the rankings between 98-04. The field was not weak. Right now is probably the weakest field tennis has seen in a long time. A lot of great athletes but very few mental warriors out there. Thats what happens though when you have the most skilled player of all time winning most the majors and the toughest mental player of all time winning the rest....your going to have a field of players that dont have the belief they can win slams.

Roddick has always had issues with nerves in the big moments. Just to win the USO was a big shock to me back then.. Many thought Nalbandian beat him in the semis if not for some questionable calls. Roddick very well could be sitting on a goose egg. Roddick had a chance to win wimbeldon.. Again nerves. Squandered a few set points away to go up 2 sets to 1 on Fed failing to capitalize on a routine volley. You have to play well the WHOLE SLAM especially in the big matches at the end to win slams. Not just half or 3 quarters of a slam

Commander Data
01-25-2010, 01:22 PM
If there was any fluke in tennis it was probably Roddick. He really had no business getting to #1 and winning a Slam with his ability and Maturity level.

I don't understand why people always put Roddick down. He is certainly one of the guys that is no fluke. How many times did he have a shot to win another Slam, just to run into Federer? Federer is probably the best player ever and a horrible match-up for Roddick.
Roddick has proven time and time again that he can go deep in Slams and if there was no Federer, it is very likely that he would have at least 2-3 Slams.

Had A-Rod played in the 90's were player have been less consistent he sure would have had big chances to take more Slams. because some draws have opened up back then. Today this not the case. If you want to win a GS you ALWAYS have to go thru Federer. If you can't beat Federer you can't win a Slam. That is completly new situation.

Maybe Agassi would have zero Slams had he played in this era because Fed owned him.
Roddicks game is not pretty but his results prove that he is no fluke.

brithater
01-25-2010, 01:59 PM
I don't understand why people always put Roddick down. He is certainly one of the guys that is no fluke. How many times did he have a shot to win another Slam, just to run into Federer? Federer is probably the best player ever and a horrible match-up for Roddick. Roddick has proven time and time again that he can go deep in Slams and if there was no Federer, it is very likely that he would have at least 2-3 Slams.

Had A-Rod played in the 90's were player have been less consistent he sure would have had big chances to take more Slams. because some draws have opened up back then. Today this not the case. If you want to win a GS you ALWAYS have to go thru Federer. If you can't beat Federer you can't win a Slam. That is completly new situation.

Maybe Agassi would have zero Slams had he played in this era because Fed owned him.
Roddicks game is not pretty but his results prove that he is no fluke.

You have to read my posts to understand I am not putting him down. I say fluke because of where he was ability wise at that point in his career. It is no fluke that Roddick has remained as high in the rankings and gotten to multiple slam finals since then. He is a better player by leaps and bounds. I actually think he has been in his prime as a player the last 2 years. To call Andy a one slam wonder is a little harsh as both him and Hewitts carrers were basically frozen by Federer. Hewitt had that one Chance in Australia and was very very close but Safin was too much. Federer is Hewitts dreamcatcher. Hewitt got to the finals of Aussie..lost to red hot Safin, then meets Federer in Semis of Wimbledon, then again Semis of US Open. When this was going on I believe he still was beating the top players in slams. That was a tough year that really hurt Leyton. He has never really been the same.

shotgun
01-25-2010, 02:00 PM
Some things never change.

Commander Data
01-25-2010, 02:26 PM
I agree with what you wrote above.

Roddick and Hewitts carrers were basically frozen by Federer.

This is so true. People say the era is weak because most players can't win slams these days just like Hewitt and Roddick. But this argument is flawed. Like I said. The last couple years players always have to go thru Federer to win. If you can't be the guy then you are lost. your chance for a Slam is reduced to 0% ! like it happened for Hewitt Roddick and some other players (Donkey?!)
Is it fair to conclude that players are weaker now then years back just because they can not beat the GOAT?
If anything, it just means we can not compare era's because there was no Federer back then.
Fact is also, that if there was no Federer, 15 more GS would have been distributed among todays players. we would talk quite differently about them just because of that. ;)

brithater
01-25-2010, 02:49 PM
I agree with what you wrote above.



This is so true. People say the era is weak because most players can't win slams these days just like Hewitt and Roddick. But this argument is flawed. Like I said. The last couple years players always have to go thru Federer to win. If you can't be the guy then you are lost. your chance for a Slam is reduced to 0% ! like it happened for Hewitt Roddick and some other players (Donkey?!)
Is it fair to conclude that players are weaker now then years back just because they can not beat the GOAT?
If anything, it just means we can not compare era's because there was no Federer back then.
Fact is also, that if there was no Federer, 15 more GS would have been distributed among todays players. we would talk quite differently about them just because of that. ;)


Here is the biggest issue with this era being weaker (which it definitly is). You dont have a group of guys that have the belief that they can win a slam because they have not done it. So what we end up having is two players that are really confident....and the rest that are shakey. This is why I believe if anything....the time period of time where we had Sampras, Rios, Agassi, Guga, Kafelnikof, Ferrero, Rafter, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin etc. getting to #1 and or winning slams was even deeper than now. To say that that era was weak is incorrect. A player may have to beat 3 or even 4 past winners of majors to win a title.

Now we come to this era. The previous two #1s do not match up to federer at all. Djokavich won a slam but clearly is not interested in becoming #1 and dethrowning Federer/Nadal. Delpotro is showing promise but who knows. I believe Soderling will be slam winner as well as Cilic in the near future. Then we have Murray who is touted by some as being the favorite in this tournament and the next #1 when He reach 1 final 2 years ago. :rolleyes:

Its going to get better but in the last six years.........its been pretty weak. Thank holy jesus Nadal came along and made things interesting or it would have been more boring than the Sampras run time from 94-97.

jcempire
01-25-2010, 02:54 PM
I got right number.....

Brick Top
01-25-2010, 03:15 PM
bah...again

Logical
01-25-2010, 03:56 PM
One dimensional mug pushers are only born to elevate ordinary criers. Tools. :lol:

king_roger
01-25-2010, 04:06 PM
Here is the biggest issue with this era being weaker (which it definitly is). You dont have a group of guys that have the belief that they can win a slam because they have not done it. So what we end up having is two players that are really confident....and the rest that are shakey. This is why I believe if anything....the time period of time where we had Sampras, Rios, Agassi, Guga, Kafelnikof, Ferrero, Rafter, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin etc. getting to #1 and or winning slams was even deeper than now. To say that that era was weak is incorrect. A player may have to beat 3 or even 4 past winners of majors to win a title.

Now we come to this era. The previous two #1s do not match up to federer at all. Djokavich won a slam but clearly is not interested in becoming #1 and dethrowning Federer/Nadal. Delpotro is showing promise but who knows. I believe Soderling will be slam winner as well as Cilic in the near future. Then we have Murray who is touted by some as being the favorite in this tournament and the next #1 when He reach 1 final 2 years ago. :rolleyes:

Its going to get better but in the last six years.........its been pretty weak. Thank holy jesus Nadal came along and made things interesting or it would have been more boring than the Sampras run time from 94-97.

What do you mean by that? Because acoording to you, the 2004-07 period WAS a lot more boring, cause Federer was winning 3 slams per year in that period.

brithater
01-25-2010, 04:16 PM
What do you mean by that? Because acoording to you, the 2004-07 period WAS a lot more boring, cause Federer was winning 3 slams per year in that period.


Sampras had almost zero entertainment value and the fear factor was pretty huge. He really didnt have anyone to consistantly challenge him at that time. Agassi was up and down and Sampras at Wimby was almost unstopable. Federer pretty much was unstopable until Rafa.

guts
01-25-2010, 04:17 PM
For people saying Hewitt only won slams because the game was in a period of transition, how do you explain the fact that Federer and Hewitt are the same age? It's not like Federer was only a kid when Hewitt was dominating and only emerged after this period was over.

gulzhan
01-25-2010, 04:33 PM
Shame on you, Hewitt! Could have tried harder to take a set of Federer. Andreev did that and was close to taking Fed to 5! And now tell me who is a mug with a forehand only?!

brithater
01-25-2010, 04:34 PM
Every Smart Aussie knows the only reason Federer ever won Wimbledon is because Rafter retired early.

Rafter/ Federer head to head = 3-0. Good Serve and Volleyer = Federer loss

tennizen
01-25-2010, 04:40 PM
If there was one match where the result was NID, this was it.

Not only does Hewitt lose to Federer, he also helps Fed to gain his rhythm and form mid-way through a tournament.

brithater
01-25-2010, 04:44 PM
If there was one match where the result was NID, this was it.

Not only does Hewitt lose to Federer, he also helps Fed to gain his rhythm and form mid-way through a tournament.


I agree 100%. I have Hewitt a 30% chance to win if Federer was off. Way off. Worst possible surface For Hewitt to play Federer on. Hard courts his chances go to 50% if Federer is off.

king_roger
01-25-2010, 04:52 PM
Every Smart Aussie knows the only reason Federer ever won Wimbledon is because Rafter retired early.

Rafter/ Federer head to head = 3-0. Good Serve and Volleyer = Federer loss

Yeah, those matches were in 2000 and 2001. BTW, remember who beat Sampras in W 2001???

Mechlan
01-25-2010, 04:56 PM
Every Smart Aussie knows the only reason Federer ever won Wimbledon is because Rafter retired early.

Rafter/ Federer head to head = 3-0. Good Serve and Volleyer = Federer loss

Are you joking or trolling?

tangerine_dream
01-25-2010, 05:10 PM
Whew. Glad Roger got that danger match out of the way.

brithater
01-25-2010, 05:12 PM
Are you joking or trolling?


Jokeing. I am a Rafter nut. I always mess with people and this stat. Fed = Goat, Rafter 3-0 over goat..........Rafter = .....God???

Logical
01-25-2010, 05:18 PM
Whew. Glad Roger got that danger match out of the way.

Danger match? You think Mugwitt had a chance today? :confused: :confused:

brithater
01-25-2010, 05:19 PM
Yeah, those matches were in 2000 and 2001. BTW, remember who beat Sampras in W 2001???

Yeah well who beat Sampras at the 1998 US Open Semis and .....WON THE WHOLE TOURNAMENT.

PATRICK FUCKING RAFTER THATS WHO!!!!!:banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:

:worship::nerner::nerner::nerner::nerner::nerner:: nerner::nerner::nerner::nerner::nerner::nerner:

Arkulari
01-25-2010, 05:23 PM
Patrick was an excellent S&V player, but he never faced Roger in his prime, Henman was another excellent S&V but got pwned by Roger once the latter peaked :shrug:

SheepleBuster
01-25-2010, 05:27 PM
I think ESPN did their best job hyping this match. It must have been hard. This stuff always happens when Roger plays Lleyton or Roddick. Some jack*** picks them to win in 5. Roddick actually was close to doing it. But I really think Lleyton's top 10 days are over. I mean he can't beat Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray.

out_here_grindin
01-25-2010, 05:32 PM
No matter how much you hype Hewitt up, its not going to happen. Sorry Cahill, start looking to Tomic

Mechlan
01-25-2010, 05:40 PM
I think ESPN did their best job hyping this match. It must have been hard. This stuff always happens when Roger plays Lleyton or Roddick. Some jack*** picks them to win in 5. Roddick actually was close to doing it. But I really think Lleyton's top 10 days are over. I mean he can't beat Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray.

I always feel bad for Darren Cahill because you know that he's hoping this is the time the upset happens. At least he's too smart to think it's actually going to happen.

brithater
01-25-2010, 05:40 PM
Patrick was an excellent S&V player, but he never faced Roger in his prime, Henman was another excellent S&V but got pwned by Roger once the latter peaked :shrug:


Patrick would beat Roger silly in straight sets. On the way out he would grap Mirka's fat ass andshe would like it. So would Roger probably.

Patrick played in a time where men were men. And when they loss they took it like men. None of this hug me cry baby shit. You leave the match and head to the pub because in the grand scheme of things your sorrows dont mean shit. Now we got men carrying purses on court and crying evertime they win a match.

If Federer came up in the Conners era Jimmy would have beat him silly and fucked him stupid. Bunch of crybaby touchy feely fags in tennis now.

brithater
01-25-2010, 05:42 PM
I always feel bad for Darren Cahill because you know that he's hoping this is the time the upset happens. At least he's too smart to think it's actually going to happen.

Gonna be waitin for the senior tour for it to happen again.

Apemant
01-25-2010, 05:47 PM
Danger match? You think Mugwitt had a chance today? :confused: :confused:

Dry sarcasm is obviously lost on you... :devil:

Arkulari
01-25-2010, 05:47 PM
Patrick would beat Roger silly in straight sets. On the way out he would grap Mirka's fat ass andshe would like it. So would Roger probably.

Patrick played in a time where men were men. And when they loss they took it like men. None of this hug me cry baby shit. You leave the match and head to the pub because in the grand scheme of things your sorrows dont mean shit. Now we got men carrying purses on court and crying evertime they win a match.

If Federer came up in the Conners era Jimmy would have beat him silly and fucked him stupid. Bunch of crybaby touchy feely fags in tennis now.

http://www.explosivefootballtraining.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/hater_free_zone-12536.jpg

brithater
01-25-2010, 05:53 PM
Nah. All in fun. Just cover your ass if you get around the locker rooms .....if you know what I mean.

Arkulari
01-25-2010, 05:59 PM
I assume you speak from experience, so... :hug:

brithater
01-25-2010, 06:07 PM
I assume you speak from experience, so... :hug:

Back off Man! Wheres your Hands?!?:eek::eek::eek:

Arkulari
01-25-2010, 06:09 PM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xXVbcmGg_dg/SaBltbQvRbI/AAAAAAAADts/rGRbKKv5TWU/s400/the-soap-don-t-drop-the-soap-demotivational-poster-1207342988.jpg

brithater
01-25-2010, 06:19 PM
:bolt:

ChinoRios4Ever
01-25-2010, 06:19 PM
it's really sad that Lleyton has no tools to hurt Federer, really unreal :sad:

Baghdatis72
01-25-2010, 06:29 PM
Well Davy had to squeak by Verdasco playing 5 sets. And its slam time. Federer is a whole different animal at the slams. If Federer is off, Davy has a chance. If Federer's gears are clicking, Davy gets annihialated. Winning London is one thing. Beating Fed and Nadal at the slams are another. Neither are just going to go down without a fight.

Playing just a defesnsive, chipper counter punch style against Federer when everything is clicking for him is suicide. Im still waiting for Murray to start playing aggressively

Well if he is not stupid then he has realized that playing defensively against Federer will not yield any positive results, after the win against him in London and Doha.

Of course they won't go down without a fight but they will both be challenged seriously in the QF by Murray and Davydenko, unless the latter choke.

Murray has to play aggressive tennis to beat Nadal tomorrow, otherwise Nadal will outlast him.

Mateya
01-25-2010, 06:34 PM
Hewitt was always a good training for Rogi.
It will be a different ballgame against Kolya. :cool:

sammy01
01-25-2010, 06:36 PM
For people saying Hewitt only won slams because the game was in a period of transition, how do you explain the fact that Federer and Hewitt are the same age? It's not like Federer was only a kid when Hewitt was dominating and only emerged after this period was over.

because players mature at different times, especially ones with different games. hewitt has a typical grind them down game, these players tend to break through earlier as the game plan speaks for itself. fed took time to mature with his game as he had to learn to harness it and best use it to exploit others. once fed's game matured >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hewitt.

SetSampras
01-25-2010, 06:45 PM
I agree with what you wrote above.



This is so true. People say the era is weak because most players can't win slams these days just like Hewitt and Roddick. But this argument is flawed. Like I said. The last couple years players always have to go thru Federer to win. If you can't be the guy then you are lost. your chance for a Slam is reduced to 0% ! like it happened for Hewitt Roddick and some other players (Donkey?!)
Is it fair to conclude that players are weaker now then years back just because they can not beat the GOAT?
If anything, it just means we can not compare era's because there was no Federer back then.
Fact is also, that if there was no Federer, 15 more GS would have been distributed among todays players. we would talk quite differently about them just because of that. ;)



Roddick and Hewitt lost to their fare share of players OUTSIDE of Federer over the years. So lets no pretend that Fed dashed every slam hope they ever had and took it away from them. Hewitt's best year ended way back in 05. Where he was a legitimate threat. By 2006, he was pretty much washed up with Injuries. Which is expected. Someone with his style of game does not see a lot of longevity. His wheel are his primary option. If he doesnt have them hes finished since he doesnt have the weapons outside of his movement. He doesnt have the weapons of a Federer, Nadal, Djoker or Murray. I would expect Murray and Djoker would probably have gotten their slams as well in the weak transitional era Hewitt was on top in. Both are capable of beating Roddick and Hewitt (when they play their best). Murray and Djoker have a more well rounded game than Hewitt and do have the weapons to hurt Federer from time to time. Its more or less confidence problems with Murray and Djoker. Not their talents. Though Djoker has more weapons than Murray IMO.

Hewitt by 2006 was probably not going to win any slam regardless whether Roger was around or not. Fed stopped Roddick from grabbing a few more. But instead of one slam from Roddick he would have ended up with 3-4 slams. Good career. Still not an all time great career either.


Roddick has always had a problem with nerves as well.( see a few wimbeldons especially last year) So I dont think we can just HAND Roddick slams either if Federer is around. There is a chance he could have lost to someone else a few times. But what about all those others times Roddick was taken out? People make it seems as if Federer RUINED Roddick and Hewitt's career. He stopped them from grabbing some.. But we can use this logic in ANY ERA WITH ANY PLAYER!! Agassi stopped Sampras from getting 16-17 slams. Sampras stopped Agassi from getting maybe 11-12 slams. Nadal stopped Fed from getting near 20 slams. At the end of the day, you have to beat whos in front of you.


Every player has a blemish on his/her record. Outside of what I have seen looking through history in Laver or Graf. Their resumes are about to as perfect as you are going to get in tennis. Federer's would be close but then again you factor in Nadal and he took all 6 of his slams by beating Federer. So thats a blemish for Fed.

Alot of Roddick and Hewitt's problems have been their own.. Not just Fed's. Hewitt never devloped big weapons so he had to rely primarily on movement and when he lost that he was finished. Roddick never developed a well rounded game especially a great return game especially return of serve and net play. And dumping Gilbert. The coach that he saw the most success under.

And by now Roddick, has had ample years and time to develop some sort of strategy to at least take a couple of big wins off of Fed. I mean he is a top player on tour today. So alot of this is his doing. Hes had Fed for the picking over the years at certain times but couldnt come through. Thats what separates the good from the great my friend

crude oil
01-25-2010, 06:58 PM
^lol at the sampraz fan trying to discredit two quality players in roddick and hewitt who just happened to share their career with an alltime great in federer.

If roddick has trouble with nerves, then sampras was a choker. You want to see nerves...see the smash petey missed when he played both federer (at wimbledon on breakpoint) and corretja.

SetSampras
01-25-2010, 07:03 PM
^lol at the sampraz fan trying to discredit two quality players in roddick and hewitt who just happened to share their career with an alltime great in federer.

If roddick has trouble with nerves, then sampras was a choker. You want to see nerves...see the smash petey missed when he played both federer (at wimbledon on breakpoint) and corretja.



Sampras had 14 slams.. Hardly choker status. In fact, along with Borg, PEte is the most mentally tough and clutch player in history arguably.. How about fed's chokes against Nadal on every slam surface?

You want choke.. You got Roddick whos been in the top 10 for around 8 years now with 1 slam to his resume. That shows he cant get it done. No Hewitt isnt quality anymore. He WAS quality.. Roddick is decent.. But I dont think anyone who has followed the game would ever put Roddick's name with the term "great". hes been good and consistent. But never great

yonexforever
01-25-2010, 07:08 PM
Im sure there were not many "come ons" from Leyton.
he seems to play very quietly against Federer who just toys with him!

SetSampras
01-25-2010, 07:12 PM
The difference between great and good players.. Great players like Nadal, Sampras, Borg, Laver, Pancho, Mac, Connors would never have allowed Federer to dissect them match after match as Hewitt and Roddick have allowed to happen over the years. Great players arent going to allow someone to consistently use and abuse them on a consistent basis.

Sophocles
01-25-2010, 07:14 PM
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN. Change the record please.

brithater
01-25-2010, 07:14 PM
People on these boards speek about Murray (would have got his slams) as if he has won one!

yonexforever
01-25-2010, 07:15 PM
Im sure there were not many "come ons" from Leyton.
he seems to play very quietly against Federer who just toys with him!

Shirogane
01-25-2010, 07:19 PM
it's really sad that Lleyton has no tools to hurt Federer, really unreal :sad:Yup agree, it's really the sad truth.

Sophocles
01-25-2010, 07:21 PM
=The difference between great and good players.. Great players like Nadal, Sampras, Borg, Laver, Pancho, Mac, Connors would never have allowed Federer to dissect them match after match as Hewitt and Roddick have allowed to happen over the years. Great players arent going to allow someone to consistently use and abuse them on a consistent basis.

Oh & I suggest you check out Laver's records against Hoad & Gonzales when he joined the pro tour. And Connors's against Borg after 1978. And Mac's against Lendl after early 1985. Even great players can get owned. Not that ANYBODY is calling Hewitt or Roddick great in the first place.

SetSampras
01-25-2010, 07:21 PM
Hewitt doesnt have the tools period anymore. Once he lost his legs, speed and movement, his primary tools he was finished

SetSampras
01-25-2010, 07:23 PM
=

Oh & I suggest you check out Laver's records against Hoad & Gonzales when he joined the pro tour. And Connors's against Borg after 1978. And Mac's against Lendl after early 1985. Even great players can get owned. Not that ANYBODY is calling Hewitt or Roddick great in the first place.



Overrall Laver has the best resume. I dont think you nor anyone else can dispute that in terms of overrall. Longevity and dominance overrall Fed's resume is close but until Fed can duplicate what Laver did overrall I dont think you can compare. Thats even with Laver not being able to play the majors for many years. Rosewall historically should have 23 slams to his resume as well. Again.. No one is breaking that. Not to mention what Nadal has done to Roger over the years. Factoring that in. Im not sure how anyone could say Federer has had a great career than Laver.

For as dominant as Fed was.. He failed to get the calendar slam.. Laver did it twice

Sophocles
01-25-2010, 07:26 PM
Overrall Laver has the best resume. I dont think you nor anyone else can dispute that in terms of overrall. Longevity and dominance overrall Fed's resume is close but until Fed can duplicate what Laver did overrall I dont think you can compare. Thats even with Laver not being able to play the majors for many years. Rosewall historically should have 23 slams to his resume as well. Again.. No one is breaking that. Not to mention what Nadal has done to Roger over the years. Factoring that in. Im not sure how anyone could say Federer has had a great career than Laver

THIS I could almost agree with. But it's a different argument.

Havok
01-25-2010, 07:52 PM
Hewitt has no more game. Please retire at the end of the year and stop taking up space on the rankings.:p

CyBorg
01-25-2010, 08:17 PM
Amazing how Fed finds his game at the right time.

Apemant
01-25-2010, 09:50 PM
Not to mention what Nadal has done to Roger over the years. Factoring that in.

Let me put that simple: (what he has done to Roger)

Beating Federer many times - on his best surface (and Fed's worst).

Off clay, Federer was better than Nadal despite the fact that Nadal is actually an awful matchup for him.

spriwi
01-25-2010, 10:03 PM
15th time unlucky, too :P

moon language
01-25-2010, 10:39 PM
Let me put that simple: (what he has done to Roger)

Beating Federer many times - on his best surface (and Fed's worst).

Off clay, Federer was better than Nadal despite the fact that Nadal is actually an awful matchup for him.

The only place "off clay" that Federer leads the matchup is grass, and Nadal won the last of those. But, how did this turn into a Federer-Nadal thread?

As for Hewitt Federer couldn't ask for a more desirable matchup. Hewitt's game is simply useless versus Federer.

habibko
01-25-2010, 10:49 PM
aQqbuBRTacc

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
01-26-2010, 02:14 AM
i would take the match with a pinch of salt

Roger is a confidence player- and when he's confident he looks a million dollars

hewitt has zero weapons against rog, he hits too flat, no power, he can't run down everything anymore- all he has is heart, and that wasn't enough today

when roger players denko he'll have to stay confident

Smoke944
01-26-2010, 02:26 AM
Hewitt has no more game. Please retire at the end of the year and stop taking up space on the rankings.:p

Even though he is in the top 25 and gained 150 points by this result :p

Jimnik
01-26-2010, 02:34 AM
all he has is heart, and that wasn't enough today

Not even sure he has that anymore. He tries but it's not comparable to his early years.

Mechlan
01-26-2010, 02:51 AM
Not sure who's scheduling things up there in Tennis Australia, but if they wanted Hewitt to have even the smallest chance of winning, they should have made this a day match.

Lleyton_
01-26-2010, 02:55 AM
Overrall Laver has the best resume. I dont think you nor anyone else can dispute that in terms of overrall. Longevity and dominance overrall Fed's resume is close but until Fed can duplicate what Laver did overrall I dont think you can compare. Thats even with Laver not being able to play the majors for many years. Rosewall historically should have 23 slams to his resume as well. Again.. No one is breaking that. Not to mention what Nadal has done to Roger over the years. Factoring that in. Im not sure how anyone could say Federer has had a great career than Laver.

For as dominant as Fed was.. He failed to get the calendar slam.. Laver did it twice


Could a 5'8" guy dominate today's game?

paseo
01-26-2010, 03:06 AM
aQqbuBRTacc

Thanks for the highlights, habibko :)

habibko
01-26-2010, 03:14 AM
Thanks for the highlights, habibko :)

here's a better one :yeah:

http://www.vimeo.com/8981144

SetSampras
01-26-2010, 04:42 AM
Could a 5'8" guy dominate today's game?

With the talent Laver had? Yes.. If he grew up playing this style with these rackets he could adapt. You cant stop talent

How many guys today could do what Laver did on the court with the wooden racket?

Lleyton_
01-26-2010, 06:29 AM
With the talent Laver had? Yes.. If he grew up playing this style with these rackets he could adapt. You cant stop talent

How many guys today could do what Laver did on the court with the wooden racket?

Sorry your argument makes no sense. Talent isn't enough to dominate giants who can crush you like a bug with their modern equipment.

StevoTG
01-26-2010, 10:25 AM
Im sure there were not many "come ons" from Leyton.
he seems to play very quietly against Federer who just toys with him!

No come ons, but a few expletives aimed at himself in the second set. Stuff along the lines of 'your backhand is a metre off the baseline.. it's shit!.. f'n..' (Not sure about the f word, but the 'shit' was quite clear). I think he referred to his game as shit a couple of more times in the second set. While it's something he couldn't complain about getting in trouble for, I was happy to see him angry. In a way it's good to know that losing to Roger doesn't sit well with him, as I 'd imagine some players take to the court against Federer in a slam half accepting defeat. At the same time, that doesn't necessarily mean that lambasting yourself is the way to go about things, but each to their own :)

Shirogane
01-26-2010, 01:38 PM
Hard to pump yourself up when you're basically made look like a child out there.